Would you raise kids to be homophobes? No? Well why do you do this?

To a Jew, I can understand that what you do is normal to you. In the definition of the word 'normal', it is not. But within the small subsection of the population who engage in the Jewish lifestyle, then it is to each other. (for those who are to the far right- this is a parody of the quote above- showing how absurd the argument is- since the segment of the population who choose to engage in a Jewish lifestyle is roughly the same as the percentage of the population that is homosexual)

But you would go beyond that- you would forbid vegans from marrying each other. Nor is there a historical record of vegans being killed for being vegans, being fired for being vegans, and being arrested for being vegans.

However, just like vegans are not forcing you to give up meat, homosexuals are not forcing you to engage in sex with a man. What they are saying is that if you decide to have sex with a man, that would be your choice.

So you are against vegans in Boy Scouts too? What about Jews? After all- according to your definition- the Jewish lifestyle is a deviant lifestyle also. Matter of fact, according to your definition of 'deviant lifestyle', pretty much everything but the majority of the local society would be excluded- so in Southern Texas, Boy Scout troops- to exclude deviant lifestyles- would exclude Anglo Protestants as a deviant lifestyle, since Latino Catholics would be the norm.

 

I describe those who are homophobes or bigots as homophobes or bigots.

I don't know what is complicated about this.

When I see someone acting like a racist towards a black or latino, I will identify him as a racist- simple and accurate.
When I see someone acting like an anti-semite towards a jew, I will identify him as an anti-semite- simple and accurate.
When I see someone acting like a homophobe towards homosexuals, I will identify him as a homophobe- simple and accurate.

Of course I don't directly identify posters here on PF as such- that is not allowed- though we clearly have racists and anti-semites and homophobes who post here.

The arguments that are made against gay marriage echo the arguments that were made against mixed race marriages, and in my opinion the reasons for the opposition is virtually the same- just 50 years apart.

And no, I don't hate anyone.

And I don't assume you hate people just because of your posts either.

 

So you can't explain why we should change the law. You have an opinion nothing more and that is certainly no reason to change a law.

Wrong again. I believe in civil unions. You just can't accept the fact that there is no scientific basis to treat homosexuality any different from any other sexual preference besides the scientifically proven practice of heterosexuality yet you want to limit your new "right" to only 2 person adult homosexual marriage and can't explain why except that its your opinion.

 

Yes. Anyone who doesn't agree with you on gay marriage. Do I need to quote you as well?

And when someone is against gay marriage you label them a homophobe or bigot 13 times in a single day. Again, simple and dishonest because you can't prove they fear or hate homosexuals.

Yes so you generalize everyone as a homophobe who doesn't agree with you on gay marriage as I said. So exactly how can we have a civil discussion if you label people this way before a conversation can even begin?

Yet you cannot prove how race and a sexual preference are equal in any way shape or form beyond your opinion just like your opinion is all you have to justifiy gay marriage as you proved in your last post.

And as I said that would be easier to believe if you didn't name call people who don't agree with you on gay marriage bigots or homophobes 13 times in a single day of posting.

Then stop the labels. Simple and accurate.

 

The same reason why we changed the laws that forbade mixed race marriages. That is my opinion.

You have an opinion that is that a gay couple should not have the same ability to marriage as my wife and I- and that is nothing more than your opinion.

There is no scientific basis to marriage at all.

You can advocate for any other group that you believe is unfairly excluded from marriage- but my position is quite clear- I think that the gay couple who lives down the street from me should enjoy the same rights and responsibilities of marriage as my wife and I enjoy.

If you can't make any argument against gay marriage other than it doesn't go far enough, then you have no argument at all.

 

As I have said before- I don't assume someone is a homophobe simply because they oppose gay marriage.

I don't know what is complicated about this.

When I see someone acting like a racist towards a black or latino, I will identify him as a racist- simple and accurate.
When I see someone acting like an anti-semite towards a jew, I will identify him as an anti-semite- simple and accurate.
When I see someone acting like a homophobe towards homosexuals, I will identify him as a homophobe- simple and accurate.

