Hey Democrats...

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

And I was addressing the only question contained in your pleonasm.

Then what's the confusion about?  

[Leftfield 2,617]

5 minutes ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

Hmmm.  What if I had used the example of someone who could only be aroused by a dead body or a cucumber?  Those people exist.  Do you consider their sexual proclivities normal?  If not, why not?  They aren't hurting anyone either.

I didn't say homosexuality was normal because that would imply it was the majority of the population. Being left-handed also isn't normal, but they are both naturally occurring.

However, with your comparison, you've completely revealed your disdain for homosexuals. You're comparing them to people with fetishes for inanimate objects, which cannot give consent and provide no reciprocation of pleasure or caring. You're basically saying that homosexuals only see their partners as sex objects. Certainly that is sometimes the case, just as it is for heterosexuals, but not for committed relationships. Do you see your wife/girlfriend as just a sex object?

Personally I couldn't give two s**ts about the cucumber, as long as the person using it isn't putting it back in the Produce section.

The body is problematic because of the emotional attachment we assign them - whether or not they are being harmed, they are still considered to be the property of the person who inhabited that body and therefore, a violation. I think you know that.

But thanks for revealing your true colors on homosexuals.

[homersapien 11,393]

3 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

Please don't.  You don't really have anything useful to offer.  If this board had an "ignore" feature you'd be on ignore.

Uhhh, this board has an ignore feature, newbie.

Be my guest.

Edited October 20, 2021 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,393]

2 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

At first I read that as neoplasm, ironically I think that definition could apply as well. 😂😂

(To be honest I was going to use "diatribe", but then I looked it up and found something which works better. )

[homersapien 11,393]

On 10/19/2021 at 5:19 PM, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

I was addressing each of the points of "proof" that you offered.

 

On 10/19/2021 at 6:31 PM, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

Because the word "natural" is meaningless unless you think that some things are brought about supernaturally.  Otherwise any state of being or condition is "natural."

That's nonsensical, or at least it's taking a train of thought unto a nonsensical extrapolation.

Natural - as I use it - is meant to reflect the biological product of nature.

In other words, homosexuality is not a result of the subject's cognition. Homosexuality is basically a result of biological destiny.  (Nurture probably also has a role, as even the "twin studies" aren't "perfect".)

Now, I suppose one could argue that everything - including our feelings, sexual desires, morals and cognitive capabilities - are all "natural" since every aspect of our very being is derived from nature.  But that would be a disingenuous exercise in sophistry to avoid the more obvious point, wouldn't it?  

 

Edited October 21, 2021 by homersapien

[SaltyTiger 7,819]

8 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

O.k., but you didn't make that claim in that post.

He made it very clear in that thread.

[homersapien 11,393]

On 10/19/2021 at 6:31 PM, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

Because the word "natural" is meaningless unless you think that some things are brought about supernaturally.  Otherwise any state of being or condition is "natural."

I'm not really making a point about homosexuality.  I'm making a point about the very weak arguments most of you are making to claim that it is normal.

I think you know damn well what my point is: 

Homosexuality is a result of biology.

The biology of most people results in heterosexuality.  The biology of some people (est. at 2 1/2 to 11% by researchers) results in homosexuality. 

Homosexuality is not a result of a member of the former group deciding to become a part of the latter.

Now the word "normal" can be used in a statistically or it can be used rhetorically, which makes it handy for the purpose of obfuscation, as you are doing.

 

 

On 10/19/2021 at 6:31 PM, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

Your being the weakest of all, since you promised to prove that is was based on history, common sense, and science, and the only one of those you even made an attempt at was science and it was some of the most weak-sauce "science" ever.

I spent a lot of time compiling research papers on the subject a few years ago, many of which were posted on this forum.  I don't want to take the time to recover the full list, but I figure you are at least smart enough to do your own research.  (Your objectivity while doing so is up to you.)

And since you mentioned it, here's a short piece on the history of homosexuality:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_homosexuality

 

Now as for the 'common sense' claim, I admit, I can't really prove it - that totally depends on one's knowledge of the subject. 

But maybe I can help you with another common sense issue:  Try not to be such a jerk.

 

Edited October 21, 2021 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,393]

2 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

Then what's the confusion about?  

What confusion?

[wdefromtx 3,159]

4 minutes ago, homersapien said:

What confusion?

He reminds me of SocialCircle.....LOL

[homersapien 11,393]

6 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

He reminds me of SocialCircle.....LOL

'Circle' being the key word. 

