NC "Marriage" Amendment

[Mel O'Drama]

So we don't believe in science here then? Oh well we can write off evolution and the big bang then huh?

You are the person who brought science into this, but you have yet to prove your original statement.

You don't get to say that science has proved something, without providing a single shred of evidence, and then demand that everyone else proves otherwise.

How lazy.

How egotistical.

How sinful.

[david1987]

I think you'll find I did provide evidence, you, in your blind and ignorant support of the homosexual agenda (and bigoted hatred of anyone heterosexual) have chosen to not believe it.

[Mel O'Drama]

I think you'll find I did provide evidence, you, in your blind and ignorant support of the homosexual agenda (and bigoted hatred of anyone heterosexual) have chosen to not believe it.

If anyone has a gay agenda, it is you. How many threads have you steered round to this agenda? I'm not sure it's healthy, David.

And why would you assume that someone who supports the rights of a certain group belongs to that group or has bigoted hatred towards anyone who doesn't share their views? Ok - I think we all know the answer to that last one.

The irony of your statement is not lost on me, nor on anyone else who reads your posts.

And now you're lying about having provided evidence.

Sin is sin...

[david1987]

If anyone has a gay agenda, it is you. How many threads have you steered round to this agenda?

The science of homosexuality is entirely relevant to a debate about "gay marriage".

And why would you assume that someone who supports the rights of a certain group belongs to that group or has bigoted hatred towards anyone who doesn't share their views?

If you look back at my previous posts you'll see why: We have been physically assaulted and persecuted for our beliefs. People are saying they are insulted etc by our beliefs. Yet when we say WE are offended by what THEY say, no one's interested.

And now you're lying about having provided evidence.

http://www.soapchat.net/showthread.p...t=#post3390015

[Mel O'Drama]

http://www.soapchat.net/showthread.p...t=#post3390015

Thanks for the link.. It would have been less confusing had you provided it in this thread as well as in a different thread. But I'll check it out.

If you look back at my previous posts you'll see why: We have been physically assaulted and persecuted for our beliefs. People are saying they are insulted etc by our beliefs. Yet when we say WE are offended by what THEY say, no one's interested.

It's not right that anyone is physically assaulted or persecuted for their beliefs. Any more than it is for someone to be persecuted simply for being who they are.

But that's still not saying why you believe that only gay people would support equal rights for gay people. Or why you seem to think that all people must automatically have a bigoted hatred towards someone whose sexuality differs from their own.

Has it occurred to you that people are interested, but just disagree with some of your views. Frankly, you would do more for your cause if you could get past this paranoid idea of a gay agenda, or that there is a collective set of beliefs that all gay people hold. Perhaps you could try to view people as individuals who are simply asking to be treated with respect and equality.

[david1987]

[Mel O'Drama]

Touché.

Thanks for clarifying. I couldn't possibly respond to such a cerebral and articulate rebuttal.

[david1987]

My thoughts exactly...

[Mel O'Drama]

I've read and responded to your "scientific" research in the relevant thread. Thanks again for the link.

[fireweaver]

The science of homosexuality is entirely relevant to a debate about "gay marriage".


If you look back at my previous posts you'll see why: We have been physically assaulted and persecuted for our beliefs. People are saying they are insulted etc by our beliefs. Yet when we say WE are offended by what THEY say, no one's interested.


http://www.soapchat.net/showthread.p...t=#post3390015

And how many people has your little merry band of gay-bashers assaulted? Ever think that might be payback for all the crap you and yours have done to gays?

[gold canyon]

I think you'll find I did provide evidence, you, in your blind and ignorant support of the homosexual agenda (and bigoted hatred of anyone heterosexual) have chosen to not believe it.

