Osprey  <Ospre... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 27, 5:37 pm, Mitchell Holman <noem... at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:
Osprey <Ospre... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote innews:e17be249-cba4-4fde-a76a-6641571471c2 at (no spam) l2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
I don't care what homosexuals do, period.

"They choose NOT to be in heterosexual relationships,
therefore they oppose them."
"Osprey", Oct 25 2009 (in the above notestream)-

That's right, I oppose their (your) lifestyle. That doesn't mean I
care what you do,

Um, actually, that's exactly what it means.  You care enough to oppose
them.

I just choose not to participate in a lifestyle like
that.

And you choose to object to their "lifestyle" (whatever that means).

Osprey <Ospre... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote innews:9bb7ee19-a840-43fc-a452-d5f872e902df at (no spam) m25g2000vbi.googlegroups.com:





On Oct 27, 5:37 pm, Mitchell Holman <noem... at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:
Osprey <Ospre... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote
innews:e17be249-cba4-4fde-a76a-664157
147... at (no spam) l2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:

On Oct 27, 1:15 pm, IAAH <n... at (no spam) email.exist> wrote:
On 10/27/09 1:11 PM, * Osprey wrote:

On Oct 27, 11:15 am, IAAH <n... at (no spam) email.exist> wrote:
On 10/27/09 8:00 AM, * Osprey wrote:

On Oct 27, 7:11 am, Mitchell Holman <noem... at (no spam) comcast.net
wrote:
Osprey <Ospre... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote
innews:0983a0f4-4061-4136-b90a-b
32128cba... at (no spam) m25g2000vbi.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 26, 5:51 pm, Mitchell Holman <noem... at (no spam) comcast.net
wrote:
Osprey <Ospre... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote
innews:1112c57d-d019-47ae-b3d8-7a8026
ee1... at (no spam) b18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 26, 8:08 am, Mitchell Holman <noem... at (no spam) comcast.net
wrote:
Osprey <Ospre... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote in
news:53494f82-b84e-4305-bbb7-
1dd8d25a6... at (no spam) m11g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 26, 12:12 am, Mitchell Holman
noem... at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:
"J" <Jvisi... at (no spam) live.com> wrote
innews:37vs5r.1q6.19.1 at (no spam) news.alt.net:
Although there are probably some individuals who do
harbor a hatred for gays, the majority of people who
oppose the homo lifestyle and 'same-sex marriage'
legislation base their opposition on grounds of
morality and decency; not hatred.
    And your proof of that is.......?
To oppose a lifestyle that leads one
to an early death complicated by illness, depression,
and isolation
is
not the same as casting someone as evil and deserving
of violent assault. This bill should be relegated to
the trash bin of history.
     Why should anyones lifestyle be opposed?
     Gays do not "oppose" YOUR lifestyle, why do you
opp
ose t
hei
rs?
Of course they oppose other people's lifestyles.  They
choose NOT to be in heterosexual relationships,
therefore they oppose them.
      Show us where gays have lobbied against or tried
to limit ANY right reversed for heteros.
You don't understand do you?
This is going right over your head.
     Just answer the question.
My response has absolutely nothing to do with any
organization from either side lobbying against or tried to
limit any right for anyone
.
My response is about people opposing lifestyles because it's
not a normal lifestyle for them.
INCLUDING GAYS.  Gays are going to oppose the heterosexual
lifest
yle
because it's not their lifestyle.
    So if you are not married you are opposed to other
people getting married?
Some people are, not everyone.
Just because someone opposes something doesn't mean they will
oppose others from doing that same thing.
A homosexual opposes a heterosexual lifestyle, that doesn't
mean he o
r
she opposes someone else from having a homosexual lifestyle.
Any way, I know how you argue and you will take this to an
extreme of stupidity.  So I'll end it now.  If you are a
homosexual, who car
es.
Do your thing, or what ever it is you do.  Only you have to
answer
for
your own choices.
Homosexuals aren't *allowed* to "do their own
thing",

Of course they are.  Who is going to stop them. Hell, even
you..if yo
u
want to hump a tree..hump a tree. I don't care.  Just leave the
trees in my backyard alone.  Enjoy yourself, enjoy life.

