- Home
- News Grid
- Local News
- Green Hawk
- Business
- Politics
- School Zone
- Nonprofits
- Missing Pets
- Multimedia
- Arts
- Movies
- Outdoors
- Sports
- News Releases
- Columnists
- Blogs
- Opinions
- Classifieds
- Advertise
- Donate
- Partners
Letter to the Editor: Redefining Marriage Shouldn’t Be Tolerated
There’s nothing to debate about “gay marriage” because marriage is between a man and woman, period!
The homosexual movement is trying to purposely offend the majority. Homosexuals and others already have civil unions and domestic partnerships that are the legal equivalent to “marriage.” Homosexuals know the term “marriage” is traditionally defined and accepted as “man and woman.” Rather than come up with their own definition for their homosexual relationships, they try to commandeer another societal norm attempting to redefine marriage to include themselves under the false and so heavily abused doctrine of “tolerance” and “equality.”
What if former President George W. Bush all of a sudden one day decided to redefine himself as an African-American, then publicly announce this on national television? All Americans, especially black civil rights leaders, would refuse and decry such an atrocious statement.
However, for spite, let’s say Bush retaliated against America, especially against the black community, by stating he is going to enact legislation to force everyone to refer to and include himself as black even though he is not. This would be the equivalent of homosexuals “redefining” marriage — something we will never tolerate.
This “tolerance” stuff has gone too far.
Robert Yapp
Lancaster
Comments
Noozhawk's comments are moderated, but by posting here you accept your responsibility to follow our rules as part of Noozhawk's shared online community. Please keep your comments civil and helpful. Don't attack other readers personally, and do not use vulgar, abusive or discriminatory language. Use the "Report Abuse" link if a comment violates these standards or our Terms of Use
» on 09.16.10 @ 06:01 PM
I agree with you about the definition of marriage. We
are living in a world where everything is up-side down
and inside-out. When will the insanity stop?
DT
You have already flagged this entry.
» on 09.17.10 @ 08:03 PM
Seriously? How does it affect you? What are you afraid of?
And, by the way, Bill Clinton was the first “black” President, and was declared so by an African American woman. Perhaps he should have enacted the legislation you speak of. If he had you probably would be more tolerant of gay people because you would know how it would feel to be discriminated against, you being black and all.
You have already flagged this entry.
» on 09.21.10 @ 07:42 AM
Seriously? LoL…
It affects me as a taxpayer to see my money being used to support the teaching (indoctrination) of homosexual behavior/alternative lifestyles in our public schools. Do not tell me you forgot about SB 777 that was signed into law about 3 years ago?
Second, I do not go around forcing legislators to pass legislation to teach Christianity as an “alternative lifestyle” or try to redefine Islam as the same thing as Christianity which is the equivalent to the homosexual movement redefining “marriage.”
As for your point about Clinton being the first “Black” President, I can safely say that is a weak argument because that statement is in reference to Clinton being a representative for the “Black” people and not for the purpose of “redefining” him literally as a “Black” man.
My point regarding former President George Bush was a “What if question,” designed to provoke thought as to how warped and wrong the homosexual movement is for trying to redefine marriage when their gay relationships are anything but a marriage.
How would you explain two heterosexual couples living together for years and even having children together but for whatever reason, refuse to get “married?” We cannot just redefine their relationship and call them “married” when they are not. However, they can still fall under the category of a domestic partnership or civil union realm for the legality sake of visitation rights and other benefits. Even many companies recognize these relationships without having to offend married people by redefining the term marriage.
So why do gays insist to irritate and offend the majority?
If their homosexual relationships are so “great” then why cannot they come up with their “own” definition for their unions rather than trying to offend the majority by insisting they are something that only applies to heterosexual people in the true definition?
BTW, I am not Black. LOL….
You have already flagged this entry.
» on 09.21.10 @ 06:15 PM
@Yapp
—SB 777- I am very familiar. I view that as an anti-discrimination bill. I did not read anything in that bill that talked about encouraging homosexuality or indoctrination of a certain lifestyle. Being in a class room everyday, the only indoctrination I see is encouraging students to be good Americans who believe in this country. Also they are indoctrinated to be good little workers, who usually are not encouraged to go their own way. They are to color in the lines, stand and sit up straight, listen, say please and thank you, etc. Not falling in line is not encouraged, and a swift negative reaction will follow if the rules are bit just a little bit. And I have never heard a reference to homosexuality or alternative lifestyles, let alone encouragement of such, in 20+ years of being in the class room.
