fefifofob wrote:

tfarrell wrote:

Stop trying to change the subject. You're claiming that a comparison of gay.com to match.com shows that gay people are - what, immoral? disgusting? not respectable? Something like that. I pointed out that the comparison is invalid because the rules of the sites are different, and also because match.com is not in fact a heterosexual personal site, and also because you're asking people to use a sample size of 1, which is so meaningless as to be outright stupid.

Now, address those comments are not, but they have nothing whatsoever to do with you talking to people with drug, alcohol, personal, marital, or criminal problems. I notice that every time I point out the complete meaninglessness of something you said, you try to change the subject. It's rather telling.


I've looked at more than a sample size of 1.


Good for you. But that's not what you asked for.

I used match.com & gay.com because they were the most popular in the google searches I did and they didn't contain the total filth I found elsewhere.

That doesn't alter the fact that you're comparing apples and oranges, or that match.com is not a straight-only dating site.

I found a few web sites for 'adults' that were pretty disgusting and I noticed that most of those they didn't care which gender they got their kicks from. I guess that makes them bisexual. Are you in favor of bisexual marriage?

I know several very nice bisexual couples. One is married, another is planning to be. The married couple happen to be a man and a woman, with two beautiful kids, and if you met them casually you'd probably think they're the very vision of heterosexual respectability, and would be surprised to learn that they were personally denounced on the floor of the US senate as being the very model of everythign that is wrong and immoral in America today. (They're very proud of it.)

I'm not going to post any of those web addresses here. I'm sure if you wanted to put one ounce of effort into it, you could find dozens of examples like what I found.

Sure. And I could make sure every one of those examples is of heterosexuals. But what's the point? If people want to exhibit poor sexual morality, that's not illegal. Heterosexuals do it, but they're allowed to marry. Thus, it's not a valid legal reason to deny marriage to gay couples.

I have no idea how much effort it would take to refute my example because I didn't find any, none, zero, zip, zilch, nada which I would be willing to show to my 9 year old daughter.

Either you didn't look very hard or your daughter is overly sheltered. I've seen many, many gay personal ads that are innocent to the point of being tedious.

But all you want to do is snivel about is how my sample size is only one.

Actually, I pointed out the problem with your sample size, and I pointed out the complete lack of validity of comparing gay.com to match.com because of their differing editorial policies (which you're still dodging instead of addressing), and I pointed out that match.com is not a heterosexual-only dating site anyway (which you're also still dodging instead of addressing). But you don't want to actually deal with these facts, you just want to spew out some vitriol that tries to distract everyone by accusing me of not having said anything.

Well, I've got news for you, your sample size is exactly zero.

Hon, I'm gay. Do you really believe there's anyone here who believes I've never seen a gay personal ad? Or that I haven't already seen more of them than you probably ever will?

I know you understand exactly what I'm talking about, but you refuse to admit that my argument has some basis.

I understand exactly what you're talking about. The problem is I'm not at all sure you understand what you're talking about, or if you understand what I'm talking about. You seem to be trying to make the argument that a comparison of gay.com personals to match.com personals demonstrates that gay people are immoral. You seem to think that I'm saying that gay people aren't immoral.

I am in fact not even bothering to comment on whether or not gay people are immoral, or at least, not in this particular context I'm not. I am in fact pointing out that the comparison you're trying to make is invalid because your methodology is so flawed as to make the experiment meaningless. Now, you can try to claim that gay people are immoral, but the method by which you've chosen to try to prove it is just plain dumb.

What I can't tell is whether you know that and you're disingenuous enough to be trying to convince everyone to believe in it anyway, or whether you're dumb enough not to understand what I'm talking about.

fefifofob wrote:

Again, fix the problems that exist rather than using them for an excuse to create more.