Bipolar Bob, YOU support the laws that ensure that
homosexuals can't receive equal treatment.

Adam,

You have a strong desire for oppossition and disagreement.  People
change through the course of their life, their opinions change too.
You're just looking for one of your silly little arguments because
you are so unhappy and disgruntled.  I'm not going to give you the
satisfaction.

I don't care what homosexuals do, period.

"They choose NOT to be in heterosexual relationships,
therefore they oppose them."
"Osprey", Oct 25 2009 (in the above notestream)-

That's right, I oppose their (your) lifestyle.

   So because someone does not participate in something
means they oppose it?

   Change "heterosexual relationships" to "the armed forces"
and see how much sense that makes.

   PS: If I choose not to own a cat does that mean I oppose
the ownership of cats?

That doesn't mean I
care what you do, I just choose not to participate in a lifestyle like
that.  It's not my thing.
Do you have a problem with that?

     When you oppose something just because you don't
participate it? Sure.

Osprey  <Ospre... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 27, 10:03 pm, rfisc... at (no spam) sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Osprey  <Ospre... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 27, 5:37 pm, Mitchell Holman <noem... at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:
Osprey <Ospre... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote innews:e17be249-cba4-4fde-a76a-6641571471c2 at (no spam) l2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
I don't care what homosexuals do, period.

"They choose NOT to be in heterosexual relationships,
therefore they oppose them."
"Osprey", Oct 25 2009 (in the above notestream)-

That's right, I oppose their (your) lifestyle. That doesn't mean I
care what you do,

Um, actually, that's exactly what it means.  You care enough to oppose
them.

Wrong.

Not wrong.  You admit to caring.

I oppose the lifestyle,

Which means that you care (even though you don't even know what that
"lifestyle" actually is).

On Oct 27, 10:03 pm, rfisc... at (no spam) sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:

Osprey  <Ospre... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 27, 5:37 pm, Mitchell Holman <noem... at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:
Osprey <Ospre... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote innews:e17be249-cba4-4fde-a76a-6641571471c2 at (no spam) l2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
I don't care what homosexuals do, period.

"They choose NOT to be in heterosexual relationships,
therefore they oppose them."
"Osprey", Oct 25 2009 (in the above notestream)-

That's right, I oppose their (your) lifestyle. That doesn't mean I
care what you do,

Um, actually, that's exactly what it means.  You care enough to oppose
them.

Wrong.

I oppose the lifestyle,

On Oct 27, 11:06 pm, Osprey <Ospre... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:





On Oct 27, 10:03 pm, rfisc... at (no spam) sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:

Osprey  <Ospre... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 27, 5:37 pm, Mitchell Holman <noem... at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:
Osprey <Ospre... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote innews:e17be249-cba4-4fde-a76a-6641571471c2 at (no spam) l2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
I don't care what homosexuals do, period.

"They choose NOT to be in heterosexual relationships,
therefore they oppose them."
"Osprey", Oct 25 2009 (in the above notestream)-

That's right, I oppose their (your) lifestyle. That doesn't mean I
care what you do,

Um, actually, that's exactly what it means.  You care enough to oppose
them.

Wrong.

I oppose the lifestyle,

IOW, you OPPOSE what they DO.  But then you said that you don't care
what they do.

You can't have it both ways, Madam.-

On Oct 28, 12:29 am, Enos Penvy <enospe... at (no spam) null.net> wrote:





On Oct 27, 11:06 pm, Osprey <Ospre... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

On Oct 27, 10:03 pm, rfisc... at (no spam) sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:

Osprey  <Ospre... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 27, 5:37 pm, Mitchell Holman <noem... at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:
Osprey <Ospre... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote innews:e17be249-cba4-4fde-a76a-6641571471c2 at (no spam) l2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
I don't care what homosexuals do, period.