[wdefromtx 3,159]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

'Circle' being the key word. 

Exactly, very reminiscent of his arguing style.......amongst other things. 😁

[AUDub 11,158]

12 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

He reminds me of SocialCircle.....LOL

Oh he's back? Just a sec.

[AU9377 4,979]

6 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

Hmmm.  What if I had used the example of someone who could only be aroused by a dead body or a cucumber?  Those people exist.  Do you consider their sexual proclivities normal?  If not, why not?  They aren't hurting anyone either.

Being gay is not a fetish.

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

13 hours ago, Leftfield said:

I didn't say homosexuality was normal because that would imply it was the majority of the population. Being left-handed also isn't normal, but they are both naturally occurring.

However, with your comparison, you've completely revealed your disdain for homosexuals. You're comparing them to people with fetishes for inanimate objects, which cannot give consent and provide no reciprocation of pleasure or caring. You're basically saying that homosexuals only see their partners as sex objects. Certainly that is sometimes the case, just as it is for heterosexuals, but not for committed relationships. Do you see your wife/girlfriend as just a sex object?

Personally I couldn't give two s**ts about the cucumber, as long as the person using it isn't putting it back in the Produce section.

The body is problematic because of the emotional attachment we assign them - whether or not they are being harmed, they are still considered to be the property of the person who inhabited that body and therefore, a violation. I think you know that.

But thanks for revealing your true colors on homosexuals.

The point is that there was a question inherent in the beginning of this conversation: Is homosexuality normal?

Your entire objection is beside that point.  I didn't ask you if you were troubled by someone who only got aroused by a cucumber or a dead body, I asked you whether you thought it was normal.  You did not answer that question.  In fact, the entire conversation has mostly been you guys avoiding that question, once the initial obvious flaws were pointed out in the reasoning process.

Your mode of avoidance is to refuse to answer the actual question while attacking me for supposedly deliberately ascribing negative moral attributes to homosexuality even though it is quite clear that I am not arguing agains it on moral terms.  In fact, I am not arguing against it at all.  You guys acted as though it was self-evident that it is normal and it's not self-evident at all.  All I have argued against are the specious arguments you all have used to try to prove something you haven't come close to proving, yet claimed as self-evident and yes, I have used examples that best highlight the problems with the arguments.  If I had used the genius examples or the green eye examples I guarantee you that at least one person would have replied that they did think those things were normal, therefore I did not use an example like that.  As already explained, I used examples that no one would claim are normal.

The other avoidance in the thread is to attempt to throw out the term "normal" altogether, once you all realized you can't actually make a case for it, and substitute the word "natural."  Homer says the following is disingenuous; however, Homer says that about everything I say because I called him out for being disingenuous and he knows it's true.  So in true leftist fashion (Saul Alinsky would be proud) whatever you are guilty of, accuse your opponent of.

But the "natural" argument is the dumbest one possible.  Everything occurs naturally.  So what?  Down's Syndrome, schizophrenia, green eyes, heart disease, pedophilia, high levels of athleticism, musical talent, genius, retardation, ingrown toenails, etc., etc.

What meaning does "naturally" confer to anything?  As I posted before, the only alternative to something occurring naturally would be for it to occur supernaturally.

 I do think you have a point with your example of genius.  Not normal, but also not harmful.  I meant to say so when you posted it, but got distracted by the noise of others.

I would still say that there is the problem of all of the higher rates of physical/mental/emotional issues that homosexual people have, as it seems as though homosexuality at the very least is somewhat harmful to homosexual people themselves, but as I posted before, they cannot change their sexual orientation so perhaps the focus should be on helping them manage the inherent challenges of that orientation.

It doesn't really bother me for you to accuse me of being a bigot because I understand that it's just a tactic to avoid the actual question.  It's a very common one and I've seen it many times before.  But for the record, I had two gay uncles that my siblings and I loved very much and spent lots of time with growing up and in my 20s before I was married I had two gay roommates.  I never had any problem relating to any of them, wasn't grossed out by any of them, didn't have a moral problem with any of them, they were just like any other people in my life that I cared for.

But just because I cared for all of them, that doesn't mean that their sexual orientation was clinically normal.  For some reason people have a hard time with reconciling those two realities.  My wife and one of my daughters have been diagnosed with clinical OCD.  It is genetic—occurred "naturally"—and it doesn't in any way cause me to love them less or think less of them as people.  However, it's not clinically normal and they have had to work to manage it.