I have not said- nor do I say that simply opposing gay marriage means that someone is a homophobe, any more than someone who opposes mixed race marriages is necessarily a racist.

My statement stands.

You mean when I start threads labelling murderers and thugs who assault gays as homophobes? I have no problem with my use of that term there.

When I speak of homophobes here on PF, I am speaking in general terms, or I am speaking of people in the news.

I am not calling you a homophobe because a) I don't know that you are and b) because that would be against the PF terms and conditions.

 

No we changed the laws on race because race is immutable and morally neutral

Its not my opinion. It is based on scientific fact that heterosexuality is genetic based on our body's reaction to sexual stimuli and the act of procreation requiring heterosexual sex and homosexuality has nothing to back itself up as a genetic fact beyond hypothetical studies that cannot conclude their findings as factual.

Of course there is and I just explained how once again. How about addressing what I actually stated?

And again, an opinion is no reason to change law. Race is a genetic trait and immutable. That is the basis for civil rights based on race. The very fact someone can "come out" as gay whenever they want proves it is not immutable and therefore not equal to race.

I've made the argument. I'm still waiting for you to address it beyond claiming its wrong without addressing the human biological reaction I cite.

 

If that were true you would not be on record calling people you dont know homophpboes and bigots for being against gay amrriage 13 times in a single day. You can try to run from this fact but it wont make it go away.

And when someone is against gay marriage you label them a homophobe or bigot 13 times in a single day. Again, simple and dishonest because you can't prove they fear or hate homosexuals. I don't know what is complicated about your own words.

Then explain why you have labeled people you don't know as homobopbes and bigots 13 times in a single day. I've yet to see you explain yourself.

As do your 13 labels in a single day of people you don't know.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. If someone assaults a homosexual they must automatically be a homophobe even when you have no evidence they knew the person was gay when the attack began.

And no, your labeling went far beyond stories of homosexual abuse. Do you need the quotes as well? I can provide them.

Easily disproven with your own words

No story addressed:

No story addressed:

No evidence provided for labeling an entire group

Labeling anyone who brings up facts about homosexual pedophilia a homophobe

I can do this all day with your own words Jeff. You do not limit your labeling of people to stories in the news nor do you provide evidence of your label.

If that were true I wouldn't be able to find so many examples of you doing exactly what you are denying here.

And of course you are being dishonest when you claimed you haven't labeled myself a bigot or homobophobe.

Once again Jeff, I can do this all day. This is why a civil discussion cannot be had with you. You enjoy your labels too much of your opponent without supporting evidence.

 

No, the law was ruled unconstitutional. 'We', meaning the people didn't vote to change the laws- much like with the Constitutional amendment in California, the Supreme Court in Loving V. Virginia ruled that such a law was unconstitutional.

Further the Supreme Court did not take any position on whether race is 'immutable' or not, and no position on morality either.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U. S. 535, 316 U. S. 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190 (188. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.

Simply substitute 'same gender' for 'another race' and the same argument would apply.

In the 1960's states argued that they had a right to prevent mixed race marriages.

Some people argue that they have the right to prevent same gender marriages.

I see no distinction between the inequity of either. I think that a same gender couple should have the same rights and responsiblities as the Lovings wanted- and eventually received.

 

Okay. Prove it. You call that a fact. I call your claim a lie.

"you would not be on record calling people you dont know homophpboes and bigots for being against gay amrriage 13 times in a single day. You can try to run from this fact "

You made the claim- you have made this claim repeatedly.

Prove it- because I am saying that it is a bald faced lie.

 

I think I have discovered the way to get Tex to stop posting in a thread.

 

Unconstitutional because race is immutable and morally neutral.

Actually they did.

Over the years, this Court has consistently repudiated "[d]istinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry" as being "odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/388/1

In the very court case you mention, Loving vs Virgina they make the specific point that the courts cannot discriminate based on someone's ancestry aka their race just as I said because it denies the freedom and equality of all races.

You are only making my point. They just said that denying based on race is unconstitutional along with the quote I provided.

Wrong again. Both genders can marry now.

Which was struck down by Loving vs Virgina.

