PING: William Graham!

In article TrUjd.73628$R05.48665@attbi_s53,
"William Graham" wrote:

"Rob Mitchell" wrote in message
...
In article j9kjd.579809$8_6.540434@attbi_s04,
"William Graham" wrote:

"Mark M" wrote in message
news:rljjd.230841$a85.31220@fed1read04...

"William Graham" wrote in message
news:jUijd.579634$8_6.218728@attbi_s04...

"Rob Mitchell" wrote in message
news:sorbus_rowan-

And we all know damned well that Republicans have spoken out against
homosexuality tremendously more often than Democrats.

To "speak out against homosexuality" is the same thing as to "speak
out
against the black race", because homosexuals are born that way, and
cannot
do anything about it any more than black people can change their
color.
You
will see that I am right eventually, because eventually the US Supreme
court
will throw out the laws made by these 11 states in this election which
banned marriage from the gay community. The IRS has a separate tax
table
for
married couples, and that puts marriage directly into the public
domain,
so
to make laws restricting gays from getting married is
unconstitutional.

This is why I would be in favor of creating legal rights for gay
couples
which are similar to those who are married. There really are two
different
issues involved.
One is cultural, and the other is legal.
A marriage certificate is a legal document in the sense that it carries
certain provisions in law which apply to those who are listed on it.
I don't see why a legal document couldn't be created for gay people who
wish
to enter into the same legally binding agreement.
I also think it is needless, though, to associate the two together at
all.
You should need to be "married" to enter into a legal agreement which
could
equally effect taxation, death and illness issues.

This is true. The government screwed up the first time they made any law
that had the word, "marriage" in it. This was probably several hundred
years
ago, but whenever it was, it was a mistake, because it crossed over the
line
between state and religion.

That presupposes that "marriage" was ever an exclusive domain of
religion in the first place. The problem is that it never has been.
People have been "married" in a fashion completely independent of any
religion for thousands of years. The etymology of the word itself is
not even specifically "religious"; my understanding is that it
originates from the Latin word "maritus," which means "husband." But
Latin is a language developed by the Romans, & was developed before
Christianity even began to exist. Now the Romans certainly had
"religions" which predate Christianity, but I don't know that they
considered "marriage" to always specifically require a "religious"
connection, & the government of the Roman Empire seems to have largely
been a "secular" government.

Thus I dispute that to use the word "marriage" in a law crosses over a
line between state & religion. That would only be the case if marriage
had been exclusively a ceremony of religion to begin with. But it never
was.

Well, obviously the religious people in 11 states disagree with you....

No, the *voters* ("religious" or otherwise) simply voted against gay
marriage. That in itself is not a statement that "marriage" is the
exclusive province of religion. Oh yes, I wouldn't be at all surprised
that the majority of those who voted against it would describe
themselves as "religious," & would even give "religious" justifications
for their vote. But it still isn't quite the same thing as the voters
in the 11 states "disagreeing" with my exact statements.

It's much more likely that most of them are simply ignorant of the
actual history of "marriage," & I rather doubt very many of them at all
could name the Latin etymology of the word as I did. How many of them,
for example, would you say would specifically "disagree" with my summary
of that etymology? More to the point, to speak of their "religious"
justifications, wouldn't you agree that the majority of them have
probably read the Bible only in a small number of English translations,
but know absolutely nothing about what the Bible truly says in the
original languages in which it was written?

I can easily give the vast majority of American "Christians" a run for
their money on the exact meanings of the original Hebrew word "to'evah"
& the original Greek words "arsenokoitai" & "malakoi," & additionally on
the exact circumstances Paul described in his rant against lesbians, &
on what the original Protestant Bible says about all these things, all
of which are supremely relevant to this supposed "biblical" prohibition
against homosexuality. Most of these unwashed masses don't even know
which parts of the Bible were written in Hebrew & which parts in Greek,
let alone the first thing about what was actually said in the original
texts. They'll simply say that Leviticus 18:22 says so "in plain black
& white" or some such nonsense, when in actual truth they're usually
referring to a single English translation made well over a millennium
after the original texts were written, but they almost always become
glassy-eyed, or sputter in unsupported denials, once they're challenged
to expound on what the original Hebrew word "to'evah" meant in that same
verse, & as for asking them to compare & contrast that with the word
"zimah," ugh. I've even met actual church officials who are unable to
tell me what these words mean. It is embarrassing to me as a committed
Christian that I, who have *never* worked for any church on a regular
basis, can tell these people what all these Greek & Hebrew words mean,
but they cannot tell me. They can't even come close. Yet they are
purported to have "studied" these languages in seminary.

I submit that "disagreement" based on sheer ignorance is not really
disagreement. It is instead an assumption of disagreement based
primarily upon a lack of understanding of what persons such as me are
actually saying.

They
consider marriage to be theirs to the point that they are willing to forbid
it to those of their choice, and (thereby) deny a constitutional right to
these people. (the right to be treated equally by their government
tax-wise.)

Indeed, & their vote is primarily based on a failure to accurately
assess the meaning of separation of church & state, a failure in which
secular morality is blurred with religious morality. It is also based
on a supine ignorance of what the original writers of the Bible actually
wrote "in plain black & white," & moreover an abysmal ignorance of the
social/historical circumstances under which the words were originally
written. That's yet another thing these "Christians" are usually unable
to tell me: when I ask them, for example, to discuss what a
"qadesh/qadesha" was in historical context, or in the Greek Septuagint
translation "telsforos/teleskomenos" (they don't even know what the
Septuagint *is*, I avert my eyes to all the saints) they come up with,
shall we say, "evasive" answers, i.e., they don't have a freaking clue.
The best they can do, usually, is to refer to the wildly-inaccurate King
James translation of the first of each pair of words as "sodomite,"
which doesn't in actuality come within light-years of the original
meaning. Far be it from them to be actually able to discuss any of this
in the context of pagan fertility rituals, which is the exact context in
which these words have by now been proven beyond all reasonable doubt to
have originally referred at the time, & don't get me started on Paul's
rant on lesbians quite obviously referring to those same rituals.
--
"God defines the law now? Does black rod bang on the almighty one's
front-porch anually only to get a harp slammed in his face for his
trouble?" - Subtext Whore on 10-28-04.

"Rob Mitchell" wrote in message
...
In article u_Rjd.382291$D%.93246@attbi_s51,
"William Graham" wrote:

"Rob Mitchell" wrote in message
...
In article jUijd.579634$8_6.218728@attbi_s04,
"William Graham" wrote:

"Rob Mitchell" wrote in message
news:sorbus_rowan-

And we all know damned well that Republicans have spoken out against
homosexuality tremendously more often than Democrats.

To "speak out against homosexuality" is the same thing as to "speak
out
against the black race", because homosexuals are born that way, and
cannot
do anything about it any more than black people can change their
color.
You
will see that I am right eventually, because eventually the US Supreme
court
will throw out the laws made by these 11 states in this election which
banned marriage from the gay community. The IRS has a separate tax
table
for
married couples, and that puts marriage directly into the public
domain,
so
to make laws restricting gays from getting married is
unconstitutional.

Very good, William, I think that is one of the most insightful things
that I've yet seen you say.

This is obvious to me, because I have read, and understand the spirit of,
the US Constitution. - What bothers me is the fact that the people in 11
states apparently have not read it, or at least, do not understand its
spirit.......They are perfectly willing to trash the rights of any
particular individual in order to uphold the principals of their
religion.
But watch them scream when their own rights are transgressed.......

