Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#682 Apr 24, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
No variable added.
Homosexual couples cannot procreate.
That was and is the topic of this conversation.
To rehash for your addled brain:
- Duke ignorantly pretends here that these "domestic partners" have not engaged in sexual activity.
- Gokeefe challenges Duke's assertion by asking if any sane person would question whether she had engaged in sexual activity with her ex-husband.
- I point out the disordered state of the homosexual partnership by demonstrating that Gokeefe has proof of her union [i.e., biological children]; and that no homosexual couple can produce such proof.
The End.
Hey yo -yo Tippyheaded fundamentalist.

I'm not ignorantly pretending they didn't have sexual relations. I'm saying that the obit doesn't prove it.

For a similar argument, try this:

Priests are sworn to celibacy. Joe is a priest. Does Joe's ordination and thirty years of service as a priest prove that he has remained celibate during that period of time?

woof
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#683 Apr 24, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
No variable added, eh? Let's check.
Your post yesterday on the subject:
<quoted text>
And your post today:
<quoted text>
Read those two posts over a couple of times and see if the there is a word, a kind of important word, that exists in today's post that didn't exist in yesterday's post. You can do it. It starts with "S."
He and Paco must have both attended school in Maine.

woof

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#684 Apr 24, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey yo -yo Tippyheaded fundamentalist.
I'm not ignorantly pretending they didn't have sexual relations. I'm saying that the obit doesn't prove it.
For a similar argument, try this:
Priests are sworn to celibacy. Joe is a priest. Does Joe's ordination and thirty years of service as a priest prove that he has remained celibate during that period of time?
woof
No, but if Joe publicly announces his having a live-in "domestic partner," ["domestic partner" being the accepted term homosexuals use to define another individual as their "boyfriend/girlfriend/spo use"], then it can be assumed that Joe has breached his vows. At the very least, his living arrangement provides that impression and, therefore, he has harmed the reputation of the Church.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#685 Apr 24, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
He and Paco must have both attended school in Maine.
woof
Perhaps the two of you, together, could come up with a biology lesson for the forum, demonstrating the ability of two same-sex individuals [commonly referred to as "homosexuals"], living in a domestic partnership, to procreate and birth their shared biological child.

Waiting...

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#686 Apr 24, 2013
Wait what wrote:
<quoted text>
Lawyers don't argue on presumptions. Honestly, I hope this has legs. I am incredulous that in 19 years, not one single person knew she was a lesbian. Whether or not one personally agrees with the lifestyle, it seems wrong that after all this time suddenly she's a sinner of the highest degree. Not one single person was ever invited to their home for a holiday (or any other) gathering?
I would suggest that lesbian "room-mates" have always been a part of education, including Catholic education. The change is that today some are more likely to feel safe introducing their "room-mate" as their partner or spouse. In most professions these days the issue of who you live with and whether you share a bed with them is of exceedingly little interest. There are a few exceptions including some businesses with a particularly far-right culture, the ministry and parochial education.

Odds are that Hale and her partner simply followed the old school "don't ask, don't tell" rules so far as any contact between home and work. However, once the obituary was published, not only was Hale's family status made plain, but also the hypocrisy of the school/diocese with regard to her employment.

Duke's questions with regard to what they district knew and when they knew it are helpful. In other words, did their behavior contribute to the interpretation of that vague morals clause and what it entailed?
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#687 Apr 24, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
You are playing a semantics game to further prove your idiocy.
You go, girl!
Meanwhile:
Two same-sex individuals, within a domestic partnership [the topic of this discussion], cannot procreate.
REPEAT: Two same-sex individuals, within a domestic partnership [the topic of this discussion], cannot procreate.
REPEAT: Two same-sex individuals, within a domestic partnership [the topic of this discussion], cannot procreate.
I will await your biology lesson.
Semantics? Biology versus shared biology are two very different things. But if you see them as merely a semantic difference, exellent.

Lesbian couple visits a sprem bank and nine months later there is a new child in the family. See how simple that was? Now, don't say that because they got the sperm from someone outside the relationship it isn't their child. We wouldn't want to play a semantics game, would we?
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#688 Apr 24, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Irrelevant.
Even using IVF, two same-sex individuals, within a domestic partnership, cannot ever produce a shared biological child.
Irrelevant? Gokeefe's children was YOUR scenario. Why did you raise the scenario if it is irrelevant?

