“If gays own the media, how did Dr Laura get a radio show in the first place? How did she even get an offer for a TV show?”
We got lucky. The ratings prove that there is a voice of morality that wants to be heard. Also, Rush Limbaugh and Michael Medved. But overwhelmingly, there are shows that serve the liberal agenda; just watch prime time TV to see that…
quote:
"Here’s the critical word in my question…HOW. HOW does SSM de-legitimize marriage? I understand you believe this to be true, but you have yet to explain the mechanism. Are you capable of explaining the HOW or are you only capable of blubbing this garbage? "
How? By accepting it as the same thing, morally. Is that such a hard thing to understand?
quote:
"Because a) it’s not your term exclusively and b) it’s the just thing to do. "
Yes, it IS OUT TERM EXCLUSIVELY, and this ‘right thing to do’ is just more feel-good liberal crap to do something because it feels right. You homos are such a small percentage of the population, yet you want all of society, the MAJORITY, to change to fit your wants. No, ain’t gonna happen.
NOW, SHALL I GLOAT OVER THIS HEADLINE? YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!
QUOTING THE ASSOCIATED PRESS:
"LOS ANGELES (AP) - Californians slammed the door on gay marriage and gave prosecutors a mandate to lock up more teen-age criminals in two of the state’s 20 primary day ballot measures.
With 82 percent of precincts reporting, there were 3,397,447 votes for the measure, or 61 percent, and 2,156,726 votes against it, or 39 percent. (OVERWHELMINGLY!!!)
Similar ballot measures passed in Alaska and Hawaii in 1998, and signatures are being gathered in Colorado and Nevada. But the stakes, as always, seemed higher in California. (ALL OVER THE US, WE DENY YOU!)
SO AS YOU CAN SEE, HERE IN MY FINAL POST, YOU HOMOSEXUALS AREN’T GOING TO HAVE YOUR WAY. TAKE YOUR MARBLES AND GO HOME. MAYBE YOU CAN UNDERSTAND NOW THAT WE DON’T WANT TO GIVE UP THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE TO YOU, JUST BECAUSE YOU WANT IT! DON’T BOTHER FLAMING ME EITHER, I’M DONE IN THIS FOLDER, I GUESS INSTEAD OF CALLLING IT “GAY ‘RIGHTS’”, I SHOULD CALL IT “GAY ‘RITES’”!!!
HA-HA-HA!!!
Patrick Ashley
‘The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.’ -Edmund Burke
Pashley said, “What child doesn’t deserve a mom and dad? Can you honestly say that two women or men are as good? Did YOU have two parents? Did you appreciate the difference between the two? And don’t come back with the “Two lesbians can have some guy as an uncle…” retort. I’m talking about a home, not some make-shift “family”. How are these kids suppose to feel when they introduce “My two mommys” at school? Confused, teased and dissapointed, and you KNOW they will. Here’s an example of a couple just being selfish, not considering a child, just wanting a kid for the fun of it. Shame on them. If they want to be together, let them, but don’t mess up a kid’s life by bringing him into that kind of situation. Every kid deserves a mom and dad!”
Since you are speaking of “traditional families” you should also add, that the child should have two sets of grandparents (living in the same village) a large subset of cousins, aunts and uncles (also living in the same village), brothers and sisters (again, also living in the same village), and a hoard of playmates who are unrelated. A family is more than simply having parents. Older technology has provided us with the science of animal husbandry and modern science has translated this idea over to humans. Yes, artificial insemination and cloning do not require that there be the opposite sexes present to reproduce.
I find it very convenient that you didn’t respond to my scenario. I suppose by your omission that you completely disagree with it and thus would have your child maintain a life without happiness. This makes you a truly evil person. If by chance, I am mistaken, then please answer all the questions contained within the scenario with justifications for them.
For conveniences sake, I will repost the scenario right here.