Indeed.

And in this particular case, it is mostly the "conservatives" who are
doing so, correct?

Sure, but not all conservatives are religious. I can't help it if my name is
Bill, and there was once a killer named, "Bill". - That doesn't make me a
killer. I am conservative for a different reason, and I am conservative
about different things. As a libertarian, I am a fiscial conservative, and a
social liberal, so I am only about 1/2 conservative. Fortunately, the things
that I am most liberal about are things that are, or should be, states
rights issues, and not federal issues, so I can vote for federal Republicans
with a clear conscious. As to local issues, I frequently vote democratic,
and for liberal propositions. I voted against (for example) the proposition
on our Oregon ballot which outlawed gay marriage. And I voted for Darlene
Hooley, a Democrat, who is one of the few legislators who answers my email
rants.......

"William Graham" wrote in message
news:icZjd.485345$mD.331311@attbi_s02...

"Rob Mitchell" wrote in message
...
In article u_Rjd.382291$D%.93246@attbi_s51,
"William Graham" wrote:

"Rob Mitchell" wrote in message
...
In article jUijd.579634$8_6.218728@attbi_s04,
"William Graham" wrote:

"Rob Mitchell" wrote in message
news:sorbus_rowan-

And we all know damned well that Republicans have spoken out
against
homosexuality tremendously more often than Democrats.

To "speak out against homosexuality" is the same thing as to "speak
out
against the black race", because homosexuals are born that way, and
cannot
do anything about it any more than black people can change their
color.
You
will see that I am right eventually, because eventually the US
Supreme
court
will throw out the laws made by these 11 states in this election
which
banned marriage from the gay community. The IRS has a separate tax
table
for
married couples, and that puts marriage directly into the public
domain,
so
to make laws restricting gays from getting married is
unconstitutional.

Very good, William, I think that is one of the most insightful things
that I've yet seen you say.

This is obvious to me, because I have read, and understand the spirit
of,
the US Constitution. - What bothers me is the fact that the people in
11
states apparently have not read it, or at least, do not understand its
spirit.......They are perfectly willing to trash the rights of any
particular individual in order to uphold the principals of their
religion.
But watch them scream when their own rights are transgressed.......

Indeed.

And in this particular case, it is mostly the "conservatives" who are
doing so, correct?

Sure, but not all conservatives are religious.

That is true, but a huge portion of the population IS convinced largely due
to religious reasons...and if the gay issue is to be resolved, I think it
would be wise for gay groups to set about creating a legal status that
doesn't grate at those who feel marriage should be left alone. This would
be widely supported. Don't forget that the HUGE votes to ban gay marriage
in those 11 states reached right into the Democrat zone. They were widely
voting against it too, but I think they would go for the other alternative
mentioned above.

"William Graham" wrote in message
news:icZjd.485345$mD.331311@attbi_s02...

"Rob Mitchell" wrote in message
...
In article u_Rjd.382291$D%.93246@attbi_s51,
"William Graham" wrote:

"Rob Mitchell" wrote in message
...
In article jUijd.579634$8_6.218728@attbi_s04,
"William Graham" wrote:

"Rob Mitchell" wrote in message
news:sorbus_rowan-

And we all know damned well that Republicans have spoken out
against
homosexuality tremendously more often than Democrats.

To "speak out against homosexuality" is the same thing as to "speak
out
against the black race", because homosexuals are born that way, and
cannot
do anything about it any more than black people can change their
color.
You
will see that I am right eventually, because eventually the US
Supreme
court
will throw out the laws made by these 11 states in this election
which
banned marriage from the gay community. The IRS has a separate tax
table
for
married couples, and that puts marriage directly into the public
domain,
so
to make laws restricting gays from getting married is
unconstitutional.

Very good, William, I think that is one of the most insightful things
that I've yet seen you say.

This is obvious to me, because I have read, and understand the spirit
of,
the US Constitution. - What bothers me is the fact that the people in
11
states apparently have not read it, or at least, do not understand its
spirit.......They are perfectly willing to trash the rights of any
particular individual in order to uphold the principals of their
religion.
But watch them scream when their own rights are transgressed.......

Indeed.

And in this particular case, it is mostly the "conservatives" who are
doing so, correct?

Sure, but not all conservatives are religious.

That is true, but a huge portion of the population IS convinced largely due
to religious reasons...and if the gay issue is to be resolved, I think it
would be wise for gay groups to set about creating a legal status that
doesn't grate at those who feel marriage should be left alone. This would
be widely supported. Don't forget that the HUGE votes to ban gay marriage
in those 11 states reached right into the Democrat zone. They were widely
voting against it too, but I think they would go for the other alternative
mentioned above.

"Mark M" wrote in message
news:IEYjd.245343$a85.101061@fed1read04...

"Rob Mitchell" wrote in message
...
In article kXRjd.382281$D%.193833@attbi_s51,
"William Graham" wrote:

"Rob Mitchell" wrote in message
...
Then your "definition" of capitalism is quite novel. Capitalism
concerns a private free-market economy. Whether or not guns are
banned
has no bearing on that, except that it would be only one commodity
which
would no longer be sold under a free-market economy, among millions
of
commodities which would continue to be sold.

Yes. - I was talking about attitudes, not items.......The difference
between
the Socialist idea that the individual is less important than the
group,
versus the Capitalist idea that the individual is more important than
the
group.

Well, I guess the usage of the terms is a little more appropriate in
that sense.

The ants are quite willing to sacrifice any individual ant for the
good of the whole colony, but in a constitutional republic (which is
what we
actually are) the rights of the individual are protected by the
constitution, and the society can't just walk all over any given
individual.....This is why I couldn't get up a petition that says,
"Shall
we, the people steal all of Rob Mitchell's money away from him and
distribute it amongst ourselves?" and get it signed, and put on the
ballot,
and everyone votes for it (except you) and so we get all your money. -
The
constitution is what protects you (and me) from that.

Exactly.

I have the right to
defend myself, and that right is protected from infringement by the
second
amendment, even if a lot of idiots accidentally blow themselves away
every
year........

Oh, I was with you up to that, but unfortunately you typed that last
sentence, & once again repeated that strawman. It seems that you did
not really read my article very carefully, as the point I keep making &
making & making not only does not seem to be sinking in, but is still
not even acknowledged by you to have been made by me, even to
acknowledge it with disagreement.

Let me try again:

The ***PRIMARY*** reason that ***MOST*** gun control advocates recommend
further restrictions on firearms is ***NOT*** because of the issue of
***ACCIDENTS*** involving firearms. It is ***INSTEAD*** because so many
***CRIMES*** are committed ***USING*** firearms.

Do the emphasized words finally get your attention this time?

Criminals will soon realize that there is little risk of death by entering
and robbing homes, because everyone in those homes has been stripped of
the
only defense criminals fear.


Fortunately, there are over 100 million guns floating about in our society,
and that makes this whole discussion irrelevant. I've got several of these
100 million safely socked away myself. I take care to never buy one under my
own name. I buy them from individuals who advertise them in the paper, or
who sell them at garage sales or flea markets, and I never pay with anything
but cash, so they are completely untraceable. I will always be armed, and so
will all of my children. I pity those in the distant future who will be
defenseless...........

