Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8994 total)
57 online now:
driewerf, DrJones*, PaulK, Sarah Bellum, Tangle (5 members, 52 visitors)
Newest Member: Juvenissun
Post Volume: Total: 879,344 Year: 11,092/23,288 Month: 344/1,763 Week: 311/390 Day: 32/99 Hour: 2/2

Announcements: Topic abandonment warning (read and/or suffer the consequences)


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Discrimination against homosexuals carried into the 21st century
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 49 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 3 of 313 (377636)
01-17-2007 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Taz
01-17-2007 6:20 PM


A Quibble
January 2007 would be the 21st century. (Easy to miss - still no flying cars and robot butlers, I notice.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Taz, posted 01-17-2007 6:20 PM Taz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Taz, posted 01-17-2007 7:26 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 49 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 173 of 313 (378707)
01-21-2007 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by Fosdick
01-21-2007 3:22 PM


Re: The modernity of gay "marriage"
Oh, but they conjugate, too

Both ways, typically; if you think that's exactly like a normal heterosexual relationship in humans, then I suggest you need to stop picking up "women" in bars with names like "The Manhole."

Also, much like your little adventures, bacterial conjugation is not a form of sexual reproduction because gametes are not fused to form a zygote. Rather, bacterial conjugation simply represents an exchange of donor mobile plasmids between individuals. No new individuals are created.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Fosdick, posted 01-21-2007 3:22 PM Fosdick has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by Fosdick, posted 01-21-2007 3:41 PM crashfrog has responded

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 49 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 176 of 313 (378711)
01-21-2007 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by Rob
01-21-2007 3:31 PM


Re: More off topic nonsense and attempt to palm the pea.
Rob, could you substantiate your assertion that preventing same-sex marriage will reduce the incidence of sexual abuse of children?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Rob, posted 01-21-2007 3:31 PM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Rob, posted 01-21-2007 3:48 PM crashfrog has responded

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 49 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 178 of 313 (378714)
01-21-2007 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by Fosdick
01-21-2007 3:33 PM


Re: right and wrong.
I thought gays were born that way, no choice at all.

People are born with their sexual orientation (in all likelyhood in most cases), but people are not born with the wherewithall to consent to sexual activity.

But, of course, I suspect you already knew that when you attempted to sandbag the debate by equivocating homosexuality with peodphilia. I don't know if you have to be Christian to be dishonest, but in my experience it certainly makes it easier.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Fosdick, posted 01-21-2007 3:33 PM Fosdick has not yet responded

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 49 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 180 of 313 (378718)
01-21-2007 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by Fosdick
01-21-2007 3:41 PM


Re: The modernity of gay "marriage"
But would you mind showing me where I said it was "a form sexual reproduction."

Message 147, your words:

quote:
And they have sex with their opposites, too. Try Googling "bacterial sex" and see for yourself. There are many good photographs of male E.coli scoring on females. A score is when he shoots out his papilla and it hits her in the sweet spot.

When Shraf disagreed that this was how bacteria reproduced, you contradicted her in message 169:

quote:
Oh, but they conjugate, too, which probably feels a lot better.

Where you clearly make the assertion that bacterial conjugation was an additional form of bacterial reproduction, which it is not.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Fosdick, posted 01-21-2007 3:41 PM Fosdick has not yet responded

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 49 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 182 of 313 (378722)
01-21-2007 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Rob
01-21-2007 3:48 PM


Re: More off topic nonsense and attempt to palm the pea.
I never asserted such a thing.

Nonsense, you asserted it before and you continue to repeat the assertion.

If you believe that same-sex unions increase the incidence of sexual abuse of children, then either you believe that preventing them will decrease the incidence - or you're tacitly admitting that there is no connection, you're completely unconcerned about the sexual abuse of children, and motivated only by hatred towards homosexuals engaged in perfectly legal, legitmate private conduct.

So, again, I'm asking you if you can substantiate your assertion that the prevention of same-sex marriage reduces the incidence of sexual abuse of children.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Rob, posted 01-21-2007 3:48 PM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by Rob, posted 01-21-2007 4:12 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 49 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 185 of 313 (378726)
01-21-2007 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by Rob
01-21-2007 3:58 PM


Re: More off topic nonsense and attempt to palm the pea.
Because they start threads justifying human actions because animals engage in such activity. Because they have taken on the mind of an animal, and become an animal (spiritually). And the physical manifestations follow.

Could you substantiate your assertion that animals regularly possess the intelligence, communication skills, and manual dexterity to operate computers and create threads on internet forum boards?