SqrlCub wrote, “Let’s assume that you have a child. There is no assurance that your child is straight. I will play the assume game and assume that you want your child to grow up in a morally loving and safe environment. Now let’s assume that your child picks up your ideology on homosexuality. He now equates gayness to abhorrent behaviour and something that should be stricken from the earth at the most severe case or something more akin to being a second class citizen at best. Now let’s assume that when your child turns 16 he finally starts to come out with his own gayness. Would you rather have him think of himself as a second class citizen (probably at best) or a complete freak of nature who is not worthy of a loving, commited relationship because the country currently does not sanction it? Wouldn’t you want your child to be happy as long as he is not hurting anybody and pursuing mutual happiness with someone who has the same emotional fixation as he has? Or, would you try to steal that opportunity away from him and have him live a closeted, afraid existence? Which one of those ideas are more moral? The one that your child is true to himself or the one where he lies and hides who he is and how he feels? By your previous posts I would assume that you would take the second and have him hide who he is and not actually be able to achieve happiness. If that is the case, do you think he will ever achieve any closeness with you or will it only be a feigned closeness? Where is the morality in that? Also, where is the true aspect of love in that equation? Love should be something that “knows no boundaries” and should always be accepting as long as it actively does not hurt the mutual participants.”
I used to believe that people were inherently good but in certain cases, I find that to be false. Please proove me wrong.
Well, it looks like the troll simulposted with me. I take back my last comment. Pashley is just inherently evil and there is no coming back from his depths. I do have to say that us continually bringing logic against his arguments just made him ever more defensive because he was not able to defend himself logically.
To end,
Here lies the troll, pashley.
He came aboard this board, rashley.
And to our surprise,
His intellect died,
Let not his assumptions be reprised.
You’ve got it, and you named them yourself - Dr. Laura, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Medved, and others. Are you bitching because they’re not on during prime time (I will not include “Touched By An Angel” here, because that show presents a much more accurate, compassionate and loving Christianity than you can ever hope to achieve)? Well, maybe if more people watched the shows, they would be.
Oh, wait, but you said:
First of all, ending any argument with “NAH!” only evidences what a purile adolescent you truly are. Second, if you do speak for the majority, then please explain why your fav shows aren’t dominating the airways. And don’t give me any of that “liberal media,” as shows are made or broken by their money-making sponsors, and I wouldn’t classify the corporate world as a liberal crowd.
pashley on same-sex marriages:
Saying “legitimizing homosexual marriages de-legitimizes heterosexuals marriages because they’re legitimized” makes no sense whatsoever. Try re-reading your own posts. What Otto and I both want are concrete, measurable ways same-sex marriages hurt your heterosexual marriage. When you stand at the altar on your wedding day, are you going to be slipping the ring onto your new wife’s finger thinking, “Well, really, this doesn’t mean much, because of those damn gays! Oh, how I hate them so!”?
What are your thoughts on domestic partnerships?
Oh, and I have another question for you. When a black man marries a white woman, it is a choice - no matter that just happens to be who he fell in love with, it remains a choice. 50 years ago people fought vehemently, like you’re fighting now, against inter-racial marriages. Do you oppose inter-racial marriages? Did this somehow cheapen the sanctity of marriage? Do you see the parallel?
pashley on civil rights:
Pashley wrote:
I wrote:
And Pashley wrote:
Not surprisingly, you missed my point. First of all, homosexuality is not a choice, and I would point you to other threads where this has been covered over and over and over again. Now, you may think it is, but you’re wrong - period - according to the experts, but let’s say, for the sake of argument, that it is a choice. My point is that religion - Judaism, Christianity, whatever - is a choice. You seem to have a problem extending equal rights to people who have made a choice that differs from yours. So, assuming you’re not Jewish, would you also stand against any laws that afford Jews equal rights?
The bottom line is, there is disparity in the way laws are doled out between homosexuals and heterosexuals - it being a choice or it being genetic is irrelevant to the argument.
pashley on religion:
I wrote:
And pashley responded:
You should really see a therapist about your tendencies to paranoia. Who knew men and women of God could be so easily swayed from their convictions by those dastardly hypnotizing homosexuals? :rolleyes: You have just slapped the face of every minister of conscience in this country. Your credibility slips less and less every time you open your mouth.
pashley on schools:
Once again, please cite the source of your mysterious “gay rights group” that is trying to “get to the minds of kids.”
pashley on families:
Your thoughts on adopting?
