"Gay Marriage" apparently not all it was cracked up to be

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by knoledgeispower

 

You really need to educate yourself

Chaz Bono was NOT a child when she decided to have a sex change

You really need to read his story then.

He says he knew from his first memories he was in the wrong gender body. He wishes that he had had treatment from the beginning.

Chaz Bono, Cheryl Kilodavis, Author of My Princess Boy, to Appear at Groundbreaking Conference for Families of Transgender Children August 5-7, 2011

The Gender Odyssey Family conference is pleased to welcome Chaz Bono and Cheryl Kilodavis as this year’s featured keynote speakers. Chaz and Cheryl will be profiling their best-selling books, "Transition" and "My Princess Boy," respectively.

The Gender Odyssey Family Conference, the first family-centered event for people raising transgender and gender non-conforming children and teens, returns for the its fourth annual meeting at the Washington State Convention Center, August 5-7th, 2011. www.prweb.com...

Originally posted by HandyDandy

Originally posted by ignant
Yes, it is biases by homophobic views, but I am convinced it's conclusions aren't far off.

So you trust a biased study that reinforces your viewpoint, but if I post a study that refutes this study, I guarantee you'll claim bias.

edit on 9-2-2012 by HandyDandy because: (no reason given)

Trust?

Guarantee?

LOL

Sorry, I'm not sure why the original link doesn't work anymore.

Here's a new link to the same article

usnews.msnbc.msn.com...

Apparently MSNBC added a video and changed the original url

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by knoledgeispower

 

None of the quotes you used in your post were from me.

Typical dirty manipulative tactics from someone who is ignorant and losing the debate

You're really asking for it.

edit on 10-2-2012 by MathiasAndrew because: (no reason given)

wow calm down, I accidentally quoted the wrong person. I went back and edited it so that it says who the response was in response to. No need to get your panties in a knot. I'm not ignorant, you are and everyone who has read anything that you have said can see that. I'm not losing the debate, you've long ago lost it when all you do is hate on one group who is different then you. there are over 707 million LGBT people around the world so if you want to hate on a human go ahead. I bet you would have the same problem with the African Americans wanting the same rights and freedoms back in the day.

& Just because Chaz didn't decided to get a sex change right away doesn't mean he still wasn't a transgendered person his whole life. His Mom is a heterosexual and is dad, Sonny (RIP) was heterosexual too.
Chaz Bono talking about when he knew he was transgendered

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
I have had at least 10 posts removed in this thread alone by the MODS. Total BS, at the most 2 of them were justified.

I'm post banning myself.

F @# YOU ATS

I have been a contributing member of this site for over a year.

I'm sick of the MODS playing favorites, deleting posts and leaving others that are far more offensive and off topic.

I refuse to comment on this website anymore until the MODS take their heads out of their a@@

edit on 10-2-2012 by MathiasAndrew because: (no reason given)

Dare to dream!.. Alas, 5hrs and three posts later, dreams crushed.



Self-inflicted-post-ban fail!

reply to post by knoledgeispower

you've long ago lost it when all you do is hate on one group who is different then you.

I didn't hate on anyone. You're really showing your ignorance.

THESE ARE MY QUOTES

Marriage is a term that should be reserved for a man and a woman. If gays want to call it domestic partners or any other name and it gives them the same rights as married couples I'm OK with that. I just disagree with them stealing the term marriage.

The issues usually arise when one of the gay partners is either sick or dying and also if they have children. Before gay marriage was legal only spouses or family could make decisions regarding certain legal matters.

A gay partner could be denied visitation in the hospital or be denied the right to take over parental rights of a dying partners children. If no Will exists assets would go to immediate family members and not the gay partner.

I am not "pro gay rights" nor am I "anti gay rights".

I really don't care what you do behind closed doors as long as you keep it there. But when you want to try to shove it in my face is when I say , no that's not OK.

Only issue i have is with the terminology. The title, the label.

Marriage = man + woman

I'm not a religious person. However I do think that religion deserves some respect in certain aspects of society.
Marriage was developed through the church and was a religious ceremony.

same sex couples = domestic partnership = same rights as married couples

Just don't call it marriage = nothing anti gay about it

I just find it funny that a gay couple who has known each other for 40 years. Been a couple for 18 years and were the "poster couple" for gay marriage. They didn't even last more than 4 years as a married couple.