I saw all four of those people I mentioned suffer for their orientation.  One uncle suffered primarily due to the stigma, which was pretty universal for people of his age.  He died of alcoholism, which was probably in part due to stigma, but again, the research shows higher rates of substance abuse among homosexual people, so who knows?  The other died of AIDS, which was 'effing awful and tore my heart out, along with everybody else in the family.  The other two struggled with relationships in ways that I just didn't observe straight people our age struggling with.  And they did battle depression and one of them had some of the other physical problems associated with higher risk for gay people.

So it's not self-evident to me that homosexuality is a neutral clinical proposition as far as these things are concerned.

It's also not obvious to me that it is in homosexual people's best interest to refuse to consider the possibility that it's not a neutral clinical proposition.

Again, I'm not saying definitively one way or the other.  But the arguments presented here so far have not been compelling to me.

Edited October 20, 2021 by Shoney'sPonyBoy

[aubiefifty 16,823]

On 10/14/2021 at 4:14 AM, DKW 86 said:

 

The ACA was a step in the right direction...that was so poorly executed that it truly could not have gone worse. From the Haealthcare.giv rollout that was horrendously over budget and horrendously slow and non-responsive. It was a $50M portal that ended up costing us well over $950M to build and fix. There was no competition across the states. It had no real competitive relief for consumers. It made monopolies owned by some insurance companies 10X worse. The cost per tax payers was horrendous. The whole "IF YOU LIKE YOUR PLAN YOU CAN KEEP YOUR PLAN" was the biggest lie told in the 2000s. There was no way you could keep your plan for more than a few years. All plans had to meet stringent govt guidelines and it became an expensive nightmare for most. I know it did for my family and many others. 

i remember reading back in the day obama and company had to allow certain changes the repubs wanted to get it passed. and i have always believed the republicans care more about medical profit than the true health of americans.

[AuburnNTexas 7,158]

3 minutes ago, aubiefifty said:

i remember reading back in the day obama and company had to allow certain changes the repubs wanted to get it passed. and i have always believed the republicans care more about medical profit than the true health of americans.

Just because you read it doesn't mean it was true. At the time it was passed we had a Democratic House, Senate and President it was basically passed without any input from the Republicans. It was totally a Democratic bill with no input from the Republicans so like it or don't like it don't try and say that medical profit that took off after it was passed was because of the Republican's.

Sadly the problem is the Democrats just like the Republican's are political animals and they vote on who contributes the most to get them re-elected. This last statement is a generality  as there are a few on each side that actually vote on what they think is the best for the American people.  

[aubiefifty 16,823]

9 minutes ago, AuburnNTexas said:

Just because you read it doesn't mean it was true. At the time it was passed we had a Democratic House, Senate and President it was basically passed without any input from the Republicans. It was totally a Democratic bill with no input from the Republicans so like it or don't like it don't try and say that medical profit that took off after it was passed was because of the Republican's.

Sadly the problem is the Democrats just like the Republican's are political animals and they vote on who contributes the most to get them re-elected. This last statement is a generality  as there are a few on each side that actually vote on what they think is the best for the American people.  

i never said it was fact because i never went back and checked up on it.

[AUDub 11,158]

47 minutes ago, AuburnNTexas said:

It was totally a Democratic bill with no input from the Republicans so like it or don't like it don't try and say that medical profit that took off after it was passed was because of the Republican's.

Are you ******* serious.

Obamacare was loaded down with compromises. By the time the Ds realized McConnell's play, it was too late to re-tool it as a purely liberal bill.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

2 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

The point is that there was a question inherent in the beginning of this conversation: Is homosexuality normal?

Your entire objection is beside that point.  I didn't ask you if you were troubled by someone who only got aroused by a cucumber or a dead body, I asked you whether you thought it was normal.  You did not answer that question.  In fact, the entire conversation has mostly been you guys avoiding that question, once the initial obvious flaws were pointed out in the reasoning process.

Your mode of avoidance is to refuse to answer the actual question while attacking me for supposedly deliberately ascribing negative moral attributes to homosexuality even though it is quite clear that I am not arguing agains it on moral terms.  In fact, I am not arguing against it at all.  You guys acted as though it was self-evident that it is normal and it's not self-evident at all.  All I have argued against are the specious arguments you all have used to try to prove something you haven't come close to proving, yet claimed as self-evident and yes, I have used examples that best highlight the problems with the arguments.  If I had used the genius examples or the green eye examples I guarantee you that at least one person would have replied that they did think those things were normal, therefore I did not use an example like that.  As already explained, I used examples that no one would claim are normal.