—What do you go around “forcing legislators to pass”? A ban on gay marriage? Hypocritical, don’t you think?
—“statement is in reference to Clinton being a representative for the “Black” people” Wrong. I thought your “what if” question was silly, so I thought I would bring up Clinton more as a joke. Since you missed the joke, I guess I should have explained it to you. I was referencing Toni Morrison calling Clinton the first black President, which was really more about the whites in Congress treating him as a “perp”, reminding him that “No matter how smart you are, how hard you work, how much coin you earn for us, we will put you in your place or put you out of the place you have somehow, albeit with our permission, achieved. You will be fired from your job, sent away in disgrace, and—who knows?—maybe sentenced and jailed to boot. In short, unless you do as we say (i.e., assimilate at once), your (expletives) belong to us.” In other words, treating him “like a black on the street”. Kind of the way many white Americans, in and out of Congress, view Obama now. Kind of like the way you view gays, right?
—“If their homosexual relationships are so “great” then why cannot they come up with their “own” definition…” I guess I would ask, if heterosexual marriage is so “great”, could you tell me how you define it? Would you say that Ted Haggard’s views on marriage jibe with yours? What about Jimmy Swaggart’s? Mark Sanford? Newt “I want a divorce while you are in the hospital with cancer” Gingrich? George Alan “rentboy” Rekers? Larry “bathroom stall” Craig? I could go on. Yeah, that heterosexual marriage does sound great! Ha!
—“So why do gays insist to irritate and offend the majority?” Because it is so much fun. See paragraph above.
—“only applies to heterosexual people in the true definition?” The true definition. The true definition? Come on; more silliness.
—“BTW, I am not Black” Duh, I know. Neither am I, and I am not gay. But does it matter. Ask Larry Craig.
“BTW, I am not Black.” Obviously.
You have already flagged this entry.
» on 09.22.10 @ 07:36 AM
@ggomez
Anti-discrimination bill???? Are you for real? That bill is basically a social experiment to target children because kids will believe darn near anything.
For example, SEC. 29. Of SB 777 states:
“Section 51500 of the Education Code is amended to read: 51500. No teacher shall give instruction nor shall a school district sponsor any activity that promotes a discriminatory bias because of a characteristic listed in Section 220.”
And Section 11 of SB 777 reads:
“SEC. 11. Section 220 of the Education Code is amended to read: 220. No person shall be subjected to discrimination on the basis of disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic that is contained in the definition of hate crimes set forth in Section 422.55 of the Penal Code in any program or activity conducted by an educational institution that receives, or benefits from, state financial assistance or enrolls pupils who receive state student financial aid.”
Technically does this means that a school must recognize a biological male who defines himself as a female and treat him the same as a biological female to where this “confused” guy is permitted to use the same restroom or locker room as biological females or vice-versa?
And this is just one of the many problems with SB 777.
You “never heard a reference to homosexuality or alternative lifestyles” in almost 20 years in the classroom? WOW. In your classroom the kids color in the lines and are “good little workers huh?” What do you teach or work with? Kindergarten?
Obviously, you choose to ignore the great number of disrespectful punks (mainly junior high and high school students) who cannot even treat the opposite sex appropriately much less the same sex. Many of these pupils are on some kind of drug, constantly looking for fights, very promiscuous, in a gang or to be quite frank, belong in custody and not in the public school system. Furthermore, a majority of kids in public schools are so heavily bombarded with liberal thinking that they know ALL about their “freedom of speech” but know almost nothing about the 2nd Amendment or other rights we are currently losing.
This bill is discriminatory in many more ways than you realize. Yet if I even talked of introducing legislation teaching that marriage is normal or let alone just wanting to have a prayer group with Christian students who petitioned for the prayer on campus I would be crucified. And you call me hypocritical?
Like I said there is no such thing as “gay marriage” it is an attempt to redefine marriage to slide in under the radar.