I understand that there are certain legal issues that are important when it comes to couples who are "married" or in a "domestic partnership".

To me it feels like the gay community is showing a lack of respect for the rest of society, the straight community and the religious community by demanding that their "domestic partner" relationship be called marriage. It seems hypocritical to me for them to want respect by disrespecting the title of marriage

By the way, it's not just gays who are disrespecting the title of marriage. Everyone of those people in the above videos I posted are also disrepecting the title of marriage. I disagree with all of those examples just as much. Probably more. All I ask is that the gays leave the term "marriage" alone.

What I find most concerning and repulsive is that when I state that GAYS SHOULD BE GIVEN THE SAME RIGHTS as other couples. But just don't call it marriage, call it domestic partners or civil unions.

All the creeps put down their poppers and come crawling out of their dungeons wearing their gimp suits and start acting like I just declared open hunting season on the entire gay community and culture.

Yeah, I'm spreading lots of hate OK

Trying to be one those creeps I was talking about are you?

reply to post by Rren

Self-inflicted-post-ban fail!

As long as my rant stays up, no need for me to post ban myself.

If / when it gets removed, then I might consider it again.

5 hrs and my rants is still there, I'm satisfied that my point was made.

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by knoledgeispower

 

you've long ago lost it when all you do is hate on one group who is different then you.

I didn't hate on anyone. You're really showing your ignorance.

THESE ARE MY QUOTES

Marriage is a term that should be reserved for a man and a woman. If gays want to call it domestic partners or any other name and it gives them the same rights as married couples I'm OK with that. I just disagree with them stealing the term marriage.

The issues usually arise when one of the gay partners is either sick or dying and also if they have children. Before gay marriage was legal only spouses or family could make decisions regarding certain legal matters.

A gay partner could be denied visitation in the hospital or be denied the right to take over parental rights of a dying partners children. If no Will exists assets would go to immediate family members and not the gay partner.

I am not "pro gay rights" nor am I "anti gay rights".

I really don't care what you do behind closed doors as long as you keep it there. But when you want to try to shove it in my face is when I say , no that's not OK.

Only issue i have is with the terminology. The title, the label.

Marriage = man + woman

I'm not a religious person. However I do think that religion deserves some respect in certain aspects of society.
Marriage was developed through the church and was a religious ceremony.

same sex couples = domestic partnership = same rights as married couples

Just don't call it marriage = nothing anti gay about it

I just find it funny that a gay couple who has known each other for 40 years. Been a couple for 18 years and were the "poster couple" for gay marriage. They didn't even last more than 4 years as a married couple.

I understand that there are certain legal issues that are important when it comes to couples who are "married" or in a "domestic partnership".

To me it feels like the gay community is showing a lack of respect for the rest of society, the straight community and the religious community by demanding that their "domestic partner" relationship be called marriage. It seems hypocritical to me for them to want respect by disrespecting the title of marriage

By the way, it's not just gays who are disrespecting the title of marriage. Everyone of those people in the above videos I posted are also disrepecting the title of marriage. I disagree with all of those examples just as much. Probably more. All I ask is that the gays leave the term "marriage" alone.

What I find most concerning and repulsive is that when I state that GAYS SHOULD BE GIVEN THE SAME RIGHTS as other couples. But just don't call it marriage, call it domestic partners or civil unions.

All the creeps put down their poppers and come crawling out of their dungeons wearing their gimp suits and start acting like I just declared open hunting season on the entire gay community and culture.

Yeah, I'm spreading lots of hate OK

Trying to be one those creeps I was talking about are you?

again, wow calm down, I accidentally quoted the wrong person.
Why should they have another term for the word when they are a human being marrying another human being? By saying that there should be a different term means that you are saying they are different people and should be treated as such. Homosexuals are humans and if they want to use the term marriage then they should be allowed to just like every other human being.

reply to post by knoledgeispower


I asked this question earlier in thread. Maybe you would like to respond to it.

Suppose I wanted to create a new holiday. A holiday where I worship satan. I decided I want my new holiday to be named Christmas. Do you think I'm being disrespectful to other people?

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


To be fair LaVey pretty much created the Church of Satan to antagonize Christians. Thus the choice of calling it the Church of Satan even though there is no worship of any kind of deity. So naming a Satanic holiday Christmas would be pretty much keeping with the rest of the philosophy.

reply to post by MathiasAndrew



Gay marriage not what it was uhhhh . . . cracked . . . up to be . . . hmmm . . .

