What is personal responsibility?

[flavio]

Show me where a clear majority of humanity has voted to give homosexuality the same validation as heterosexuality, then. You can't do it, and you know it. You wish to naysay me, come with your facts, and not just your opinion. As for being correct or not, that is not the main issue. Just because you refuse to go beyond your own ignorance on personal responsibility, that doesn't make your argument stronger.

You claimed to know what "the majority of humanity" thinks....you don't.

You claimed this knowledge you don't have would make you correct....it wouldn't.

Your arguement is invalid on two counts.

Make that three.

No. It's not. If the laws are changed...again, by a majority, then you'd have a point. Until then, quit whining.

So it's not wrong to denypeople priviledges based on race, gender, religion, or sexual preferenc? So you have no issue with MrBishop's link at all?

It wasn't a personal attack, but a very apt description. You keep claiming I said something that I never did, and refuse to point it out, so that makes you either blind or ignorant. Take your pick, or point it out.

Wrong again, it was a personal attack. Now that you've been warned maybe you'll stop.

Here's your words....

you'll notice that they don't care to enjoy their loving relationship in the privacy of their own home

I keep asking you what your point was and you keep avoiding the question.

 

[Gato_Solo]

You claimed to know what "the majority of humanity" thinks....you don't.

Prove it. Find me wrong on this.

You claimed this knowledge you don't have would make you correct....it wouldn't.

You still haven't proved me wrong. What's the matter...can't find anything?

Your arguement is invalid on two counts.

Make that three.

Please. That is also a minority. Do go on, though, because it's fascinating to watch you grasping at straws...BTW...how many states have enacted bans on gay marriage? How many times have these bans been voted on? How many times have these bans been challenged in court and turned over against the will of the people? When you're done huffing in indignation, please tell us how those instances (which are in the minority even in the liberal West) seek to become a majority?

So it's not wrong to denypeople priviledges based on race, gender, religion, or sexual preferenc? So you have no issue with MrBishop's link at all?

Once again, it comes down to comprehension.

Wrong again, it was a personal attack. Now that you've been warned maybe you'll stop.

It wasn't. I explained myself, and you insist on ignoring what I responded. That word, ignored is based upon the word ignorant. It wasn't an attack, even if you wish it was in order to stop your losing argument. Even asking if you are blind is not an attack because I wrote the following...

If two straight people are in full public view, groping each other, they are breaking the law. Just because you don't call the police on them, it doesn't make it legal.

 

[flavio]

Prove it. Find me wrong on this.

You made the claim you prove it true. You can't. Even if you could it would make you right. You're invalid on this line of reasoning in more than one way.

Once again, it comes down to comprehension.

True, you seem to be lacking it.

It wasn't. I explained myself, and you insist on ignoring what I responded. That word, ignored is based upon the word ignorant. It wasn't an attack, even if you wish it was in order to stop your losing argument.

You were warned about it by another person weren't you? Starting personal attacks is a sure sign of a losing arguement.

Even asking if you are blind is not an attack because I wrote the following...

So gay or straight people groping each other in public is illegal. Are you going to get to the point ever?

 

[Gato_Solo]

You made the claim you prove it true. You can't. Even if you could it would make you right. You're invalid on this line of reasoning in more than one way.

Let's see...19 states in the US have state constitutions banning gay marriage. Most of the African and Middle Eastern countries have death sentences for homosexual activity. China doesn't have a death penalty, but they do have forced visits to mental institutions. Most of the rest of Asia has laws against homosexual activity as well. I'm not going to list every one because there just isn't enough bandwidth. You are completely without a firm base and you know it, or you would've posted more than that CNN blurb and that Massachusetts story.

True, you seem to be lacking it.

As lacking as you are in reality when it comes to this topic.

You were warned about it by another person weren't you? Starting personal attacks is a sure sign of a losing arguement.

Nope. Simply because it wasn't a personal attack.

So gay or straight people groping each other in public is illegal. Are you going to get to the point ever?

That was the point. You claimed one thing, I countered it. If you don't understand, ask without rancor and you'll get an answer. You may not like it, but that's another thing entirely.