"They choose NOT to be in heterosexual relationships,
therefore they oppose them."
"Osprey", Oct 25 2009 (in the above notestream)-

That's right, I oppose their (your) lifestyle. That doesn't mean I
care what you do,

Um, actually, that's exactly what it means.  You care enough to oppose
them.

Wrong.

I oppose the lifestyle,

IOW, you OPPOSE what they DO.  But then you said that you don't care
what they do.

You can't have it both ways, Madam.-

Wow, I bet that took you a long time to think of before you wrote it.
Congratulations.

Yes, I do oppose what they do

as far as for myself. I don't care what
they do.

For example:
I oppose smoking, I know it's bad for me. So I don't smoke.  I don't
care if you smoke, it's your body.
I oppose the choice to abort as my wife does too.  Neither her nor I
care what you choose, it's your choice.

I know this is very hard for you to understand and maybe I can try to
break it down for you in a simplistic manner.

Please let me know if
this gets too complicated.

Obviously people who have a different
opinion and different look at the issues is too much for you to
handle.

But congratulations on the response, I know that must have been very
difficult for you.

On Oct 27, 9:25 pm, IAAH <n... at (no spam) email.exist> wrote:
On 10/27/09 8:53 PM, * Osprey wrote:

On Oct 27, 8:25 pm, IAAH <n... at (no spam) email.exist> wrote:
On 10/27/09 8:20 PM, * Osprey wrote:
On Oct 27, 8:18 pm, IAAH <n... at (no spam) email.exist> wrote:
On 10/27/09 8:16 PM, * Osprey wrote:
On Oct 27, 5:24 pm, IAAH <n... at (no spam) email.exist> wrote:
On 10/27/09 5:20 PM, * Osprey wrote:
On Oct 27, 3:54 pm, IAAH <n... at (no spam) email.exist> wrote:
On 10/27/09 3:38 PM, * Osprey wrote:
On Oct 27, 2:49 pm, IAAH <n... at (no spam) email.exist> wrote:
On 10/27/09 2:42 PM, * Osprey wrote:
On Oct 27, 2:33 pm, IAAH <n... at (no spam) email.exist> wrote:
On 10/27/09 2:30 PM, * Osprey wrote:
On Oct 27, 2:12 pm, IAAH <n... at (no spam) email.exist> wrote:
On 10/27/09 1:59 PM, * Osprey wrote:
On Oct 27, 1:52 pm, IAAH <n... at (no spam) email.exist> wrote:
On 10/27/09 1:49 PM, * Osprey wrote:
On Oct 27, 1:40 pm, IAAH <n... at (no spam) email.exist> wrote:
On 10/27/09 1:35 PM, * Osprey wrote:
On Oct 27, 1:30 pm, IAAH <n... at (no spam) email.exist> wrote:
On 10/27/09 1:18 PM, * Osprey wrote:
On Oct 27, 1:15 pm, IAAH <n... at (no spam) email.exist> wrote:
On 10/27/09 1:11 PM, * Osprey wrote:
On Oct 27, 11:15 am, IAAH <n... at (no spam) email.exist> wrote:
On 10/27/09 8:00 AM, * Osprey wrote:
On Oct 27, 7:11 am, Mitchell Holman <noem... at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:
Osprey <Ospre... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote innews:0983a0f4-4061-4136-b90a-b32128cbaba0 at (no spam) m25g2000vbi.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 26, 5:51 pm, Mitchell Holman <noem... at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:
Osprey <Ospre... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote
innews:1112c57d-d019-47ae-b3d8-7a8026
ee1... at (no spam) b18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 26, 8:08 am, Mitchell Holman <noem... at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:
Osprey <Ospre... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote in
news:53494f82-b84e-4305-bbb7-
1dd8d25a6... at (no spam) m11g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 26, 12:12 am, Mitchell Holman <noem... at (no spam) comcast.net
wrote:
"J" <Jvisi... at (no spam) live.com> wrote
innews:37vs5r.1q6.19.1 at (no spam) news.alt.net:
Although there are probably some individuals who do harbor a
hatred for gays, the majority of people who oppose the homo
lifestyle and 'same-sex marriage' legislation base their
opposition on grounds of morality and decency; not hatred.
And your proof of that is.......?
To oppose a lifestyle that leads one
to an early death complicated by illness, depression, and
isolation
is
not the same as casting someone as evil and deserving of
violent assault. This bill should be relegated to the trash
bin of history.
Why should anyones lifestyle be opposed?
Gays do not "oppose" YOUR lifestyle, why do you oppose t
hei
rs?
Of course they oppose other people's lifestyles. They choose
NOT to be in heterosexual relationships, therefore they oppose
them.
Show us where gays have lobbied against or tried
to limit ANY right reversed for heteros.
You don't understand do you?
This is going right over your head.
Just answer the question.
My response has absolutely nothing to do with any organization from
either side lobbying against or tried to limit any right for anyone.