As for the comparison of Clinton being the first “Black President” you mentioned and how it was referring to him being treat by Whites in Congress like he was a “perp” according to “Toni Morrison.” LOL……
Again, she is a liberal and made a comparison to Clinton and the resemblance he had to identifying with Black people back in 1998. In which she said about Clinton that he: “displays almost every trope of blackness: single-parent household, born poor, working-class, saxophone-playing, McDonald’s-and-junk-food-loving boy from Arkansas…” Doesn’t sound like anything to do with Whites in congress ripping on him to me.
However, the later quote from Morrison about her statement being “misunderstood” (yeah right!) and how it was to reflect how Whites in Congress viewed Blacks and treated Clinton accordingly was only after Obama became a presidential candidate. She basically had to “eat crow” on her stupid comment way back in 1998 and try to cover her tracks later in 2008 to endorse Obama. But seemingly you very conveniently FORGOT to mention that one little fact! LOL…
How I view gay rights is really NOT the issue. Although, I do view the homosexual lifestyle as disgusting and wrong I also have no problem with “gays” having the same rights I do under the Constitution.
The problem is “why” the homosexual movement insists on offending everyone by trying to redefine the term marriage when they pretty much already have the same rights now under civil unions and domestic partnerships as well as to include heterosexual couples that refuse to unite through marriage?
You keep avoiding the real argument here and I do not know why?
You can bring up marital problems as not being the role model for marriage but again you are missing the point and eluding the argument and sound rather childish. FACT: Marriage is between a man and a woman therefore, if it so corrupt in “your view” in that you bring up the examples of marriage that are less than desirable such as Gingrich, Swaggart, Sanford etc. then why exactly do gays want to be identified with marriage? LOL…
Besides, one of the reasons why marriages are having such a difficult time in America is because of the liberals and the homosexual movement constantly attacking it. Almost every public school, television show or movie attacks traditional marriage. Like I said before, kids will buy into and believe most anything if you keep feeding them trash.
Furthermore, the fact that it is so much fun to “irritate” others whether or not they are the majority indicates your lack of maturity. Especially so in that you supposedly work with students in the classroom to which would not surprise me that you are indeed one of the many who are directly responsible for the problems in our country.
True definition of marriage =’s Man & WOMAN. Pretty simple!
As for Larry Craig, since you keep bringing him up so much then why don’t you go ask him yourself. LOL…
You have already flagged this entry.
» on 09.22.10 @ 08:11 AM
@ ggomez
BTW, I forgot to mention that the phrase “First Black President” in reference to Bill Clinton was even used as a term of endorsement/endearment by supporters.
Go back and ““research”” the Congressional Black Caucus on 29 Sep. 2001 where even Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson used that phrase (first black president) to uplift Bill Clinton.
However, Toni Morrison said nothing regarding the “misunderstanding of her little “phrase” back in 2001. So why did Toni Morrison “all of a sudden” have a problem with that phrase in 2008? She should have spoken up sooner. YOU THINK?????
LOL……
Basically, your attempt to debate or argue your point was ill-fated from the beginning, yet you try to blow it off as if you were “joking?”
LOL… Yes, now I see. :)
You have already flagged this entry.
» on 09.22.10 @ 05:09 PM
@ Yapp
Wow. It is a scary world you live in. I just don’t see what you see, but then again you are so much more mature than I.
I wander what it is like to have such clarity, such certainty. What a burden to carry so much anger.
You have already flagged this entry.
» on 09.23.10 @ 04:14 AM
I agree with the comments of Mr. Yapp.
