Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Marriage (Score 1) 69

Your view, on the other hand, is that certain couples -- incestuous ones -- should have a lesser status.

It is?? I did not know that.. Thanks for pointing out something that wasn't even implied, much less said by me.

Then you are in favor of legalizing incestuous marriages. Your words didn't seem to imply that. That's good, insofar as you're being consistent (which is weird, because consistency is about honesty, and you are grossly dishonest, as has been proven over and over), but it puts you at odds with most gay marriage proponents.

But at least now we can say conclusively that you are in favor of legalizing incestuous marriages.

You cannot twist that into me wanting anyone, let alone myself, to have a privileged status.

You said it outright.

No, I said no such thing, you did. I never stated or implied in any way that I or anyone else should have a privileged status, and -- in obvious fact -- I've explicitly stated precisely the opposite, consistently, for many years. As usual: you're a liar.

Comment Re:Marriage (Score 1) 69

qui moi?

Yes. Continually, you have falsely claimed that I am a bigot and in favor of inequality in marriage. You have provided no evidence to back up either claim, because, for years, I've been so completely consistent that none exit. But you continue to claim it anyway. Therefore, you are a liar.

I love hearing you call it gay marriage.

But ... that's the issue. Gay marriage, explicitly. I've read the laws. They explicitly add gay marriage to the types of legal marriages, while explicitly keeping other types of marriage illegal (mostly, marriages between closely blood-related couples).

Indeed, here in Washington, when they added gay marriage to the law, they rewrote the discriminatory portions of the law to make them more clear ... but they didn't remove them. And then they still dishonestly called the bill about "marriage equality," when it was explicitly discriminatory.

Your fear for your privileged status is very revealing

Where? Quote me saying or implying in any way, ever, that I want any "married" couple anywhere to have any privileged status over any others.

It's never happened that I can recall, and certainly not since I've started posting on Slashdot many years ago.

You're simply lying. My clearly stated view is that all couples should be exactly equal under the law. You cannot twist that into me wanting anyone, let alone myself, to have a privileged status.

Your view, on the other hand, is that certain couples -- incestuous ones -- should have a lesser status. If anyone is a "bigot" here, it's obviously you and your fellow gay marriage proponents who seek to discriminate against incestuous couples.

This is so incredibly bizarre, that I am the one for equality, and you're projecting your anti-equality views onto me.

Comment Re:Marriage (Score 1) 69

You're still being a bigot.

You're a liar. Quote me in any way being bigoted. Simply saying I think homosexuality is wrong is not bigoted. Bigotry starts with such disagreements, but those disagreements alone are not bigotry. I'd have to first convert my disagreements into negative feelings, and then I'd have to in some way act on those feelings. You're, as usual, just lying about me.

Your deceitful 'affirmation' of equality is backhanded at best.

You're a liar. My "affirmation" is not in the least bit deceitful. I am totally and completely up front about my views and the reasons for them, and they are borne of nothing more or less than a quest for liberty and equality under the law for all (unlike most gay marriage proponents, including yourself, who are out for benefits for their particular favored groups).

Comment Re:Marriage (Score 1) 69

I say all couples should have equal legal rights...

Including the right to marriage?

I say all couples should have the equal legal right to civil unions, and no couples should have their "marriages" explicitly recognized by government. Every couple is exactly equal under the law. In every way possible. So yes, the right to marry in whatever social institution you choose and will have you, and the fully equal right to recognition by government. Government would recognize no distinction between "marriage" and not, just "civil union" or not.

That's what I said over and over again in this discussion. It's what I've said for years. Going on decades.

Show it to me..

Now will you finally admit you were lying about me?

Comment Re:Marriage (Score 1) 69

You say you're not lying, but literally everything you've said about my views so far is the opposite of what views actually are.

That means you're lying.

And anyone reading this discussion can see it. I say all couples should have equal legal rights, you then say that because I don't believe they should have equal legal rights, therefore I'm a bigot. You're a terrible, terrible liar.

Maybe you should try harder?

Comment Re:Marriage (Score 1) 69

Two words: Visitation rights.

In hospitals? What about them? I already said, quite clearly, that the government should make available to any two consenting adults "civil unions." Those would come with all the legal rights currently available to married couples.

So, like with other civil rights, we need the feds (even though they are also failing miserably) to step in and do it for them.