Again ( :). . . exactly what problems will be created and/or added to by legalizing same-sex marriage?

tfarrell wrote:

fefifofob wrote:

tfarrell wrote:

Stop trying to change the subject. You're claiming that a comparison of gay.com to match.com shows that gay people are - what, immoral? disgusting? not respectable? Something like that. I pointed out that the comparison is invalid because the rules of the sites are different, and also because match.com is not in fact a heterosexual personal site, and also because you're asking people to use a sample size of 1, which is so meaningless as to be outright stupid.

Now, address those comments are not, but they have nothing whatsoever to do with you talking to people with drug, alcohol, personal, marital, or criminal problems. I notice that every time I point out the complete meaninglessness of something you said, you try to change the subject. It's rather telling.


I've looked at more than a sample size of 1.


Good for you. But that's not what you asked for.

What are you talking about? What I asked for...?

I used match.com & gay.com because they were the most popular in the google searches I did and they didn't contain the total filth I found elsewhere.

That doesn't alter the fact that you're comparing apples and oranges, or that match.com is not a straight-only dating site.

OK, they have a difference. One has both hetero and homosexuals and one is just gays. Maybe the difference is because of that. I haven't seen a hetero only site that compares to gay.com or any of the more graphic gay dating sites either. Maybe they exist. Show me. All you've been doing so far is dismissing my point that they are different with the argument that they are different. Either show me a gay only site that doesn't revolve around sex or show me a straight only site that does revolve around sex. I'll even go buy a magazine at one of those book stores if you want me to.

I found a few web sites for 'adults' that were pretty disgusting and I noticed that most of those they didn't care which gender they got their kicks from. I guess that makes them bisexual. Are you in favor of bisexual marriage?

I know several very nice bisexual couples. One is married, another is planning to be. The married couple happen to be a man and a woman, with two beautiful kids, and if you met them casually you'd probably think they're the very vision of heterosexual respectability, and would be surprised to learn that they were personally denounced on the floor of the US senate as being the very model of everythign that is wrong and immoral in America today. (They're very proud of it.)

I understand that there are some who not only are the vision of respectability, but really are respectable. However, what I am saying is that the majority of gays are not. Wasn't it you who was saying that one example doesn't mean anything?

People who are proud of being denounced on the floor of the Senate might not be the best argument for evoking a picture of responsibility.

I'm not going to post any of those web addresses here. I'm sure if you wanted to put one ounce of effort into it, you could find dozens of examples like what I found.

Sure. And I could make sure every one of those examples is of heterosexuals. But what's the point? If people want to exhibit poor sexual morality, that's not illegal. Heterosexuals do it, but they're allowed to marry. Thus, it's not a valid legal reason to deny marriage to gay couples.

A valid legal reason for denying marriage to gay couples is that it is illegal in most states. I'm not sure I can get more valid and legal than that.

I have no idea how much effort it would take to refute my example because I didn't find any, none, zero, zip, zilch, nada which I would be willing to show to my 9 year old daughter.

Either you didn't look very hard or your daughter is overly sheltered. I've seen many, many gay personal ads that are innocent to the point of being tedious.

Show me... Please... Not just a select set you pick out, but a web site or a magazine or some other grouping that screams out 'homosexuals as a group are interested in more than sex.' I can't find anything. Maybe with your connections, you can shed some light on this.

But all you want to do is snivel about is how my sample size is only one.

Actually, I pointed out the problem with your sample size, and I pointed out the complete lack of validity of comparing gay.com to match.com because of their differing editorial policies (which you're still dodging instead of addressing), and I pointed out that match.com is not a heterosexual-only dating site anyway (which you're also still dodging instead of addressing). But you don't want to actually deal with these facts, you just want to spew out some vitriol that tries to distract everyone by accusing me of not having said anything.

There's some validity in the comparison. One site has both hetero and homosexuals and one has only gays. One has much more of a focus on relationships and what involved in making a good one and one has much more of an emphasis on sex. Maybe it doesn't show exactly what you want, but there is some tiny bit of information to be gleaned from that. Maybe that tiny bit of information is wrong, but you have not given on shred of evidence to the contrary.