In article 8Bijd.230532$a85.174462@fed1read04,
"Mark M" wrote:

"Rob Mitchell" wrote in message
...
In article %cgjd.228517$a85.142656@fed1read04,
"Mark M" wrote:

"Rob Mitchell" wrote in message
...
In article Fi8jd.214944$a85.185139@fed1read04,
"Mark M" wrote:

"Annika1980" wrote in message
...
From: "William Graham"

I have found that with gun control, the argument reduces itself
to
socialism
vs. capitalism, or individualism. the socialist wants to limit
the
guns
because of the danger to society from accidents with the
things.....If
there
are no guns, then no one can get hurt with them.

Nobody I know is advocatig taking away everyone's guns. I do
think it
would be
a good thing if there were less of them, however. I have no
problem
at
all
with gun registration laws. I mean, crap, you gotta register your
friggin
car!

In no circumstances can I ever see the need for people to own
assault
weapons.
You don't need a machine gun to kill a deer or protect your
bedroom.
Of
course, the ban on assault weapons slipped by quietly during the
campaign
while
people were worrying about more important issues like who Dick
Cheney's
daughter was sleeping with.

Gee, and who brought up that little distraction?
-Not a Republican.

Maybe not.

It would nevertheless, quite obviously, not have come up at all, had
Republicans not far more often than Democrats put themselves against
various homosexual-related issues.

There I'm on solid ground, Mark, & you know it.

Of course they have. That's the way it's supposed to work though!
Political parties are SUPPOSED to reflect the views of their
constituents!!!
Why do people so readily forget this???

I don't forget it for a moment. "Republicans" doesn't just include
Republican candidates for office, and/or those Republican politicians
who already are in office. When I uttered that word, I quite obviously
meant anyone at all in the country who is a Republican, which includes
millions of American citizens who have never held public office.

11 states had gay marriage bans on their ballots.

Which means that there are 39 states which didn't. There was no such
thing on the ballot I used on Tuesday.

Great. And those states are free to let gays do as their laws would
dictate.
Nothing was imposed on your state by the ballots of the 11.

I never said it was. But these were your exact words, in a complete
paragraph which I do not now edit in the slightest:

"Yes. They have indeed. -As have 65-70+% of the American populous on
this issue. Thank you for pointing out that Republican are a much
better reflection of American's views."

This was in direct reply to these exact words posted by me:

"And we all know damned well that Republicans have spoken out against
homosexuality tremendously more often than Democrats."

You did NOT say "65-70% of the voters in 11 states." You said, "65-70+%
of the American populous," period, although I suspect you meant
"populace," as the word you typed is an adjective.

11 states passed those bans with OVERWHELMING percentages.

I don't have any idea whether they were "overwhelming" or not in each &
every case; all I know is that the majority of voters did vote to ban it
in those states.

It was in the high 60's to 70's.

In 11 states, but not in the entire American populace, as you originally
claimed.

But I said "various homosexual-related issues," Mark, I didn't say a
thing about gay marriage specifically.

Oh come of, Rob.
That is THE central, most current issue on the entire gay front.
Don't pretend otherwise.
You lose credibility when you do that.

Since I did ***NOT*** pretend otherwise, apparently my "credibility,"
such as it is, has not diminished in the slightest, except perhaps in
your own mind. Where do you see me specifically claiming that gay
marriage "isn't" the primary issue? I never said such a thing. Never.
I merely said that it wasn't the ***ONLY*** homosexuality-related issue.

I furthermore made it absurdly plain, in multiple articles, that this
wasn't the issue that I myself was primarily discussing. Oh yes, I
*have* discussed the issue of gay marriage, in more than one article,
but in this *particular* exchange I have been discussing the issue of
"choice" much more. I made it astoundingly plain that it was the issue
of certain circles claiming that homosexuality itself is a "choice," &
additionally discussing which of the 2 predominant political parties
says this more often than the other.

Try addressing what I actually wrote, rather than addressing imaginary
statements that I never wrote.

Now let's go back to what I said
in that other article, which you rightfully criticized me for in your
reply to it. I claimed that Bush *himself* had specifically "said" that
homosexuality is a choice. That was, of course, not true, certainly not
as I stated it, & you were right to call me on it. But now let's talk
about Republicans in *general* versus Democrats in *general*. Which
party has made this exact claim tremendously more often than the other?

Please show me where the Republican Party platform states this.

Where on earth did I originally claim that its actual official
*platform* states this? Not even in that one article in which I
foolishly claimed that Bush himself "said" certain things did I ever
make that particular claim. I ask you once again to address what I have
actually written.

You can't, because it does not state this at all.

Of course, since I never, ever, ever claimed that it *does* state this.
What I claimed ***INSTEAD*** (& what I cannot recall you yet
specifically disputing) is that ***REPUBLICANS*** (which includes ALL
Republicans, including all American citizens who profess themselves to
"belong" to that party, which is a far, far, far larger number of people
than have actually held government office as representative of that
party) in ***GENERAL*** have made this "choice" claim more often than
have ***DEMOCRATS*** (which similarly includes a far, far, far larger
number of people than have actually held government office as
representative of that party).

If you're referring to indidual people who happen to belong to one party or
the other,

Duh, I'm referring to EVERYONE who claims to "belong" to one party or
the other, whether or not they have ever held political office. As I
said, we all know damned well which of the parties *overall* makes this
claim more *often* than the other.

then that is a non-starter, because there are different views on
that present on both sides.

Duh, I know that too. Nevertheless we all know damned well (you still
haven't specifically denied it) which party proclaims *more* *often*
that homosexuality is a "choice."

I frankly don't see much point in discussing
that further.

Then you're ignoring the obvious. More Republicans than Democrats claim
that homosexuality is a "choice." They also claim it more *often* than
Democrats.

You know the answer as well as I.

I'm still waiting for someone, anyone, to explain exactly how one
"chooses" which gender to be attracted to.

You'll have to get that answer from somewhere else.

Really now. One of the most fundamental arguments of all of the entire
anti-gay crowd should just be justified "somewhere else." I think not.
Anyone who dares to challenge this issue in the slightest should be
fully prepared to answer that question whenever it is asked, with
substantive argument, or freely admit that:

My answer to that is similar to what Bush REALLY said, and that is simply,
"I don't know." -And I don't.

Which is what each & every person who claims homosexuality to be a
"choice" should be saying instead.

Neither do you.

Bull. I know to the very depths of my soul, beyond all possible doubt,
that I myself never, ever, ever made any conscious "choice" as to which
gender I have *always* been exclusively attracted to, since the earliest
moment in my childhood when I first became aware of such an attraction
continuously onward. And not even one human on the entire planet can
come within light-years of "proving" me to be "wrong."

I've asked you this before, in an article to which, I'll remind you
again, you have still not replied. Not that I'm criticizing you for not
replying, I'm simply noting that you haven't. But since you have not
yet answered this, I'll ask you again, though I'll now word it in a
somewhat different way:

Yes or no, did you yourself ever, at any stage of your life, consciously
"choose" to be attracted to women? If so, how did you make this
"choice"? Did you flip a coin? "Heads it's females, tails it's males"?
Or did you say to yourself, "Eeny-meeny-miny-moe, catch a gender by its
toe"?

And to expand on that, isn't it actually true, Mark, that your
attraction for women simply came upon you at or somewhat before puberty,
& that you no more "chose" it than you "chose" your adult height?

This time, your "credibility" will be enhanced by undelayed &
unequivocal answers to these questions. Evasions, or failures to
respond, on the other hand, will have exactly the opposite effect.

I don't know that there
will ever be a definitive answer on that. When you get to heaven, ask God.
Maybe he knows.

