Huckabee: GOP Needs To Fight Gay Marriage Even More Or I'm Leaving

[DCPatriot]

So you don't know that these gay couples you profess to know are 'devoted and not the least bit promiscuous',

You don't know that the ratios of 'whores and sluts' are equivalent between the two lifestyles,

I can argue that your views are corrupting your objectivity with just as much validity,

You are the one applying the tag of 'expert' to me,

But it's MY last chance?

All you are doing is making something your excuse not to face reality and it doesn't matter what it is, just so you have one...

Thanks for nothing, Dan.

Still don't want to provide details on what qualifies you as an expert....to the point you're becoming incoherent on the subject.

Stop wasting everybody's time.  You're becoming a laughingstock here.

[GourmetDan]

In the entire history of man it has been proven over and over again that the thing most difficult for human beings to do is to face reality!

Yeah, falsely saying that someone else has claimed to be an expert and then giving definitive opinions while disavowing any expertise themselves.

Simply insane...

[GourmetDan]

Thanks for nothing, Dan.

Still don't want to provide details on what qualifies you as an expert....to the point you're becoming incoherent on the subject.

Stop wasting everybody's time.  You're becoming a laughingstock here.

Again, people who don't want to face reality are saying I claimed to be an 'expert' despite the fact that never happened.  There's your incoherence.

Claiming to have a definitive opinion while having no experience yourself.  You're the laughingstock...

[DCPatriot]

Again, people who don't want to face reality are saying I claimed to be an 'expert' despite the fact that never happened.  There's your incoherence.

Claiming to have a definitive opinion while having no experience yourself.  You're the laughingstock...

You are the one that claims everybody here on the thread is incorrect because they don't have YOUR experience.

"Experience" that you refuse to detail for us so that we can be enlightened in our errors.

You continue to evade. and instead attempt to turn it around to give yourself the moral high ground.

I don't give a sh*t if you've provided care for one hundred gay men who were dying of aids.  It doesn't mean a thing other than what you've chose to process between your ears.

Numerous fellow posters have gently tried to tell you in so many words that you're using...to be kind...a small sample size.

MEMO TO DAN!  Not all gay people are out-of-control sexual predators and 'whores'. 

[GourmetDan]

You are the one that claims everybody here on the thread is incorrect because they don't have YOUR experience.

"Experience" that you refuse to detail for us so that we can be enlightened in our errors.

You continue to evade. and instead attempt to turn it around to give yourself the moral high ground.

I don't give a sh*t if you've provided care for one hundred gay men who were dying of aids.  It doesn't mean a thing other than what you've chose to process between your ears.

Numerous fellow posters have gently tried to tell you in so many words that you're using...to be kind...a small sample size.

MEMO TO DAN!  Not all gay people are out-of-control sexual predators and 'whores'.

Again, arguing the exception to attempt to disprove the general rule is invalid.

Homosexuality is the moral low-ground.  Has been for all of recorded history and always will be.

The reason AIDS spread so fast in the gay community was promiscuity and drugs.

That hasn't changed and getting hysterical about it makes you look foolish...

[DCPatriot]

Again, arguing the exception to attempt to disprove the general rule is invalid.

Homosexuality is the moral low-ground.  Has been for all of recorded history and always will be.

The reason AIDS spread so fast in the gay community was promiscuity and drugs.

That hasn't changed and getting hysterical about it makes you look foolish...

\

I am not disputing that reckless behavior was the reason AIDS spread throughout the gay culture and eventually to the hetero world.

My beef with you is that you used a broad brush in essentially saying that ALL gays are promiscuous and are virtually unchecked satyrs.

...and you know it.

PS:   Your moniker fits you perfectly, Dan.   

[DCPatriot]

And....that's all I'm going to say on the matter.   

[GourmetDan]

\

I am not disputing that reckless behavior was the reason AIDS spread throughout the gay culture and eventually to the hetero world.

My beef with you is that you used a broad brush in essentially saying that ALL gays are promiscuous and are virtually unchecked satyrs.

...and you know it.

PS:   Your moniker fits you perfectly, Dan.   

How many times have I said that arguing the exception in an attempt to disprove the general rule is invalid?

You are the one trying to attach false claims to me in an attempt to disprove the general rule,

... and you know it.

[Lando Lincoln]

Very strange. Strange that anyone who cites experiences, however pertinent, is dismissed as "not knowing".  While the person making the declarative, absolute "rule" is unable or unwilling to defend the basis of the rule apart from some vague and nebulous "you don't know what it is like" comment. It has a troubled teenager quality to it.

Strange because I understand, intuitively, the seedy nature of a large part of the culture. But to argue it so stridently, without explaining the basis of the argument - even after repeated requests - is strange.

[GourmetDan]

Very strange. Strange that anyone who cites experiences, however pertinent, is dismissed as "not knowing".  While the person making the declarative, absolute "rule" is unable or unwilling to defend the basis of the rule apart from some vague and nebulous "you don't know what it is like" comment. It has a troubled teenager quality to it.

Except that that's exactly what you are saying to me.  Your words can be reversed and apply perfectly to defenders of 'gay marriage' arguments to me.  In fact, I thought you had changed your mind when I first read them.

