Psudo Psudo:
I'm not asking you to care about my opinion on homosexuality. I'm asking you to care about the accuracy of your characterization of me, which remains less than 100% correct. Your interpretation of my question would be the most obvious, proximate example of mistakes you've made.
That is your opinion of my opinion of you. Like I said before I believed your opinion and/or belief about homosexuality was driving your position on gay adoption (rather then any actual belief that children were worse for it) and I see no reason to alter that opinion when you post about homosexuals being immoral. It was exactly what I said. Thinking they are immoral is the reason you can support discriminatory laws, rules, and regulations against them including making it very hard if not impossible for them to adopt.
Psudo Psudo:
I have often repeated that I do make a distinction between what reasoning I live by and what reasoning I argue others should live by.
Arrogant in itself. Who are you to dictate how others should live?
Psudo Psudo:
The latter has a much higher standard of evidence and a public political process behind it, and rightly so. When I wanted to make that distinction you ignored it; now that you think it can be used against me, you bring it up. How is that honest?
Are you honestly defending using homosexuality as a negative judgement against people in the same paragraph you say I'm unfairly using your own bigotry against you?
Psudo Psudo:
It's a metaphor. Hitler can argue that whites are superior, Louis Farrakhan can argue that blacks are superior, but that doesn't change the fact that people deserve equal treatment under the law regardless of skin color.
But not sexual orientation right because that is what you propose when you say the laws and rules should reflect the fact (your opinion) that homosexuality is immoral and that societies laws should use that when determining how or if gays should marry, adopt, run for office ...
You are the person arguing that just as 2+2 = 4 so does homosexuality = immorality. That kind of thinking has led to countless atrocities throughout history because when you think a segment of the population is immoral you start to be able to justify all kinds of awful things towards them and then its only a matter of time.
Psudo Psudo:
The fact you think with morals answers to a question can conflict and both still be right says quite a bit, too.
That is only because you can't understand the logic of the argument and can't really see past you homosexuality is immoral bigotry.
Psudo Psudo:
Impossible. You can only have one "last time" of anything.
Sure you can. Just ask anybody who has ever quit smoking. They say the last cigarette is the best and they seem to have lots of them.
The fact that you seem to take offence to the fact that I'm not admitting I'm wrong to you should make you realize the idiocy of your argument. Does the fact that I'm not wrong in my belief that gays should be treated equally explain it too you?
Psudo Psudo:
That sentence makes no sense. Either "bigoted" is a trait I hold, or it is a trait in the eye of the beholder. Only in the latter can I be more bigoted if viewed by some specific group of others (homosexuals, in your example). Only in the former can I be "truly" bigoted. I cannot be "truly" something especially in the eyes of some specific beholder. You're confusing reality and perception.
Yet you speak of the immorality of homosexuality as a statement of fact and one that should be used in determining laws concerning homosexuals. In addition to not understanding basic english structure you don't seem to grasp hypocrisy very well.
Psudo Psudo:
I don't think I've been hurtful or offensive to homosexuals, but if I have I apologize. I mean no harm by my views or their expression. Convince me I'm wrong and the views will go away.
Really? You don't think by holding the opinion and openly posting about homosexuality being immoral isn't hurtful or offensive to them? You don't think its offensive to gays that you consider letting them marry to be a threat to heterosexual marriage and society in general isn't hurtful or offensive? You don't think posting about how homosexuality is a negative and damaging influence on children whereby children adopted by gays fare worse then non-gay risen children and for evidence you quote a cite that is to gays what stromfront literature is to blacks? You don't think they would find that offensive or hurtful. You don't see that your opinion of homosexuals and how you think they should be treated by the law in society which would in essence make them an underclass of citizens with less rights and less protections might just be taken offensively? You don't see it?
Really?
Psudo Psudo:
The right to speak is not the right to get one's way. That goes equally for me and you and everyone else. Equality under the law.
Neither point of which you are making in your arguments. In fact your arguments are consistently the opposite. I'm the person demanding equality under the law. You want the law to take into affect what you perceive is the immorality of homosexuality and the damage you perceive it does to society and govern appropriately.
Psudo Psudo:
DerbyX DerbyX:
If the point you are trying to make is that we make some laws about sexual conduct so why can't we make others?
Yes, exactly that! There has to be some rule (or set of rules) that defines what should and what should not be illegal, some pattern that makes the laws make some kind of
sense.
Which provides clear cut evidence of what I have been saying about you is true. Nor only do you hold the bigoted opinion (and I will call it as I see it) that homosexuality is immoral
but you want the laws of society to reflect your personal belief. You still can't see why your belief to this effect is both offensive and hurtful to society?
Psudo Psudo:
If some jurisdictions prevent cousins from marrying, why can't some jurisdictions prevent homosexuals from marrying? Is there some reason why you don't much care about the one and find the very idea of the other repulsive and offensive? Your feeling itself is not a reason, at least not for me; I don't feel your same feelings about the same things.
First off the cousins thing isn't one I agree with. I don't care if cousins marry. In fact if you really want to get into it, incest as icky as it is has no business being illegal as long as they are consenting adults. These laws are a reflection of very old taboos and ones put in place by many cultures throughout history on account of the reality of inbreeding. Second, I honestly can't believe you think its perfectly OK and justified for society to prevent gay marriage and yet can't understand why a homosexual would find it offensive.
Suppose I said I have nothing against blacks or asians but think they shouldn't be allowed to marry white people? Sound offensive? I hope so.
The fact that the law has no business telling 2 consenting adults they can't get married escapes you doesn't it? Why can't the law outlaw all inter-racial marriages? Hell, how about interfaith marriages? Gotten keep the blood lines pure both in body and spirit right?
Psudo Psudo:
I have more rules than that. Actually, I find societal approval to be a pretty lousy judge of morality. Maybe a C- (about 70% accuracy).
Yet you think the law should reflect your personal belief because not doing so goes against society as you see it and subsequently going against societies approval.
Psudo Psudo:
Not true. Cousins marrying doesn't override anyone's consent.
So what? I've already explained that its legal up here and in about half the US states.
Psudo Psudo:
Nor does consensual underage sex (like, say, between two 13-year-olds).
Again, so what? I oppose any laws targetting "underage" people from having sex with each other.
Psudo Psudo:
Segregated bathrooms can be a problem for intersex and transexual people, but their needs are overruled by law.
No they aren't. In fact the law is rapidly changing to allow transgendered people to use the bathroom of the sex they identify with and have laws to protect them in society and in the workplace.
Psudo Psudo:
We make laws to protect the environment (which is not a person), upholding the rights of corporations (which are not people), regulating trade, commerce, immigration, customs, manufacturing, food, medicine, prisons, traffic laws, taxes, etc, etc, ignoring and thwarting people's consent all along the way. Out of all these laws it is only in issues of sex do you trot out your 'only protect consent' standard for what is and is not a just law. Why is that?
Why is it you can't see how awful your argument is that homosexuality is such a thing to be feared that we need laws to protect society from it?
CKA Elite 
CKA Uber 