I don't need to ask Him such a question since I already know, & He
already knows I know.

So do you.

I'm still waiting for you to admit it.

Once again, yes or no, did you yourself ever consciously "choose" to be
attracted to women, as opposed to men?

I don't, and neither do you.

Oh yes I do.

So do you.

Unless you plan to make the astounding answer of "yes" the above
questions.

In which case most of us will immediately assume that you are merely
trolling.

You have an opinion, but others differ.

Yeah, & most of those "others" haven't thought carefully about the
matter for longer than 3 entire seconds of their lives. All they have
to do is think to themselves, "Oh, wait a minute, did I myself ever
consciously 'choose' which gender I am attracted to?" The instant that
question is honestly answered, its self-evident truth will be readily
apparent.

You'll both have accept the fact that this cannot be answered in any
absolute form.

Looks to me like the vast majority of humans on earth can answer it in a
quite absolute form.

How many of them do you suppose will answer "yes" to the above questions?

The only "refutation" you
gave me was examples of those who wish to "experiment," & in the reply I
posted on Thursday, to which you have not yet responded, I questioned
whether or not this sort of example counted as true intrinsic attraction
to a gender, & whether or not your "uncle" (supposedly the person who
claimed to you that the "experimentation" led to the "attraction" or
some such thing) was not in actual fact intrinsically attracted to the
same gender in the first place, & simply didn't at first realize it
consciously. (I also noted in that article that you talked only of
men.) Lots of people are sexually "confused" in various ways. But
thousands of people have come forward by now to claim that they were
*always* attracted *exclusively* to the same gender, from the earliest
time in their lives that they felt any attraction to anyone at all. It
is utterly impossible to "prove" these people to be "wrong," unless one
is clairvoyant & can get inside their minds & read their thoughts. Now
you might argue that it is also impossible to "prove" them to be "right"
as well. But even this all by itself is substantial evidence that there
is most likely some truth to their claims. What possible motivation
would anyone have to claim to be attracted to people they aren't?
Everyone I know is much more eager to pursue relationships with others
they're attracted to than with those to whom they aren't. Oh yes,
*some* people may have various "agendas" which motivate them to claim
that they're attracted to a gender they aren't really, intrinsically,
attracted to, but it defies plausibility to suppose that that would be
the case for most of them.

And there is a considerably greater body of evidence which does indeed
support the idea that many homosexuals were already irrevocably set, in
a manner totally beyond their control, to be exclusively attracted to
the same gender than there is evidence to the contrary. For one thing,
the number of people who claim to have *always* been attracted to the
same gender is tremendously greater than the number who have claimed to
have "chosen" such a thing consciously. For another, it has now been
proven beyond all possible doubt in multiple studies on multiple species
of mammals that if the level of testosterone in the uterus is higher
than normal at a certain stage of development for a female fetus, or
lower than normal for a male fetus at that stage, the resulting animals
almost *always* turn out to exhibit mating behavior with animals of
their own gender, rather than animals of the opposite. Since hormone
imbalances of many different types are already well-known to occur in
humans, it is hardly beyond the realm of plausibility that this specific
sort of alteration in secretions of testosterone (you did know that
testosterone is indeed secreted into the uterus of a human female during
pregnancy, both for female & male fetuses, correct) might indeed occur
naturally.

And I'm not getting this from any "gay activists." One such study,
which was done on rats, was performed by one Gunter Dorner of Germany.
But he was not anything like a "gay activist"; he was, in fact, almost
precisely the opposite, a man very much prejudiced against homosexuals,
who was searching for ways to "prevent" homosexuality. Yet he still
found that, if I'm recalling correctly, not just most of the rats, but
***ALL*** of the rats, without a single exception, when the testosterone
levels were artificially altered while they were still fetuses, after
they were born exhibited mating behavior with others of the same gender
*exclusively*.

I'm intensely curious as to how on earth an adult human "chose" for the
testosterone levels in her/his mother's uterus to be higher or lower
than normal before her/his birth.

Feel free to ponder this to the end of time.
I'm frankly not that interested.

And that, apparently, is your problem here.

Would you somehow feel better if Republicans rejected the views of the
population as the Democrats largely have on this particular issue?

You're arguing against your own argument. You said that "Political
parties are SUPPOSED to reflect the views of their constituents!!!" Yes
they are. And the Democrats are indeed reflecting the views of *THEIR*
constituents, just as the Republicans are reflecting the views of
theirs. The "constituents" of the 2 parties aren't necessarily the same
voters.

Surely you understand how the political process works.
You either have a law, or you reject it based on the lawmaking guidelines of
the state.
Their guidelines (constititions) call for a vote on certain changes, which,
if passed by vote, become binding law for all citizens.
I think we should be able to drive faster than 75 miles per hour in the
deserts of Arizona. Others didn't agree and passed laws that I don't like.
That's just the way it works. You are unhappy with the gay marriage
ban...but that's how it works. Please feel free to start an effort to
over-turn the ban if you wish. That is your right, and indeed, those very
ban votes were enable by someone like yourself who proposed them. Feel free
to make another proposal, and then garner the attention and votes you need
to change the laws. This is how it works, Rob.

Ah, but another way it all "works" is what was pointed out to you, not
by me, but by William. The Constitution (remember that document?)
guarantees that the tyranny of the majority cannot overrule the rights
of the individual. As he said to me in another article which you may
not have yet read:

"The ants are quite willing to sacrifice any individual ant for the good
of the whole colony, but in a constitutional republic (which is what we
actually are) the rights of the individual are protected by the
constitution, and the society can't just walk all over any given
individual.....This is why I couldn't get up a petition that says,
"Shall we, the people steal all of Rob Mitchell's money away from him
and distribute it amongst ourselves?" and get it signed, and put on the
ballot, and everyone votes for it (except you) and so we get all your
money. - The constitution is what protects you (and me) from that."

And he's exactly right. Furthermore, it isn't just "individuals" who
are protected, but also individual *groups*. Do you think for a moment
that if the majority in any state voted to pass a law that Blacks can no
longer vote, or women can no longer vote, that this law would survive a
constitutional challenge for very long at all? It wouldn't, not hardly.

The entire set of gay rights issues has been before the public, in any
significant political way, for a far shorter time than equal rights for
Blacks or for women. Yet these 11 states of yours are still voting to
treat gays in an astoundingly different way than everyone else. I'll
remind you again that not even the Texas sodomy law survived
constitutional challenge in the Supreme Court, & that's of far lesser
consequence than the gay marriage issue, & that's with gay rights in
*general* being a significant issue for a much shorter time than say the
school segregation issue, which was deemed unconstitutional half a
century ago, & has never been reversed, no matter whether the Supreme
Court at the time was predominantly "conservative" or "liberal."

"How it works" is not only what the people vote for. It's also what is
constitutional & unconstitutional, & the majority of voters cannot,
according to the Constitution, infringe upon the rights of the minority.

This is not another of
my foolish claims (which I immediately retracted in my first reply to
your response) in which I said that Bush himself specifically said
certain exact things about homosexuals. This is instead about the
*overall* viewpoint of the Republican party vs. the *overall*
viewpoint
of the Democratic party on the issue of homosexuality.

And we all know damned well that Republicans have spoken out against
homosexuality tremendously more often than Democrats.

Yes. They have indeed.
-As have 65-70+% of the American populous on this issue.

In only 11 states? Pshaw, that isn't anywhere close to that large a
percentage of the American populace.