My point is, there really is no issue to begin with. The homosexual and lesbian community already have the same rights and protection as any unmarried heterosexual couple. Personnally, I really don’t care what they do in their own homes and if they want to humiliate themselves in the privacy of their bedrooms who cares ? But, they want to try and “make” everyone else approve of the deviant lives they live by redefining what marriage is. Just like the person that commits a robbery, steals from their employer, cheats on their spouse, lies, etc etc..they have a ready excuse for the wrong behaviour and want approval for and acceptance of the actions. That’s the whole reason we have this question and issue to begin with. It’s wrong, they know it’s wrong but want to assuage their own conscience by trying to force and gain acceptance and approval by the people around them. They want and need validation to make themselves feel better. Just human nature. They can feel the folly and condemnation in their own conscience which convicts them hence the excuses and constant stiving for approval. If the homosexual and lesbian community thinks there is nothing wrong with how they live then why are they trying so hard to get everyones approval by getting a public definition of marriage to include them ? Don’t go away mad, just go away.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.23.10 @ 06:25 AM
@ggomez
LOL… Scary world “I” live in? Yep, it sure is a “scary world” to have people who do not think about what they say or in your case, do not care what they say or how it affects others around them. (you being in the classroom around kids and all)
You “just don’t see what I see” huh? Well, let me say it one more time this way; Why cannot homosexuals enjoy the same rights under the Constitution as everyone else without having to “redefine” the term marriage? End of story! Blacks are given the same rights as every other American but no one refers to a Black person as a “Caucasian” otherwise the term African American would never exist, would it?
As for the maturity remark, go stuff it! You come here and make light of an issue and say:
“So why do gays insist to irritate and offend the majority?” Because it is so much fun. See paragraph above.”
You write, “See the above paragraph”??? That is the paragraph that YOU wrote in your 2nd comment to me in an attempt to be “offensive” on purpose. This does in fact reflect your lack of maturity and inability to argue effectively. Yet, you sit there like some pompous religious freak and claim that I am burdened with “carrying so much anger” to appear justified in your arrogance?
Honestly, from my experience it is usually the person who first accuses their debating opponent with the “anger” accusation when they themselves cannot argue any further for lack of intellect and resort to such tricks.
Also the “angry” person is usually the one who sloppily tosses around quotes that are loosely defined as in the case of your precious Toni Morrison. LOL….
Again, Morrison NEVER said anything about that quote being misunderstood until 10 years after she said it. But you were NEVER going to even mention anything about that fact or even why.(Were you?)
Even form the beginning I was correct in that Morrison’s quote was, let me say it again: a “reference to Clinton being a representative for the “Black” people and not for the purpose of “redefining” him literally as a “Black” man.”
Usually, an angry person will point out irrelevant issues rather than logic or reason. In your case, you quickly bring up some of the most notorious examples of “marriage” to show how “degraded” and “awful” marriage is, yet you fail to precisely explain that if marriage is so negative then why in the world is the homosexual community is so eager to include themselves in that definition as to apply it to themselves when they could easily come up with their own term unique to what they do.
Oh, I almost forgot that the “angry” person does not usually write “LOL” frequently in their posts like I have done numerous times. However, your posts seem to be quite lacking with any such phrase or any humor at all now that I think about it.
You also “wander what it is like to have such clarity, such certainty?” Well, if you want “such clarity” and “certainty” then maybe you ought to stuff you face into a Big Fat King James Bible and actually read it. Better yet try believing it. LOL….
BTW, the U.S. Constitution wouldn’t be bad to read either although it is not as “certain” and “clear” as the Bible. Which is the reason why politicians and liberals try so hard to keep away from the Bible. Now that is funny.
Have a good day. :)
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.23.10 @ 07:34 AM
@ yapp
I brought up Gingrich, Sanford, et al because they say one thing but do another. I think your last comment proves my point about anger, and your intolerance of others seems angry to me as well, or maybe you are hiding something. “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.” Maybe you should come out. LOL!
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.23.10 @ 03:17 PM
@ggomez
No… You brought up Gingrich, Sanford and the rest because you “thought” that “mocking” marriage would support your argument but as flawed as it was, you ended up cutting your own argument down logically. Really why would any homosexual want to identify with something that is so screwed up such as “marriage” in the way that you tried to make it sound so awful? If you are going to try and cut my argument down at least hold the knife by the handle doofus. Geesh…
How am I “intolerant”? Just because I voice my opinion about my views on homosexual behavior and the definition of marriage I am “intolerant?” Did I threaten to kill anyone, curse anyone, or try to get a law passed putting homosexuals in jail? No. NO… and NOOOOOO….
Maybe you ought to be thankful that you can come here and voice your opinion in support of homosexual behavior without having to worry about your throat getting slit like in other countries on this stupid planet. And here you are trying to make me look like some bigot. I would say the opposite is true.