No. We do not need the feds. We do not even need any government for this. That said, we do currently do this through government, and I explicitly stated that we should continue to do so, just not under the institution of "civil marriage," but "civil unions."

And, you're proving that you and your hate group are still bigots

You're a liar.

You have not provided a single example of me being or saying or proposing anything remotely bigoted. I said up front in this discussion that I am in favor of gay couples have exactly the same legal rights as all couples -- which are the same rights married couples have now -- and your examples that I am bigoted are made-up nonsense that I am not in favor of the same legal rights for all couples, even though I am.

You're not only a liar, but you're a really *bad* liar: lying about my clearly stated views right here in this discussion.

Comment Re:Marriage (Score 1) 69

Your rants against gay marriage are no less bigoted ...

Please show anywhere that I ranted against gay marriage. You're a liar. I said that marriage should be taken out of government institutions, put into social institutions, and made available to every consenting couple. How is that against gay marriage, or bigoted in anyway?

You're a liar. You are saying my views are the opposite of what they are.

Comment Re:Marriage (Score 1) 69

You espouse bigotry

You're a liar. I never did. The fact that you are unable to quote me saying anything bigoted proves it.

You realize everyone who could possibly reading things, including those on the left, knows you're wrong and thinks you're an idiot, right?

Comment Re:Marriage (Score 1) 69

See, when you tell lies about me, and then I prove you lied about me, and all you can do is be snarky in return, you destroy any credibility you may have had.

You'd have done much better for yourself if you admitted you were wrong and apologized for dishonestly jumping to conclusions.

Comment Re:Marriage (Score 1) 69

You believe that 'straight' privilege is right and proper, and that the law should reflect that.

You're lying. Not only have I never said that, but I've many times said precisely the opposite (which is not that the law should reflect gay marriage, but that the government should not define marriage at all).

So I was right: You dishonestly took my criticism of your comments as though they were some proxy for some completely different opinions.

Separate but (not really)equal is the bigotry you display.

You're lying. My view is that government should not define marriage, but have the exact same status -- civil unions -- for every consenting couple that wants it. Separate and, in every way under the law and to government, equal.

On the other hand, we have the gay marriage proponents, who explicitly want government to discriminate in favor of gay unions, and against incestuous unions.

It's that you have no right to deny the same rights to those individuals who carry on other types of consensual relations you personally don't approve of.

I agree! Unfortunately, the gay marriage proponents discriminating against incestuous unions do not agree with you.

It's a good thing that finally enough people are standing up to your hate. Go burn the cross in your own yard, so we can properly ignore you.

The bizarre thing for you to figure out is why you are dishonestly projecting an opinion onto me that I've never expressed or implied, and don't have.

My guess is, it's two things. Maybe you know I am a Christian and that I personally believe homosexuality is, according to the Bible -- which I believe is the Word of God -- a sin. In addition, I was criticizing your arguments. You therefore -- dishonestly, whether intentionally so or not -- jumped to the notion that since you are in favor of gay marriage, and I was criticizing you and believe homosexuality is a sin, I must therefore be in favor of discriminating against gay couples.

But, of course, it's not true at all. For more than a decade I've been speaking out, including on Slashdot, in favor of true marriage equality, through ending government defining of marriage, and the offering of a civil union status that is open to any consenting couple.

You can continue try to twist my beliefs into favor of discrimination, but everyone will recognize it for the lie that it is.

Comment Re:Marriage (Score 1) 69

This is what y'all do.

Nothing I've said is hateful or bigoted, nor did I imply victimhood in any way. At all. You dishonestly took my criticism of your comments as though they were some proxy for some completely different opinions.

I have simply pointed out the fact that your argument was stupid: you're saying we should stay out of private business, as an argument for saying that our government of the people should officially and explicitly recognize that private business.

That is completely stupid.

If you want to argue that equal protection says we should recognize those relationships, fine, but to say we should officially recognize them because they are none of our business is brain-numbingly dumb.

Comment Re:That is actually not a large number of response (Score 1) 8

That all said, there are a lot of cops who hate their jobs and want to reduce civilian access to guns.

On Southland last week, one of the cops went off on a rant about how guns on the streets make his job hard and anything he can do to make his job easier by getting them off the streets, he's for.

Such a cop hates his job, which is to serve the people and secure their rights. If he is more interested in his safety than in doing his job, then he should turn in his badge and get another gig.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Most people would like to be delivered from temptation but would like it to keep in touch." -- Robert Orben