Pizza time?

[Rifleman]

A hard d*** has no conscience. That has nothing to do with upholding the Constitution.

The law, and every spouse ever, says otherwise.





But I did LOL.

 

[Orange_Crush]

You seem pre-disposed to read more sinister intent into my original reply than was intended. I am happy to apologize if I have unfairly impugned anyone's character. I still think that people who aren't bigots do care about bigoted language. I still think that if you do and say bigoted stuff repeatedly, then you are a bigot.

I can't understand the logic of your second question. Why would a single vote make you a bigot? Are you saying the only criteria you used to judge Trump was his adultery? I guess I am a bigot by that logic too, then. I have not voted for several candidates for this reason.

To bring this back around: if Mayor Pete cheats on his husband and acts like turd about it like Trump or Clinton, then I would think he's morally unqualified to lead the country. No difference really.

If you can't keep that vow, why would I trust your vow to uphold the Constitution? What am I missing?

I was clear enough. You called him a bigot, then said that you don't know enough about him to have an opinion. That's two mutually exclusive claims. If you want to throw the "bigot" label around, own it.

Why would a single vote make '72 a bigot per the good Mayor? He said that he wouldn't vote for him since he's a practicing homosexual. He was repeatedly called a bigot for it. I want to know how the line of bigotry is being drawn, and why, by the political correctness liberal swat force.

I've heard repeatedly here that Trump is unfit for office due to his sexual indiscretions, as well as the things he says, how he says them...

I see a LOT of liberals that are making moral judgments and tying those moral judgments to fitness for office. But as soon as one person makes a moral judgment that ya'll don't agree with, and ties that moral judgment that you disapprove of to fitness for office, they're attacked.

That's chin-drool idiocy, as it's the very picture of bigotry. "I'll attack the opinions that I disagree with."

When the "bigot" attack has been broadened enough to disallow personal moral convictions, and broadened enough to become so easily self-incriminating, one probably needs to rethink how they're wielding it. When you've come to the place that you allow personal moral scruples without personal attacks, only if you agree with them, you should probably spend a bit of time in personal introspection before policing everyone else.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I come from a different generation than most on here, plus I have had close dealings with maybe 10 male homosexuals. I know more than that, but have had 3 work for me and know 7 or 8 more pretty well. I consider most to be friends, and congratulated the ones that got married on their marriages. Having said that, I consider all to be overly dramatic or drama queens. I would not vote for someone like that to be President. Sorry, the ones that I know pretty well, I don't consider to be very stable emotionally, and seem to want attention. Just my anecdotal experience.

Plus, I don't like Mayor Pete's attack on Pence and religion, even though I'm not religious. It seems to me that Mayor Pete wants attention because of the way he has sex. He wants to make a big deal out of it. I support his right to live his life the way he wants to live it, but I won't be forced to consider it to be normal. If that makes me a bigot, fine. I think it makes me a person with an opinion different than yours.

The consolation in society today is that the attack has been overused enough to rob it of any actual power. It's kind of like seeing a baby smile, while knowing it was just gas. It's adorable, but meaningless.

 

[1972 Grad]

The law, and every spouse ever, says otherwise.





But I did LOL.

I have been able to keep mine in my pants through 41 years and 2 marriages, but I am in the minority. If someone else cheats, that is not my problem.

 

[Rifleman]

I was clear enough. You called him a bigot, then said that you don't know enough about him to have an opinion. That's two mutually exclusive claims. If you want to throw the "bigot" label around, own it.

Why would a single vote make '72 a bigot per the good Mayor? He said that he wouldn't vote for him since he's a practicing homosexual. He was repeatedly called a bigot for it. I want to know how the line of bigotry is being drawn, and why, by the political correctness liberal swat force.

I've heard repeatedly here that Trump is unfit for office due to his sexual indiscretions, as well as the things he says, how he says them...

I see a LOT of liberals that are making moral judgments and tying those moral judgments to fitness for office. But as soon as one person makes a moral judgment that ya'll don't agree with, and ties that moral judgment that you disapprove of to fitness for office, they're attacked.

That's chin-drool idiocy, as it's the very picture of bigotry. "I'll attack the opinions that I disagree with."