The other avoidance in the thread is to attempt to throw out the term "normal" altogether, once you all realized you can't actually make a case for it, and substitute the word "natural."  Homer says the following is disingenuous; however, Homer says that about everything I say because I called him out for being disingenuous and he knows it's true.  So in true leftist fashion (Saul Alinsky would be proud) whatever you are guilty of, accuse your opponent of.

But the "natural" argument is the dumbest one possible.  Everything occurs naturally.  So what?  Down's Syndrome, schizophrenia, green eyes, heart disease, pedophilia, high levels of athleticism, musical talent, genius, retardation, ingrown toenails, etc., etc.

What meaning does "naturally" confer to anything?  As I posted before, the only alternative to something occurring naturally would be for it to occur supernaturally.

 I do think you have a point with your example of genius.  Not normal, but also not harmful.  I meant to say so when you posted it, but got distracted by the noise of others.

I would still say that there is the problem of all of the higher rates of physical/mental/emotional issues that homosexual people have, as it seems as though homosexuality at the very least is somewhat harmful to homosexual people themselves, but as I posted before, they cannot change their sexual orientation so perhaps the focus should be on helping them manage the inherent challenges of that orientation.

It doesn't really bother me for you to accuse me of being a bigot because I understand that it's just a tactic to avoid the actual question.  It's a very common one and I've seen it many times before.  But for the record, I had two gay uncles that my siblings and I loved very much and spent lots of time with growing up and in my 20s before I was married I had two gay roommates.  I never had any problem relating to any of them, wasn't grossed out by any of them, didn't have a moral problem with any of them, they were just like any other people in my life that I cared for.

But just because I cared for all of them, that doesn't mean that their sexual orientation was clinically normal.  For some reason people have a hard time with reconciling those two realities.  My wife and one of my daughters have been diagnosed with clinical OCD.  It is genetic—occurred "naturally"—and it doesn't in any way cause me to love them less or think less of them as people.  However, it's not clinically normal and they have had to work to manage it.

I saw all four of those people I mentioned suffer for their orientation.  One uncle suffered primarily due to the stigma, which was pretty universal for people of his age.  He died of alcoholism, which was probably in part due to stigma, but again, the research shows higher rates of substance abuse among homosexual people, so who knows?  The other died of AIDS, which was 'effing awful and tore my heart out, along with everybody else in the family.  The other two struggled with relationships in ways that I just didn't observe straight people our age struggling with.  And they did battle depression and one of them had some of the other physical problems associated with higher risk for gay people.

So it's not self-evident to me that homosexuality is a neutral clinical proposition as far as these things are concerned.

It's also not obvious to me that it is in homosexual people's best interest to refuse to consider the possibility that it's not a neutral clinical proposition.

Again, I'm not saying definitively one way or the other.  But the arguments presented here so far have not been compelling to me.

You seem to be trying to define for yourself what you consider normal, which your opinion of what you think is normal is subject. Let's take a look at the universally accepted definition of the word normal in the truest sense of the word. Keep in mind, that we are talking about the word normal in it's broad form and not "clinically normal" or whatever you referred to when talking about OCD. Also, people have been taught over time (thanks to the Bible) that homosexuality is not moral and considered abnormal. Keep in mind that even as recently as 300-400 years ago if you were autistic, or had a mental disorder etc. you were basically tossed to the side or considered a witch or something stupid like that. 

Definition of normal

 (Entry 1 of 3)

1a: conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern : characterized by that which is considered usual, typical, or routine

Homosexuality in humans and other species has occurred since the beginning of time and often occurs in regular patterns as seen in many family lines. Keep in mind that we are talking about patterns and not rate of occurrence. So it is safe to assume that it would be considered usual to come across someone who is gay or know of someone that is. So that checks off 1a.

2: occurring naturally

I think we already discussed that this is a naturally occurring just as the other items listed, the negative and positive. 

Check that box.

3a: approximating the statistical average or norm

Just like average rain for an area, over history I am sure we have had an average % of the population that is gay. 

Check that box.

   b: generally free from physical or mental impairment or dysfunction : exhibiting or marked       by healthy or sound functioning

Being gay is not an impairment or dysfunction. 

