Homosexuals are not the Enemy

Somebody was telling me about one of those reality TV shows about a homosexual party planner (I have no clue what the name of the show is, and don’t really care). She said that he absolutely refused to do a divorce party*, because he’d been through a divorce and divorce is an awful, horrible thing.

“Interesting,” she said, “That a gay man would be so concerned about the importance of marriage.”

Truthfully, I actually wasn’t surprised. Homosexuals themselves are not the enemy, not in and of themselves. Most of them? They’re the dupes. Tricked into thinking that allowing same-sex “marriage” would be some civil rights victory, when of course that was never the point of the people orchestrating the push.

The point, and I submit that it’s really obvious by now, was to continue the destruction of the family.

But the truth is that the sort of gays who will get married are the people who are going to take the idea more seriously.

So far, the highest number I’ve seen for the number of same-sex marriages in the United States is 500,000 (this was an “estimate” for how high the number of gay marriages could rise to after the legalization of same-sex marriage). Roughly 12,118,200 people in the United States are homosexual as compared to our overall population of 318.9 million according to Gallup. So, at the highest possible estimate, and using numbers from the respected source of Gallup, roughly four percent of the homosexual population is actually married.

Know what percentage of the straight population is married?

Over 50%.

I’m not going to do the math for that. The point is, a really, really small percentage of homosexuals are actually married – and this doesn’t count the percentage of “open” gay marriages. And I’m using homosexual-sympathetic data here.

So the homosexuals getting married think that marriage matters, even if only somewhat (even if you’re in an open marriage you need to value SOMETHING about marriage to think that it’s worth it). They’re not really going to be an issue in and of themselves.

Even gay marriage is only a symptom of the larger problem started when no-fault divorce came to the scene.

Homosexuals are pawns. They were the next part of the culture war fighting for a “civil right” most of them never really wanted anyway. They were tricked into thinking it was a grave injustice when in reality it was a simple matter of definitions meant to formalize the family unit.

So I don’t really have a problem with most homosexual folk. In some ways I feel bad for them. The truth is, this whole ruling was bigger for what it represented than what it actually happened. Homosexuals are not the chessplayer. They’re just the pawns moving things forward, and like other pawns they’ll be sacrificed when they’ve reached their limit of usefulness.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

40 Responses to Homosexuals are not the Enemy

  1. So, a gay party planner thinks it’d be okay to refuse to do a divorce party because he doesn’t think it’s right to celebrate divorce. Huh. And yet, it’s not okay for a Christian baker to refuse

    • I don’t know if this is meant to be an argument with my post or not, but if it is meant to be you’re completely missing my point. My problem is not with gay people qua gay people. We’re all sinners. My problem is the gay agenda now being thrust down our throats. And my point is that gay marriage is practically going to have very little effect on the gay community and even less effect on the country overall. The problem with it is that it’s a further step in the disrespect and debasement of the traditional family.

      Gays forcing Christians out of business is just more evidence that this has nothing or very little to do with gays getting married and more with destroying the family. and Christian morality.

      But if you’re just gay and in a relationship with a guy, I don’t care, or at least don’t care anymore than if you’re a guy who watches porn. My problem is not with the gays, full stop. It’s both much broader and much more discriminating. I think that, for the most part, the gay community are being used as dupes. Most of them aren’t going to be affected by any of the crap going on anyway.

    • Sorry, as you can see from my second attempt at the post, this one was an unfinished thought (thought I was scrolling and it sent). Feel free to delete this and reply to my full post. :o)

  2. So, a gay party planner thinks it’d be okay to refuse to do a divorce party because he doesn’t think it’s right to celebrate divorce. Huh. And yet, it’s not okay for a Christian baker to refuse to bake a wedding cake for a gay wedding because they don’t think it’s right. There seems to be a double standard among the gay community. Btw, I think you’re right on with the idea that they’re pawns. They really are. They’ve been manipulated into thinking some huge injustice was committed against them, when it wasn’t at all. And, if they’d have done it as a civil union instead of marriage, they could have passed it through easily and without the drama–but the chess players wanted to cause as much harm as they could. Sad.

