(02-07-2013 11:46 AM)Smaug Wrote:  What does any of this have to do with whether two consenting adults in their right minds can marry?

Oh how they should be able to force people of conscious to provide custom art at their weddings.

Had my dog at the bark park today... In liberal California, the last item on their list was that the city reserved the right to deny citizens access to the public park paid for by tax dollars.

(02-09-2013 07:43 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Had my dog at the bark park today... In liberal California, the last item on their list was that the city reserved the right to deny citizens access to the public park paid for by tax dollars.

For the last 10 years I've walked every day for my health. When walking in California, until the people got used to seeing me, I didn't say hello to the kids on the street and one day a little girl got screamed at by her dad for saying hello to me. Saying hi to little kids is not a good thing in California.

800 miles away I say hello to every kid I see and it's no big deal. The kids and parents here aren't afraid of pedophiles.

The moral of the story is you can have a state that welcomes crazy behavior but it still makes people nervous when it concerns their kids.

(02-09-2013 08:15 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(02-09-2013 07:43 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Had my dog at the bark park today... In liberal California, the last item on their list was that the city reserved the right to deny citizens access to the public park paid for by tax dollars.

For the last 10 years I've walked every day for my health. When walking in California, until the people got used to seeing me, I didn't say hello to the kids on the street and one day a little girl got screamed at by her dad for saying hello to me. Saying hi to little kids is not a good thing in California.

800 miles away I say hello to every kid I see and it's no big deal. The kids and parents here aren't afraid of pedophiles.

The moral of the story is you can have a state that welcomes crazy behavior but it still makes people nervous when it concerns their kids.

Smart man. I would keep my kids(if I had them) away from you too.

(02-09-2013 08:25 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(02-09-2013 08:15 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(02-09-2013 07:43 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Had my dog at the bark park today... In liberal California, the last item on their list was that the city reserved the right to deny citizens access to the public park paid for by tax dollars.

For the last 10 years I've walked every day for my health. When walking in California, until the people got used to seeing me, I didn't say hello to the kids on the street and one day a little girl got screamed at by her dad for saying hello to me. Saying hi to little kids is not a good thing in California.

800 miles away I say hello to every kid I see and it's no big deal. The kids and parents here aren't afraid of pedophiles.

The moral of the story is you can have a state that welcomes crazy behavior but it still makes people nervous when it concerns their kids.

Smart man. I would keep my kids(if I had them) away from you too.

Actually bro, California has a high number of pedophiles, 74,000 are lurking in the bushes and near the schools waiting for their next victim. California wants tolerance, fine. But now they have to live in fear of what they tolerate.

(02-10-2013 06:25 AM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(02-09-2013 08:25 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(02-09-2013 08:15 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(02-09-2013 07:43 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Had my dog at the bark park today... In liberal California, the last item on their list was that the city reserved the right to deny citizens access to the public park paid for by tax dollars.

For the last 10 years I've walked every day for my health. When walking in California, until the people got used to seeing me, I didn't say hello to the kids on the street and one day a little girl got screamed at by her dad for saying hello to me. Saying hi to little kids is not a good thing in California.

800 miles away I say hello to every kid I see and it's no big deal. The kids and parents here aren't afraid of pedophiles.

The moral of the story is you can have a state that welcomes crazy behavior but it still makes people nervous when it concerns their kids.

Smart man. I would keep my kids(if I had them) away from you too.

Actually bro, California has a high number of pedophiles, 74,000 are lurking in the bushes and near the schools waiting for their next victim. California wants tolerance, fine. But now they have to live in fear of what they tolerate.

But you can understand a registered sex offender being denied access to a public park, where kids play... as part of his punishment/protection for the public.... with or WITHOUT a sign. The sign clearly implies that the city can deny you the use of public facilities WITHOUT a court order or a felony conviction.

What I DON'T understand, and would is how a group of people can support denying people the right to a public park, while claiming that a business MUST offer not its goods, but its personalized services to anyone that asks. Rather than continuing to dance around the question, I'd like for SOMEONE on the left to explain this to me.... and the badgering from the right on immaterial isn't helpful.

I want gay marriage to be mandated. They should have to suffer the punishment of marriage like the rest of us.

(02-07-2013 12:39 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-07-2013 12:26 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  I think the problem was the insinuation that if you were gay you were a child molester

no, the problem is that no one insinuated that. You just think they did. We've said that men who molest boys are gay not that all gays are pedophiles.

Completely untrue...a gay man likes other gay men...not boys.

You don't have to be Einstein to understand that.

If you like little boys or girls you're a pedophile or a priest.

(02-07-2013 01:00 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-07-2013 12:50 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(02-07-2013 12:39 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-07-2013 12:26 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  I think the problem was the insinuation that if you were gay you were a child molester

no, the problem is that no one insinuated that. You just think they did. We've said that men who molest boys are gay not that all gays are pedophiles.

That wasn't said either. What was said was that there are people who only wish to have sex with children, and they can't be classified at heterosexual or homosexual, since they prefer those who have not had time to sexually mature...

Everyone is reading into what is posted what they want to see, instead of reading what is actually said...