And get off your “anger” kick. Been there before and you are just like all the rest. Weak statement, not even an argument. LoL…
Maybe I am “hiding” something huh? LOL… wouldn’t you like to know?
BTW. I see you are finally catching on to not appearing so stern and “angry” in your posts since you finally typed “LOL” one time so far. I guess it takes time for you to catch on? LOL…
BTW, did you know I am for Gays exercising their Second Amendment rights? Take that to the bank and see how broke you are!
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.23.10 @ 04:59 PM
@ yapp
“This would be the equivalent of homosexuals “redefining” marriage — something we will never tolerate.” From your original letter.
“This “tolerance” stuff has gone too far.” The last line of your letter.
No, you are not intolerant. I guess you have a “true” definition of tolerance and intolerance, like marriage. Did you get that from the “Big Fat King James Bible” too?
Again, I listed Gingrich and the others because they say one thing and do another. You don’t have to believe that that is what I meant; it is what they did/do. I think they are good examples of people, like yourself, who vehemently denounce someone or a group of people, and then engage in the behavior they denounce (“Maybe I am “hiding” something huh? LOL… wouldn’t you like to know?”). An example: you talk of “punks” and gang members in junior high or high school, decry their behavior, and then suggest in another country I might get my throat slit, like something a gang member might do. Did you get that idea from your “Big Fat King James Bible.”
Slitting of throats sounds “stern and angry”, don’t you think. You should have put one of your LOL’s after it, and then we would know you are just a fun, happy guy…with a secret. Yapp, yapp, yapp.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.24.10 @ 10:53 AM
@ggomez
ggomez says:
“Slitting of throats sounds “stern and angry”, don’t you think.”
Yes, it does sound “stern and angry” just like I implied in reference to those whacko’s in extremely Islamic/Communistic countries that often go around seeking, killing and persecuting homosexuals simply because their laws and customs permit the slaughter of those with different beliefs.
What?? Are you upset that I am not like them or something?
Of course, many homosexuals act in very similar ways exhibiting their “violence” by burning cars, vandalizing homes and smashing various objects in the street when the majority of the citizens reject their same sex lifestyle they forcefully flaunt upon us.
I guess you must have forgotten the latest poll results on Prop 8 and what the outcome was in some of our city streets here in CA?
LOL…
And yet here you remain, attempting to “claim” that I am “Intolerant?” Maybe you ought to talk to the people in your own group about “intolerance” better yet maybe your should tell them to stop being so offensive too.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.24.10 @ 08:26 PM
@ yapp
—“What?? Are you upset that I am not like them or something?” No, not upset. I think you are like them.
—“And yet here you remain, attempting to “claim” that I am “Intolerant?”” Read your letter and comments again: just from the letter: “Letter to the Editor: Redefining Marriage Shouldn’t Be Tolerated”; “There’s nothing to debate…”; ” under the false and so heavily abused doctrine of “tolerance” and “equality.””; “something we will never tolerate”; “This “tolerance” stuff has gone too far”. Five examples, and yet you claim to be tolerant. And you call me a “doofus”. Yapp!
Yapp, yapp, yapp (think angry poodle; based on what you have written I think that is what you are). This seems more appropriate than your overused LOL. By the way, you seem to be finally catching on to not appearing so stupid in your last post since you finally typed “LOL” only one time. It does get tiring seeing a useless acronym used when you have nothing better to say or to cover the fact that you are an offensive bigot(That is the TRUTH; if you can declare what is true, I think I can too). I guess it takes time for you to catch on?
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.24.10 @ 08:54 PM
@ yapp
I see that I am not the only one who thinks you come off as angry. And as for something you might be hiding, these posts really make me question your character. More like Gingrich et al than I thought.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.30.10 @ 06:24 AM
@ggomez
I see that you are not the only cyber-stalker coming off like you think you know so much about me.
Wooooo, so you can find other posts where people like you like to make accusations and stir up trouble huh?
LOL… you are just another malcontent.