Well, so far that includes everything that isn’t one mother and one father, so again, as Otto pointed out, what about divorced single mothers? Or widows? Or grandparents? Or re-married parents (after all, it’s not the real father)?
Or does all this boil down to some insane paranoia that somehow those kids will “turn out gay?”
So what if a lesbian artificially inseminates herself with donated sperm? There is a blood and legal relationship there, so falls under your definition of a family (wrong and narrow-minded as it is). Or what about if two gay men adopt, which is legal in many states? There’s that legal definition.
Your pride in trashing every non-traditional family, which consist of at least half the families in the world last time I saw stats (I’ll quote them if you like), is insulting, degrading, and - dare I say it? - bigoted. I pity your children.
Oh, and please answer Felice’s question about parents that don’t marry, or don’t adopt.
pashley on relationships:
In both of those cases you are not only talking about unwilling participants, which is tantamount to rape, but you’re talking about participants under the age of reason or consent; there is no parallel.
It is not ok, because again we’re talking about a participant under the age of consent. And NAMBLA is a bunch of pederasts, wholly unscrupulous and abhorrent.
Speaking of, you are aware that roughly 93% of all pederasts are heterosexual men preying on girls, right? I quoted the stats elsewhere.
Felice, your polygamous family sounds wonderful to me - I think there’s a lot to be said for communal families. What a lucky kid! He gets 4 parents, all of whom love and care fo
Is it gone? Or is it only lurking? If I say horrible things about its mother will it come back?
I guess all I can say is, Otto, Esprix, Sqrl, et al., keep the faith. Silence = death.
And pashley, since I know you’re still lurking . . . you know and care about someone who is gay. You may not want to accept that, but it’s the truth–someone you know is homosexual.
And I’m praying that you will someday allow Christ into your heart and show you the truth. Because it’s obvious that you have yet to accept Him into your life.
Ok, one more! I love to milk my, and the country’s victory!
How do you gays feel about the overwhelming victory for Prop 22 in a liberal state like California?! Apparently, I’m not the only one that thinks that marriage is a holy union between a MAN and a WOMAN! Guess most of us are just “bigot” or “mean-spirited”? Or maybe we are just right?
What about all the pre-emptive laws passed in some 30 states? I guess America is just full of bigots?
God bless Dr. Laura for her help on this one.
Patrick Ashley
‘The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.’ -Edmund Burke
First Patty says she’s not going to post any more messages to this thread, and a few minutes later he posts another message to this thread. Is being a total fucking liar part of his moral superiority? What an asshole.
{ZING!} That’s right, jump in, don’t bother to answer anyone’s direct questions to you, post some ignorant quips, and leave - achieving nothing. I’m underwhelmed by your capacity for reason, intellect and common sense. :rolleyes:
How do I feel? Disappointed, of course, but not surprised, especially since California isn’t as liberal as you seem think it is. And no, people who think marriage should only be between a man and a woman are not automatically bigots, but when they go and prove themselves so, like you have so ably done in this thread, why, what’s a boy to think?
No, just constitutionally mis-informed elected representatives. As many have pointed out, eventually this and other DoMA-related measures will be struck down as unconstitutional; then we’ll see who has the last laugh.
And God bless those naked pictures of her. Yeah, there’s a woman with moral fortitude… :rolleyes:
“First Patty says she’s not going to post any more messages to this thread, and a few minutes later he posts another message to this thread. Is being a total fucking liar part of his moral superiority? What an asshole.”
Oh lighten up, Otto. I couldn’t resist taunting you. Yes, my moral superiority has been validated over and over again…on second thought, no, not just MY moral superiority, but the moral superiority and MAJORITY of these United States.