Totally irrelevant, because the 11 STATE BANSs DO NOT APPLY TO THE OTHER 39
STATES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Why can't you understand that?

Who says I don't understand that? I understand it quite well, otherwise
I would not have said "In only 11 states." ***YOU*** were the one who
said 65-70% of the American POPULACE in GENERAL. There are your exact
words, again, quoted verbatim immediately above, as I myself previously
quoted them in fuller context farther above. Here's that fuller context
for the 2nd time:

"Yes. They have indeed. -As have 65-70+% of the American populous on
this issue. Thank you for pointing out that Republican are a much
better reflection of American's views."

Your statement was plain as day: "American's" views, as in the entire
country, not only 11 states.

Sorry for yelling, but you just keep going off on so many unrelated rants
that I've lost patience.

I'm curious as to how my "rants" are "unrelated," when I'm merely
addressing directly what you yourself actually said.

Btw, still waiting, & waiting, & waiting, for you to display even 10% of
the degree of honesty I have *consistently* displayed, by freely
admitting that you do not actually know whether or not Al Jazeera has
ever broadcast criticism of Islamic terrorism by Muslim clerics. I've
asked you repeatedly to clarify your experience with Al Jazeera, & you
have still not done so.

In tremendously stark contrast, in the

very

first

reply

I posted to your article in which you rightfully challenged me regarding
my apparent claims of certain things Bush has "said," I freely &
unhesitatingly admitted that I was entirely ***WRONG*** to have said
those things, & freely & unhesitatingly ***APOLOGIZED*** for having said
them. You rightfully demanded that I directly quote him saying these
things, & without hesitation I said that I could not.

Yet when I asked you to do exactly the equivalent thing, with no
difference whatsoever, regarding Al Jazeera, in at least one article you
pointedly refused, saying that you were going to "ignore" that, your
exact words being:

"I am going to ignore you repetetive comments about 24/7 this and
that..."

So in other words, you utterly & purposefully ***REFUSED*** to clarify
whether or not you actually have any direct knowledge of what Al Jazeera
has or has not broadcast in this regard.

And you have failed to answer the question all the *other* times I asked
it as well.

I'm supposed to back up what I say, but you're not?

I don't think so.

This time, I do hope you'll finally, at last, answer the question
without the slightest evasion, either saying that you "do" watch Al
Jazeera 24/7 (which you know will be a most implausible claim) or freely
& honestly admit, just as I *always* have at the *earliest* opportunity
when I have not possessed enough evidence to defend a challenge to a
claim I have uttered, that you don't actually have the slightest
freaking clue whether or not Al Jazeera ever broadcasts dissent against
Islamic terrorism by Muslim clerics, nor do you have a freaking clue as
to how *often* they broadcast such a thing if they do at all.

Remember how I freely admitted I didn't know either way?

You do know that if you fail to answer this question yet again, it will
be your own "credibility" which will plummet, dramatically, correct?

My own is still fairly solid. Only temporarily, in only one article,
did I persist in making claims I could not support. But since I
retracted all of that almost immediately, I kept my "credibility" at a
reasonably high level.

But it's now been an astounding 7 days since I first asked you to simply
state, yes or no, do you watch Al Jazeera 24/7. You've posted numerous
articles in reply to me since then, so you've had plenty of
opportunities to do so, yet you still haven't answered it.

Why is such a simple yes or no question so difficult for you to answer?

More to the point, when has it taken anywhere near 7 days for me to
answer a simple yes or no question that you have asked me?

Try actually answering it this time, Mark. Your "credibility" will
improve dramatically if you do.

It will plummet in just as dramatic a fashion if you don't.

Oh, & don't even try to claim that I'm going off on "unrelated rants"
this time. It was you, not me, who first claimed in this very same
thread which we're still in that Al Jazeera hasn't ever broadcast such
dissent by Muslim clerics. Here are your exact words, yet again:

"If you have evidence of attempts by Muslim Clerics to conduct loud
condemnations in press conferences that were squelched by US media, then
please present sources for this. They certainly have not done so on Al
Jazera 9or however you spell it), and you cannot blame the absence of it
there on the US."

Your exact words; I didn't make them up. Your usage of the word
"certainly" in that context is obvious. Since you yourself posted these
exact words in this very thread, I cannot possibly be going off on an
unrelated rant in any discussion of them unless that's what you yourself
were doing *first*.

So I'm supposed to retract my claims about Bush (which I did indeed do
at almost the earliest opportunity) but you're not supposed to post an
equivalent retraction about Al Jazeera, a claim you made for which you
have no more evidence than I did for my claims that Bush "said" certain
things?

That's called a "hypocrite," Mark.

And you know what absolutely the only way remaining to you to
demonstrate that you aren't a hypocrite is:

To retract, in absolutely equivalent fashion as I did, this unsupported
statement of yours.

If I have to retract my unsupported statements when they're challenged,
so do you.

So far, I have consistently done so much more quickly than you.

Consistently.

I did so when asked to do so in only one article.

I'm losing count of how many articles I have asked you to exactly the
same thing, with no difference whatsoever, that you have asked me to do.

It took me only 48 yours.

But 7 days have passed, & you still haven't done exactly the same thing
you expected me to do.
--
"God defines the law now? Does black rod bang on the almighty one's
front-porch anually only to get a harp slammed in his face for his
trouble?" - Subtext Whore on 10-28-04.

In article 8Bijd.230532$a85.174462@fed1read04,
"Mark M" wrote:

"Rob Mitchell" wrote in message
...
In article %cgjd.228517$a85.142656@fed1read04,
"Mark M" wrote:

"Rob Mitchell" wrote in message
...
In article Fi8jd.214944$a85.185139@fed1read04,
"Mark M" wrote:

"Annika1980" wrote in message
...
From: "William Graham"

I have found that with gun control, the argument reduces itself
to
socialism
vs. capitalism, or individualism. the socialist wants to limit
the
guns
because of the danger to society from accidents with the
things.....If
there
are no guns, then no one can get hurt with them.

Nobody I know is advocatig taking away everyone's guns. I do
think it
would be
a good thing if there were less of them, however. I have no
problem
at
all
with gun registration laws. I mean, crap, you gotta register your
friggin
car!

In no circumstances can I ever see the need for people to own
assault
weapons.
You don't need a machine gun to kill a deer or protect your
bedroom.
Of
course, the ban on assault weapons slipped by quietly during the
campaign
while
people were worrying about more important issues like who Dick
Cheney's
daughter was sleeping with.

Gee, and who brought up that little distraction?
-Not a Republican.

Maybe not.

It would nevertheless, quite obviously, not have come up at all, had
Republicans not far more often than Democrats put themselves against
various homosexual-related issues.

There I'm on solid ground, Mark, & you know it.

Of course they have. That's the way it's supposed to work though!
Political parties are SUPPOSED to reflect the views of their
constituents!!!
Why do people so readily forget this???

I don't forget it for a moment. "Republicans" doesn't just include
Republican candidates for office, and/or those Republican politicians
who already are in office. When I uttered that word, I quite obviously
meant anyone at all in the country who is a Republican, which includes
millions of American citizens who have never held public office.

11 states had gay marriage bans on their ballots.

Which means that there are 39 states which didn't. There was no such
thing on the ballot I used on Tuesday.

Great. And those states are free to let gays do as their laws would
dictate.
Nothing was imposed on your state by the ballots of the 11.

I never said it was. But these were your exact words, in a complete
paragraph which I do not now edit in the slightest:

"Yes. They have indeed. -As have 65-70+% of the American populous on
this issue. Thank you for pointing out that Republican are a much
better reflection of American's views."