Strange because I understand, intuitively, the seedy nature of a large part of the culture. But to argue it so stridently, without explaining the basis of the argument - even after repeated requests - is strange.

If you understood the seedy nature of the overwhelming part of the culture, you would not require an explanation of the basis of the argument.

Truly strange...

[MACVSOG68]

Well...it was a good thread.   

I do believe that many of those who claim gay marriage doesn't in any way prevent promiscuity are doing so on religious grounds.  That's something no one can argue with, but they should simply "come out" as they say, and proclaim it!  Trying to argue a religious point of view against all the data in the world makes one look less than honest.  And even worse, suggesting it has anything to do with conservatism surely isn't realistic.

 

[Cyber Liberty]

Well...it was a good thread.   

I'm surprised this subject matter is so intractable.  I thought of several wisecracks to insert along the way, but it seemed like a good way to get opposing people to unite in a circle and beat me to death with bamboo sticks.

[Lando Lincoln]

Seedy, unhealthy behavior among the gay sub-culture - yes.
Loyal, faithful, monogamous relationships among gays - yes.

[Lando Lincoln]

Well...it was a good thread.   

It somehow turned when I jumped in... coincidence?  My first post of substance was met with a "you wouldn't understand, nor will you accept" response.  I was taken aback, quite honestly.

[MACVSOG68]

I'm surprised this subject matter is so intractable.  I thought of several wisecracks to insert along the way, but it seemed like a good way to get opposing people to unite in a circle and beat me to death with bamboo sticks.

Well...bamboo isn't the only weapon available.

It's intractable because everyone isn't arguing on the basis of facts, but rather faith.  And there is no rational argument against faith.  You either believe it or you don't.  Others want to see the data about the issue and argue from that point of view.  I think you mentioned at one point that religious arguments on TOS were quite wild.  Did anyone ever win one?  Nor will they here.  It's much easier to argue government spending...well...maybe not too much easier.   :nometalk:

[MACVSOG68]

It somehow turned when I jumped in... coincidence?  My first post of substance was met with a "you wouldn't understand, nor will you accept" response.  I was taken aback, quite honestly.

Yeah it's all your faulty Lando!!!  Actually not, as that response had been used while you were in the woods. 

[DCPatriot]

I'm surprised this subject matter is so intractable.  I thought of several wisecracks to insert along the way, but it seemed like a good way to get opposing people to unite in a circle and beat me to death with bamboo sticks.

It was this very topic that got me zotted at TOS.  Sinkspur tried to warn me off, but without even posting again, JR took me out.  I never 'felt' a thing.

And I too, was in the Class of '98.   

It's crystal clear to me that GD has a strong opinion, based upon his religious upbringing.  I believe that's what Lando was also expressing in his puzzlement at his behavior on this thread.

Imagine if you will.  Many of here have homosexuals in our own family...in our workplace...and in our circle-of-influence.  They seem and act in a mature manner, and are not the least bit predatory or on the make.  According to Dan, those experiences and acquaintances are strictly the exception to the rule.

Yet, he doesn't have the balls to admit that his own firsthand experiences....as vague as they are to all of us...are based upon bible verses and Catechism classes, which have clouded his objectivity.

I have a friend who is a homosexual...and I never hesitated to have him babysit my children when they were younger.  He is the cleanest, tidiest, orderly and most gentle person I've known in my life.

And that goes for any of his personal friends that he's introduced me to over the years.

Awwww.....why I still wasting my time on this thread, is a mystery to me.   

[Lando Lincoln]

I'm going back to the woods.

[Cyber Liberty]

Awwww.....why I still wasting my time on this thread, is a mystery to me.   

Because you're the kind of guy who wears a white trench-coat and a Fedora, leans against a wall while smoking.  It's how you roll Sam Spade.  It's how it gets done.  Thanks for being here.  Oh me?  I'm just a nOOb.  Class of '98.  Called her a "wookie."  End of story.

[Cyber Liberty]

I'm going back to the woods.

Don't forget your WiFi.   :nometalk:

[Lando Lincoln]

Called her a "wookie."  End of story.

LOL! 

[Lando Lincoln]

Because you're the kind of guy who wears a white trench-coat and a Fedora, leans against a wall while smoking.  It's how you roll Sam Spade.  It's how it gets done.  Thanks for being here.  Oh me?  I'm just a nOOb.  Class of '98.  Called her a "wookie."  End of story.

DCP has a great avatar!

[DCPatriot]

I'm going back to the woods.

    

[Lando Lincoln]

I do believe that many of those who claim gay marriage doesn't in any way prevent promiscuity are doing so on religious grounds. 

I think in this case, it is more complex.  Just my sense. 

[musiclady]

I think in this case, it is more complex.  Just my sense.

Your sense is right.  There are many non-religious people who instinctively understand that something is awry in a homosexual relationship.  I believe to place the onus on "religion" is to miss the complexity of social mores that transcend religious beliefs.

FWIW, I'm one of the only people on this thread who is arguing essentially, but not entirely with GD, and he is, to my knowledge, the only one on this forum who finds me so offensive that he has put me on "Ignore."

Weird, eh?