I still don't know if I should be shitting me pants or not.....

(August 14, 2015 at 11:00 am)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: I'm not going to dignify that last question with a response, you bigoted little shit.
Your definition of hate speech includes your "last resort" talk of exterminating them because you think they have a defect, fuckwallet. You're so ignorant it makes me go cross-eyed.

[quote='Anima' pid='1021483' dateline='1439478781']
 I am not an advocate of exterminating the gay; (particularly as such would mean I would be an advocate for killing my own sister; which I most certainly am not) however, this is not to say society will not do so.

(August 12, 2015 at 5:36 pm)Anima Wrote: Less confused?

Not really. So only exterminate me if I'm having gay sex? But what if I'm having a threesome? What if I'm only having gay sex but could potentially be having heterosexual sex? What if I'm having heterosexual sex but want to be married to the same sex?

What if I'm only 10% gay, and what if I'm 90% gay? (The Kinsey scale IS a thing, you know)

What if I'm in a same sex romantic relationship but am also having baby making sex left and right?

Even moar confuzzed ._.

(August 14, 2015 at 10:42 am)Ace Wrote: It is just an article that I just read, not read or care what news group it is in affectation with, I will admit it.

But it is something the many Chaplains are actually facing, in the military for example. There have been various news clips of Chaplains  losing their position because of their religious views. And if state start making mandates for those of different ideas and/or faith, that is very dangerous.[...]

Excuse me, but WTF are chaplains doing in the military in the first place? What does "separation of Church and State" mean, again? And was there EVER a more useless position in the military, anyway? Why not have f-ing magicians, or clowns while we're at it?

Fire them all, I say - whether they like sucking c*ck or not... Or whatever the problem was - I wasn't paying attention

(August 14, 2015 at 11:34 am)Homeless Nutter Wrote:

(August 14, 2015 at 10:42 am)Ace Wrote: It is just an article that I just read, not read or care what news group it is in affectation with, I will admit it.

But it is something the many Chaplains are actually facing, in the military for example. There have been various news clips of Chaplains  losing their position because of their religious views. And if state start making mandates for those of different ideas and/or faith, that is very dangerous.[...]

Excuse me, but WTF are chaplains doing in the military in the first place? What does "separation of Church and State" mean, again? And was there EVER a more useless position in the military, anyway? Why not have f-ing magicians, or clowns while we're at it?

Fire them all, I say - whether they like sucking c*ck or not... Or whatever the problem was - I wasn't paying attention

Chaplains have been in war/ army since 1200's. In every ancient war there have always been some for of religious payer of the Warriors/ solders. Contrary to popular belife the aspect of facing death makes everyone get a little religious. There have been times when men would refuse to even fight if some religious persion was not with the unit. In America it can be since the Revolutionary war but the name chaplens has been since WWI.

You also forget that solders do have a right to practice their faiths just like civilians. And like the army bases have basically every thing for their solders, so to do they have religious places and people in the military.

I am looking for the artical now where it showed that those in the front lines in battle seem to be more religious then those in the back.

(August 14, 2015 at 11:34 am)Homeless Nutter Wrote: What does "separation of Church and State" mean, again? And was there EVER a more useless position in the military, anyway?

Separation of church and state actually means that the state can not impose a religion on the people not that the people can not have or practice their faith. At max the state, which is to protect the will being of is people, can intervene if some part of the religion is deemed a clear and present danger. However, that right of the state to step in has always been since Egyptian times.

(August 14, 2015 at 11:13 am)Ace Wrote:

(August 14, 2015 at 11:00 am)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: I'm not going to dignify that last question with a response, you bigoted little shit.
Your definition of hate speech includes your "last resort" talk of exterminating them because you think they have a defect, fuckwallet. You're so ignorant it makes me go cross-eyed.

(August 13, 2015 at 11:13 am)Anima Wrote:  I am not an advocate of exterminating the gay; (particularly as such would mean I would be an advocate for killing my own sister; which I most certainly am not) however, this is not to say society will not do so.

HA HA! But I have a right to dignity. So states Obergefell. If you choose to not dignify me than violate the due process clause which protects my fundamental right to dignity. How can you be such a hateful bigot and deprive me of my fundamental rights?

Thank you Ace. I do not know how many times I have said that fact and they just keep missing it. By this point it is obviously intentional. I guess misrepresentation seems to be essential to their arguments; even their ad hominem ones. HA HA.

Now if I am so ignorant, than please by all means educate me...

WHAT IS YOUR ARGUMENT FOR WHY HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT A DEFECT?

WHAT IS YOUR ARGUMENT IN THEIR FAVOR THAT IS NOT BASED ON FALSE EQUIVALENCY?

Time to teach this ignorant bigot something. I await your response and hope it is something better than dodging the questions again.

(August 14, 2015 at 11:15 am)Neimenovic Wrote:

(August 12, 2015 at 5:36 pm)Anima Wrote: Less confused?

Not really. So only exterminate me if I'm having gay sex? But what if I'm having a threesome? What if I'm only having gay sex but could potentially be having heterosexual sex? What if I'm having heterosexual sex but want to be married to the same sex?

What if I'm only 10% gay, and what if I'm 90% gay? (The Kinsey scale IS a thing, you know)

What if I'm in a same sex romantic relationship but am also having baby making sex left and right?

Even moar confuzzed ._.

I imagine the state will readily simplify your situation as your action leads to inference of your intention/orientation. Should it decide to execute homosexuals than I doubt it would have any qualms with executing one who engages in "homo" acts but is not a homo per se.

You know; how the law tends to punish good people who have done a bad thing as much if not more so than it punishes bad people who do bad things rather than evaluating to what degree they are good or bad and punishing accordingly.

"The law is a net in which the large fish pass and the small ones are captured"

Ew. ಠ_ಠ

(August 14, 2015 at 1:49 pm)Anima Wrote: HA HA!  But I have a right to dignity.  So states Obergefell.  If you choose to not dignify me than violate the due process clause which protects my fundamental right to dignity.  How can you be such a hateful bigot and deprive me of my fundamental rights?

Thank you Ace.  I do not know how many times I have said that fact and they just keep missing it. By this point it is obviously intentional.  I guess misrepresentation seems to be essential to their arguments; even their ad hominem ones.  HA HA.

Now if I am so ignorant, than please by all means educate me...

WHAT IS YOUR ARGUMENT FOR WHY HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT A DEFECT?

WHAT IS YOUR ARGUMENT IN THEIR FAVOR THAT IS NOT BASED ON FALSE EQUIVALENCY?

Time to teach this ignorant bigot something.  I await your response and hope it is something better than dodging the questions again.

We've spent 87 pages covering the answers to those questions, so if you're still asking them it would obviously be a waste of time to do it again. You are a bigot. Game over.