When the "bigot" attack has been broadened enough to disallow personal moral convictions, and broadened enough to become so easily self-incriminating, one probably needs to rethink how they're wielding it. When you've come to the place that you allow personal moral scruples without personal attacks, only if you agree with them, you should probably spend a bit of time in personal introspection before policing everyone else.

Oh, so we are at the "you noticing that bigoted comment was the real bigotry" part of the show?

I figured we were going somewhere fun.

You are equating Mayor Pete existing as a gay man with Donald Trump's serial betrayal of those closest to him. You don't see an issue there?

Sleeping with porn stars and paying them off while your pregnant wife is at home, is despicable behavior.

Being born gay and falling in love with another person who was born gay and committing yourself to spend your life faithfully at their side, is not in any way despicable.

 

[1972 Grad]

Oh, so we are at the "you noticing that bigoted comment was the real bigotry" part of the show?

I figured we were going somewhere fun.

You are equating Mayor Pete existing as a gay man with Donald Trump's serial betrayal of those closest to him. You don't see an issue there?

Sleeping with porn stars and paying them off while your pregnant wife is at home, is despicable behavior.

Being born gay and falling in love with another person who was born gay and committing yourself to spend your life faithfully at their side, is not in any way despicable.

As I said, I support the right of Mayor Pete to live his life the way he wants. However, I can't be bullied by people like you to think that it's normal. People are born with all kinds of aberrations.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Oh, so we are at the "you noticing that bigoted comment was the real bigotry" part of the show?

I figured we were going somewhere fun.

You are equating Mayor Pete existing as a gay man with Donald Trump's serial betrayal of those closest to him. You don't see an issue there?

Sleeping with porn stars and paying them off while your pregnant wife is at home, is despicable behavior.

Being born gay and falling in love with another person who was born gay and committing yourself to spend your life faithfully at their side, is not in any way despicable.

I am. Because it's true. You are professing personal moral beliefs and tying them to fitness for office while attacking others for having personal moral beliefs and tying them for fitness for office.

I spelled it out clearly. You did nothing to allay the logic. All you did was give your reason for your personal moral opinion and somehow claim that it's more acceptable than 72's, while claiming that you're less bigoted for doing exactly what he did.

And I don't think anyone is making moral judgments about what someone is inclined to do. I think they're making personal judgments about what people do. Perhaps Trump was born with a massive hetero libido. I don't judge him for that. I do judge him as a huge sleaze for deciding to act on it.

I don't judge homosexuals for their desires. I do believe that to act on it is a sin according to my faith and interpretation of scriptures. You're telling me that to tie that personal moral belief to my vote makes me a bigot while simultaneously telling me that you have the right to apply your personal moral beliefs to your vote, and you LITERALLY said that that doesn't make you a bigot when you said...

People who aren't bigots?

i.e. that you and your political correct swat team aren't bigots, while I've been watching you tie your personal moral beliefs to Trump's actions for years.

So, again... Your claim seems to be that you have the right to have and apply personal moral opinions about people's actions, but if someone has and applies personal moral beliefs per people's actions that you disagree with, they should be attacked and called names for it.

What's that the definition of?

 

[1972 Grad]

You seem pre-disposed to read more sinister intent into my original reply than was intended. I am happy to apologize if I have unfairly impugned anyone's character. I still think that people who aren't bigots do care about bigoted language. I still think that if you do and say bigoted stuff repeatedly, then you are a bigot.

I can't understand the logic of your second question. Why would a single vote make you a bigot? Are you saying the only criteria you used to judge Trump was his adultery? I guess I am a bigot by that logic too, then. I have not voted for several candidates for this reason.

To bring this back around: if Mayor Pete cheats on his husband and acts like turd about it like Trump or Clinton, then I would think he's morally unqualified to lead the country. No difference really.

If you can't keep that vow, why would I trust your vow to uphold the Constitution? What am I missing?

I am not going to vote for a President based on his moral behavior. I'm not looking to marry the President. If I was, I would certainly consider that.

 

[Orange_Crush]

As I said, I support the right of Mayor Pete to live his life the way he wants. However, I can't be bullied by people like you to think that it's normal. People are born with all kinds of aberrations.

Their logic leads to the ethic that any appetite is moral. It's an ethic that they refuse to apply to the people they disagree with.