This was in direct reply to these exact words posted by me:

"And we all know damned well that Republicans have spoken out against
homosexuality tremendously more often than Democrats."

You did NOT say "65-70% of the voters in 11 states." You said, "65-70+%
of the American populous," period, although I suspect you meant
"populace," as the word you typed is an adjective.

11 states passed those bans with OVERWHELMING percentages.

I don't have any idea whether they were "overwhelming" or not in each &
every case; all I know is that the majority of voters did vote to ban it
in those states.

It was in the high 60's to 70's.

In 11 states, but not in the entire American populace, as you originally
claimed.

But I said "various homosexual-related issues," Mark, I didn't say a
thing about gay marriage specifically.

Oh come of, Rob.
That is THE central, most current issue on the entire gay front.
Don't pretend otherwise.
You lose credibility when you do that.

Since I did ***NOT*** pretend otherwise, apparently my "credibility,"
such as it is, has not diminished in the slightest, except perhaps in
your own mind. Where do you see me specifically claiming that gay
marriage "isn't" the primary issue? I never said such a thing. Never.
I merely said that it wasn't the ***ONLY*** homosexuality-related issue.

I furthermore made it absurdly plain, in multiple articles, that this
wasn't the issue that I myself was primarily discussing. Oh yes, I
*have* discussed the issue of gay marriage, in more than one article,
but in this *particular* exchange I have been discussing the issue of
"choice" much more. I made it astoundingly plain that it was the issue
of certain circles claiming that homosexuality itself is a "choice," &
additionally discussing which of the 2 predominant political parties
says this more often than the other.

Try addressing what I actually wrote, rather than addressing imaginary
statements that I never wrote.

Now let's go back to what I said
in that other article, which you rightfully criticized me for in your
reply to it. I claimed that Bush *himself* had specifically "said" that
homosexuality is a choice. That was, of course, not true, certainly not
as I stated it, & you were right to call me on it. But now let's talk
about Republicans in *general* versus Democrats in *general*. Which
party has made this exact claim tremendously more often than the other?

Please show me where the Republican Party platform states this.

Where on earth did I originally claim that its actual official
*platform* states this? Not even in that one article in which I
foolishly claimed that Bush himself "said" certain things did I ever
make that particular claim. I ask you once again to address what I have
actually written.

You can't, because it does not state this at all.

Of course, since I never, ever, ever claimed that it *does* state this.
What I claimed ***INSTEAD*** (& what I cannot recall you yet
specifically disputing) is that ***REPUBLICANS*** (which includes ALL
Republicans, including all American citizens who profess themselves to
"belong" to that party, which is a far, far, far larger number of people
than have actually held government office as representative of that
party) in ***GENERAL*** have made this "choice" claim more often than
have ***DEMOCRATS*** (which similarly includes a far, far, far larger
number of people than have actually held government office as
representative of that party).

If you're referring to indidual people who happen to belong to one party or
the other,

Duh, I'm referring to EVERYONE who claims to "belong" to one party or
the other, whether or not they have ever held political office. As I
said, we all know damned well which of the parties *overall* makes this
claim more *often* than the other.

then that is a non-starter, because there are different views on
that present on both sides.

Duh, I know that too. Nevertheless we all know damned well (you still
haven't specifically denied it) which party proclaims *more* *often*
that homosexuality is a "choice."

I frankly don't see much point in discussing
that further.

Then you're ignoring the obvious. More Republicans than Democrats claim
that homosexuality is a "choice." They also claim it more *often* than
Democrats.

You know the answer as well as I.

I'm still waiting for someone, anyone, to explain exactly how one
"chooses" which gender to be attracted to.

You'll have to get that answer from somewhere else.

Really now. One of the most fundamental arguments of all of the entire
anti-gay crowd should just be justified "somewhere else." I think not.
Anyone who dares to challenge this issue in the slightest should be
fully prepared to answer that question whenever it is asked, with
substantive argument, or freely admit that:

My answer to that is similar to what Bush REALLY said, and that is simply,
"I don't know." -And I don't.

Which is what each & every person who claims homosexuality to be a
"choice" should be saying instead.

Neither do you.

Bull. I know to the very depths of my soul, beyond all possible doubt,
that I myself never, ever, ever made any conscious "choice" as to which
gender I have *always* been exclusively attracted to, since the earliest
moment in my childhood when I first became aware of such an attraction
continuously onward. And not even one human on the entire planet can
come within light-years of "proving" me to be "wrong."

I've asked you this before, in an article to which, I'll remind you
again, you have still not replied. Not that I'm criticizing you for not
replying, I'm simply noting that you haven't. But since you have not
yet answered this, I'll ask you again, though I'll now word it in a
somewhat different way:

Yes or no, did you yourself ever, at any stage of your life, consciously
"choose" to be attracted to women? If so, how did you make this
"choice"? Did you flip a coin? "Heads it's females, tails it's males"?
Or did you say to yourself, "Eeny-meeny-miny-moe, catch a gender by its
toe"?

And to expand on that, isn't it actually true, Mark, that your
attraction for women simply came upon you at or somewhat before puberty,
& that you no more "chose" it than you "chose" your adult height?

This time, your "credibility" will be enhanced by undelayed &
unequivocal answers to these questions. Evasions, or failures to
respond, on the other hand, will have exactly the opposite effect.

I don't know that there
will ever be a definitive answer on that. When you get to heaven, ask God.
Maybe he knows.

I don't need to ask Him such a question since I already know, & He
already knows I know.

So do you.

I'm still waiting for you to admit it.

Once again, yes or no, did you yourself ever consciously "choose" to be
attracted to women, as opposed to men?

I don't, and neither do you.

Oh yes I do.

So do you.

Unless you plan to make the astounding answer of "yes" the above
questions.

In which case most of us will immediately assume that you are merely
trolling.

You have an opinion, but others differ.

Yeah, & most of those "others" haven't thought carefully about the
matter for longer than 3 entire seconds of their lives. All they have
to do is think to themselves, "Oh, wait a minute, did I myself ever
consciously 'choose' which gender I am attracted to?" The instant that
question is honestly answered, its self-evident truth will be readily
apparent.

You'll both have accept the fact that this cannot be answered in any
absolute form.

Looks to me like the vast majority of humans on earth can answer it in a
quite absolute form.

How many of them do you suppose will answer "yes" to the above questions?

The only "refutation" you
gave me was examples of those who wish to "experiment," & in the reply I
posted on Thursday, to which you have not yet responded, I questioned
whether or not this sort of example counted as true intrinsic attraction
to a gender, & whether or not your "uncle" (supposedly the person who
claimed to you that the "experimentation" led to the "attraction" or
some such thing) was not in actual fact intrinsically attracted to the
same gender in the first place, & simply didn't at first realize it
consciously. (I also noted in that article that you talked only of
men.) Lots of people are sexually "confused" in various ways. But
thousands of people have come forward by now to claim that they were
*always* attracted *exclusively* to the same gender, from the earliest
time in their lives that they felt any attraction to anyone at all. It
is utterly impossible to "prove" these people to be "wrong," unless one
is clairvoyant & can get inside their minds & read their thoughts. Now
you might argue that it is also impossible to "prove" them to be "right"
as well. But even this all by itself is substantial evidence that there
is most likely some truth to their claims. What possible motivation
would anyone have to claim to be attracted to people they aren't?
Everyone I know is much more eager to pursue relationships with others
they're attracted to than with those to whom they aren't. Oh yes,
*some* people may have various "agendas" which motivate them to claim
that they're attracted to a gender they aren't really, intrinsically,
attracted to, but it defies plausibility to suppose that that would be
the case for most of them.