Basically, this debate has digressed to “you” totally dodging the argument attempting to focus on issues that have nothing to do with the topic. I say that is typical liberal tactics. Hahaha
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.30.10 @ 07:34 AM
@ yapp
“you are just another malcontent”
A malcontent following a hypocrite.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.30.10 @ 10:42 AM
@ggomez
Hypocrite based on what exactly??? Because I do not believe the same way you do???
Furthermore, why do you keep ignoring my points and continue to make personal attacks hiding behind some obscure screen name where no one can identify you? At least I am being legite using my real name and you think “I” am the one “HIDING” something? Are you serious?
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha…
That sort of makes just about anything you type seem questionable since you obviously rattle off whatever you want to write while hiding behind your monitor with no real accountability for what you say on this forum. Don’t you think?
LOL….........
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.30.10 @ 07:20 PM
@ Robert Yapp
“Hypocrite based on what exactly???”
“....make personal attacks hiding behind some obscure screen name where no one can identify you? At least I am being legite using my real name and you think “I” am the one “HIDING” something? Are you serious?”
Yes, I am serious. A self-proclaimed “pervert” on a Christian Fundamentalist Forum seems to be a hypocrite (“a false appearance of virtue; acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs…”); from the aforementioned forum:
“Your overall tone makes you seem questionable. It makes your motives questionable, it make you questionable. And again, that you would immediately begin using the word ‘pervert’ when referencing yourself (you will note that I never said you were a pervert, but rather merely copied your own words) it does give one pause for thought as to why you would go that direction - it makes me question.”
So, I guess you are not hiding. You have admitted to being a perv, so I stand corrected.
Hiding behind my “monitor”, or did you mean moniker? Duh. I certainly would not want a self-admitted pervert knowing how to track me down.
If you think posting on the web with your name means that you are any more accountable, that is ridiculous. Look at your anger, your hate, your intolerance, your perversity. Look at yourself, pal. Take another look at that “Big Fat King James Bible” you are always talking about, but not following. Hypocritical, don’t you think? Maybe that anger towards others is really self-loathing. Maybe you should talk to your Minister, unless he is a perv too (from the sounds of the forum, that might be the case?).
Yapp….
You have already flagged this entry.
» on 09.30.10 @ 10:27 PM
@ggomez
You sit there and knowingly single out one post that I made on another forum and deliberately twist it around for your enjoyment attempting to villify me? You are a piece of work!
No wonder you will not use your real name because you are just a fake like most liberals.
Nevertheless, if you would have read the whole thread that I was engaged in, you would have seen how some self-righteous, half crazed lady, playing “Christian” deliberately tried to imply publicly, that I said something improper to her in a private message, hoping to cause others to question my character. Just like you are “trying” to do now.
But here you are pulling similar tactics not even knowing what you are talking about. Real mature aren’t you? So now you made yourself look foolish because ANYONE can easily go back and read on that “fundamental forum” what YOU chose to leave out in order to fabricate your weak, straw man attack.
Furthermore, I believe the “pervert” is “you,” since you want to promote and defend the homosexual lifestyle so much. And you still “claim” I am “hiding” something? LOL…...
BTW, posting with my real name “does” make me accountable because I cannot sit there behind my screen and just make up a bunch of lies, threats, or “misuse” other people’s words in an attempt to wrongfully discredit them as in your case in particular.
Where is all that “tolerance” that you people talk about? Are you going to come to my neighborhood and start setting cars on fire and vandalizing property in an attempt to intimidate those who do not believe the way YOU do like the homosexuals did in their riots when they did not like the poll results regarding Prop 8?
Basically, I am going to say what needs to be said and there is NOTHING you can do about it to stop me.
So whatcha think Gerald Joseph? Just remember there are many more in line with me who will not back down to you or anyone else. This is still a free country you know?
BTW, it looks like that I am not the only one you like to attack and call names. Nor am I the only one that you run from and dodge the topic when you cannot give an intelligent answer. Typical LIB. Hahahaha…
Rather than attempting to debate people in the 3rd dimension, maybe you ought to stick with taking pictures of bird dung and liberal nutjobs that like to run around naked in public .
LOL…
Perhaps I will call you tomorrow to discuss the insinuation of my “minister” being a “perv?” I think that is along the lines of libel? Wouldn’t you say so Gerald?