NO DOUBT.

1. A miniscule percentage of "gay marriages" are monogomous.

2. Virtually all are some variation of "open marriage" wherein one or more likely both partners routinely have sex with other males.

3. Most don't last very many years, if that long.

4. Then there's the whole business of most male homosexuals living 20 years less than heterosexuals due to the many disease factors accompanying the behaviors.

5. Certainly heterosexual marriage has also been under a globalist assault on the family and the institution of marriage for many decades and shows the wear and tear of all that onslaught and attack. Nevertheless, there are still many marriages that are authentic, healthy, mutually supportive and good at rearing children.

Thankfully.

When Marriage became a legal secular government contract - - to protect rights an property of those joining together as one family - - - it lost any special right to be exclusively religious.

Sure you can get married in a church - - but it doesn't count legally.

Always amazes me the fight against interracial and gay marriage - - - but not a peep about Atheists marrying.

reply to post by MathiasAndrew

In response to your quote and your points the following can be made:

1: While the term marriage is traditionally reserved for a man and a woman, there is a lot more to it, than that basic definition. There is a certain thought and idea behind it that gives it a greater meaning than just that. People like to celebrate things, including weddings. As the courts have reflected the term partnership just does not carry the same weight and therefore can not be equal under the eyes of the law. If you look at the popular media, such as that in print, and on film what would the reaction have been if the headlines had read: Prince Charles to have his domestic partner Princess Dianna? Or say a film, “How to have a domestic partnership with a millionaire.” The terms and actual idea just is not there.

2: The issues are deeper than what is mentioned and is only the tip of the ice berg. When long term gay partners are sick, if the family does not agree with such, even though the 2 have been together for many years, it can be a legal nightmare often denying the very dignity to the person that is sick, or in the hospital. And even then, speaking of legal means, in a traditional marriage as a point of law, a wife can not be compelled to testify in court against her husband, yet domestic partners have no such right or protections under the law.

3: Marriages were once religious, yet that has long passed. It is no longer within the solitary right of any religious organization to just conduct marriages, as now there are also civil authorities who hold that right and do such every day. Do we now deny that right to a portion of the population as it may seem to be an affront to what some would view as being immoral and force their morality on others? Why is it so wrong, to allow for equality across the entire spectrum of the law, rather than just that which we agree with? After all there are a few other things that could be viewed along those lines, yet are still afforded the same protections as those of the rest of the country. At one time it was considered illegal and even against social norms for 2 people who were of differing religions to wed, differing skin colors and even differing cultures. And those cases are well documented in the courts and history.

4: While you state you are not a religious person, the very arguments are the same ones that those who are religious use, and the real shame is that they use it as a weapon to not include a portion of society instead of being inclusive. Is it just an exclusive club? If that be the case, then the phrase from Groucho Marx best states: I would not want to be a part of a club that would have me as a member.

5: Domestic partnerships are not equal in the same rights as a married couple. Here again, there is no celebration, the very terminology is different, and is not even equal, with some of the very same rights not there, where the laws have to be piece meeled together to get the equality there, when it could simply be finished by allowing the same across the board, and reducing the time and money that the legislators waste to make things equal.

6: While you may find it funny that gay couples who has known each other for 40 years are divorcing, why is it any more different than say a former speaker of the house doing the exact same thing? Or say a major religious figure being caught cheating on his spouse of equal amount of time? Seems like there is way too much hype and to do about nothing, other than to stir up the fears of the general public. And ultimately who is to lose in this society? Society and the nature of marriage is already having problems as it were, long before gay people were wanting the right to be equal and married. Divorces were occurring at an ever raising rate, the decline of society tends to rear its ugly head with every thing that threatens the norm and the majority fearing those changes.

7: And yet the very nature of your final argument tends to show that very fear and misconception of what many people tend to think about when they hear the word gay. Most gay people, contrary to popular belief are just trying to be like everyone else, and survive in the world. They pay taxes, follow the laws of the country and ultimately tend to go through and be pretty decent people. Some even, when getting together to live in a neighborhood, tend to make it a pretty desirable place to live, having skills that go across the entire spectrum of society affecting every aspect of life and what all you do, wear and eat.

