Define a 'Liberal' or a 'Conservative'

[WinterBorn]

Ummmm yes you are. The example you provided was poor on its face for the reasons I have already addressed. It is not irrelevant, to point out, that your analogy was lacking in association to the discussion about sexual deviations. As I noted, pedophilia, is a deviation and a disorder- a much more appropriate analogy and one you wished to ignore.

It was a perfectly acceptable analogy for the point I was making. Which was that your statement was incorrect and that a deviation and a disorder are not the same. Since we are discussing homosexuality, it would not have made the point. And pedophilia is indeed both a disorder and a deviation, so that would not have made my point.

Yes, you did enter into the discussion with me, based on the issue I raised. I did not disparage your wanting to change up the discussion I wished to have. I pointed out, that I did not intend to have the discussion I was addressing, turned into the discussion you wished to have- my prerogative...again I NEVER asked you to have any discussion-YOU chose to enter into the one I raised.

No you didn't ask me to join in. You joined in a thread that had developed into a rather lengthy discussion of gay marriage. I was simply trying to get back there.

I do not know- but I do know how someone behaves when they have them.

In the past you have made points and I either conceded them or at least gave them a respectful answer. Other posters have debated this and I have agreed with their reasoning for their perspective.

It is exceedingly rare that anyone changes their minds in these threads, so my being intractible is nothing new here. But if you want to discuss those who have piled insult upon insult on their opposition in the homosexual discussions (including insults having nothing to do with the topic), I can do that as well.

Just don't try and make it sound as though one side or one person does so. I took exception to your statement because I feel I stay on topic more and throw insults less than almost anyone here.

 

[icedancer2theend]

It was a perfectly acceptable analogy for the point I was making. Which was that your statement was incorrect and that a deviation and a disorder are not the same. Since we are discussing homosexuality, it would not have made the point. And pedophilia is indeed both a disorder and a deviation, so that would not have made my point.

No you didn't ask me to join in. You joined in a thread that had developed into a rather lengthy discussion of gay marriage. I was simply trying to get back there.

In the past you have made points and I either conceded them or at least gave them a respectful answer. Other posters have debated this and I have agreed with their reasoning for their perspective.

It is exceedingly rare that anyone changes their minds in these threads, so my being intractible is nothing new here. But if you want to discuss those who have piled insult upon insult on their opposition in the homosexual discussions (including insults having nothing to do with the topic), I can do that as well.

Just don't try and make it sound as though one side or one person does so. I took exception to your statement because I feel I stay on topic more and throw insults less than almost anyone here.

Again, it was not your point, it was mine. I was the one making the point that deviation and disorder are medically analogous, when discussing, a sexual deviation. Left handedness is not a sexual deviation and therefore a poor analogy.

Yes, I know how the thread developed. If you wanted to only discus gay marriage you were free to do so-and still are. In the same manner, I am free to not do so.

I have never wished to discuss anything in this thread other then the particular issue/observations I engaged in. I absolutely NEVER said one side does, or does not, do anything in this discussion. That you chose to take exception to the point I made about being intractable in our discussion, that is a different animal all together. No need to bring in armies of abuse from your other discussions with other posters. I already acknowledged that you do know how to remain civil. My point was that discussions can be stifled in other ways apart from a lack of civility.

 

[Mr. T]

I disagree. The issue being discussed is whether or not homosexuals are allowed to marry.

Even if, and I am not conceding the point, homosexuality is a medically documented disorder, it would be the only medical disorder for which the person is penalized by not allowing them to marry the consenting adult with which they have a loving relationship. Schizophrenics are allowed to marry the person they are in a loving relationship with. People with all sorts of disorders are not forbidden from marrying the consenting adult they love.

Also, the fact that there is a medical or physiological difference in homosexuals does not really change the issue. In fact, I would say that it strengthens my argument. If there is an abnormality in the brain that occurs, virtually identically, in a portion of the population, they should not be penalized for it. If it were only about who they have sex with I would not be arguing this at all. But it is about who they love. This is not about wanting them to be free to screw whoever they want. This is about two people wanting to be able to have a committed relationship and gain the same rights and benefits as are afforded by the government, to everyone else.

To keep a balance to your beliefs, should an alcoholic be allowed to have a ample supply of booze or should they recognize they have a problem and seek help?

denial?

 

[WinterBorn]

To keep a balance to your beliefs, should an alcoholic be allowed to have a ample supply of booze or should they recognize they have a problem and seek help?

denial?

They should choose to do what is best for them. As long as they harm no one else, it should be their choice. And a major difference between alcoholism and homosexuality is that alcoholism harms the individual.