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 10.01.10 @ 06:25 AM
@ yapp
Now, that was funny! Seemed angry, but funny.
Throughout this thread you have complained that I have not engaged you the way you like, but what is the point. Go to the first line of your letter, “There’s nothing to debate…”. I am not under any illusion that I could change your mind. So, why have I bothered to engage you at all? To use your words, to “not back down to you or anyone else. This is still a free country you know?” I don’t tend towards the violent imagery that you seem to go to quite often(like those others you referenced) so I wonder why you keep using it. Is it an attempt to intimidate, to get me to back down? It seems like it. Again, you have used it over and over. Oh, I am really afraid now; I might get a phone call.
So, the intolerance (again, read your own letter), the anger, the violent imagery comes so easily from you and people like you, but then there is always that “Big Fat Kind James Bible” looming in the background. That is what I find hypocritical; funny, and hypocritical. Maybe you should reference that Big Fat book:
“Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.”
You have already flagged this entry.
» on 10.01.10 @ 02:21 PM
@ggomez
Gerald, Gerald, Gerald…
I did not say, “Throughout this thread you have complained that I have not engaged you the way you like…”
I pointed out how you avoid the main topic and resort to personal attacks because you lack an intelligent answer when debating.
Now that I know enough information about who you are, I suggest that you be more careful as to what you say because people may think of you in a way that reflects negatively on your reputation. Of course, if you really were some tough guy that you seem to portray on this thread, then you would have flat out told me who you were initially, rather than let me have fun to figure out who the person is behind the screen attempting to insinuate things that are not true about me. Of course, you thought that you could get away with your reckless postings hoping that I was too stupid to or inadequate to combat your accusations hoping that I would just go away.
—You say, “ I am not under any illusion that I could change your mind. So, why have I bothered to engage you at all? To use your words, to “not back down to you or anyone else…”
Well, you already did back down when you failed to debate your point effectively and resorted to personal attacks on my character by twisting a post I made from another forum, then talking about it here on the Noozhawk link, insinuating I am some pervert, hoping readers here are too naive to figure you out.
Basically, you engaged me because you are the one who is “angry” at the fact that someone, “like me” actually said what I did. Your responses on this thread are proof of this.
—You said, “ I don’t tend towards the violent imagery that you seem to go to quite often(like those others you referenced) so I wonder why you keep using it. Is it an attempt to intimidate, to get me to back down? It seems like it. Again, you have used it over and over. Oh, I am really afraid now; I might get a phone call.”
The fact that people like you, who take the leisure to attack another’s personal reputation based on your intentional twisting of post I made on a different site which was not related to this forum until you came along, displays a trait of a hurtful person who would no doubt stoop to any level to get their way.
However, with you pushing 60 years of age, I will admit that I find it hard to believe that you would be the violent type in the streets that I made mention of earlier but life can be full of surprises.
I am not trying to intimidate you or get you to “back down” I am trying to keep you “honest” and “on track” with the topic.
For what it is worth individuals that are easily intimidated usually respond with personal attacks attempting to taint another’s reputation on their free time, to which you full well have done thus far. I’m just sayin!
—You stated,” the intolerance (again, read your own letter), the anger, the violent imagery comes so easily from you and people like you, but then there is always that “Big Fat Kind James Bible” looming in the background. That is what I find hypocritical; funny, and hypocritical. Maybe you should reference that Big Fat book:”
FYI, there are a whole lot more homosexuals and gay rights, radicals who commit “violent acts” when they do not get “their” way than there are “so called” Christians that act violently. Obviously, you do not watch much news or do a great deal research do you? Besides, when “so called” Christians do something “violent” they get blasted by the media (and they should) but when people from your camp get violent then it is pretty much expected anymore these days and often it goes excused or else the bigot/homophobe “card” is played. Whatever!
FACT 1. You were way off on your reasoning for using Gingrich, Sanford, Swaggart and others in an attempt to somehow relate their troublesome marriages with the true and traditional definition of marriage. It was NOT the argumnet of “they say one thing but do another,” that you tried to claim after I called you on it.
What they “say” and “do” has NOTHING to do with the topic started but it has EVERYTHING to do with YOU attacking ME claiming I am a hypocrite.