 

[Rifleman]

As I said, I support the right of Mayor Pete to live his life the way he wants. However, I can't be bullied by people like you to think that it's normal. People are born with all kinds of aberrations.

I hope you don't feel bullied. I used to think the same way. Hell, far worse if I'm being honest. Over time and with experiences with gay friends and family, I realized I was wrong.
Anyway, I apologize for the b*tchy (uh-oh I'm being sexist here) way I started this off.

Congratulations on staying married for 40+ years. That's incredible.

 

[Rifleman]

Their logic leads to the ethic that any appetite is moral. It's an ethic that they refuse to apply to the people they disagree with.

Being gay is not "an ethic". That is the part you are missing.

 

[1972 Grad]

I hope you don't feel bullied. I used to think the same way. Hell, far worse if I'm being honest. Over time and with experiences with gay friends and family, I realized I was wrong.
Anyway, I apologize for the b*tchy (uh-oh I'm being sexist here) way I started this off.

Congratulations on staying married for 40+ years. That's incredible.

Thanks, but that is with 2 women. 10 years the first time, 5 years off, then 31 this time. For the record, the divorce after 10 years was not my idea.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Being gay is not "an ethic". That is the part you are missing.

Actions fall into ethical discussions. Pretty much everyone with a vote ties their moral opinions to their vote. I don't think you're missing that, but you may be. I suspect that you're just hand waving and diverting from the point.

 

[1972 Grad]

I hope you don't feel bullied. I used to think the same way. Hell, far worse if I'm being honest. Over time and with experiences with gay friends and family, I realized I was wrong.
Anyway, I apologize for the b*tchy (uh-oh I'm being sexist here) way I started this off.

Congratulations on staying married for 40+ years. That's incredible.

Of course I feel bullied. I'm called a Neanderthal, an old out of touch white man, a bigot, a homophobe, etc. because I don't think it is normal. I certainly don't hate anyone for being gay, and it happens in nature in some small percentage, but why? Is it a birth defect or environment? It can't be the way it was meant to be, or the human race would have died out years ago. Of course, with modern science, a man doesn't need to have sex with a woman to further the species, but they sure did before about 70 years ago.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Of course I feel bullied. I'm called a Neanderthal, an old out of touch white man, a bigot, a homophobe, etc. because I don't think it is normal. I certainly don't hate anyone for being gay, and it happens in nature in some small percentage, but why? Is it a birth defect or environment? It can't be the way it was meant to be, or the human race would have died out years ago. Of course, with modern science, a man doesn't need to have sex with a woman to further the species, but they sure did before about 70 years ago.

I'm sorry. I had to laugh.

You're morality-shamed and called names for your belief... They are exposed as judgmental bullies. "I hope you didn't feel bullied..."

Next we can discuss whether the logic behind the name "homophobe" is used in a logically consistent manner. Who's up? Shall we do a forum search for the terms "clepto-phobe"? "Adulter-phobe"? "Glutton-phobe"? "Trumpiphobe"? "Insultaphobe"?

 

[Rifleman]

Actions fall into ethical discussions. Pretty much everyone with a vote ties their moral opinions to their vote. I don't think you're missing that, but you may be. I suspect that you're just hand waving and diverting from the point.

I don't judge people on conditions that exist on the day they were born, like being gay or black or white.

I do think it is appropriate to look at the way people treat people others who are close to them, and others who are less powerful than them.

I think I've been pretty clear and above board here. I'm not trying to "win" anything. If it helps, then I declare you the victor.

 

[1972 Grad]

I don't judge people on conditions that exist on the day they were born, like being gay or black or white.

I do think it is appropriate to look at the way people treat people others who are close to them, and others who are less powerful than them.

I think I've been pretty clear and above board here. I'm not trying to "win" anything. If it helps, then I declare you the victor.

Did they find the gay gene?

 

[Orange_Crush]

I don't judge people on conditions that exist on the day they were born, like being gay or black or white.

I do think it is appropriate to look at the way people treat people others who are close to them, and others who are less powerful than them.

I think I've been pretty clear and above board here. I'm not trying to "win" anything. If it helps, then I declare you the victor.

I don't need to be declared anything.

Why do you keep speaking to a straw man? I've already said that I'm not judging anyone for what they are, who they are attracted to, or what they want to do. I judge people's actions, just as you do. I feel as though people's actions can be judged, just as you do.