And those people would be wrong because there is no basis for claiming homosexuality is equal to race because as the court stated race is determined by one's ancestry. There is no study out there that proves homosexuals are born gay unlike race. In fact, quite the opposite.

And again, your opinion is no reason to change law.

I see you ducked all the quotes I provided of your own words including your labeling of me and those who don't agree with you. How can we expect to have a civil discussion if you cannot even acknowledge your own words?

 

Easily done. These are all on April 4th 2014.

Seriously- you refer to the 'Family Research Institute'? About as homophobic of an organization that there is.

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=349885&p=1063759011#post1063759011

I think the issue of bigotry towards homosexuals is still very relevant.

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=349885&p=1063758363#post1063758363

And painting homosexuals as pedophiles hurts the homophobia agenda, which is more important to homophobes than actual child rape.

Homophobes ignore the vast majority of child sex abuse because it doesn't further their agenda.

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=349615&p=1063757655#post1063757655

You may or may not be a homophobe But the man who assaulted these people simply for thinking that they were gay was a homophobe.

And I will point out once again- more concern about the use of the word 'homophobia' than the assaults themselves.

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=349753&p=1063757258#post1063757258

Homophobes can also actually resort to violence in their intense aversion to homosexuals.

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=349753&p=1063755346#post1063755346

But the man who assaulted these people simply for thinking that they were gay was a homophobe.

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=349753&p=1063757258#post1063757258

Let me put it another way- in a thread about how a homophobe assaulted men because the homophobe thought they were gay- your biggest gripe is with 'militant gays'.

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=349753&p=1063757233#post1063757233

So you just don't a damn that a homophobe assaults people simply because he thought they were homosexuals.

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=349753&p=1063757178#post1063757178

Homophobes can also actually resort to violence in their intense aversion to homosexuals.

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=349753&p=1063755346#post1063755346

Its amazing you swallowed the bait. Did you really think I made up that number?

Feel free to apologize for calling me a liar.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, didn't work out that way did it? Its amazing you thought I just made up that number especially after I used your own personal attacks on myself against you with direct quotes.

 

Okay Tex- lets dance- here is what your claim was

I highlighted the relevant parts.

Tex's Claim:
"you would not be on record calling people you dont know homophpboes and bigots for being against gay amrriage 13 times in a single day. You can try to run from this fact "

You made the claim- you have made this claim repeatedly- so have I called people I don't know 'homophobes and bigots for being against gay marriage?- I will put my responses to each of your claim is yellow within your quote- but I will point out that not a single example you posted is a quote from me- calling people homophobes or bigots for being against gay marriage- not one.

You just flat out lied- and continue to do so.

So of the 14 quotes you provided- not one was of me labeling persons homophobes for opposing gay marriage- NOT ONE. You just lied.

I have just shown that your claim is a big flat lie. That not a single quote you provided shows me calling persons homophobes or bigots for opposing gay marriage.

NOT one.

You just flat out lied.

And will never admit it.

 

And once again- the court never makes that claim. That is purely your position. If the law had been against mixed religion marriages, it would have been just as unconstitutional.

 

Actually the original claim was this:

Its funny to hear you say that Jeff since you name called your opponents "homophobes" or "bigots" no less than 13 times in a single day to describe your political opponents

No mention of gay marriage. None, zip, nada.

Please try and be accurate when you respond.

Which I never even mentioned gay marriage in my original claim as I proved. I also used the plural "opponents" not "invididuals" because opponents covers multiple people including groups, posters, and criminals. If I had claimed you used "personal attacks" in all of those 13 you would be correct. But I didnt which makes your claim invalid.

Let's go through the list.

#1The family research council is a group of people. It cannot exist without people and the labal homophobe requires a person so of course you just used it to label your opponents.

#2 The bigotry comment was in response to what you bolded "when they were invited by a man to watch how he was “going to kill a moffie [(*)(*)(*)].” (slang for homosexual)"

The man was the target in your comment so once again you are being dishonest that you were not using the label.

#3 You call your opponents using a "homophobic agenda" then use the proper noun "homophobes" which requires a person. So yes you did use the label against people as well.