    • I don’t disagree with you at all. In fact, this clear double standard in the gay community supports your idea that they’re being manipulated. The press makes it seem that ALL gays are behind these lawsuits and such, when in reality it’s a very small portion who do it, usually at the coercion of some outside source. It’s rather the same as when suddenly riots appear when Al Sharpton gets involved in a situation. If left alone, matters usually settle themselves calmly and quietly. But when inciters (aka community organizers) stick their fingers in the pie, it gets messy–and the pie is the one to lose.

      • Okay, gotcha.

        I agree. A very small amount of the gay community is going to see any effect at all from the supreme court ruling.

        I had to do the math for the percentages myself. You see joyful articles saying things like “Up to 500,000 gays may get married!”, but those same articles mysteriously get to mention that this best case scenario is about four percent of the gay community. It’s all a media push.

  3. Pat D. says:

    Yep. Divide and conquer – isolated people are easier to control.

  4. Mojo_Hand says:

    While I agree with you in part, Malcolm, it would be difficult to deny that many prominent homosexual activists had a hand in both influencing culture, and in pushing for Same-Sex marriage as such. So while it may be true that many homosexuals are “pawns” in a socio-political game they don’t control, it is important to note, too, that certain homosexual activists have had a decisive hand in how matters have played out. That these activists are often brought into influence by media providers who seek to normalize homosexuality is not entirely exculpatory, either.

    That homosexuals are allied closely with parties seeking to obliterate all barriers to sexual self-actualization is no accident, either. Rather than see homosexuals as unwitting “dupes”, I tend to see them as being hyper-active with respect to their own political agency; that they are not unaware of alarming ironies embedded in their motivations concerning same-sex marriage.

    • While I agree with you in part, Malcolm, it would be difficult to deny that many prominent homosexual activists had a hand in both influencing culture, and in pushing for Same-Sex marriage as such.

      Yep.

      That homosexuals are allied closely with parties seeking to obliterate all barriers to sexual self-actualization is no accident, either. Rather than see homosexuals as unwitting “dupes”, I tend to see them as being hyper-active with respect to their own political agency; that they are not unaware of alarming ironies embedded in their motivations concerning same-sex marriage.

      I think that the people who started the moving and shaking are, but the homosexual population in general isn’t. They support gay marriage because they’ve been fed that it’s their own “civil rights” era. The majority of them – and I say this because I know gay folks – genuinely believe this to be the case. Only a select but loud and powerful few are actually doing it to destroy the family.

      I’m not saying they’re the poor dupes of a media campaign. They’ve been used by the more radical in their own ranks.

  5. Andy says:

    The point, and I submit that it’s really obvious by now, was to continue the destruction of the family.

    Since this is so obvious, I´m sure you can easily answer:
    1. How many families have already been destroyed now that gays can get married?
    2. “Gay marriage” => ?????? => “Destruction of the Family”. Can you fill in the blanks? (i.e. explain the mechanism behind this alleged “destruction of the family” via using same-sex marriage,

    Homosexuals are pawns. They were the next part of the culture war fighting for a “civil right” most of them never really wanted anyway. They were tricked…

    Tricked by whom? The Bilderberg group? Illuminati? Reptilian shapeshifters? Morlocks? Nazis from the dark side of the moon?
    How about naming one of the alleged masterminds behind this conspiracy?

    • Your post shows a complete misunderstanding of everything that I’m saying.

      If you want to take part in the conversation, try to understand the premises first,

    • I’ll be thrilled the day a liberal comes down with the intent of understanding my argument first before he assumes I and all who agree with me are evil.

      • Andy says:

        I’ll be thrilled the day a liberal comes down with the intent of understanding my argument first before he assumes I and all who agree with me are evil.

        You didn´t make an argument, you didn´t even try to make one. You pretend that your ludicrous beliefs wrt same-sex marriage are “obvious” instead of arguing for them – so there is no argument here that I could fail to understand.
        You assert that it is obvious(!) that this is all about the “destruction of the family” (cue ominous music here), yet you are completely unable to show *any* logical connection between an alleged “destruction of the family” on the one hand and same-sex marriage on the other.
        You also assert that the vast majority of gay people have been “tricked” by someone into supporting same-sex marriage, you just can´t say who this someone is or why this someone even wants the “destruction of the family”. This alone would make this the silliest conspiracy theory that the world has ever seen, even the whackiest 9/11 truther stories at least have some made up stories about the alleged villains and their alleged motives.
        Btw, I do not think that you are evil, I also do not think that you are stupid, what I do think is that you are ridiculously partisan (evidenced by pigeonholing me as a “liberal” for no reason whatsoever) and that you are desperate – you seem to be unable to deal with the fact that a solid majority of people agree that same-sex marriage should be recognized because they actually think that this is a good thing, so you make up completely ludicrous conspiracy theories where a few unknown and thoroughly evil comic book villains (that hate “the family” for some reason) orchestrate this in the background and somehow managed to “trick” millions of people into supporting it.