 

[flavio]

Let's see...19 states in the US have state constitutions banning gay marriage. Most of the African and Middle Eastern countries have death sentences for homosexual activity. China doesn't have a death penalty, but they do have forced visits to mental institutions. Most of the rest of Asia has laws against homosexual activity as well. I'm not going to list every one because there just isn't enough bandwidth. You are completely without a firm base and you know it, or you would've posted more than that CNN blurb and that Massachusetts story.

19 out of 50 states....wow there was a higher percentage permitting slavery. That must have made it right.

As lacking as you are in reality when it comes to this topic.

I'll attempt to take it away from your personal attacks and get back to the point you ignored.
So it's not wrong to denypeople priviledges based on race, gender, religion, or sexual preferenc? So you have no issue with MrBishop's link at all?

Nope. Simply because it wasn't a personal attack.

Maybe you should consider the moderators opinion of what is and what isn't a personal attack and adjust what you type accordingly. For future reference I think attempting to label someone personally deficient in some way is going to be considered a personal attack.

That was the point. You claimed one thing, I countered it. If you don't understand, ask without rancor and you'll get an answer. You may not like it, but that's another thing entirely.

So gay or straight people groping each other in public is illegal. Point?

 

[Gato_Solo]

19 out of 50 states....wow there was a higher percentage permitting slavery. That must have made it right.

And only 1 making it legal seems like a majority to me.

I'll attempt to take it away from your personal attacks and get back to the point you ignored.
So it's not wrong to denypeople priviledges based on race, gender, religion, or sexual preferenc? So you have no issue with MrBishop's link at all?

I didn't ignore that point. It's not valid. Once again...that is about race, which is a visible physical characteristic, and not a lifestyle choice, which is a personal decision.

Maybe you should consider the moderators opinion of what is and what isn't a personal attack and adjust what you type accordingly. For future reference I think attempting to label someone personally deficient in some way is going to be considered a personal attack.

My attack was based solely on your argument...and I questioned your ability to respond. I never said you were stupid, which would've been a personal attack. I merely stated that you did not have knowledge of which you spoke. You want it to be a personal attack because you think it will stop the attack on your ideas. You keep stating that it's a personal attack...even though it wasn't, and still isn't, because you can't handle the the way the argument is going, so you want a moderator to stop it. If you want me to stop telling you your idea is invalid, then you ask me, and stop running elsewhere for aid when my ideas sting your ego.

So gay or straight people groping each other in public is illegal. Point?

Keep reading...I said a bit more...

 

[flavio]

And only 1 making it legal seems like a majority to me.

Ok, if your 19 out of 50 majority makes it right than clearly slavery was even more right.

I didn't ignore that point. It's not valid. Once again...that is about race, which is a visible physical characteristic, and not a lifestyle choice, which is a personal decision.

Even though you are wrong on that account I'll play along. Of course that makes it ok to deny people priviledges based on their "lifestyle choice" of being Catholic or Jewish then.

My attack was based solely on your argument...and I questioned your ability to respond. I never said you were stupid, which would've been a personal attack. I merely stated that you did not have knowledge of which you spoke. You want it to be a personal attack because you think it will stop the attack on your ideas. You keep stating that it's a personal attack...even though it wasn't, and still isn't, because you can't handle the the way the argument is going, so you want a moderator to stop it. If you want me to stop telling you your idea is invalid, then you ask me, and stop running elsewhere for aid when my ideas sting your ego.

Calling someone blind or ignorant is a personal attack pure and simple as evidenced by your warning. Obviously you can't handle the way the arguement is going if you stoop to this level. Also evidenced by your continued avoidance of the question...."
So gay or straight people groping each other in public is illegal. Point?
"

Keep reading...I said a bit more...

Ok you said, "Just because you don't call the police on them, it doesn't make it legal."

This point has been a long time coming. You gonna share it yet?

 

[MrBishop]

That whole statement boils down to one thing..."The niggers got it, so we deserve it, too." Why do you think I deny that as a valid argument? Besides...homosexuals don't breed as a rule. By that token, they can't 'pollute' the 'race'. Your argument is not valid.

Interracial marriage only touched in part on the racial bias of 'preserving the race'. A good part of the argument against interracial marriage was linked with the story of the tower of babel and the 'fact' that God seperated the races on different continent 'for a reason'. Racial purity just happened to be the lowest common denominator.