My response is about people opposing lifestyles because it's not a
normal lifestyle for them.
INCLUDING GAYS. Gays are going to oppose the heterosexual lifestyle
because it's not their lifestyle.
So if you are not married you are opposed to other
people getting married?
Some people are, not everyone.
Just because someone opposes something doesn't mean they will oppose
others from doing that same thing.
A homosexual opposes a heterosexual lifestyle, that doesn't mean he or
she opposes someone else from having a homosexual lifestyle.
Any way, I know how you argue and you will take this to an extreme of
stupidity. So I'll end it now. If you are a homosexual, who cares.
Do your thing, or what ever it is you do. Only you have to answer for
your own choices.
Homosexuals aren't *allowed* to "do their own
thing",
Of course they are. Who is going to stop them. Hell, even you..if you
want to hump a tree..hump a tree. I don't care. Just leave the trees
in my backyard alone. Enjoy yourself, enjoy life.
Bipolar Bob, YOU support the laws that ensure that
homosexuals can't receive equal treatment.
Adam,
There's no Adam here,
If you say so Adam.
Bipolar Bob.
There's no Bipolar Bob here.
Oh, there really is.
Only in your fantasies and imagination.
Only another
ill-fated attempt of yours to obfuscate your bigotry.
Hmm, really? Weren't you just telling me to keep my beliefs in God to
myself and keep them at home?
That isn't bigotry? You're not trying to dictate to me when, where,
and how I can talk about my beliefs in God?
Are you ceding that sort of control to me now? How
exciting.
What laws am I now supporting that would affect
your religious beliefs and practices?
Did you not tell me to keep my beliefs in God at home?
What LAWS, Bipolar Bob?
What are you screaming about now Adam?
Did you not tell me to keep my beliefs in God at home?
Okay, so it was just a cheap attempt to invoke an
"Oh, I'm so persecuted because I say I'm
Christian" whine.-
How many times have you dodge that question?
Did you not tell me to keep my beliefs in God at home?
Nope. I didn't say that.
From: IAAH <n... at (no spam) email.exist
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 13:28:31 -0400
Message-ID: <hc7ajv$qd... at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org
"God" has nothing to do with this. He/She/It isn't
invited. Keep your red herrings and your fictional
sky-fairies at home.
Hmmm. Where's "belief" mentioned there, Bipolar Bob?
If you can't show it, don't answer it. Let's keep
your Usenet pollution to a local minimum.-
Ah, you're going to play that game. O.k., no problem.
Where did I say I would reward companies who provide assistance to
rapist?
If you can't show it, don't answr it. Let's keep your Usenet pollution
to a local minimum.
(The reason I didn't answer that is that it's not
a claim I made).-
Alright then, then lets go with your exact quote.
From: IAAH <n... at (no spam) email.exist
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion,talk.politics.misc,soc.women
Subject: Re: Here are the 30 Republican Senators, 3/4 of Their
Representation,
Who Voted to Enable Rape
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 14:06:11 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 159
Message-ID: <hbi9ql$rc... at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org
(take a note: Osprey, aka Bipolar Bob, believes in
REWARDING companies that try to remove from rape
victims the right to take that crime to court with
more government contracts, instead of refusing to
hire them until company policy changes).
Now, can you show where I ever said I believe in rewarding companies
that try to remove from rape victims the right to take that crime to
court with more government contracts, instead of refusing to hire them
until company policy changes?
...
Just snip right there and lets play the game you played. Enough with
the silly games.
Where is the quote that you claim says I said companies should be
rewarded?
Come on, cough it up or do as you said.
If you can't show it, don't answr it. Let's keep your Usenet pollution
to a local minimum.
Ah, you had to cut the evidence.
What evidence?
The evidence I posted.
Post it again and lets see if I use the words "reward companies that
try to remove from rape victims the right to take that crime to court
with more government contracts, instead of refusing to hire them until
company policy changes?"
Go on, post it. I checked your last few postings and nowhere have I
seen you provide a quote yet.
I already explained that I am not playing your
stupid games.