      • You didn´t make an argument, you didn´t even try to make one.

        Correct! So you jumped into the middle of the conversation assuming that I was an evil conspiracy-theorist bigot.

      • Andy says:

        Correct! So you jumped into the middle of the conversation assuming that I was an evil conspiracy-theorist bigot.

        So… first you say “I’ll be thrilled the day a liberal comes down with the intent of understanding my argument first…”, but since you now agree with me that you did not actually provide an argument that I could have failed to understand, I take that as a retraction of your earlier reply.
        Re “evil conspiracy-theorist bigot”, the “evil” and “bigot” part here are your fabrications. I did however indeed accuse you of resorting to conspiracy theories, and I did not need to “assume” this – because this is quite clearly what you are doing. You have quite literally said that the vast majority of homosexuals do not sincerely believe that marriage equality is a good thing, but have rather just been “tricked” into supporting it by some unidentified group of people that want to “destroy the family” and use homosexuals as “pawns” to do this. This is a conspiracy theory, and it is an exceptionally silly one because it completely lacks a motive for why the alleged villains are doing what they allegedly did, and because it leaves the identity of the villains 100% unknown. It is not an iota sillier than saying that black people didn´t actually want the civil rights act, they were just tricked into supporting it by THEM (cue ominous music here) as a plot to destroy grandma and apple pie.

    • Dominic says:

      Satan. As it’s always been.

  6. Mojo_Hand says:

    So, instead of asking Malcolm to clarify his position, and to provide additional material to support his position, you have instead opted to go on rant, calling this or that assertion ludicrous? Most of your own response is pure, *gasp* assertion, even to the extent that you claim, seemingly without any evidence, that Malcolm’s real hangup is his inability to deal with the reality of majority support for Same Sex Marriage. How could you possibly know the inner workings of Malcolm’s mind?

    Are you a mind reader?

    • Ilion says:

      Leftists are *always* liars.

    • Andy says:

      So, instead of asking Malcolm to clarify his position, and to provide additional material to support his position

      That presupposes two things:
      1. That I didn´t ask for a clarification, which is false – I did ask for two clarifications in my first (admittedly very snarky) comment.
      2. That Malcolm already has provided some material to support his position (because you say “additional” here), which is also false. Note that Malcolm also now agrees with me that he did not provide any argument in his post.

      How could you possibly know the inner workings of Malcolm’s mind?

      I can make an educated guess based on Malcolm resorting to conspiracy theories, see:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory#Psychology
      That guess might of course be false (and note that I didn´t claim to be able to demonstrate the truth of this, all I said was “I think…”)

  7. This is all very simple:

    I wrote this for an audience that I figured already agreed with certain major premises I made. That part wasn’t the argument part. At the very least, I knew that the majority of my readers, if they disagreed with me, would at least be sympathetic to the position and attempt to understand it before they challenged it.

    Andy came barging in assuming he knew what I was trying to say despite the fact that the point of this article wasn’t to make the specific points he was challenging. So I’m not going to try to make my point to somebody who quite clearly doesn’t give a shit what I say anyway, because he already *knows* I’m a bigot.

    Andy: If you want to take part in *this particular discussion*, try and understand the premises behind it FIRST, and then maybe I’ll take you seriously. But until then, I’m not going to try and wade through your ridiculous word salad.

    • Andy says:

      Andy: If you want to take part in *this particular discussion*, try and understand the premises behind it FIRST

      Erm… that is actually what I did in my very first comment here. Here are two of your premises:
      1. “The point, and I submit that it’s really obvious by now, was to continue the destruction of the family.”
      2. “Homosexuals are pawns. They were the next part of the culture war fighting for a “civil right” most of them never really wanted anyway. They were tricked…”
      I already asked some things about that, but you did not want to answer those questions – so I´ll just ask you to explain these two premises to me since I apparently completely misunderstand what you tried to say with them.