And there is a considerably greater body of evidence which does indeed
support the idea that many homosexuals were already irrevocably set, in
a manner totally beyond their control, to be exclusively attracted to
the same gender than there is evidence to the contrary. For one thing,
the number of people who claim to have *always* been attracted to the
same gender is tremendously greater than the number who have claimed to
have "chosen" such a thing consciously. For another, it has now been
proven beyond all possible doubt in multiple studies on multiple species
of mammals that if the level of testosterone in the uterus is higher
than normal at a certain stage of development for a female fetus, or
lower than normal for a male fetus at that stage, the resulting animals
almost *always* turn out to exhibit mating behavior with animals of
their own gender, rather than animals of the opposite. Since hormone
imbalances of many different types are already well-known to occur in
humans, it is hardly beyond the realm of plausibility that this specific
sort of alteration in secretions of testosterone (you did know that
testosterone is indeed secreted into the uterus of a human female during
pregnancy, both for female & male fetuses, correct) might indeed occur
naturally.

And I'm not getting this from any "gay activists." One such study,
which was done on rats, was performed by one Gunter Dorner of Germany.
But he was not anything like a "gay activist"; he was, in fact, almost
precisely the opposite, a man very much prejudiced against homosexuals,
who was searching for ways to "prevent" homosexuality. Yet he still
found that, if I'm recalling correctly, not just most of the rats, but
***ALL*** of the rats, without a single exception, when the testosterone
levels were artificially altered while they were still fetuses, after
they were born exhibited mating behavior with others of the same gender
*exclusively*.

I'm intensely curious as to how on earth an adult human "chose" for the
testosterone levels in her/his mother's uterus to be higher or lower
than normal before her/his birth.

Feel free to ponder this to the end of time.
I'm frankly not that interested.

And that, apparently, is your problem here.

Would you somehow feel better if Republicans rejected the views of the
population as the Democrats largely have on this particular issue?

You're arguing against your own argument. You said that "Political
parties are SUPPOSED to reflect the views of their constituents!!!" Yes
they are. And the Democrats are indeed reflecting the views of *THEIR*
constituents, just as the Republicans are reflecting the views of
theirs. The "constituents" of the 2 parties aren't necessarily the same
voters.

Surely you understand how the political process works.
You either have a law, or you reject it based on the lawmaking guidelines of
the state.
Their guidelines (constititions) call for a vote on certain changes, which,
if passed by vote, become binding law for all citizens.
I think we should be able to drive faster than 75 miles per hour in the
deserts of Arizona. Others didn't agree and passed laws that I don't like.
That's just the way it works. You are unhappy with the gay marriage
ban...but that's how it works. Please feel free to start an effort to
over-turn the ban if you wish. That is your right, and indeed, those very
ban votes were enable by someone like yourself who proposed them. Feel free
to make another proposal, and then garner the attention and votes you need
to change the laws. This is how it works, Rob.

Ah, but another way it all "works" is what was pointed out to you, not
by me, but by William. The Constitution (remember that document?)
guarantees that the tyranny of the majority cannot overrule the rights
of the individual. As he said to me in another article which you may
not have yet read:

"The ants are quite willing to sacrifice any individual ant for the good
of the whole colony, but in a constitutional republic (which is what we
actually are) the rights of the individual are protected by the
constitution, and the society can't just walk all over any given
individual.....This is why I couldn't get up a petition that says,
"Shall we, the people steal all of Rob Mitchell's money away from him
and distribute it amongst ourselves?" and get it signed, and put on the
ballot, and everyone votes for it (except you) and so we get all your
money. - The constitution is what protects you (and me) from that."

And he's exactly right. Furthermore, it isn't just "individuals" who
are protected, but also individual *groups*. Do you think for a moment
that if the majority in any state voted to pass a law that Blacks can no
longer vote, or women can no longer vote, that this law would survive a
constitutional challenge for very long at all? It wouldn't, not hardly.

The entire set of gay rights issues has been before the public, in any
significant political way, for a far shorter time than equal rights for
Blacks or for women. Yet these 11 states of yours are still voting to
treat gays in an astoundingly different way than everyone else. I'll
remind you again that not even the Texas sodomy law survived
constitutional challenge in the Supreme Court, & that's of far lesser
consequence than the gay marriage issue, & that's with gay rights in
*general* being a significant issue for a much shorter time than say the
school segregation issue, which was deemed unconstitutional half a
century ago, & has never been reversed, no matter whether the Supreme
Court at the time was predominantly "conservative" or "liberal."

"How it works" is not only what the people vote for. It's also what is
constitutional & unconstitutional, & the majority of voters cannot,
according to the Constitution, infringe upon the rights of the minority.

This is not another of
my foolish claims (which I immediately retracted in my first reply to
your response) in which I said that Bush himself specifically said
certain exact things about homosexuals. This is instead about the
*overall* viewpoint of the Republican party vs. the *overall*
viewpoint
of the Democratic party on the issue of homosexuality.

And we all know damned well that Republicans have spoken out against
homosexuality tremendously more often than Democrats.

Yes. They have indeed.
-As have 65-70+% of the American populous on this issue.

In only 11 states? Pshaw, that isn't anywhere close to that large a
percentage of the American populace.

Totally irrelevant, because the 11 STATE BANSs DO NOT APPLY TO THE OTHER 39
STATES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Why can't you understand that?

Who says I don't understand that? I understand it quite well, otherwise
I would not have said "In only 11 states." ***YOU*** were the one who
said 65-70% of the American POPULACE in GENERAL. There are your exact
words, again, quoted verbatim immediately above, as I myself previously
quoted them in fuller context farther above. Here's that fuller context
for the 2nd time:

"Yes. They have indeed. -As have 65-70+% of the American populous on
this issue. Thank you for pointing out that Republican are a much
better reflection of American's views."

Your statement was plain as day: "American's" views, as in the entire
country, not only 11 states.

Sorry for yelling, but you just keep going off on so many unrelated rants
that I've lost patience.

I'm curious as to how my "rants" are "unrelated," when I'm merely
addressing directly what you yourself actually said.

Btw, still waiting, & waiting, & waiting, for you to display even 10% of
the degree of honesty I have *consistently* displayed, by freely
admitting that you do not actually know whether or not Al Jazeera has
ever broadcast criticism of Islamic terrorism by Muslim clerics. I've
asked you repeatedly to clarify your experience with Al Jazeera, & you
have still not done so.

In tremendously stark contrast, in the

very

first

reply

I posted to your article in which you rightfully challenged me regarding
my apparent claims of certain things Bush has "said," I freely &
unhesitatingly admitted that I was entirely ***WRONG*** to have said
those things, & freely & unhesitatingly ***APOLOGIZED*** for having said
them. You rightfully demanded that I directly quote him saying these
things, & without hesitation I said that I could not.

Yet when I asked you to do exactly the equivalent thing, with no
difference whatsoever, regarding Al Jazeera, in at least one article you
pointedly refused, saying that you were going to "ignore" that, your
exact words being:

"I am going to ignore you repetetive comments about 24/7 this and
that..."

So in other words, you utterly & purposefully ***REFUSED*** to clarify
whether or not you actually have any direct knowledge of what Al Jazeera
has or has not broadcast in this regard.