It does not boil down to some sort of petty, emotionally charged one-uppance statement like you just made. I comes down to the term 'equality' especially in relation to how the laws are applied. Whether the discrimination is based on race, religion, gender, ethnicity, socio-economic aspects or sexual preference...it is still discrimination. Effectively, the law applies equally to all or none.

In addition...this was not 'my argument'... it was, on the other hand, the argument used to keep anterracial couples from marrying.
In addition, it was..for a fairly long time, thought that sexual intercourse between people of different races could not produce offspring, since different races were thought to also be different species.

The ball, sir..is in your court again.

 

[Gato_Solo]

Interracial marriage only touched in part on the racial bias of 'preserving the race'. A good part of the argument against interracial marriage was linked with the story of the tower of babel and the 'fact' that God seperated the races on different continent 'for a reason'. Racial purity just happened to be the lowest common denominator.

Once again...what does this have to do with society validating a lifestyle choice that the majority thinks is unhealthy.

It does not boil down to some sort of petty, emotionally charged one-uppance statement like you just made. I comes down to the term 'equality' especially in relation to how the laws are applied. Whether the discrimination is based on race, religion, gender, ethnicity, socio-economic aspects or sexual preference...it is still discrimination. Effectively, the law applies equally to all or none.

Then why do you keep bringing it up?

In addition...this was not 'my argument'... it was, on the other hand, the argument used to keep anterracial couples from marrying.

Once again...if it's not your argument, then why do you bring it up every time?

In addition, it was..for a fairly long time, thought that sexual intercourse between people of different races could not produce offspring, since different races were thought to also be different species.

You actually believe what you just wrote? It was always known that two races could reproduce. If that wasn't the case, then why were there slaves after it was illegal to import from outside the US? Surely, the blacks would've died out if that were true......What you brought up is nothing more than innuendo and rumor. It's also extremely insulting to the intelligence of most people throughout history.

The ball, sir..is in your court again.

That's nice...considering it never left yours.

 

[MrBishop]

Then why do you keep bringing it up?

Because you asked for a human example which could be paralleled to a lifestyle choice. It's the most viable one.
You won't accept that homosexuality is a biological trait...you insist that it's a choice only. Very well... marrying outside your race is not a biological trait but a choice as well.

Looking at how society treated those who would marry outside of their race (against the norm) in the past, how the laws were interpreted and how it's looked at today is the best way to predict how society treats those who would marry against the norm today, how the laws should be interpretted and in the future.

Hence the comparison.

 

[Gato_Solo]

Because you asked for a human example which could be paralleled to a lifestyle choice. It's the most viable one.
You won't accept that homosexuality is a biological trait...you insist that it's a choice only. Very well... marrying outside your race is not a biological trait but a choice as well.

Interesting parallel. Too bad it still doesn't fit. Now you're talking about something entirely different from the main point I was trying to make...Why should society validate a lifestyle that is a 'dead end' as far as the gene pool is concerned?

Looking at how society treated those who would marry outside of their race (against the norm) in the past, how the laws were interpreted and how it's looked at today is the best way to predict how society treats those who would marry against the norm today, how the laws should be interpretted and in the future.

Since it's always been known that different races can produce offspring...slave owners did it all the time...something that homosexual couples cannot do by choice...then why even call it a marriage? Now please bring up your argument about straight couples who cannot have children...It's always entertaining when you bring up something rare to combat something that is 100%...

 

[MrBishop]

Interesting parallel. Too bad it still doesn't fit. Now you're talking about something entirely different from the main point I was trying to make...Why should society validate a lifestyle that is a 'dead end' as far as the gene pool is concerned?

Staying single is a lifestyle which is a genetic dead end. Hell, becomming a priest, monk or nun (in several faiths) is the same and is considered to be one of the most respected careers that a man or woman can take. These are validated by society. Judging a choice based on a person's potential for reproduction would be the same as shunning someone who's has tubiligation or a vasectomy. It's a false trail.

Since it's always been known that different races can produce offspring...slave owners did it all the time...something that homosexual couples cannot do by choice...then why even call it a marriage? Now please bring up your argument about straight couples who cannot have children...It's always entertaining when you bring up something rare to combat something that is 100%...

You seem to be the one who brings up the link between marriage and children and then get incensed when people attempt to counter it.