Well, I've got news for you, your sample size is exactly zero.

Hon, I'm gay. Do you really believe there's anyone here who believes I've never seen a gay personal ad? Or that I haven't already seen more of them than you probably ever will?

Somehow I figured out that you were gay already.

The point isn't that you have seen a gay personal ad. I believe you when you say you have seen a lot of them. What I don't believe is that there an entire segment of a communication medium that I missed which shows that what the majority of gays is interested in is stable, responsible relationships. If your vast experience gives you some insight I am not aware of, please share it.

I know you understand exactly what I'm talking about, but you refuse to admit that my argument has some basis.

I understand exactly what you're talking about. The problem is I'm not at all sure you understand what you're talking about, or if you understand what I'm talking about. You seem to be trying to make the argument that a comparison of gay.com personals to match.com personals demonstrates that gay people are immoral. You seem to think that I'm saying that gay people aren't immoral.

I am in fact not even bothering to comment on whether or not gay people are immoral, or at least, not in this particular context I'm not. I am in fact pointing out that the comparison you're trying to make is invalid because your methodology is so flawed as to make the experiment meaningless. Now, you can try to claim that gay people are immoral, but the method by which you've chosen to try to prove it is just plain dumb.

What I can't tell is whether you know that and you're disingenuous enough to be trying to convince everyone to believe in it anyway, or whether you're dumb enough not to understand what I'm talking about.


I'm saying gays are immoral. I have yet to see a web site or magazine where most people were looking for someone of the opposite sex and they had to expose themselves and/or almost exclusively talk about the sexual aspect of a relationship. I have yet to see a magazine or web site where most people were looking for someone of the same sex (or either sex) where they didn't expose themselves and/or almost exclusively talk about the sexual aspect of a relationship.

I only need you to explain a couple things to me and back them up with facts. This should be really easy for someone who is not 'just plain dumb.'

1) Show me a group of only heterosexuals who are looking for a relationship and focusing mostly on the sex or else show me a group of only homosexuals who are looking for a relationship and not focusing on sex. You should probably PM me in the first case.

2) Show me how same sex marriage can be a right and illegal in most places.

Show me some evidence. You might have to explain it real slow and I might have to ask some questions because I'm so dumb that so far I can only understand you think these things are true, not why you think they are true.

tfarrell wrote:

Wren wrote:

tfarrell wrote:

Marriage is and has always been defined at the state level in the United States, so you're flat wrong that only
I knew you would fall for it.

OK, you can go ahead now and admit you can admit you can't win in the federal court system.


I'd go skiing in hell first. (And I hate skiing.)

All I need to win in the federal court system is a case to show that one state is refusing to honor the contracts of another, and that the federal anti-gay-marriage law is illegal because it violates article 4, section 1 of the constitution. These facts are fairly undeniable.

Thus, let's leave it to the local state courts and the state legislative/amendment procedure. Yes, the Massachusetts voters will get their day.

That's what they said some years ago when the president of the state senate simply refused to bring it up for a vote and gaveled closed the legislative session for the year, and the anti-gay folks discovered there was nothing they could do about that.

You don't have human, civil, or constutitonal right to marry someone of your own sex, thus the burden of proof is on you to prove such rights.

You don't understand a single thing about how the constitution works, do you? I have the right to do ANYTHING I WANT TO, including marry a man, until a law is passed saying I can't. Then the government can be forced to defend that law in court, and it's the government's burden to prove the law to be necessary.

Your mouth is now hanging open as do your friends here everytime I end the debate with my conclusion.

It's difficult not to be stunned by your bigotry and stupidity, I admit...

No faith and no hope exist that you can ever win permanently on this issue.

Quite the contrary: all of my fears in this regard are for the short term. In the long term, I feel entirely certain we'll win and it will stick. I'm just worried about whether or not it will happen while I'm young enough to enjoy it.

