[Mr 5 0]

Originally posted by srv1 :

Yes the almight Jim has spoken. Listen to he, shall he show no mercy on ones soul. The only thing I learned from you is not to be like you.

That's a pity, James. Your illogical and obstinate attitude does you no favors here but you'll probably figure that out, in time. One hopes, anyway.

I assume you were hinting I was also liberal? Yes I am. Refreshing your memory on the definition since you keep throwing that word out like it is a bad omen. Yeah, yeah you know the defintion but don't quite seem to grasp it. Being liberal is not a bad thing. I know you never said that as well.

No James, you're quite mistaken. I hinted that your alleged open-mindedness was somewhat of a fraud. You have definite opinions on politics and religion but pretend that supporting concepts such as 'gay marriage' renders you 'liberal' and 'open-minded'. It doesn't. It simply means that you have an opinion that is the same as many others. Nothing special or 'open-minded' about it. Your liberalism is nothing special and certainly not 'open-minded'.

It wouldn't? I have a hard time believing that being your a father. It bothers me and I have no children.

I said that it wouldn't affectme, not that it wouldn't bother me. Big difference. You really need to learn to differentiate words and meanings better. It was simply a hypothetical example used to make a point.

Some day maybe you will learn to read between the lines. You seemed the most feared by it going by what you wrote and how you responded about it. You say you debate, but all I see is an argue. I am not going to deny it, neither should you. This does bring this discussion to a personal level. Freedom is for everybody. If we(Americans) are going to emphasize it we should be equal about it, but you don't want to hear any of that PC non-sense do you? All I am saying Jim is we(Americans) shouldn't be hypocrites of what we wrote years ago, either we stand by it or this nation will fall apart which is what it is doing today. I actually agree with some aspects of what you say on this subject of gay marriage. I think it is "wrong" for the most part and disgusting but if we can't stand behind what is written and what we live by, then why have laws at all?

You appear to confuse what the word 'discrimination' really means, James, in terms of legality as well as constitutionality. I've posted at great length on the subject on this very thread and I have no intention of re-typing that all over again as you apparently ignore what you don't agree with, anyway. Your contention that by supporting and advocating 'gay marriage' you are somehow upholding some constitutional 'right' for gays is simply a manifestation of the mistaken idea that marriage is a 'right' and that to not redefine what marriage means is somehow 'discrimination' against homosexuals. It is not. That's where you and I clearly differ.

I would assume that health insurance would increase as well, being that gays have the highest rate of AIDS. I also think they should pay more. I know what your thinking, he just wrote how we should be "equal" above yet he wants gays to pay more for health insurance. Well let me give you an analogy. You share an apartment with your friend. You use 70% of the electricity and he uses 30%. Now why should he have to pay more if you are using more? He shouldn't, he should pay his 30%. Insurance for gays is the same way. If they carry 80%(example only) of the AIDS virus, why should the rest of us non-gays have to pay more? So it would be correct to say they pay more;equal.

I agree. Unfortunately, homosexuals would probably challege that assumption in court as 'discrimination'. You see, when you use 'discrimination' as a club to get what you want, as 'gays' are doing with same-sex marriage, you'll keep using it and once 'gay marriage' is legalized, as I expect that it will be, on the basis that to not do so is 'discrimination', it open up a Pandoras Box of problems down the road that no one thinks about or at least wants to talk about, today.

He didn't call you stupid.

I didn't say that he did. I was addressing the fact that bigred90gt termed the contention that links homosexuals and AIDS as 'The BS card' and called it: "the stupidest thing he had ever heard". I disagreed with his opinion.

Its not gay propaganda either.

I disagree. The contention that AIDS is 'everyone's problem' is false and promoted by homosexuals to deflect the fact that they constitute 50% of the AIDS population.

Maybe he was misinformed. Is that possible? It's not a "gay disease". It didn't originate from gays. Gays did spread it cause of a study by the government, hepatitis B vaccine experiments, where in New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. They still aren't sure if it was biowarfare or chimps from Africa in which it originated from.

Sorry James, I don't buy it but the actual origin of AIDS is basically irrelevant at this late date. It's a 'gay disease' because - again - homosexuals constitute 50% of the AIDS 'population' in the United States but less than 3% of the total U.S. population. In Africa, hetrosexuals are the primary carriers of AIDS but we were discusssing the United States, not Africa and yes, I think 'bigred90gt' was quite misinformed, to put it politely.

Knee-jerk this!

James

I'd rather not, James. Thanks anyway.