    • Ilion says:

      “Andy: If you want to take part in *this particular discussion*, …”

      Ah, but the whole point is to derail and disqualify.

      Leftists are *always* liars.

  8. For example, here is something I *did not say* and *do not think*:

    You have quite literally said that the vast majority of homosexuals do not sincerely believe that marriage equality is a good thing, but have rather just been “tricked” into supporting it by some unidentified group of people that want to “destroy the family” and use homosexuals as “pawns” to do this.

    Here are my actual words:

    Homosexuals are pawns. They were the next part of the culture war fighting for a “civil right” most of them never really wanted anyway. They were tricked into thinking it was a grave injustice when in reality it was a simple matter of definitions meant to formalize the family unit.

    The second sentence is an observable fact. Most homosexuals don’t want to get married; even the most sympathetic data I can find bears this out.

    The last sentence, once again, is not a “conspiracy theory” but DOES assume that people who read this blog agree with certain major premises. Is it really a stretch to say the push for “marriage equality” was only driven by a very small group of people, since most homosexuals don’t want to get married anyway and never made it an issue until the last twenty years?

    But Andy can immediately tell that I am not a liberal, which means of course I’m either evil or a nutcase. So, conspiracy theory it is.

    • Andy says:

      The second sentence is an observable fact. Most homosexuals don’t want to get married; even the most sympathetic data I can find bears this out.

      Nope, your conclusion based on the data are completely illogical. The biggest flaw in your reasoning here is that you assume that if somebody doesn´t want to do x, (s)he also doesn´t want the right to do x. This is completely nonsense, I am married to a partner of the opposite sex and have exactly zero desire to get a divorce and marry a man, yet I still support marriage equality (and this is not an exceptional case given that the vast majority of supporters of marriage equality are not gay).
      Also, I don´t know where you got your numbers but your estimate of the number of homosexuals seems way to high (you probably used an assessment of the number of LGBT or LGB people) and the projection you refer to also doesn´t seem to be plausible:
      “But even as gay marriage has expanded, the Census Bureau has struggled to collect good data on how many couples are taking advantage of their new rights. The bureau has published data on same-sex households since the 2000 census, and in September for the first time included a count of same-sex marriages in its main household statistics. The bureau estimates that more than 700,000 U.S. households are headed by same-sex couples, a bit more than a third of whom are married.
      But the Census Bureau has acknowledged that its estimate has significant flaws. As a result, the bureau is considering asking directly about same-sex relationships for the 2020 census. Under the proposed wording, which is not yet final, the census form would for the first time include separate categories for “same-sex husband/wife/spouse” and “same-sex unmarried partner” alongside similar options for opposite-sex couples.”
      http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-census-still-doesnt-know-how-many-same-sex-couples-there-are/

      The last sentence, once again, is not a “conspiracy theory” but DOES assume that people who read this blog agree with certain major premises. Is it really a stretch to say the push for “marriage equality” was only driven by a very small group of people, since most homosexuals don’t want to get married anyway and never made it an issue until the last twenty years?

      First of all, you seem to have an odd conception of what “conspiracy theory” means because what you talk about here clearly IS one – referring to a “small group of people” that uses others as “pawns” to achieve a nefarious goal IS a “conspiracy theory”.
      Regarding the “since most homosexuals don’t want to get married anyway”, this is first of all not in evidence, see above, and second, this is also completely irrelevant – many of the people that fought the hardest for SSM are not even gay themselves, whether you want to do x or not has precious little to do with whether you think that people should have the right to do x. And regarding the “never made it an issue until the last twenty years” – you´ve just got to be kidding, being an “out” homosexual in the first place was not even an option for the *overwhelming* majority of homosexuals.

      But Andy can immediately tell that I am not a liberal…

      Nope, Andy can not tell that and Andy will not even try to do that in the first place because Andy thinks that pigeonholing everyone into “liberal” or “conservative” is stupid and the main reason for why political discourse in the USA is a bad joke compared to pretty much every other allegedly civilized country.

      • I don’t intend to derail the argument, Andy, but I’m genuinely curious how you came upon this blog.