So you can't post anything. I knew that already.

Where did I ever say companies should be rewarded?
This is where you fail, Bipolar Bob.
You see, YOU are being held to one of the
stupidest of YOUR OWN standards - that if the
exact words aren't in the evidence, it's not evidence.
Ah, but when I said you told me to hold my beliefs in God and keep
them at home you had a fit because I didn't show where you said the
word beliefs.
For once you get something right!
Those are YOUR OWN STANDARDS that you are being
held to.

Nope, those are your standards. Looks like you want to retreat now.

This wouldn't happen if you were not consistently
an enormous tool.
But you are, and you will continue to be, and so
your own stupid and unreasonable standards will be
used on you when I interact with you.

"yawn" You have to interact with me, it's your obsession.

Since you have a long history of demanding exact
quotes, you will provide *exact* quotes.

Since *I* didn't use quote marks when I explained
what you had done, there is obviously no direct
quoting going on.

So you just lied then. I already knew you were lying.

If only you had ever demonstrated the capacity to
be reasonable, you wouldn't be treated like this.
C'est la vie, Bipolar Bob.

Now you pretend to be a medical professional. Is there nothing out
there that you are not dishonest with or about?

Now, you're not a hypocrite are you? You are going to hold yourself
to the same standards you expect others to be held to, right?
No, I hold you to your own special, stupid and
unreasonable standards, because you insist that
those standards apply to everybody else. If you
hadn't been such a dick about it, you could have
been held to lesser standards, but there you are.

On Oct 27, 10:03 pm, rfisc... at (no spam) sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Osprey  <Ospre... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 27, 5:37 pm, Mitchell Holman <noem... at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:
Osprey <Ospre... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote innews:e17be249-cba4-4fde-a76a-6641571471c2 at (no spam) l2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
I don't care what homosexuals do, period.

"They choose NOT to be in heterosexual relationships,
therefore they oppose them."
"Osprey", Oct 25 2009 (in the above notestream)-

That's right, I oppose their (your) lifestyle. That doesn't mean I
care what you do,

Um, actually, that's exactly what it means.  You care enough to oppose
them.

Wrong.

I oppose the lifestyle,

On Oct 27, 6:00 pm, SkyEyes <skyey... at (no spam) cox.net> wrote:

On Oct 27, 5:25 pm, Dionisio <moc.rr.thgi... at (no spam) 5ellimd.com> wrote:
Well... *I've* lobbied to make divorce illegal.
(Though, in point of fact, that would actually be a *return* to the much-vaunted marriage
that so many blindly claim that they want and support.)

Why?  It would just drive the murder rate up.  You can't force people
to live together when one of them no longer wants to.  Well, you
*can*, I suppose; it mostly happens in societies that regard women as
being property.

The concept of life-long marriage came into being at a time when men
aged 25 married 12-year-old girls and the marriage ended when he
croaked at 37 (if she didn't die in childbirth first).

People change.  Deal with it.

What part of "Til death us do part" is so difficult?

On Oct 27, 6:00 pm, SkyEyes <skyey... at (no spam) cox.net> wrote:

On Oct 27, 5:25 pm, Dionisio <moc.rr.thgi... at (no spam) 5ellimd.com> wrote:
Well... *I've* lobbied to make divorce illegal.
(Though, in point of fact, that would actually be a *return* to the much-vaunted marriage
that so many blindly claim that they want and support.)