Check that box.

Links for your reference and I have included Cambridge and Oxford as well.

Normal | Definition of Normal by Merriam-Webster

normal_1 adjective - Definition, pictures, pronunciation and usage notes | Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary at OxfordLearnersDictionaries.com

NORMAL | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary

I think it is pretty clear that this is normal, being gay is normal although it is in the minority when considering orientation. 

I will also add that you keep wanting people to show why it is normal, but you have not offered any compelling evidence that it is abnormal. 

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

15 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

You seem to be trying to define for yourself what you consider normal, which your opinion of what you think is normal is subject. Let's take a look at the universally accepted definition of the word normal in the truest sense of the word. Keep in mind, that we are talking about the word normal in it's broad form and not "clinically normal" or whatever you referred to when talking about OCD. Also, people have been taught over time (thanks to the Bible) that homosexuality is not moral and considered abnormal. Keep in mind that even as recently as 300-400 years ago if you were autistic, or had a mental disorder etc. you were basically tossed to the side or considered a witch or something stupid like that. 

Definition of normal

 (Entry 1 of 3)

1a: conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern : characterized by that which is considered usual, typical, or routine

Homosexuality in humans and other species has occurred since the beginning of time and often occurs in regular patterns as seen in many family lines. Keep in mind that we are talking about patterns and not rate of occurrence. So it is safe to assume that it would be considered usual to come across someone who is gay or know of someone that is. So that checks off 1a.

2: occurring naturally

I think we already discussed that this is a naturally occurring just as the other items listed, the negative and positive. 

Check that box.

3a: approximating the statistical average or norm

Just like average rain for an area, over history I am sure we have had an average % of the population that is gay. 

Check that box.

   b: generally free from physical or mental impairment or dysfunction : exhibiting or marked       by healthy or sound functioning

Being gay is not an impairment or dysfunction. 

Check that box.

Links for your reference and I have included Cambridge and Oxford as well.

Normal | Definition of Normal by Merriam-Webster

normal_1 adjective - Definition, pictures, pronunciation and usage notes | Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary at OxfordLearnersDictionaries.com

NORMAL | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary

I think it is pretty clear that this is normal, being gay is normal although it is in the minority when considering orientation. 

I will also add that you keep wanting people to show why it is normal, but you have not offered any compelling evidence that it is abnormal. 

This is incorrect.  I have always been referring to clinical normalcy, although not until the last post did I think to use that term.

And I wasn't the one who made the claim that it was normal (or abnormal).  I know it's been a long conversation, but if you look back at the beginning I wasn't the one to make the initial claim, therefore the burden of proof is not on me.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

53 minutes ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

This is incorrect.  I have always been referring to clinical normalcy, although not until the last post did I think to use that term.

And I wasn't the one who made the claim that it was normal (or abnormal).  I know it's been a long conversation, but if you look back at the beginning I wasn't the one to make the initial claim, therefore the burden of proof is not on me.

As others have said, if you aren't going to argue in good faith you might as well STFU. Besides the fact you are using "clinically normal" as a cop out you again are showing your true feelings. This implies that you associate homosexuality with disorders, impairment etc. Again, all negative connotations attached. Which is why you wouldn't give examples that people would say are normal. 

Not only are you not trying to debate in good faith, you are outright lying now. You are the one that complained about this subject being normal, that prompted the response from Homer when he asked who you were to challenge if it was to be considered normal or not. You were the one that sparked the whole debate because you are the one that takes exception to it being normal or socially acceptable. He only asked what made you an authority to challenge what has been shown throughout history to be a natural and normal occurrence. At that point the onus was on you. 

Also, the APA has deemed that both hetero and homo behavior are normal human behaviors based on research and clinical experience. Hence, it has been deemed clinically normal as well. So that alone shows you are wrong and if you don't like the research they did and the conclusions, the burden of proof is on you to show us why they entire profession is wrong. 

If I were to guess, you only claim that it isn't normal because they haven't been able to explain the cause. 

Just in case you forgot..............

" It was always about forcing social acceptance of the normalization of their orientation/lifestyle/whatever you want to call it."

Edited October 20, 2021 by wdefromtx

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

1 hour ago, wdefromtx said:

As others have said, if you aren't going to argue in good faith you might as well STFU. Besides the fact you are using "clinically normal" as a cop out you again are showing your true feelings. This implies that you associate homosexuality with disorders, impairment etc. Again, all negative connotations attached. Which is why you wouldn't give examples that people would say are normal. 