 

[poet]

To keep a balance to your beliefs, should an alcoholic be allowed to have a ample supply of booze or should they recognize they have a problem and seek help?

denial?

Uh, pedophilia, necrophilia, incest....and now "alcoholism"???? What will you compare homosexuality (and by extension, sexual orientation) to next, having no leg to stand upon?

 

[apple0154]

To keep a balance to your beliefs, should an alcoholic be allowed to have a ample supply of booze or should they recognize they have a problem and seek help?

denial?

Interesting point. We must remember heroin addicts are given methadone essentially replacing one drug with another and allowing the individual to function. Also, talking about alcohol, the "accepted" view is to have the individual immediately stop drinking which occasionally results in seizures due to the withdrawal. When people are taking narcotic pain relievers they are instructed not to suddenly stop due to withdrawal which can, in certain circumstances, lead to death.

NOTE: The foregoing was not offered for discussion or for the purpose of hijacking the thread. Simply offered for information value.

 

[apple0154]

Uh, pedophilia, necrophilia, incest....and now "alcoholism"???? What will you compare homosexuality (and by extension, sexual orientation) to next, having no leg to stand upon?

You forgot bestiality. Just saying....

 

[Lowaicue]

Uh, pedophilia, necrophilia, incest....and now "alcoholism"???? What will you compare homosexuality (and by extension, sexual orientation) to next, having no leg to stand upon?

Gotta keep all those legless people down, there's no saying what they'll do next!

 

[Mr. T]

Uh, pedophilia, necrophilia, incest....and now "alcoholism"???? What will you compare homosexuality (and by extension, sexual orientation) to next, having no leg to stand upon?

My question was to Winterborn you stooge. Everyone know you are a freak of nature and nobody gives a rats ass.

According to Winterborn they are all mentally challenged.

The truth does have a way of upsetting you libs doesn't it?

 

[poet]

My question was to Winterborn you stooge. Everyone know you are a freak of nature and nobody gives a rats ass.

According to Winterborn they are all mentally challenged.

The truth does have a way of upsetting you libs doesn't it?

If the truth fucked you, you wouldn't know it.

 

[Lowaicue]

My question was to Winterborn you stooge. Everyone know you are a freak of nature and nobody gives a rats ass.

According to Winterborn they are all mentally challenged.

The truth does have a way of upsetting you libs doesn't it?

When you say 'everyone know(s) you are a freak of nature' what, precisely do you mean by 'everyone'? Does it include people in Angola or the gentle people of Thailand? By your behaviour I would say that, as far as minorities are concerned there are fewer people in the world who share your views that share his. Ipso facto it is you who are a freak of nature.
Anyway the word 'freak' is quite offensive and I guess that shows how much regard you have for your fellow man for I am sure that some people to whom you might apply the term 'freak' are, in fact, members of the Republican party or some other extrme right wing group.
BTW, you call yourself Mr. T. Does that mean you are black and wear bling or is it simply the closest you can get to the spelling of tea party?

 

[WinterBorn]

My question was to Winterborn you stooge. Everyone know you are a freak of nature and nobody gives a rats ass.

According to Winterborn they are all mentally challenged.

The truth does have a way of upsetting you libs doesn't it?

Who did I say was mentally challenged?

And I did answer your question, but it seems you no longer want to discuss the issue.

 

[Mr. T]

If the truth fucked you, you wouldn't know it.

you fail at life

 

[poet]

you fail at life

Sorry, but you don't know me. All you can do is speculate. Not truth.

 

[DamnYankee]

No more so than a gay marriage and family.

Obviously you have never brought up children.

 

[poet]

Obviously you have never brought up children.

What kind of open ended statement is that? Many folks have "brought up children", and "badly"...in abusive situations, and in squalor.

 

[DamnYankee]

Bitch, I'm not on trial here. Your competency is.

I'm not on trial here either. Try again.

 

[DamnYankee]

What kind of open ended statement is that? Many folks have "brought up children", and "badly"...in abusive situations, and in squalor.

Yes, mostly single parents.

 

[DamnYankee]

Your 'arguments' have already been universally destroyed. You have provided NO evidence to support your claims. Your opponent Winterborn provided you with studies to show you that you were wrong. What did you do at that point DY? Oh yeah, YOU decided to try and discredit those who produced the study. Good of you to post your link to logical fallacies. Your timing is impeccable.

The APA has discredited itself by turning the issue into a political one.

 

[DamnYankee]

You keep moving the goal posts. Society's future wasn't the issue. Society, at large, and present was. Let's just shoot all the single and childless people, and then we can have a utopian world that DY believes in. How utterly stupid. I'm embarrassed for you.

Actually societies needs are the issue. That's why we have legal marriage, for the benefit of society.