'Nuff said.

You know, that's the bit that always makes you look stupidest.

No federal case law or decisions support your theory, but keep trying.

fefifofob wrote:


I understand that there are some who not only are the vision of respectability, but really are respectable. However, what I am saying is that the majority of gays are not.

You have absolutely nothing but your own personal bias to base this on. There is no valid reason for stating that "the majority of gays are not (respectable)."

Sure. And I could make sure every one of those examples is of heterosexuals. But what's the point? If people want to exhibit poor sexual morality, that's not illegal. Heterosexuals do it, but they're allowed to marry. Thus, it's not a valid legal reason to deny marriage to gay couples.

A valid legal reason for denying marriage to gay couples is that it is illegal in most states. I'm not sure I can get more valid and legal than that.

The will of the majority is not necessarily a valid (i.e. justifiable) reason for denying equality to others. This is why we have courts . . . to protect the rights of minorities. Apparently, you don't like our Constitution.

I'm saying gays are immoral.

That's the problem! You're saying "gays are immoral" simply because they are gay.

It really has nothing to do with some of them being promiscuous. You've stated as much in your own words.

You freely admitted that, as far as you're concerned, lesbians get lumped in with gay men, even though they apparently exhibit much less promiscuity than men.

You won't answer a simple question about how same-sex marriage would lead to an increase in promiscuous behavior. Why? Because you can't! It is asinine to think that promoting fidelity and monogamy through marriage would increase promiscuous behavior among gay people.

gopherus' conclusion that you have more of a problem with homosexuality than you do with promiscuity is absolutely correct.

Your own words can only lead me to conclude that you advocate discriminating against people simply because they are gay. You can try to justify it in your mind any way you wish. It won't change the fact that you really are nothing but a bigot.

notalawyer wrote:


I'm saying gays are immoral.

That's the problem! You're saying "gays are immoral" simply because they are gay.

It really has nothing to do with some of them being promiscuous. You've stated as much in your own words.

You freely admitted that, as far as you're concerned, lesbians get lumped in with gay men, even though they apparently exhibit much less promiscuity than men.

You won't answer a simple question about how same-sex marriage would lead to an increase in promiscuous behavior. Why? Because you can't! It is asinine to think that promoting fidelity and monogamy through marriage would increase promiscuous behavior among gay people.

gopherus' conclusion that you have more of a problem with homosexuality than you do with promiscuity is absolutely correct.

Your own words can only lead me to conclude that you advocate discriminating against people simply because they are gay. You can try to justify it in your mind any way you wish. It won't change the fact that you really are nothing but a bigot.


This is one big problem with the practice of religion in my opinion (not necessarily religion in theory). Morality and immorality are defined in clear terms. People are then free to attach whatever level of importance they wish to each immoral behavior. This leaves many options: 1) they can take part in the immoral behavior because it is "only somewhat immoral" (e.g. lying, being selfish, beating your wife etc...), 2) they can choose not to take part but allow others to do so at their own risk (e.g. drinking, profanity use, risk = Hell etc...), 3) they can speak out against the immoral behavior (e.g. drinking, profanity, rock and roll), or 4) they can seek to legislate the behavior. I'm sure there are many more options, but one that is problematic is the one that happens with issues such as homosexuality. In cases like these people often choose to take on God's role as judge, jury, and executioner. They allow immorality to bring out hate (apparently never having seen the Star Wars movies they don't know that this leads to the dark side). They demonize. Then, like fefifofob they fabricate arguments in order to pretend that they are motivated by logic because they know that they have slid away from the teachings that have originally defined the immoral behavior for them. There is often no one to to call them on it because others have traveled the same path because their leaders have facilitated it. Those bold enough to question the direction being taken are trampled. The flock has transformed to a pack and forsaken their shepherd.
One the bright side, the pack usually wears itself out and the flock comes home leaving the judgment to the shepherd, as they know is right.