Why?  It would just drive the murder rate up.  You can't force people
to live together when one of them no longer wants to.  Well, you
*can*, I suppose; it mostly happens in societies that regard women as
being property.

The concept of life-long marriage came into being at a time when men
aged 25 married 12-year-old girls and the marriage ended when he
croaked at 37 (if she didn't die in childbirth first).

People change.  Deal with it.

What part of "Til death us do part" is so difficult?

The parties make a vow to each other
and their deity.

And since it's the "rabid Christers" who want things like they were,
shouldn't it also be a requirement for the honoring of the vow?

"Marriage is serious," we are told. Ya'd never know by how "seriously" many of them take it.

But, may the Saints and Angels protect us, perish the though of folks taking marriage so
seriously that they get to know their life-partner before pledging themselves to one
another "for as long as you both shall live."

They made their bed. Let them lie in it.

They made their vows. Let them keep them; And let those who choose not to do so be
castigated and shunned.

Remember: It was the Fundies who gave us the first *known* adulterer. That should show you
how "sincere" they are.

--
And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:

"I argue very well. Ask any of my remaining friends. I can win an argument on any topic,
against any opponent. People know this, and steer clear of me at parties. Often, as a sign
of their great respect, they don't even invite me."
-- Dave Barry

(Brought to you by SigChanger.)

Divorce was possible under The Law and if a man wished to put his wife
aside, he would have to give her a complete refund of her dowry plus
whatever interest the rabbi assigned. Unless she got knocked up by
another man, then, the result was stoning to death the woman and her
fetus.

On Oct 27, 5:25 pm, Dionisio <moc.rr.thgi... at (no spam) 5ellimd.com> wrote:
Well... *I've* lobbied to make divorce illegal.
(Though, in point of fact, that would actually be a *return* to the much-vaunted marriage
that so many blindly claim that they want and support.)

Why? It would just drive the murder rate up. You can't force people
to live together when one of them no longer wants to. Well, you
*can*, I suppose; it mostly happens in societies that regard women as
being property.

The concept of life-long marriage came into being at a time when men
aged 25 married 12-year-old girls and the marriage ended when he
croaked at 37 (if she didn't die in childbirth first).

People change. Deal with it.

On Oct 28, 11:44 am, rfisc... at (no spam) sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Osprey  <Ospre... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 27, 9:47 pm, Jimbo <ckdbig... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 27, 8:18 pm, Osprey <Ospre... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 27, 7:03 pm, Jimbo <ckdbig... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 27, 1:13 pm, Osprey <Ospre... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 27, 11:35 am, martin <use... at (no spam) etiqa.co.uk> wrote:
Osprey wrote:
Any way, I know how you argue and you will take this to an extreme of
stupidity.  So I'll end it now.  If you are a homosexual, who cares.
Do your thing, or what ever it is you do.

I take it from that you have no objections to gays getting married them?

I'm a happily married man. I will have to answer to God for my
decisions, not yours.

Why is it that you can't simply answer the question, straight forward
and honestly?

What's not straight forward and honest about my answer?

You danced around actually answering the question.  That much was
pretty obvious.-

No, it's just how you want to see things.

No, you didn't answer the question.

Yes I did bigot.

The problem with you bigots is,

Osprey <Osprey65 at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote in
news:e17be249-cba4-4fde-a76a-6641571471c2 at (no spam) l2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:

On Oct 27, 1:15?pm, IAAH <n... at (no spam) email.exist> wrote:
On 10/27/09 1:11 PM, * Osprey wrote:

On Oct 27, 11:15 am, IAAH <n... at (no spam) email.exist> wrote:
On 10/27/09 8:00 AM, * Osprey wrote:

On Oct 27, 7:11 am, Mitchell Holman <noem... at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:
Osprey <Ospre... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote
innews:0983a0f4-4061-4136-b90a-b
32128cbaba0 at (no spam) m25g2000vbi.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 26, 5:51 pm, Mitchell Holman <noem... at (no spam) comcast.net
wrote:
Osprey <Ospre... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote
innews:1112c57d-d019-47ae-b3d8-7a8026
ee1... at (no spam) b18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 26, 8:08 am, Mitchell Holman <noem... at (no spam) comcast.net
wrote:
Osprey <Ospre... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote in
news:53494f82-b84e-4305-bbb7-
1dd8d25a6... at (no spam) m11g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 26, 12:12 am, Mitchell Holman <noem... at (no spam) comcast.net
wrote:
"J" <Jvisi... at (no spam) live.com> wrote
innews:37vs5r.1q6.19.1 at (no spam) news.alt.net:
Although there are probably some individuals who do
harbor a hatred for gays, the majority of people who
oppose the homo lifestyle and 'same-sex marriage'
legislation base their opposition on grounds of morality
and decency; not hatred.
? ? And your proof of that is.......?
To oppose a lifestyle that leads one
to an early death complicated by illness, depression, and
isolation
is
not the same as casting someone as evil and deserving of
violent assault. This bill should be relegated to the
trash bin of history.
Why should anyones lifestyle be opposed? Gays do not
"oppose" YOUR lifestyle, why do you oppose theirs?
Of course they oppose other people's lifestyles. ?They choose
NOT to be in heterosexual relationships, therefore they oppose
them.
? ? ? Show us where gays have lobbied against or tried to limit
ANY right reversed for heteros.
You don't understand do you? This is going right over your
head.
? ? ?Just answer the question.
My response has absolutely nothing to do with any organization
from either side lobbying against or tried to limit any right for
anyone.
My response is about people opposing lifestyles because it's not a
normal lifestyle for them. INCLUDING GAYS. ?Gays are going to
oppose the heterosexual lifestyle because it's not their
lifestyle.
? ? So if you are not married you are opposed to other
people getting married?
Some people are, not everyone. Just because someone opposes
something doesn't mean they will oppose others from doing that same
thing. A homosexual opposes a heterosexual lifestyle, that doesn't
mean he or she opposes someone else from having a homosexual
lifestyle. Any way, I know how you argue and you will take this to
an extreme of stupidity. ?So I'll end it now. ?If you are a
homosexual, who cares. Do your thing, or what ever it is you do.
?Only you have to answer for your own choices.
Homosexuals aren't *allowed* to "do their own
thing",

Of course they are. ?Who is going to stop them. Hell, even you..if you
want to hump a tree..hump a tree. I don't care. ?Just leave the
trees in my backyard alone. ?Enjoy yourself, enjoy life.

Bipolar Bob, YOU support the laws that ensure that
homosexuals can't receive equal treatment.

Adam,

You have a strong desire for oppossition and disagreement. People
change through the course of their life, their opinions change too.
You're just looking for one of your silly little arguments because you
are so unhappy and disgruntled. I'm not going to give you the
satisfaction.

I don't care what homosexuals do, period.

"They choose NOT to be in heterosexual relationships,
therefore they oppose them."
"Osprey", Oct 25 2009 (in the above notestream)

On Oct 27, 10:03?pm, rfisc... at (no spam) sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Osprey ?<Ospre... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 27, 5:37?pm, Mitchell Holman <noem... at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:
Osprey <Ospre... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote innews:e17be249-cba4-4fde-a76a-6641571471c2 at (no spam) l2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
I don't care what homosexuals do, period.

"They choose NOT to be in heterosexual relationships,
therefore they oppose them."
"Osprey", Oct 25 2009 (in the above notestream)-

That's right, I oppose their (your) lifestyle. That doesn't mean I
care what you do,

Um, actually, that's exactly what it means. ?You care enough to oppose
them.

Wrong.

I oppose the lifestyle, not them as people.


I just choose not to participate in a lifestyle like
that.

And you choose to object to their "lifestyle" (whatever that means).

Exactly, I oppose their lifestyle. And that's my choice. Too bad you
have no control over that, although you want to so badly.