So...in a scale of 1-10 (with 10 being the highest) how important is the ability to have children to the success of a marriage?

Or..if you prefer: Why should people marry?

 

[Gato_Solo]

Staying single is a lifestyle which is a genetic dead end. Hell, becomming a priest, monk or nun (in several faiths) is the same and is considered to be one of the most respected careers that a man or woman can take. These are validated by society. Judging a choice based on a person's potential for reproduction would be the same as shunning someone who's has tubiligation or a vasectomy. It's a false trail.

But those people aren't demanding something from society as a group.

You seem to be the one who brings up the link between marriage and children and then get incensed when people attempt to counter it.

Only because you like to bring up a 1% problem with a 100% choice.

So...in a scale of 1-10 (with 10 being the highest) how important is the ability to have children to the success of a marriage?

About a 6...

Or..if you prefer: Why should people marry?

To create a family.

 

[flavio]

Once again...what does this have to do with society validating a lifestyle choice that the majority thinks is unhealthy.

A much larger majority thought inter-racial marriage was unhealthy. Point?

....and once again..."So gay or straight people groping each other in public is illegal. Point?"

The balls been in your court for a very long time on that last one.

I didn't ignore that point. It's not valid. Once again...that is about race, which is a visible physical characteristic, and not a lifestyle choice, which is a personal decision.

Even though you are wrong on that account I'll play along. Of course that makes it ok to deny people priviledges based on their "lifestyle choice" of being Catholic or Jewish then.

 

[Gato_Solo]

A much larger majority thought inter-racial marriage was unhealthy. Point?

....and once again..."So gay or straight people groping each other in public is illegal. Point?"

The balls been in your court for a very long time on that last one.

Even though you are wrong on that account I'll play along. Of course that makes it ok to deny people priviledges based on their "lifestyle choice" of being Catholic or Jewish then.

If I am wrong, you have yet to prove it, but that would require you having a solution, right?

 

[Winky]

I believe in letting people do what ever the hell they want,
suspend all the rules,

dogs and cats living together!!!

And when it all goes terribly wrong
go on Oprah and whine about it!

Dr. Peter Venkman: This city is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions.
Mayor: What do you mean, "biblical"?
Dr Ray Stantz: What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor, real wrath-of-God type stuff.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Exactly.
Dr Ray Stantz: Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies. Rivers and seas boiling.
Dr. Egon Spengler: Forty years of darkness. Earthquakes, volcanoes...
Winston Zeddemore: The dead rising from the grave.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together - mass hysteria.

 

[flavio]

If I am wrong, you have yet to prove it, but that would require you having a solution, right?

You've just proved it by avoiding issues over and over again. Ever going to get to that public display thing?

I have a solution. Equality.

Don't deny people priviledges based on race, gender, religion, or sexual preference.

 

[Winky]

there is no equality

apples ain't oranges

a lawless uneducated shiftless piece of crap
regardless of race

ain’t the same as an upstanding moral hard working
faithful law abiding citizen

(regardless of how much you’d want to have the
government pass laws mandating it)

yep the more unequal the better

tis the American way!!!

 

[Gato_Solo]

You've just proved it by avoiding issues over and over again. Ever going to get to that public display thing?

Just because you fail to read the context doesn't mean I have no point. Just that you don't want to find it in all of the baseless allegations you post regarding that statement.

I have a solution. Equality.

Don't deny people priviledges based on race, gender, religion, or sexual preference.

Now I have a solution. Each based upon his, or her, own merit. That is true equality, and not the pandering you subscribe that term to. Your idea of equality is giving everything to everybody with no regard as to the value of what you're giving away. That's not equality. That's sameness.

 

[flavio]

Just because you fail to read the context doesn't mean I have no point. Just that you don't want to find it in all of the baseless allegations you post regarding that statement.

Geez, I have reposted your words several times. Just tell us what the point was....if there was one.

Now I have a solution. Each based upon his, or her, own merit. That is true equality, and not the pandering you subscribe that term to. Your idea of equality is giving everything to everybody with no regard as to the value of what you're giving away. That's not equality. That's sameness.

So every couple in the US would have to plead their case for getting married individually? That would seriously bog down the courts and cost a fortune.