Well, if a man wants to have sexy time with a male child he's a gay pedophile. If a man wants to have sexy time with a female child he's a hetero pedophile. Pedophiles aren't a class. They're a subset of both gay and straight people and deserve to be locked up forever. I get your point though that pedophiles can really be either.

That's not how most people see it...most see pedophiles as a subset...no one wants to associate with them.

(02-05-2013 11:47 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  The relationship that ensures the continuation of our species (male-female) deserves special recognition.

Gays can have (should have) civil unions, and there should be no legal difference between male-female unions and male-male or female-female unions. But the word "marriage" should only be for the union of a man and a woman.

That is not a radical position to take on this issue. The radical position is to change the definition of marriage for the first time in all of recorded human history.

Show me any us law that says that...by your thinking any couple that can't have kids shouldn't be allowed to marry...gays...infertile couples...the elderly...

(02-12-2013 01:50 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(02-05-2013 11:47 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  The relationship that ensures the continuation of our species (male-female) deserves special recognition.

Gays can have (should have) civil unions, and there should be no legal difference between male-female unions and male-male or female-female unions. But the word "marriage" should only be for the union of a man and a woman.

That is not a radical position to take on this issue. The radical position is to change the definition of marriage for the first time in all of recorded human history.

Show me any us law that says that...by your thinking any couple that can't have kids shouldn't be allowed to marry...gays...infertile couples...the elderly...

Then we have people who SHOULDN'T be reproducing reproducing. Torchy, BIE, Rebel, the BlazerFan11, SMN,UConn-SMU, Paul, IMATY etc.

(02-12-2013 01:50 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(02-05-2013 11:47 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  The relationship that ensures the continuation of our species (male-female) deserves special recognition.

Gays can have (should have) civil unions, and there should be no legal difference between male-female unions and male-male or female-female unions. But the word "marriage" should only be for the union of a man and a woman.

That is not a radical position to take on this issue. The radical position is to change the definition of marriage for the first time in all of recorded human history.

Show me any us law that says that...by your thinking any couple that can't have kids shouldn't be allowed to marry...gays...infertile couples...the elderly...

There you go, you just labled people who have been on this planet longer than most of us as elderly. So definitions do count, eh?

(02-12-2013 02:10 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(02-12-2013 01:50 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(02-05-2013 11:47 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  The relationship that ensures the continuation of our species (male-female) deserves special recognition.

Gays can have (should have) civil unions, and there should be no legal difference between male-female unions and male-male or female-female unions. But the word "marriage" should only be for the union of a man and a woman.

That is not a radical position to take on this issue. The radical position is to change the definition of marriage for the first time in all of recorded human history.

Show me any us law that says that...by your thinking any couple that can't have kids shouldn't be allowed to marry...gays...infertile couples...the elderly...

Then we have people who SHOULDN'T be reproducing reproducing. Torchy, BIE, Rebel, the BlazerFan11, SMN,UConn-SMU, Paul, IMATY etc.

You just mentioned people who could afford to raise and educate their kids and I know that goes against liberal tendencies.

This covering for gays who molest boys is sickening.

(02-12-2013 01:42 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  If you like little boys or girls you're a pedophile or a priest.

Wonderful. The most "tolerant" people once again take full advantage of the only class of people who can be openly discriminated against, have hateful and bigoted speech directed towards them and receive praise and social props for without protection or consequence.

Funny thing is, though, if UofMemphis changes but one word in UofMemphis' statement, UofMemphis would be in an absolute tizzy over the very same bigotry, oppression, intolerance and discrimination that UofMemphis him or herselves practices:

as in:
UofMemphis' bigoted statement:
"If you like little boys or girls you're a pedophile or a priest."

UofMemphis' bigoted statement revealed to show UofMemphis' true hypocrisy and lack of belief in UofMemphis' own idea of tolerance:
"If you like little boys or girls you're a pedophile or a black."
"If you like little boys or girls you're a pedophile or a jewish person."
"If you like little boys or girls you're a pedophile or a minority."
"If you like little boys or girls you're a pedophile or a gay."
etc...
FYI, the correct statement would be:
"If you like little boys or girls you're a pedophile, period."

(02-13-2013 08:03 AM)Paul M Wrote:  This covering for gays who molest boys is sickening.

Who is covering for pedophiles? Point out an example of someone doing so.

Quote me and act as though I said something different.

Well, I'm pretty sure I started this, so I'll try and end it.

I am not gay, but I am "gay friendly" in that I don't care what consenting people do to or with each other, and I think love, in whatever consenting form it takes is a good thing. I don't believe that being gay makes you any more predisposed to being a pedophile than being straight. Pedophelia, like any other form of rape is MOST OFTEN (though not always) about control and opportunity.... and not about love. An example would be perhaps Michael Jackson. If he actually WAS a pedophile of little boys, and I think he probably was, I think that was about his own mental health issues and not about control.... but I digress... The point is that in a discussion about tolerance, acting in any way as if a conversation about being a pedophile is in any way related to a conversation about being gay is provocative and unproductive rather than helpful. Similarly, painting everyone who believes in God as a religious nut trying to force their views on everyone else is provocative and unproductive.