The other argument that you have made, was about marrying your dog and that is pretty much an argument that can be summed up with one word: Law, you see the various arguments that are often presented against gay marriage, what is not often spoken of, or even mentioned, is that such topics and ideas have already been discussed, debated and often had trials over to determine the validity of what is acceptable and what is not. This is to include that of marrying animals, as it would be considered an act of bestiality under the eyes of the law. As this is a nation governed by laws, not religion, can there be no reason, no legal backing to actually deny 2 people of the same sex to marry and wed, or is this merely an idea that can not be ever achieved, where it is ok for just some and not for others? That idea where it is ok for some and not for others is the very basis of legalized discrimination.

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by knoledgeispower

 

I asked this question earlier in thread. Maybe you would like to respond to it.

Suppose I wanted to create a new holiday. A holiday where I worship satan. I decided I want my new holiday to be named Christmas. Do you think I'm being disrespectful to other people?

This is a poor analogy. I uderstand what you are getting at by trying to address what you feel as Disrespect by the connection of the word marriage with the word Christmas and you are also using this analogy to represent GAY's with the Religion of Satanic Worship. The logic doesn't jive.

The word Marriage can be used in a variaty of ways such as the marriage of two metal beams in construction of a bridge. There are many other ways to use the word Marriage.

Christmas on the other hand is simply a Holiday that was an attempt by certain Christian Leaders in areas where there were pagan ceremonies that coinsided with Winter, Spring, Fall and Summer Solstices. In the case of the Winter Solstice...a sub-group of the Roman Catholic Church renamed the Winter Pagan Holiday...Christs Mass....which eventually became Christmas and Christmas was actually a BANNED HOLIDAY for Hundreds of years before the Vatcan OKed it and it was even banned in some U.S. States until the 1800's.

The same thing with the the Spring Pagan Holiday of Ester the Fertility Goddess....ever wonder what Baskets and bunnies and little chicks and eggs have to do with EASTER...Easter was a CREATED HOLIDAY by Christians who wanted to change well established for thousands of years Pagan Holidays such as the Spring Fertility Holiday of ESTER...the Pagans would make baskets and place in them Grass and Eggs and Young Bunnies and New Born Chicks with flowers such as Tulip or other early bulb plant growth with a nice flower. These were sometimes given as a sacrifice or sometimes given to children as they still are today. So your analogy is flawed as is your understanding of what Christmas was originally celebrated as....the Winter Solstace where trees were decorated with Holly and pine cones and painted ornaments and candles....thousands of years before Christ was born...Jesus was born in July or August....and It is just sad to associate SATAN or the IDEA of SATAN with GAY's as you have done purposely with this analogy....illogical and uninformed as it may be. YOU just have a problem with GAY's period...just remember...you were a female at one time and if your genetics had not turned on a Hrmonal Switch...you would be either female in body but Male in mind. Split Infinity

Originally posted by zeeon

Listen - Marriage is not a Right. Contrary to what you people think, the Constitution does not specifically grant us the right to marriage. It does not grant it to straight people, gay people, dogs, animals, birds, bee's, or anything else.

The Constitution did not originally grant us the right to vote either. When women fought for the right to vote, an amendment was added to fix that. My prediction is that this issue will eventually get to the U.S. Supreme Court, and they will rule that it is unconstitutional for states to ban marriages based on sexual orientation, as that is discrimination. Animals, children and inanimate objects will not apply here, because they are unable to comprehend and agree to be willing participants in the legal contract that is "marriage".

I am opposed to gay couples calling their union "Marriage". It's not. There was a time in the country where oh gee - you could have a ceremony and the priest would wed the couple. No state, no licenses - nothing.
This is it how it should be for straight people, gay people and everyone else.

What about atheists? Are you opposed to calling their union "marriage"? What about a couple who has no intention of procreating? Would you object to calling their union "marriage"? So, if we got rid of state licenses altogether, and a church was willing to have a ceremony and wed a gay couple, you would be ok with calling that union a "marriage"? Because there are plenty of churches today that are perfectly willing to do that.

I think the better solution here is to remove the State from our society - not integrate it with more laws telling us how to live our lives. That's all I'm saying.

Our Government is to enforce the Rights of the people and just Laws. Not rule our society.