#4 You called people you were debating "homophobes" Your next sentences in that statement were "How can I prove that?

Look here on PF- the vast majority- virtually all threads on child sex abuse- are in regards to homosexual child abuse- even though such cases represent a minority of child sex abuse cases."

So you used the homophobe label against people on this board who are against your political point of view

#5 You admitted you did use the label against someone you were referring do.

And my original claim did not include gay marriage Jeff. Again "ts funny to hear you say that Jeff since you name called your opponents "homophobes" or "bigots" no less than 13 times in a single day to describe your political opponents"

No mention of gay marriage. I await your apology.

#6 You still falsely assert I limited "opponents" to only people on this board which was never done. You clearly claimed a man you have never met was a homophobe based on nothing but your own bias and you played with calling a member a homopbobe.

#7 And once again the statement I made covered all opponents on this board and off and you clearly labeled people you have never met as homobphobes claiming its the only answer to being against homosexuals which we have already proven false.

#8 And once again the statement I made covered all opponents on this board and off and you clearly labeled people you have never met as homobphobes claiming its the only answer to being against homosexuals which we have already proven false.

#9 And once again the statement I made covered all opponents on this board and off and you clearly labeled people you have never met as homobphobes claiming its the only answer to being against homosexuals which we have already proven false.

#10 Once again you admit the label despite claiming from the beginning you never did. Please let us know which face we are talking to. And once again my original claim never used the terms "gay marriage" anywhere, simply your label.

#11 You labeled anyone who has ever assaulted a homosexual as a homophobe with no evidence whatsoever, just your label.

#12 Repeat. You labeled anyone who has ever assaulted a homosexual as a homophobe with no evidence whatsoever, just your label.

#13 Repeat. You labeled anyone who has ever assaulted a homosexual as a homophobe with no evidence whatsoever, just your label.

Of course the only one being dishonest here is you. Its why you used the loud yellow color for your responses. I said you labeled your "opponents" not " individuals because you know how the game is played here. That doesn't change the fact you labeled your opponents" (with an s) as homophobes each and every time I said you did.

And for the 5th time the original statement I made never had even the words gay marriage in it.

Let me quote myself again:

No mention of gay marriage. None. Zero Zip, Nada. Either you are sloppy in your quoting or you are flat out lying because you can't argue in each one of those quote you do use the label homophobe or bigot to describe your opponent. I'll let you tell everyone here which one it is.

Because it isn't true. I quoted my original statement in post $93 to you and gay marriage is nowhere in the same sentence has I quoted your 13 labels in a single day.


I hope now that we have "danced" you will get over this obsession and next time just admit you do label your opponents homobophobes.

And that was only in one day. There are plenty more to choose from.

- - - Updated - - -

Since you cut out the evidence I provided as you usually do when you get caught what is the point of debating? I quoted Loving vs Virgina and explained how but I guess editing it out makes you feel better about your position.

 

I fully expected you to dance away from the truth.

Here is your quote that I responded to:
"you would not be on record calling people you dont know homophpboes and bigots for being against gay amrriage 13 times in a single day. You can try to run from this fact "

That statement was a falsehood- it was a lie.

You knew that when you made the statement and you continue to lie about what I have said.

As I showed in my response.

You have no shame when it comes to lying about what I have posted.

And that doesnt' surprise me.

 

And I fully expected you to quote a single sentence, ignore the mountain of explainations and quoting of your own words to avoid the painful truth.

Which was not my original quote to you as I proved.

When you are ready to be honest enough about the original quote you let us know.

I await your apology.

If you need me to say that all 13 of your uses of the word homophobe did not include gay marriage I would be happy to do so because that was a mistake on my part. But the oringinal claim was absolutely correct that you do label your opponents homophobes which is why civil debate cannot be had with you which was the original point you refuse to address.

 

Jeff? Can you address the fact my original statement was absolutely correct that you do label your opponents homophobes?

 

I wouldn't call the AFA homophobes but their message is extremely biased and highly rhetorical.

 

I detect a lot of drama-mongering here, lol