        To Malcolm’s point, the premises are either uncontested or understood by the majority of readers – how do you find yourself here?

      • First of all, you seem to have an odd conception of what “conspiracy theory” means because what you talk about here clearly IS one – referring to a “small group of people” that uses others as “pawns” to achieve a nefarious goal IS a “conspiracy theory”.

        The group of people who started and lead this push for “marriage equality” wasn’t very large, and they clearly have a goal they want to accomplish.

        My only point is that the gay marriage fight, which gays and others have somehow been tricked into thinking is a civil rights issue when it never was in the past for the entirety of human history, is only a part of the path down to destroying the family that began with no-fault divorce.

        That there are people who are fighting for this is pretty clear and has been since then. This “marriage equality” thing is a step down that path.

        Also, I don´t know where you got your numbers but your estimate of the number of homosexuals seems way to high (you probably used an assessment of the number of LGBT or LGB people)

        Gallup says that 3.8% of the country is homosexual, meaning attracted to the same sex. Unless my math is wildly off (always possible), I think my estimate of the homosexual population is correct.

        I admitted that there aren’t actually post-court ruling numbers out yet. The numbers are a friendly estimate from the New York Times of how many same-sex marriages *could* result.

      • Andy says:

        The group of people who started and lead this push for “marriage equality” wasn’t very large, and they clearly have a goal they want to accomplish.

        Alright, then please identify this group – lets have a few names.

        My only point is that the gay marriage fight, which gays and others have somehow been tricked into thinking is a civil rights issue when it never was in the past for the entirety of human history,

        So, by that reasoning, there is not actually any legitimate “civil rights issue” because not a single one of them was one for the entirety of human history. Women´s suffrage? Not a civil rights issue, women have just been tricked into thinking it was a civil rights issue when it never was in the past for the entirety of human history. This is just silly.

        is only a part of the path down to destroying the family that began with no-fault divorce.

        I´ll just grant you for the sake of the argument that no-fault divorce is part of the path of “destroying the family”. So, no-fault divorce does allow me to leave my wife on a whim, I have no intentions of doing that, but I see how it opens up a possibility that is not there without no-fault divorce. Now, I still don´t see how same-sex marriage is in that category – I doubt that even a single person on this planet has been thinking or will ever think “gee, I love my family, but now that gays can get married, I´m out of here” or “I really wanted to marry my boyfriend/girlfriend, but screw that – gays can now can get married, so it isn´t worth it anymore”, so on what grounds do you group it together with no-fault divorce here?

        That there are people who are fighting for this is pretty clear and has been since then. This “marriage equality” thing is a step down that path.

        So…. “Those people” who are now allegedly tricking gays into supporting same-sex marriage are the same people who fought for no-fault divorce, and they do this because they want to “destroy the family”. Seriously, I´d love to know who those people are and what you think motivates them – can you provide a few names, explain how those people are “tricking” others into supporting them and, most importantly, say just why the hell those people are doing this in the first place?

        Gallup says that 3.8% of the country is homosexual, meaning attracted to the same sex.

        No. Gallup does not say that. Quote:
        “In this ongoing study, respondents are asked “Do you, personally, identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender?” with 3.8% being the most recent result, obtained from more than 58,000 interviews conducted in the first four months of this year.”
        – It is exactly as I said, you have been taking the fraction of LGBT people, not the fraction of homosexuals, if you substract bisexual and transgender people from that, you are left with less than half of this estimate.

  9. I already asked some things about that, but you did not want to answer those questions – so I´ll just ask you to explain these two premises to me since I apparently completely misunderstand what you tried to say with them.

    My objection was that you started taking issue with my argument when you already did not accept my premises.

    But fair enough. Here are my brief defenses:

    1) By making gay marriage legal, what that says is that the traditional mother-father family should no longer be regarded any special status; it is no different than a male-male, or female-female, pairing. And children adopted by such families are supposed to be getting everything out of those families that traditional families get, further de-emphasizing the importance of the traditional family.

    You can agree or disagree whether or not it’s a good thing, but it is undeniably the case.

    2) Most homosexuals do not want to get married, and those who are married make up a very small percentage of the population…and yet, somehow, within the last twenty years gay marriage became something close to the equivalent of the civil rights era of the 60’s. This despite the very small effect this will have on the gay population. Do you really think that this change was driven by a sudden upswing of support, coming out of nowhere, among all homosexuals at once?