Our Government is also here to make sure that no one is being discriminated against, as that is everyone's right.

Originally posted by Annee
When Marriage became a legal secular government contract - - to protect rights an property of those joining together as one family - - - it lost any special right to be exclusively religious.

Sure you can get married in a church - - but it doesn't count legally.

Always amazes me the fight against interracial and gay marriage - - - but not a peep about Atheists marrying.

Always amazes me that you regularly worship government as your God and holy religion.

No, Annee. No. Marriage became an ILLEGAL government contract because it is unconstitutional to have to have a system where you pay money for rights and privileges that other people don't have. That the government treats a married person differently is a violation of rights.

Are you really in favor of forcing the population to agree with government permission slips for people who wish to be married? Getting married in church does count legally, its just the illegal government we have refuses to follow their own laws.

In fact, thats what makes our government illegitimate. They never have followed their own laws and they never intend to. They write one law book for you, and then another law book for them.

If its wrong for the government to do it, then its wrong for you and I to do it. If its wrong for me to say "Annee if you want to get married you have to get permission from me, or I'll make sure you don't get a number of rights and privileges associated with my permission slip", then its wrong for the state to do the same exact thing. So, what should my punishment be if I were to force you into a position where you need my permission to get married Annee? That is my question for you that I imagine you will ignore because you seem to worship the state as a divine being and religion in that that when they say something it is magical and special compared to you or I saying something.

Originally posted by seachange

Originally posted by Annee
When Marriage became a legal secular government contract - - to protect rights an property of those joining together as one family - - - it lost any special right to be exclusively religious.

Sure you can get married in a church - - but it doesn't count legally.

Always amazes me the fight against interracial and gay marriage - - - but not a peep about Atheists marrying.

Always amazes me that you regularly worship government as your God and holy religion.

No, Annee. No. Marriage became an ILLEGAL government contract because it is unconstitutional to have to have a system where you pay money for rights and privileges that other people don't have.

First - - can the worship drama.

Two separate discussions.

#1 Equal Rights. Equal under the law and fact as it stands. Which is Legal Secular Government Marriage License - - which is a contract to protect rights and property of those joining as one household. Plus rights not afforded by any other means.

#2 History of Marriage License. A contract originally arranged between families - - - until the Catholic church discovered money could be made.

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


You should probably realize that until recently, it was bigoted opinions of people in control like you which would have prevented people like Chaz Bono from receiving counseling, hormone treatment, and any related surgery.


I feel kind of sorry for you Mathias. You must have some real problems with people when you go to such lengths to attempt to control what a small population of individuals does with their bodies or their loved ones. I've known plenty of your type. None of them have any sense of inner peace.

reply to post by milkyway12

Hi again, Milky --

You Wrote:

QUOTE

In order to believe that David and Jonathan were Homosexual lovers, you are going to have to ignore the ‘plain reading’ of scripture & the historic /traditional understanding of the text.

In addition, you are going to have to believe that Samuel, one of [God’s] prophets in the tradition of the Mosiac cultural law that condemns homosexuality in Leviticus, would then approve of this homosexual relationship enough to carefully cloak it in the text.

Would not this prophet of [God], in the strong tradition of Judaism and the law of Moses have an opinion on this?

1 Samuel 20:30-31 - Then Saul's anger burned against Jonathan & he said to him, "You son of a perverse, rebellious woman! Do I not know that you are choosing the son of Jesse to your own shame and to the shame of your mother's nakedness? "For as long as the son of Jesse lives on the earth, neither you nor your kingdom will be established. Therefore now, send and bring him to me, for he must surely die…”

UNQUOTE

First off, there is no proof that ‘David’ even knew the text of the supposedly ancient ‘Torah of Moses’ as it is presented in modern ‘bibles’ and read in churches and synagogues in the various Vulgate or Masoretic versions

After all – David's very own grandmother was (according to the Torah !) a Moabitess, & according to the Torah

NO MOABITE OR AMMONITE MAY EVER ENTER INTO THE CONGREGATION of YHWH - NOT EVEN BEYOND THE 10th GENERATION…” – (see Deut 23:3)

Therefore Torah states that David was not even a 'son of Yisro'el' at all !! I doubt whether he would have known that verse !!!

Also as a Judean, David had NO BUSINESS (according to the Torah) approaching the ARK OF THE COVENANT much less dancing naked infront of it - a cultic taboo ritual object that only the priestly LEVITES were allowed to approach.

