Feb 22, 2012 -- 6:10PM, Ken wrote:

Feb 22, 2012 -- 6:04PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Feb 22, 2012 -- 5:22PM, Ken wrote:

Feb 22, 2012 -- 4:51PM, mountain_man wrote:

Feb 22, 2012 -- 3:50PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

....And the posistion you take continues to irrationally insist that anybody who refuses -- for whatever reason -- to give feel-good affirmation to the politically correct construct of "sexual orientation" and resulting conclusions about homosexuality, simply must despise gays and view them as sub-human.

When you make claims like that you only expose your hatred of gays. Not accepting that people are born with different sexual orientations is part of the bigotry. That people are born that way is not politically correct, nor is it to "feel good;" it's established science. Now, if you wish to go against science, as creationists do, then go right ahead. You have that right.

He doesn't deny that homosexuality is inborn. He regards it as a congenital disease. He regards acting upon it as immoral. He wants gay people to live lonely, loveless lives.

That was silly, and dishonest. 

I've never said any of those things. 

No, you're dishonest. You have called homosexuality a disorder. You have even expressed the hope that one day it will be curable. You clearly think of it as a disease.

I've never described it as a "disease."

Look, your obsession with me and your continual effots to twist my words and arguments, and the wild suppositions you seem to draw about my personal feelings have been amusing. But frankly, I'm not interested in helping you make a jackass out of yourself. I've given you ample rope, and the results have been predictable. I'm not a cruel person, so I'm done with that. 

Let's either talk about the issues at hand, specifically, how SCOTUS might handle gay marriage in light of the 14th amendment. 

Feb 22, 2012 -- 6:16PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Feb 22, 2012 -- 6:10PM, Ken wrote:

No, you're dishonest. You have called homosexuality a disorder. You have even expressed the hope that one day it will be curable. You clearly think of it as a disease.

I've never described it as a "disease."

Disorder, disease - same thing.

Feb 22, 2012 -- 6:16PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Look, your obsession with me and your continual effots to twist my words and arguments, and the wild suppositions you seem to draw about my personal feelings have been amusing. But frankly, I'm not interested in helping you make a jackass out of yourself. I've given you ample rope, and the results have been predictable. I'm not a cruel person, so I'm done with that.

You really are contemptible, aren't you? You tell me to my face that I'm disordered and immoral, then you say you're not a cruel person.

Feb 22, 2012 -- 6:20PM, Ken wrote:

Feb 22, 2012 -- 6:16PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Feb 22, 2012 -- 6:10PM, Ken wrote:

No, you're dishonest. You have called homosexuality a disorder. You have even expressed the hope that one day it will be curable. You clearly think of it as a disease.

I've never described it as a "disease."

Disorder, disease - same thing.

Feb 22, 2012 -- 6:16PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Look, your obsession with me and your continual effots to twist my words and arguments, and the wild suppositions you seem to draw about my personal feelings have been amusing. But frankly, I'm not interested in helping you make a jackass out of yourself. I've given you ample rope, and the results have been predictable. I'm not a cruel person, so I'm done with that.

You really are contemptible, aren't you? You tell me to my face that I'm disordered and immoral, then you say you're not a cruel person.

You come up with a rational argument that isn't a pathetic attempt at a personal attack, and your discussions on this topic might go somewhere.

So, how about that 14th Amendment?

Feb 22, 2012 -- 6:49PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Feb 22, 2012 -- 6:20PM, Ken wrote:

You really are contemptible, aren't you? You tell me to my face that I'm disordered and immoral, then you say you're not a cruel person.

You come up with a rational argument that isn't a pathetic attempt at a personal attack, and your discussions on this topic might go somewhere.

Why don't you do that? I haven't seen you post a rational argument yet. Aren't you just parroting what your religion tells you to think?

Feb 22, 2012 -- 6:49PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

....So, how about that 14th Amendment?

I could not care less what some law says about anything. My ethics do not come from laws. Homosexuals should be treated no differently than anyone else. They have a HUMAN right, not a "legal right," to have sex with consenting adults as they choose, marry who they choose, and live their lives as they choose. That goes for any consenting adult human.