    • Andy says:

      1) By making gay marriage legal, what that says is that the traditional mother-father family should no longer be regarded any special status; it is no different than a male-male, or female-female, pairing. And children adopted by such families are supposed to be getting everything out of those families that traditional families get, further de-emphasizing the importance of the traditional family.

      You can agree or disagree whether or not it’s a good thing, but it is undeniably the case.

      It isn´t undeniably the case. It is one for you because you are seeing this as a zero-sum game – as if there is a limited amount of “value” available that we can afford to families, and thus, when we afford more value to same-sex families, we must afford less value to traditional families. This is no zero-sum game however, a recognition of same-sex families does not mean that anyone will value traditional families any less than they did before. I have a traditional family, and marriage equality changes exactly nothing about how valuable I see my family in particular or traditional families in general. Does it change anything for you? Do you now consider traditional families to be less valuable because gays can get married? Do you know anyone who does genuinely believe that? If you do not, then again, why do you think that marriage equality has *anything* to do with “destroying the family”?
      Regarding adoption here, well, I don´t actually have to assume that children “are supposed to be getting everything out of those families that traditional families get”, and I would support adoption rights for gay couples even if there would be rock solid evidence that those children are not doing as well on average as children raised in traditional families – because the question here wrt adoption isn´t “traditional family” or “non-traditional family” but rather “some family” or “no family”.

      2) Most homosexuals do not want to get married, and those who are married make up a very small percentage of the population…and yet, somehow, within the last twenty years gay marriage became something close to the equivalent of the civil rights era of the 60’s. This despite the very small effect this will have on the gay population. Do you really think that this change was driven by a sudden upswing of support, coming out of nowhere, among all homosexuals at once?

      I think I addressed that in my other comments here.

  10. GRA says:

    This is how I see Andy confronting Malcolm:
    http://tinyurl.com/phvjfwm

    All of Andy’s posts can be summarized like this: Same-sex relationships, “marriages,” and families are equally as legit and amazing and super duper awesome as opposite-sex relationships, marriages and families. Anything that covers this with skepticism is just looking for ways to ruin a very good thing.

    • Andy says:

      All of Andy’s posts can be summarized like this: Same-sex relationships, “marriages,” and families are equally as legit and amazing and super duper awesome as opposite-sex relationships, marriages and families.[1] Anything that covers this with skepticism is just looking for ways to ruin a very good thing.[2]

      1. I actually didn´t say that, or anything along that line, in any of my comments here.
      2. Malcolm wasn´t “skeptical” of #1, the OP is about something completely different.

      Your reading comprehension is abysmal, you should work on that.

      • GRA says:

        (1) Actually, it’s fair to say your posts heavily imply that.
        (2) I never said Malcolm was skeptical of #1.

        It’s a great irony that you accuse me of abysmal reading comprehension. And you should work on your premises – they’re filled with emotional claptrap and aren’t “deep” as you think.

      • Andy says:

        1. Because you say so? Well then its fair to say that your insinuations are vacuous at best and completely moronic at worst, because I say so.
        2. Then why the fuck bring it up at all? Are you just writing random sentences with no connection to either the OP or my comments? That would certainly explain a lot.

        It’s a great irony that you accuse me of abysmal reading comprehension.

        Calling a spade a spade is not “ironic”.

        And you should work on your premises – they’re filled with emotional claptrap and aren’t “deep” as you think.

        And which “premises” and which “emotional claptrap” would that be exactly?

  11. infowarrior1 says:

    Well if homosexual activists going after Christians for not supporting gay marriage they certainly are the enemy as well as their masters. Just as Nazi’s dont get scott free from murder just because they were “following orders”

    If they willingly take part in the witchhunt then they certainly are guilty themselves even if they were pawns.

  12. FYI, since I was asked to go all the way back into the history of the whole thing, this is turning into a separate post. I haven’t abandoned anything.

  13. GRA says:

    So Malcolm, it’s a small world on the interwebs. I was reading on John C. Wright and I stumbled on a post which you partook in. http://www.deathisbadblog.com/manufactured-outrage-vs-worthy-opposition/#comment-86623

    Interesting words that poster “Khitchary” has to offer. Yikes.