Not only are you not trying to debate in good faith, you are outright lying now. You are the one that complained about this subject being normal, that prompted the response from Homer when he asked who you were to challenge if it was to be considered normal or not. You were the one that sparked the whole debate because you are the one that takes exception to it being normal or socially acceptable. He only asked what made you an authority to challenge what has been shown throughout history to be a natural and normal occurrence. At that point the onus was on you. 

Also, the APA has deemed that both hetero and homo behavior are normal human behaviors based on research and clinical experience. Hence, it has been deemed clinically normal as well. So that alone shows you are wrong and if you don't like the research they did and the conclusions, the burden of proof is on you to show us why they entire profession is wrong. 

If I were to guess, you only claim that it isn't normal because they haven't been able to explain the cause. 

Just in case you forgot..............

" It was always about forcing social acceptance of the normalization of their orientation/lifestyle/whatever you want to call it."

Whatever.  You don't agree with me, you're a bigot.  We could have saved a lot of time.  You could have just responded with, "My objection is the standard leftist objection in this situation," and I would have known exactly what you meant.

If I misrepresented the start of the discussion I apologize (although I still am not sure that I did).  There's one of me and several of you and my memory is not what it used to be and that was not my intention.

Bottom line, if you can read the totality of what I have written here and your honest conclusion is that I am lying in order to hate gays then there's nothing I or anyone else can say to change your mind.

So have a nice day.

[Leftfield 2,617]

5 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

I didn't ask you if you were troubled by someone who only got aroused by a cucumber or a dead body, I asked you whether you thought it was normal.  You did not answer that question. 

Well, since I stated that homosexuality was not normal, in terms of not being the majority of the population, I figured that pretty well addressed the ridiculous cucumber/necrophilia thing.

With so many definitions being thrown about, I'll just say this: Homosexuality is obviously not normal in the sense that it is the majority, but it is normal in the sense that it occurs regularly.

It is natural in that it is not a choice.

And sexual orientation is not the same as a sexual fetish.

 

[wdefromtx 3,159]

7 minutes ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

Whatever.  You don't agree with me, you're a bigot.  We could have saved a lot of time.  You could have just responded with, "My objection is the standard leftist objection in this situation," and I would have known exactly what you meant.

LMAO, I don't agree with you because you have nothing to back up your claims. The APA certainly disagrees with you, and I think I would trust that professional association over a random internet guy. 

And the bolded part shows you are just getting mad because you are getting called out on this. Not sure why you tried to make this political with me. Because I assure you 100% that I am not one on here to make a "standard leftist" objections. I am sure someone like @AUDub or @homersapien can vouch for that, trust me when I say that we don't usually see eye-to-eye and will go back and forth and even get belligerent with each other and throw out some names. He likes to call me MAGA. LOL  My leanings on subjects do not take into account what party is for or against something, I lean conservative more so than anything but if something I believe in is "leftist" I don't care. I think both sides politically are a cluster f.

11 minutes ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

If I misrepresented the start of the discussion I apologize (although I still am not sure that I did).  There's one of me and several of you and my memory is not what it used to be and that was not my intention.

That is fine if it wasn't your intention, hopefully you see now why several people tried to offer up their case that backs up why we are saying what we are. Also, if you are going to blame your memory you need to cut Homer some slack 😜.

33 minutes ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

Bottom line, if you can read the totality of what I have written here and your honest conclusion is that I am lying in order to hate gays then there's nothing I or anyone else can say to change your mind.

I don't necessarily think you are intentionally lying or that you are a bigot, but I don't appear to be alone in coming to the conclusion that for whatever reason you appear to have some sort of disdain or disapproval of gays. That is an easy conclusion to come to when you do not offer up anything to support your opinion. 

[AuburnNTexas 7,158]

4 hours ago, AUDub said:

Are you ******* serious.

Obamacare was loaded down with compromises. By the time the Ds realized McConnell's play, it was too late to re-tool it as a purely liberal bill.

https://www.ajc.com/news/national-govt--politics/politifact-did-obamacare-pass-with-republican-input/xCU3lpUUWS8HOk20lUpyyL/

Read this it backs up what I said there was some Republican input but basically on technical matters and the final bill got zero support from Republicans. Pelosi basically jammed it through then afterwards said now that it has passed we should probably read it.