And you have failed to answer the question all the *other* times I asked
it as well.

I'm supposed to back up what I say, but you're not?

I don't think so.

This time, I do hope you'll finally, at last, answer the question
without the slightest evasion, either saying that you "do" watch Al
Jazeera 24/7 (which you know will be a most implausible claim) or freely
& honestly admit, just as I *always* have at the *earliest* opportunity
when I have not possessed enough evidence to defend a challenge to a
claim I have uttered, that you don't actually have the slightest
freaking clue whether or not Al Jazeera ever broadcasts dissent against
Islamic terrorism by Muslim clerics, nor do you have a freaking clue as
to how *often* they broadcast such a thing if they do at all.

Remember how I freely admitted I didn't know either way?

You do know that if you fail to answer this question yet again, it will
be your own "credibility" which will plummet, dramatically, correct?

My own is still fairly solid. Only temporarily, in only one article,
did I persist in making claims I could not support. But since I
retracted all of that almost immediately, I kept my "credibility" at a
reasonably high level.

But it's now been an astounding 7 days since I first asked you to simply
state, yes or no, do you watch Al Jazeera 24/7. You've posted numerous
articles in reply to me since then, so you've had plenty of
opportunities to do so, yet you still haven't answered it.

Why is such a simple yes or no question so difficult for you to answer?

More to the point, when has it taken anywhere near 7 days for me to
answer a simple yes or no question that you have asked me?

Try actually answering it this time, Mark. Your "credibility" will
improve dramatically if you do.

It will plummet in just as dramatic a fashion if you don't.

Oh, & don't even try to claim that I'm going off on "unrelated rants"
this time. It was you, not me, who first claimed in this very same
thread which we're still in that Al Jazeera hasn't ever broadcast such
dissent by Muslim clerics. Here are your exact words, yet again:

"If you have evidence of attempts by Muslim Clerics to conduct loud
condemnations in press conferences that were squelched by US media, then
please present sources for this. They certainly have not done so on Al
Jazera 9or however you spell it), and you cannot blame the absence of it
there on the US."

Your exact words; I didn't make them up. Your usage of the word
"certainly" in that context is obvious. Since you yourself posted these
exact words in this very thread, I cannot possibly be going off on an
unrelated rant in any discussion of them unless that's what you yourself
were doing *first*.

So I'm supposed to retract my claims about Bush (which I did indeed do
at almost the earliest opportunity) but you're not supposed to post an
equivalent retraction about Al Jazeera, a claim you made for which you
have no more evidence than I did for my claims that Bush "said" certain
things?

That's called a "hypocrite," Mark.

And you know what absolutely the only way remaining to you to
demonstrate that you aren't a hypocrite is:

To retract, in absolutely equivalent fashion as I did, this unsupported
statement of yours.

If I have to retract my unsupported statements when they're challenged,
so do you.

So far, I have consistently done so much more quickly than you.

Consistently.

I did so when asked to do so in only one article.

I'm losing count of how many articles I have asked you to exactly the
same thing, with no difference whatsoever, that you have asked me to do.

It took me only 48 yours.

But 7 days have passed, & you still haven't done exactly the same thing
you expected me to do.
--
"God defines the law now? Does black rod bang on the almighty one's
front-porch anually only to get a harp slammed in his face for his
trouble?" - Subtext Whore on 10-28-04.

"Mark M" wrote in message
news:nQZjd.245565$a85.179418@fed1read04...

"William Graham" wrote in message
news:icZjd.485345$mD.331311@attbi_s02...

"Rob Mitchell" wrote in message
...
In article u_Rjd.382291$D%.93246@attbi_s51,
"William Graham" wrote:

"Rob Mitchell" wrote in message
...
In article jUijd.579634$8_6.218728@attbi_s04,
"William Graham" wrote:

"Rob Mitchell" wrote in message
news:sorbus_rowan-

And we all know damned well that Republicans have spoken out
against
homosexuality tremendously more often than Democrats.

To "speak out against homosexuality" is the same thing as to "speak
out
against the black race", because homosexuals are born that way, and
cannot
do anything about it any more than black people can change their
color.
You
will see that I am right eventually, because eventually the US
Supreme
court
will throw out the laws made by these 11 states in this election
which
banned marriage from the gay community. The IRS has a separate tax
table
for
married couples, and that puts marriage directly into the public
domain,
so
to make laws restricting gays from getting married is
unconstitutional.

Very good, William, I think that is one of the most insightful
things
that I've yet seen you say.

This is obvious to me, because I have read, and understand the spirit
of,
the US Constitution. - What bothers me is the fact that the people in
11
states apparently have not read it, or at least, do not understand its
spirit.......They are perfectly willing to trash the rights of any
particular individual in order to uphold the principals of their
religion.
But watch them scream when their own rights are transgressed.......

Indeed.

And in this particular case, it is mostly the "conservatives" who are
doing so, correct?

Sure, but not all conservatives are religious.

That is true, but a huge portion of the population IS convinced largely
due
to religious reasons...and if the gay issue is to be resolved, I think it
would be wise for gay groups to set about creating a legal status that
doesn't grate at those who feel marriage should be left alone. This would
be widely supported. Don't forget that the HUGE votes to ban gay marriage
in those 11 states reached right into the Democrat zone. They were widely
voting against it too, but I think they would go for the other alternative
mentioned above.


Yes. Well, the gay's don't have to tell, if they don't want to push the
issue. You know, when I got married, nobody took us in a little room and
asked us to drop our drawers to check exactly what sex we actually were. And
the gays can just dress one up like a man, and the other like a woman, and
have their name changed to match, and no one would be the wiser....Sort of
a, "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
But the point that I am trying to make is that, if they refuse to do the
above, and really want to push the issue, eventually the Supreme court will
have to throw all 11 of those bans against gay marriage out, because
marriage is a constitutional right, and gayness is not a felony, ergo to ban
gays from marriage is a transgression of their constitutional rights.

Mark M wrote:

I don't have a problem with legal equality in terms of taxation, wills,
medical access to partners, etc. But... There is no reason why this cannot
be accomplished OUTSIDE the method of declaring it "marriage."
Marriage just happens to be the title through which these legal differences
have been sorted out. I think there are a great many conservatives who
would support the legal aspects if they could simply answer the legal
aspects without redefining marriage.


There is a really simple way to do this you know - eradictate all mention
of marriage from all laws and statutes. Replace it by say civil partnership.
"Marriage" can then continue to be defined by each and every religion
as they see fit (after all, not all of them have even close to the same
definition) without affecting the rights of others.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

"Sander Vesik" wrote in message
...
Mark M wrote:

I don't have a problem with legal equality in terms of taxation, wills,
medical access to partners, etc. But... There is no reason why this
cannot
be accomplished OUTSIDE the method of declaring it "marriage."
Marriage just happens to be the title through which these legal
differences
have been sorted out. I think there are a great many conservatives who
would support the legal aspects if they could simply answer the legal
aspects without redefining marriage.


There is a really simple way to do this you know - eradictate all mention
of marriage from all laws and statutes. Replace it by say civil
partnership.
"Marriage" can then continue to be defined by each and every religion
as they see fit (after all, not all of them have even close to the same
definition) without affecting the rights of others.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

Don't the French do something like this? A civil marriage is required,
whether a religious one is done or not, if I remember correctly. I've
always felt that a religious ceremony being recognized civilly was an
intrusion on church/state separation.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com