You claim that you can make and personally apply your own moral distinctions, yet you bullied 72 for doing just that. What is that the definition of?

You seem to think that if someone is genetically predisposed to an action, they're morally justified by that disposition. That's a dangerous ethic, and one you don't seem willing to more broadly apply.

You and I just have different sources for our moral opinions. You seem to think that those who form theirs from a source you disagree with are open to harassment. What is that the definition of?

 

[Orange_Crush]

Did they find the gay gene?

I read a report not long ago that they feel they've found the gene that predisposes someone to violence. If that's true, does violence become morally neutral?

If they find the sexual addiction gene, does Trump become more fit for office?

If they find the pedo gene, are kids open targets?

Again, I don't think Rifleman has considered the breadth of the ethic he's arguing in favor of.

 

[Rifleman]

Did they find the gay gene?

Yes. Genes and hormone variations in gestation explain pretty much everything. Gay is just one way people are born.

Giant study links DNA variants to same-sex behavior

 

[Rifleman]

I read a report not long ago that they feel they've found the gene that predisposes someone to violence. If that's true, does violence become morally neutral?

If they find the sexual addiction gene, does Trump become more fit for office?

If they find the pedo gene, are kids open targets?

Again, I don't think Rifleman has considered the breadth of the ethic he's arguing in favor of.

Oh boy, totally not not bigoted guy just jumped right over the "gay people are no different than pedophiles" line.

Wow!

I am actually shocked.

Then to drop that trash from such a high horse. My god what a piece of work.

 

[Orange_Vol1321]

Here's a story on the new footage

Tape shows Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein discussing women at 1992 party

The Buffalo Bills cheerleaders? Really EL? Lmfao

 

[1972 Grad]

Yes. Genes and hormone variations in gestation explain pretty much everything. Gay is just one way people are born.

Giant study links DNA variants to same-sex behavior

Quote from Andrea Ganna in that article: "I'm pleased to say that there is no gay gene." Also, "there is really no predictive power" about someone's sexual behavior based on those 4 common abnormalities in the DNA. These 4 abnormalities are also associated with mood and mental health disorders such as major depression, schizophrenia and being bi-polar, which more or less validates what I said about my limited anecdotal experiences with gay people being drama queens.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Oh boy, totally not not bigoted guy just jumped right over the "gay people are no different than pedophiles" line.

Wow!

I am actually shocked.

Then to drop that trash from such a high horse. My god what a piece of work.

You're doing what you claim not to do, superman. You're making personal moral judgments about my actions. You just suck at having rational discussion, apparently. I suspect you realize how utterly pantsed you've been here, and this is your last ditch effort to divert from your exposed rear end.

I never claimed that they are "no different" any more than I was claiming that there is literally no difference between stealing and insulting someone in a previous post. Or any more than I was saying there is no difference heterosexual sin (which I've been guilty of) and pedos in the very same post!

You're a liar or a moron.

If you want to have a discourse, have one. If you want to not be shown for being what you claim to hate, stop being what you claim to hate. But don't stoop to such lows as the post I'm having to respond to. It makes you look idiotic and desperate. It's actually possible to view two things as wrong, to claim two things are wrong, while seeing distinctions between the two.

 

[Rifleman]

Quote from Andrea Ganna in that article: "I'm pleased to say that there is no gay gene." Also, "there is really no predictive power" about someone's sexual behavior based on those 4 common abnormalities in the DNA. These 4 abnormalities are also associated with mood and mental health disorders such as major depression, schizophrenia and being bi-polar, which more or less validates what I said about my limited anecdotal experiences with gay people being drama queens.

No single gene for anything, obviously. There are billions of genome-pairs. But this study and others clearly peel back how genes predispose us one way or the other with much more work to be done. Who we fall in love or lust with is not choice like going down a buffet line.

Another fun quote from the article:

"The abstract for Ganna’s talk referenced another provocative result: Heterosexual people who possess these same four genetic variants tend to have more sexual partners, suggesting associated genes might confer some mating advantage for heterosexuals. That could help explain why these variants might stick around in populations even if people attracted to the same sex tend to have fewer children than heterosexuals. Ganna did not touch on that finding in his talk, citing lack of time. "