The Black Vault

at1with0 wrote:greeney2 wrote:
I never herd a single prop 8 advocate, denounce gays, or make demeaning references, never an anti-gay commercial, it was simply a measure to define marriage requirements. I would like to see any proof such a campaign was ever done.


To define marriage requirements via discriminating against gays for their sexual preference.

So you can not show proof of the above question!

You have no clue, do you?

No clue to what? That everyone should agree with this issue, when it is so divided in this country, for all the reasons we spent many pages on in the battle forum?

En-Lugal wrote:It's strange how issues with racism, gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgendered persons rights and women's reproductive rights always seem to pop up in an election year. I'm sure it's just a huge coincidence. No, surely politician's wouldn't play the populace like a harp from hell. There doesn't need to be a conspiracy for anyone to observe these patterns.

If you want a conspiracy, try the gun rights battle being waged by Liberals and law-maker's blatant disregard for information connecting these mass shooters to anti-depressants. I'm sure the lobby from big pharma has nothing to do with that, no it's guns that caused all of this. How about Leon Panetta summarily dismissing Congress and stating that he and our military take orders from the U.N? How about the Patriot Act, NDAA, HR347 and numerous executive orders that circumvent the Constitution?

No, let's argue over the same talking points every single election cycle. Namely, gay marriage, abortion, racism, gun control and the seperation of church and state. It's a scam, man. It's why no one ever seems to ask a candidate a question that really matters. This past election was the worst in my life time.

Wow!!! En Lugal...yes..indeed...


You got it...bingo..in the X ring.

Not just about the phonyness of racism..but the connection to phony of many things around us in the nature of the SCAM taking place..the counterfeit.


Very well said...




OH..by the way at1with0...I did not say racism does not exist ..I said it was a phony . A phony in the way it is used and misused to put people on the control puppet strings.

This is an illustration of how deeply many of you are on the string.


Quite correct DIss0n80r. Many have profitted from racism...quite correct. And they are still profitting from it..in the cottage industries..and from a phony template.

The new breed of racists are now in government...using and misusing racism and other crisis management issues to consolidate their power and control over an unthinking and unawares public...raised on a diet of Jerry SPringer and whatever emotional nonsense is being promoted next.

All they have done on racism is swap one group of masters for another and are dumbing us down to make us all indentured servants.
The other issues as well.

En Lugal has hit the pattern on the head of the nail. Wow...people who can think for themselves and outside the box. Quite rare today.

Orangetom

at1with0 wrote:For En_Lugal

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/12/14/us ... stitution/


An American Christian radio host who last week said that same-sex marriage encourages children to have gay sex has now said that as she believes humans aren’t naturaly homosexual, gays aren’t ‘people’ and shouldn’t be protected under the definition of a person.

By that rationale, all gays should be rounded up and executed, given that they are not people.

That's one citizen exercising his 1st Amendment right, albeit in a misguided fashion. That's not the same as government doing it, which you seem to be suggesting. Please, do not compare gays to WWII era Jews who were rounded up and sent to death camps. That's DIss0n80r's angle.

DIss0n80r wrote:I'm a bigot for wanting the same rights as everyone else.

No, you're a bigot for your "whitey" remarks. Stop with the victim shenanigans and let's have a real discussion, about gays, about the current law of the land and how they may change in the foreseeable future.

At present the law of the land forbids gay marriage, with the exception of some states. If I recall correctly, lawmakers were trying to make other states recognize same sex marriages performed in other states. I don't recall if it was passed, it may have been. I believe the decision should reside in the hands of states. However, the Fed are constantly overriding states. Liberals don't like it and always seek to override it because of the red-state vs blue-state conundrum. In essence, Liberals want to force their mandates on the entire nation. That's not how our nation was designed.

For what it's worth, I am with you on this issue. You seem to keep misdiagnosing and lumping me in with the anti-gay crowd because it suits you. I have friends and family who are gay and I embrace them, often literally, when I see them. Also of note, I am not a Christian, I am a Pagan and we recognize unions of all kinds in hand-fasting and other ceremonies. Another thing, orangetom was explaining to you that he is of mixed ethnicity and not an "old fat whitey". Another misdiagnosis on your part.

En-Lugal wrote:That's one citizen exercising his 1st Amendment right, albeit in a misguided fashion.

There are many such citizens who persecute gays. And, yes, some people would like to see gays all disappear.

For what it's worth, I am with you on this issue.

Then what is the problem? Just like to argue or what?

It's one thing for me and you to argue over issues, Greene. It would be something else entirely for you to say I'm not a person.

Do you think I'm not a person? That I shouldn't have constitutional rights?

En-Lugal wrote:Please, do not compare gays to WWII era Jews who were rounded up and sent to death camps. That's DIss0n80r's angle.

It's a fair comparison to make seeing as that argument has been made. It suits you to dismiss it. I think it's very telling and not to be ignored. I seem to also recall that the catholic pope or some other big hat also said as much.

No, it's not to be ignored at all.

En-Lugal wrote:No, you're a bigot for your "whitey" remarks.

Another thing, orangetom was explaining to you that he is of mixed ethnicity and not an "old fat whitey". Another misdiagnosis on your part.

I'm white. I didn't say OT was an "old fat whitey". I was referring to Archie Bunker, not OT. Please do not quote me out of context.

DIss0n80r wrote:It would be something else entirely for you to say I'm not a person.

Do you think I'm not a person? That I shouldn't have constitutional rights?

First, I never made any statements whatsoever to tell anyone they are not a person.

Secondly, you have the same Federal Constitutional rights as anyone else. That Constitution granted rights to individual states to govern themselves in all matters not addressed in the Federal Constitution. The requirements of marriage being within the laws your state controls. What state do you live in?

at1with0 wrote:There are many such citizens who persecute gays. And, yes, some people would like to see gays all disappear.

"We're here. We're queer. We will not disappear." I believe that is the credo.

at1with0 wrote:Then what is the problem? Just like to argue or what?

I thought that was your angle. I do so enjoy it though, it's fun.

DIss0n80r wrote:It's a fair comparison to make seeing as that argument has been made. It suits you to dismiss it. I think it's very telling and not to be ignored. I seem to also recall that the catholic pope or some other big hat also said as much.

No, it's not to be ignored at all.

If you would be so kind, please point out the location of these Nazi-style death camps for gays so we may protest in front of them and raise public awareness.

DIss0n80r wrote:I'm white. I didn't say OT was an "old fat whitey". I was referring to Archie Bunker, not OT. Please do not quote me out of context.

I know exactly what you were referring to, I was alive and watched that show. I'm also aware that you were aiming the remark at OT because of your perceived notion that he must in fact be a white supremacist because he identifies as Christian and takes a stance you don't agree with. I don't think I need to go back and quote it all, feel free to go back and read it yourself. This goes back that chip I referenced that is apparently on your shoulder.

greeney2 wrote:First, I never made any statements whatsoever to tell anyone they are not a person.

Secondly, you have the same Federal Constitutional rights as anyone else. That Constitution granted rights to individual states to govern themselves in all matters not addressed in the Federal Constitution. The requirements of marriage being within the laws your state controls. What state do you live in?

We have a winner!