    • Thank you for linking. I had stopped following that thread long ago. I gave my own response, though yours was quite good.

      • GRA says:

        I wan to add that the poster’s response(s) – and what he/she was accepting in terms of “attack” – is eerily parallel to “Shrieking Girl” of the Yale Halloween Costume Chaos (as I refer to it).

  14. GRA says:

    @ Andy

    >>1. Because you say so? Well then its fair to say that your insinuations are vacuous at best and completely moronic at worst, because I say so.

    How about this: Stop acting indignant. It’s clear you have a chip on your shoulder. Acting indignant and like a child doesn’t make your argument right. In fact, it shows how insecure and fragile you are and brings into question the strength of your posts.

    Regarding my (1) – it’s not because I say so it’s because your posts naturally imply what I wrote. It’s neither a bizarre reading of your posts nor is it a skewed reading of it. It’s a spin. It’s not a lie. You yourself stated that you’d support same-sex adoption even if studies – evidence that’s “rock solid” in your words – show that children from same-sex households are shown to less stable than those raised in opposite sex households.

    And no, my insinuations are not vacuous at best and completely moronic. That’s impossible because they’re dead-on accurate.

    >>2, Then why the fuck bring it up at all? Are you just writing random sentences with no connection to either the OP or my comments? That would certainly explain a lot.

    See my “Regarding my (1).” My posts seem random to you because you’re so caught up in “fighting bigotry and fighting for ‘rights'” that you can’t stop and reflect on what’s being said.

    >>It’s a great irony that you accuse me of abysmal reading comprehension. “Calling a spade a spade is not “ironic”.’

    Calling a spade when he isn’t a spade is coming to false conclusion which is due to jumping to conclusion which you’ve done before. See: This is entire discussion.

    >>And you should work on your premises – they’re filled with emotional claptrap and aren’t “deep” as you think. “And which “premises” and which “emotional claptrap” would that be exactly?’

    I’ll start with your post which was the response to my original. Then, I dunno, your very first post to the OP.

    • Andy says:

      GRA,

      How about this: Stop acting indignant. It’s clear you have a chip on your shoulder. Acting indignant and like a child doesn’t make your argument right. In fact, it shows how insecure and fragile you are and brings into question the strength of your posts.

      Tone trolling for the win, eh? But I´m sure the rest of your comment will finally offer some substance, lets see:

      Regarding my (1) – it’s not because I say so it’s because your posts
      naturally imply what I wrote.

      Aha. So its true because you say so, and if I challenge you to actually support your claims instead of merely asserting them, then you just repeat them. You seem to believe that falsehoods turn into truth if you just repeat them often enough.

      It’s neither a bizarre reading of your posts nor is it a skewed reading of it. It’s a spin. It’s not a lie. You yourself stated that you’d support same-sex adoption even if studies – evidence that’s “rock solid” in your words – show that children from same-sex households are shown to less stable than those raised in opposite sex households.

      Your “spin” was this:
      “Same-sex relationships, “marriages,” and families are equally as legit and amazing and super duper awesome as opposite-sex relationships, marriages and families.”
      And since logic doesn´t seem to be your strong suit, I´ll walk you through a specific example so that maybe you´ll learn how this is a complete non sequitur. We´ll just change “same-sex relationships” to “married couple associated with the Quiverfull movement”:
      If there would be “rock-solid evidence” that children raised in Quiverfull families “are not doing as well on average as children raised in traditional families”, then I would still not see that as reason enough to categorically deny them adoption rights. And that doesn´t mean that I think that the Quiverfull movement is “legit and amazing and super duper awesome”, I actually think it is a terrible cult that teaches terrible ways to raise kids. But since the “terrible” doesn´t reach criminal levels, it is not sufficient to take their rights away.

      See my “Regarding my (1).

      Aha, GRA is right because GRA says he´s right again, eh?

      Calling a spade when he isn’t a spade is coming to false conclusion which is due to jumping to conclusion which you’ve done before. See: This is entire discussion.

      Yup, must be true because “truth” is equal to GRA´s fiat.

      I’ll start with your post which was the response to my original. Then, I dunno, your very first post to the OP.

      :-D. Ok, let me try that – your posts are moronic. My evidence for that is all of your posts. Checkmate!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s