I have tried to limit how many IB posts I respond to, largely because reading too much IB drivel is dangerous to a reader’s mental wellbeing. However, since he insists on attacking me with lies and frivolous statements I sometimes—like here—feel compelled to respond..
Let’s take his stupid rant point by point:
1. I will assume that most people on this board believe the legal system should not legislate my ability to spend time in bed with a consensual young (but not too young) lady. Maybe I’m wrong with that assumption, but I don’t think so. Additionally, there are quite a number of FMF reviews and threads on this site, and generally guys drool over the thought of two women sexually interacting. But while all this is going on there are clearly some folks here who do not believe two men have the same right—otherwise we wouldn’t be having this discussion. To me—and many others—this seems this is contradictory. Not IB! He tosses it all away with “You pulled that out of your ass, Old-goaT, because you didn't see it in black & white.”Nice of you to admit you don’t have any thoughts of your own, that if you haven’t read it in a Hannity sound bite it doesn’t pass through your neurons. I know it’s hard for you to wrap your mind around but some of us don’t have to read ideas in order to think. Notice how your deflection and complete inability to provide a cite proves the point —> you are a lying sack of shit, Old-goaT.
2. I equated the communist-like desire to tell me my sexual preference no different from the communist-like desire to tell me my pet preference. I don’t know how to address IB’s inability to understand the similarities,All I can do is sympathize for his inability to think broadly—but then that has been a known IB defect for a long time. Bestiality is a forbidden topic, Old-goaT. You need to find another SHMB.
3. IB, in his typical approach, identified a lot of references. I have learned they are often not worth the effort it takes to search through them, but in this case I did because I was curious what he had found. I should have known better. The key point for discussion was my statement that no clear safety argument exists for heterosexual marriage vs homosexual marriage. Let’s look at the two references Good Ol’ IB claims prove homosexual marriages are dangerous:
“Heterosexual marriage was significantly linked to having young parents, small age differences between parents, stable parental relationships, large sibships, and late birth order. For men, homosexual marriage was associated with having older mothers, divorced parents, absent fathers, and being the youngest child. For women, maternal death during adolescence and being the only or youngest child or the only girl in the family increased the likelihood of homosexual marriage. Our study provides population-based, prospective evidence that childhood family experiences are important determinants of heterosexual and homosexual marriage decisions in adulthood.”
Hmm, that doesn’t seem to support IB’s homophobia. Maybe the 2nd reference does:
“For many youth, homosexual attraction develops due to negative or traumatic experiences, such as sexual abuse. These students need therapy for the trauma, not affirmation of a gay identity.”ť
“Homosexual attraction is determined by a combination of familial, environmental, social and biological influences. Inheritance of predisposing personality traits may play a role for some. Consequently, homosexual attraction is changeable.”
“The homosexual lifestyle, especially for males, carries grave health risks.
Research also makes clear that individuals who ultimately adopt a non-heterosexual lifestyle are more likely to suffer from a host of negative outcomes including psychiatric disorders, domestic violence and sexual assault, and increased risk for chronic diseases, AIDS and shortened life spans.”
Hmmmm, seems to link some family situations to a greater likelihood of sexual preference. It says there is a correlation between growing up in an abusive situation, being homosexual, and then (later?) abuse. But which is the cause, and which is the effect? I am also guessing IB is referring to the HIV comment, which I admit is a safety issue. I’m convinced, IB, outlaw homosexuality! Outlay anything that is a safety issue! We need stronger police action to arrest smokers, have invasive public checks on seat belt usage, and we absolutely must jail anyone who is overweight!!! Those are bigger health risks in a global nature than HIV!! IB, what did you have for dinner last night? Too much fat!! That is a $250 fine for increasing the health problems of the US!! Obviously I’m being facetious (in case you can’t understand that, IB). I am being facetious because your reference is so out of context it’s laughable. And you are hypocritical (again) supporting heavy government legal restrictions against gay marriage but don’t seem as interested in protecting ourselves from the more dangerous obesity and smoking issues. Why not? That third grade education is still holding you back, Old-goaT. Those are bona fide scientific studies you are discounting, Old-goaT, and they involved thousands (one of them millions) of test subjects. BTW, you need to look at the authorship of those studies once again because your every allegation that I B Hankering authored them is a BS lie . . . unless you just want to admit here and now you are too damn stupid to read!?! But that would be redundant. Everyone here already KNOWS you are too damn stupid to read.
4. ME: The bible thumpers and quran thumpers are both using their personal religious text to justify their closed mindedness and hate. OB: “You are a liar, Old-goaT”. Oh? Are you really claiming there are not religious zealots of every flavor out there? Do you really want me to enumerate a few examples we are all too familiar with? IB, no argument, I decry the extremists of all religions—and I have respect for the many good people who follow different religions. The extremists give a bad name to the good ones. It sure sounds like you are making a religion based argument against homosexual marriage, but obviously I must be mistaken. Tsk, tsk, tsk!!! That third grade education, Old-goaT. You are just too damn stupid to read. Yea, right.
5. And now yet a little more insight into IB's "mind". A scary thought indeed: OB: “In the Those who make deviant choices need to STFU and deal the associated negative consequences of their choices."What gives you the right to say their behavior is "deviant"? Websters!!! Deviant: deviating especially from some accepted norm: characterized by deviation (as from a standard of conduct). Is your definition of "deviant" really "anything IB doesn't like"? You are having trouble with authorship tonight, Old-goaT, but that’s not unusual given your lack of cognitive skills. That is the essence of your bigotry--why can't you just live with "They don't look and act like me. What they do isn't what I care to do." No, small mined people have to take it a step farther and yell "Deviant!" Tsk, tsk, tsk!!! Damn that third grade education, Old-goaT. Now you are showing you have no math skills, Old-goaT. The LGBT community makes up less than 5% of the total population, meaning the other 95% of the population define ‘the norm’. The LBGT deviate from the norm; hence, they are ‘deviants’. Tsk, tsk, tsk. You are one, ignorant, dumb fuck, Old-goaT. P.S. Your hyperbole is juvenile.
There are a lot of people who like things I don't like. A lot who do/eat/listen to/believe things I don't do/eat/listen to/believe. So I just ignore their private activities. You should try it.
Lastly: IB: "And no one cares if they call marriage 'something else'." Finally something we agree on. But out of curiosity, wuld that mean they are no longer deviants? just curious. Old-goaT, you are one, ignorant, dumb fuck. Check Websters; you’ll find the definition for ‘deviant’. Originally Posted by Old-T
- I B Hankering
- 05-17-2012, 10:54 PM
- Old-T
- 05-18-2012, 06:26 AM
IB, your words speak for themselves. I couldn't begin to define you better than you have yourself. Nice job.
- I B Hankering
- 05-18-2012, 08:25 AM