The REAL reason why you brought up Gingrich, Sanford, Swaggart etc, was because EVERYONE knows that those people you mentioned are NOT good examples of what a marriage is supposed to be, otherwise you would have NEVER brought them up in the first place.
My original argument does not matter how good or bad a marriage is but what the definition of marriage is supposed to be. Therefore, you are trying to redefine marriage because of someone else’s poor display of their own wedding vows to justify the term so you can apply it to whatever warped lifestyle you want it to fit into???
What is next, being married to an animal to justify beastiality? LOL… Maybe you could marry that lizard “Robbie?” hahahaha…
FACT 2. In addition, you try to sound like you know what you are talking about when in fact you do not even provide a decent example much less a reference.
For example, you claimed how that you were “very familiar” with SB 777 and how “YOU” viewed it as an “anti-discriminatory bill.”
However, you NEVER quoted any part of the bill or explained your position based on that document but just unloaded a bunch of “opinionated” emotionalism. I actually quoted that bill (SB777) and asked a fair question. Of course, you “ignored it.”
C. Let us not forget the Morrison quote that you so weakly used to make your point about Clinton being the “first Black President” and you still never addressed my facts for when that quote was used early on, as opposed to it being used recently in a much different way for political reasons.
Remember the Congressional Black Caucus on 29 Sep 2001 where even Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson used that phrase (first black president) to uplift Bill Clinton? Why did not Morrison have a problem with that phrase back then and waited all the way until 2008 to say anything about it?
—You quote the Bible and state, “Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.”
1. At least you used the King James Bible. (YAY for you!) BTW, was it BIG and FAT or did you get the little sissy pocket version? hahaha
2.Why quote “IT” if you do not believe “IT?” (Hmmm?)
3. I already cast the beam out of mine own eye and can see quite “clearly.” (YAY for me)
4. Since I can now see “clearly,” I know that you are not my “brother” therefore, you can “attempt” to cast the “mote” out of your own big fat eye. (No YAY this time. LoL…)
Since, you all of a sudden feel the urge to be “MR. SUNDAY SCHOOL TEACHER” then how about the following verses?
Romans 1:21-32 specifically verse 27 “And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; MEN WITH MEN working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.”
Genesis 19 is all about Sodom and Gomorrah.
Leviticus 18:22, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination.”
1 Corinthians 6:9 “know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: NEITHER fornicators, NOR idolaters, NOR adulterers, NOR effeminate, NOR ABUSERES OF THEMSELVES WITH MANKIND.”
Obviously God is more than fair in that He calls out fornicators, idolaters, effeminate, adulterers, AS WELL AS homosexual behavior too. I take it you probably ignored those parts like you did my argument and focused on the homosexuality part only, right? (But let me guess, I am the one “hiding” something? LOL…)
Oh, but I forgot that God is just so “hateful” to target only homosexuals and forgets about everyone else sinning and doing bad stuff as well, eh?
How’s that for a reference of that BIG FAT BOOK? Thanks for the laugh Gerald :)
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 10.01.10 @ 05:40 PM
@ yapp
You are welcome. I think you need a laugh.
I think anyone reading this thread, or any other that you have posted on, sees you for what you are. I think unhinged, but that’s just my opinion. I hope that you will grant that I am entitled to that opinion, this being a free country and all.
Thanks for the all the biblical quotes. Ctrl+v is handy, isn’t it? I really do think that you might be able to do that all day. Boy, you do go on. Yapp, yapp, yapp…
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
More Local News »
Letter to the Editor: Will 2011 Bring Change?
Tea Party Movement will be steadfast as Obama tries to force through agenda
Caltrans Highway Information for Central Coast
Rock and mudslides continue to limit traffic on Highway 1
Fire Causes Extensive Damage to Apartment Complex
Santa Maria officials say the cause appeared to be an electrical issue behind a stove
Pacific Coast Highway Closed Between Las Posas Road and Malibu
Nine-mile section remains off-limits because of rock slides
Lanes of Highway 101 Near Patterson Avenue to Close for Pothole Repair
Other state highways closed for flooding and other weather hazards have reopened
Weather: Fair 66.0º
Search Noozhawk »