Could you substantiate your assertion that homosexuals regularly develop fur, claws, boxlike muzzles, canine dentition, and heightened senses of hearing and scent?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Rob, posted 01-21-2007 3:58 PM Rob has not yet responded

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 49 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 196 of 313 (378782)
01-21-2007 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by Fosdick
01-21-2007 7:22 PM


Re: Poor Rob
I wonder if all you homos and homophiles are happy now that you forced poor Rob to take down his cross and go home.

"Homos"? "Homophiles?" Is it necessary to use bigoted language?

If Rob isn't interested in supporting his statements with evidence, but in throwing bitch-fits instead, I hope he stays gone. Who gives a shit?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Fosdick, posted 01-21-2007 7:22 PM Fosdick has not yet responded

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 49 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 198 of 313 (378784)
01-21-2007 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by Fosdick
01-21-2007 7:28 PM


Re: Bad frog!
Oh, and crashforg, you've got a bad habit of deliberately misquoting and misrepresenting other posters.

Well, that's an absolute falsehood, though you certainly have a bad habit of making these spurious accusations as smokescreens.

I quoted your statement verbatim, exactly as you made it, and precisely contrary to your implication otherwise.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Fosdick, posted 01-21-2007 7:28 PM Fosdick has not yet responded

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 49 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 201 of 313 (378803)
01-21-2007 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by Fosdick
01-21-2007 9:09 PM


Re: Poor Rob
See, I don't see what remarks like that contribute to the debate. They seem unneccesarily belligerent and contrary to the Forum guidelines, particularly rule 10.

You don't seem particularly interested in legitimate debate. Why is that?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Fosdick, posted 01-21-2007 9:09 PM Fosdick has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by arachnophilia, posted 01-21-2007 10:59 PM crashfrog has responded

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 49 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 203 of 313 (378822)
01-21-2007 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by arachnophilia
01-21-2007 10:59 PM


Re: Poor Rob
It's working perfectly; he's just not any good at it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by arachnophilia, posted 01-21-2007 10:59 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by arachnophilia, posted 01-22-2007 12:01 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 49 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 225 of 313 (379033)
01-22-2007 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by Fosdick
01-22-2007 5:12 PM


Re: My excuse for being rational
That's why my liberal past and my libertarian present

Oh, that explains it. We've got a glibertarian here, folks.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Fosdick, posted 01-22-2007 5:12 PM Fosdick has not yet responded

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 49 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 246 of 313 (379095)
01-22-2007 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by Fosdick
01-22-2007 7:54 PM


Re: My excuse for being rational
I just happen to hold the opinion that marriage is for opposite sexes in order for them to start a family.

Fair enough. How about your opinion can dictate the terms of your marriage, and other people's opinions can govern their own? And then you can stop all the bigoted panty-sniffing?

By the way - how, exactly, does a libertarian come to the conclusion that he gets veto power over other people's marriages?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Fosdick, posted 01-22-2007 7:54 PM Fosdick has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by Fosdick, posted 01-23-2007 11:55 AM crashfrog has responded

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 49 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 266 of 313 (379219)
01-23-2007 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by NosyNed
01-23-2007 12:23 PM


Re: Civil Unions are fine to me
I'm not sure why the disagreement with civil unions is so strong.

Well, for one thing - they don't exist. At least not in the US. We do have marriage, on the other hand.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by NosyNed, posted 01-23-2007 12:23 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 49 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 269 of 313 (379223)
01-23-2007 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by Fosdick
01-23-2007 11:55 AM


Re: My excuse for being rational
I don't know what I am politically

You're a bigot and a homophobe, HM. That's what you are.

That's why every single one of your posts drips with contempt and revulsion towards gays and their defenders. It's why you think that the rest of us must be ignorant about what homosexuals do in the bedroom, and if we only knew, why, then we're come around to your eminently sensible hatred of all things queer.

It's why you think that this:

Did you know that some gays have claimed Christopher Robin as one of their own

represents some kind of gay assault or appropriation of your "normal" culture, instead of the entirely common phenomenon of people feeling kinship and self-recognition with characters in books. (Christopher Robin Milne, A.A. Milne's son and the basis for the character, was not gay, as far as anyone can tell.)

I guess I'm just behind the times.

Pretty much. I had thought your brand of bigotry died with Reagan. I guess I was wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Fosdick, posted 01-23-2007 11:55 AM Fosdick has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by Fosdick, posted 01-23-2007 1:25 PM crashfrog has responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020