So DON’T go there about Torah and David. You do not know about which you speak.

Also, You are clearly ignorant not only of the paleoHebrew consonants of 1 Sam 20:30 (by your own mis-translation !) but also of the Dead Sea Scroll variants of this verse in paleo-Hebrew – and also of the later Greek translations from DIFFERENT Heb. Vorlagen (Hebrew text source-originals)

e.g. the Greek translation of the Hebrew text version used by Symmachus, or the Greek version of ANOTHER Hebrew texdt version used by Theodotion or the Greek translation of ANOTHER Hebrew text used by Aquila or the DIFFERENT Hebrew texts used by the translators of the Greek Septuaginta LXX (c. 250 BCE) out of Alexandria for this THORNY verse…

If you DO NOT KNOW HOW TO READ paleoHEBREW or Greek , you are walking around blind without a cane, pal.

The key words/phrases here are: paleoHeb: BEN-NeQoTH haMIRaDoTH = lit. ‘son of of a Peverse Female’

(Neqoth can also mean ‘young-slut’, ‘whore’ or ‘wanton female’) which in Septuaginta LXX Greek becomes actually Plural : HUIE KORASIWN (pl.) AUTOMOLOUVTWN – ‘you Son of those cheap-girls who chase army-deserters’)

The paleoHeb noun: HaMeRDoTH = can mean ‘rebellious’ or ‘perverted’ or ‘going against the Laws of Nature’ – the Greek LXX Septuaginta uses a Hebrew text which was in the PLURAL here & chose ‘UIE KOPASIWV AUTOMOLOUVTWV’ = ‘you son of the women (pl.) who follow army deserters’

The paleoHeb verb BeCHaR = ‘select a husband’, ‘select for a wife’ ‘get engaged to’ carries with it CLEAR sexual connotations in that it is often used as a replacement for another verb ‘YaDaK’ (‘to have carnal knowledge with’, ‘to copulate with’, ‘to be sexually intimate with’)

e.g. ‘You alone O Israel have I YHWH ever ‘chosen to marry as a wife’, for you alone have I ‘known’ (i.e. been intimate with i.e. sexually) of all the Goyim Gentile nations of the land…”

The Greek LXX softens it a bit with ‘METOXOS’ for the Heb. Bechar = meaning ‘have become an accomplice’ –this verse Aquila translated by another word and Symmachus with another word and Theodotion with yet another word - all of them clearly ‘uncomfortable’ with the idea (as you blindly are !) of David & Jonathan having more than just a cozy sleeping arrangement with each other….

For the PaleoHeb tradition to use a phrase placed into the mouth of King Saul here (‘Do you imagine that I am unaware THAT YOU HAVE CHOSEN TO MARRY that Son of Jesse to the Confusion of your Mother’s Nakedness’ clearly indicates that David and his boy-toy Jonathan were DOING A LOT MORE THAN JUST EXCHANGING UNDERWEAR or HOLDING HANDS !!

One must take into account the presence of the CLEAR CLUSTER OF SEXUAL NOUNS & VERBS in the Hebrew of this short verse in 1 Sam 20:30 (along with 2 Samuel chapter 1 – the love Paean to Jonathan penned by ‘David’) - then examine the ACTUAL CONTEXT of the phrases in all the various text versions.

Apparently you did NOT know any of this….typical !!

reply to post by Miraj

I feel kind of sorry for you Mathias. You must have some real problems with people when you go to such lengths to attempt to control what a small population of individuals does with their bodies or their loved ones. I've known plenty of your type. None of them have any sense of inner peace.

OMG,

Give it rest you ignorant, judgmental fool.

First of all, what lengths have I gone to trying to control people? All I did was state my opinion. You don't like what I said so you want to pretend that I am somehow anti-gay and out campaigning against them. You are totally off base and stretching the truth as far as your blind eyes can see.

Second, you're the real bigot here, you have no idea what "my type" is. You've never met me and you know nothing about me. You've tried to manipulate my statements by quoting someone else and pretending it was me who said those things. You've imposed your own (completely incorrect) stereotypes upon me. I have nothing against gays. However I do dislike manipulative, judgmental people like yourself. You are just a perfect example of ignorance

I feel sorry for you.