I’ll take you calling me an “asshole” a compliment, seeing that’s where you like to be most of the time :eek:
Patrick Ashley
‘The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.’ -Edmund Burke
"How do I feel? Disappointed, of course, but not surprised, especially since California isn’t as liberal as you seem think it is. "
Are you kidding? What do you call San Fransick-o? California has been well known for it’s Liberal views, c’mon.
quote:
"No, just constitutionally mis-informed elected representatives. As many have pointed out, eventually this and other DoMA-related measures will be struck down as unconstitutional; then we’ll see who has the last laugh. "
Again, here we go with gay fascism, in spite of what the people of the country have voted for. What arrogance.
quote:
“And God bless those naked pictures of her. Yeah, there’s a woman with moral fortitude”
Hey, she did something wrong. The difference between you and her is she realizes her mistakes and learns from it.
quote Andros:
“Ah yes, the liberal state that gave us Nixon and Reagan, and created the political careers of Clint Eastwood, Sonny Bono, and Charlton Heston.”
Yes, and Ellen Degenrate, Anne Heche, Sharon Stone, Diane Feinstein, and tons more.
Dr. Laura for President! God bless her!
Patrick Ashley
‘The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.’ -Edmund Burke
I’m sorry you lost, but please, don’t slander me. One day, you will look back and thank me for showing you all i have laid down here. Just because I have beaten you all (as have the voters of California) in logic, reasoning and morality, is not just cause for slandering me. The good sportsman would just offer to shake my hand in resignation. Can I expect that from you?
Signed,
The Validated Bigoted Troll
Patrick Ashley
‘The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.’ -Edmund Burke
Y’know, Pat, even though CA passed Prop 22, it will wind up going to The Supremes. And it will be struck down. So gloat while you can. Do you really think that the liberal, gay media will stand for this sort of errant nonsense? Why, they’ll get this taken away in no time flat. And de-legitimize marriage at the same time. After all, they are all powerful.
Then, there’s this:
Pat, boychik, the day that Esprix thanks you for showing what you have, I will be in the nearest church reading beads like you’ve never seen.
Well, except that you’ve done nothing of the sort. As has been pointed out, this is but a single battle.
What? Considering that this is coming from such as you? You have made a general ass of yourself on this thread, repeatedly. And you have the audacity to compare yourself to a good sport? You’re actually thicker than you have shown yourself to be.
Don’t feed the troll. It hasn’t answered any of the specific questions because it knows it can’t justify this type of behaviour. (I used the proper pronoun “it”.)
My favorite response to trolls was Sue’s don’t feed the troll a la Dick and Jane. I will post it off from one of Opal’s sites…
See the troll. See the troll pout. Pout, troll, pout.
Why does the troll pout? The troll is sad. The sad troll pouts. Pout, troll, pout.
Why is the troll sad? The troll sees words. The words are hard. The troll sees the hard words.
The words make the troll sad. The words are too hard. The troll does not know the words. See the troll pout. Pout, troll, pout.
The troll whines. Whine, troll, whine. Whine about the hard words.
See Sue. Sue is nice. See Sue talk to the troll. Sue talks to the troll nicely.
See the troll. The troll is mad. The mad troll says mean things. The troll wants food.
Sue reads the mean things. Sue is nice. Mean things make Sue mad.
Sue says bad things. Bad things make the troll happy. Sue feeds the troll. Silly Sue!
Sue does not see the troll. Sue does not hear the troll. Sue will not feed the troll. Die, troll, die.
California voters pass ban on same-sex marriage
“Known as the “Knight Initiative” after its sponsor, Republican state Sen. Pete Knight…”
Remind me to include this man in my prayers tonight!!
“If you define marriage as being between two men, you really have to take the next step and define it as being whatever people want it to be,” said Brian Kennedy, a political analyst at the conservative Claremont Institute"
Very astute, just what I, and everyone else have been saying all along!
“With gay marriage already ruled out under the 1996 Federal Defense of Marriage Act…”
Didn’t know about this, but again, more validation! YESSSSSSSSS!!!
Patrick Ashley
‘The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.’ -Edmund Burke
Sorry, just pointing out what you have already ably proven yourself to be here.
Perhaps someday you can expect that from me, but you’d first have to respond to the plethora of questions that have been posted to you that you have never answered; prove that you have the ability to use intelligence, logic and reasoning instead of espousing mindless rhetoric that makes no sense; and when you realize that one state passing one law does not somehow validate your mindless pablum.