This is even more pathetic than I thought. The research you are quoting comes from CWAPAC (Concerned Women of America - Political Action Committee) whose sole purpose is to put "like-minded" republicans in office... they want majorities in both the house and senate. Their research consists of essentially "quoting" Reuters, The Post, et al and presenting them in a way that tries to cast doubt on what is already known. This paper isn't fit to be submitted as research material in any reputable university. (It's perfect for Fox "News" though.) They even refer to the "war on women" as a farce and try to get people to vote against health care for children, saying that the decisions should be left up to the state. You are exactly the kind of person these PAC's target. They don't give a damn about social issues, the middle class, the poor, or even the topic discussed in that lousy excuse of "scientific research." The ones behind this PAC are corporations and the super wealthy who don't want to dismantle all the government programs that society benefits from. Reason: these programs cost money... taxpayer money. And hey don't want to pay their fair share. The problem they have is that the majority rules. Their solution: dumb-down the majority with cuts to education, pit people against each other, blame the poor, make life as miserable as possible by wrecking the economy and blame it all on Obama and the democrats. The Supreme Court, which has been corrupted, gave them Citizens United allowing hundreds of millions of dollars from the elite few to flow into the PAC's to churn out propaganda, nonstop, to get people to foolishly vote against their own interests. These people are not "republicans" or "conservatives." I remember what the party used to be and it is no more.

[david1987]

"vote against health care for children" < Abortion isn't care of any kind, never mind healthcare. The whole "pay for my contraception" thing is like a murderer saying "hey cops, I want to kill people but not have to suffer the consequences". If you don't want children, why are you doing what makes them?

[gold canyon]

"vote against health care for children" < Abortion isn't care of any kind, never mind healthcare. The whole "pay for my contraception" thing is like a murderer saying "hey cops, I want to kill people but not have to suffer the consequences". If you don't want children, why are you doing what makes them?

Because it's fun.

Remember, sexual attraction and sex is a biological function. People have sex because they enjoy it. Having sex to simply reproduce is not the main reason people engage in sexual relations. Although sometimes it is and that's when you don't have to use condoms or other forms of contraceptives.

[david1987]

Do you have any idea how selfish and silly that way of thinking is? Paedophiles likely say the same!

[Mel O'Drama]

This is even more pathetic than I thought. The research you are quoting comes from CWAPAC (Concerned Women of America - Political Action Committee) whose sole purpose is to put "like-minded" republicans in office... they want majorities in both the house and senate. Their research consists of essentially "quoting" Reuters, The Post, et al and presenting them in a way that tries to cast doubt on what is already known.

And taking it to a still more pathetic level is the fact that the study by Dr Robert Spitzer which the CWAPAC article leads with has now been retracted by Spitzer himself.

Dr Spitzer calls his study "fatally flawed". His letter of apology to the LGB community has been published in the same publication as his original study. In addition, he apologises to anyone who has "wasted time and energy undergoing some form of reparative therapy".

A full article here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...e-study-flawed

Video here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIifMxPcRnI.

[gold canyon]

Abortion isn't care of any kind, never mind healthcare. The whole "pay for my contraception" thing is like a murderer saying "hey cops, I want to kill people but not have to suffer the consequences". If you don't want children, why are you doing what makes them?

You don't have to worry about abortion. The PAC you rely so heavily on eventually will help get the White House. Then the PAC president will appoint enough justices to the Supreme Court that Roe v. Wade will be overturned. The so called Women for America and their ilk will simultaneously work at other family friendly policies such as abolishing child labor laws, illuminating health care for 30 to 50 million Americans, eliminating programs to help feed poor children, etc, etc. What a bunch of selfish hypocrites.

[david1987]

You don't understand the ProLife movement at all do you? The things you just connected to the movement are ludicrous. ProLife people will have nothing to do with nazi like madness such as that.

[gold canyon]

Do you have any idea how selfish and silly that way of thinking is? Paedophiles likely say the same!

You think in extremes. People have sex because they enjoy it and their is nothing wrong with that. Actually, it's a good, healthy thing. Pedophiles, rapists, etc. are not healthy. They are sick and mentally unbalanced. So, let's keep them out of this discussion.

[david1987]

But you said people who don't want children have sex "because it's fun". A paedophile could use that very same argument. Why are you so keen to gloss this over?

You hear of relatives having babies with each other because they love each other and it's fun - what would you say to that?

[david1987]

And I think you're the one thinking in extremes with that post listing goals of the ProLife movement - goals that don't exist.