(There you go using that word shared again. One post removed from this you said that was mere semantics).
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#689 Apr 24, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps the two of you, together, could come up with a biology lesson for the forum, demonstrating the ability of two same-sex individuals [commonly referred to as "homosexuals"], living in a domestic partnership, to procreate and birth their shared biological child.
Waiting...
No, gosh darn it, just two posts ago you were insisting that the word shared wasn't an important word in this discussion and that focusing on it was "playing semantics." You aren't very consistent.
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#690 Apr 24, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
No, but if Joe publicly announces his having a live-in "domestic partner," ["domestic partner" being the accepted term homosexuals use to define another individual as their "boyfriend/girlfriend/spo use"], then it can be assumed that Joe has breached his vows. At the very least, his living arrangement provides that impression and, therefore, he has harmed the reputation of the Church.
So now it's not the sex, it's the living arrangement. You bounce around like a fart in a kettle.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#691 Apr 24, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
Semantics? Biology versus shared biology are two very different things. But if you see them as merely a semantic difference, exellent.
Lesbian couple visits a sprem bank and nine months later there is a new child in the family. See how simple that was? Now, don't say that because they got the sperm from someone outside the relationship it isn't their child. We wouldn't want to play a semantics game, would we?
How deep is that rabbit hole?

First post on this issue:

http://www.topix.com/forum/columbus/T5QUMMEED...

It is impossible for homosexuals [i.e., a same-sex couple] to produce children as biological proof of their physical union.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#692 Apr 24, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
No, gosh darn it, just two posts ago you were insisting that the word shared wasn't an important word in this discussion and that focusing on it was "playing semantics." You aren't very consistent.
I've encountered rocks smarter than you.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#693 Apr 24, 2013
gokeefe wrote:
<quoted text>
Obit provides proof of the domestic arrangement.
So are you going to claim that I didn't sleep with my ex husband?
Well, it's an interesting situation that the Church has set up. They recognize that people who are gay are most likely innately so ("born this way"), urging kind treatment. But they identify "acting on" one's homosexuality--in other words, the sexual act--as sinful.

As someone, I believe it was you, noted, the church assumed chastity up until the time that the obituary referred to Hale and her partner. Now, setting aside the obvious irony that an unpartnered person is considered chaste but a committed one is considered un-chaste, can they legally present that obituary as proof-positive (beyond a shadow of a doubt, or whatever) that they know anything more about Hale's chastity than they did before?

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#694 Apr 24, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Well...I think it would be much more entertaining for this forum to await your biology lesson demonstrating how two same-sex individuals can procreate, resulting in the birth of their shared biological child.
They can't, but they can contract one or both parts of it out :)

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#695 Apr 24, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>that is why I registered too after seeing what they were doing with unregistered topix user names.
Dunno who "they" is, but I also registered because I was annoyed by posers putting stuff up using my screen name.

I never assumed and right or left-wing conspiracy about it, though.

Apparently Topix is just about as successful in blocking poorly-behaving posters from both the registered and un-registered categories. E-Bob, hey now and Spook frequently change their screen names slightly, clean out cookies and march onward.

George just registers a new name (or two or three lately) and goes on blustering about how he's being picked on.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#696 Apr 24, 2013
gokeefe wrote:
<quoted text>
Cultural norm, is it not, that obit publish the spouse/significant other of the immediate survivors? When my dad died it was listed as, survived by "daughters, GOKeefe (insert name here), Sister2 (insert name here), etc..."
That was 28 years ago, too.
They used to just recognize "special friends" of the deceased or family members. Covered a lot of territory.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#697 Apr 24, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
You are playing a semantics game to further prove your idiocy.
You go, girl!
Meanwhile:
Two same-sex individuals, within a domestic partnership [the topic of this discussion], cannot procreate.
Hell, lots of heterosexuals have sex outside "a domestic partnership", so why can't homosexuals?
jeff

Searcy, AR

#698 Apr 24, 2013
Martial Law is awsome

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#699 Apr 24, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, it's an interesting situation that the Church has set up. They recognize that people who are gay are most likely innately so ("born this way"), urging kind treatment. But they identify "acting on" one's homosexuality--in other words, the sexual act--as sinful.
As someone, I believe it was you, noted, the church assumed chastity up until the time that the obituary referred to Hale and her partner. Now, setting aside the obvious irony that an unpartnered person is considered chaste but a committed one is considered un-chaste, can they legally present that obituary as proof-positive (beyond a shadow of a doubt, or whatever) that they know anything more about Hale's chastity than they did before?
At the very least, Ms. Hale's public announcement of her living arrangement provides the impression that she is a participant in a same-sex relationship and, therefore, has breached her contract, harming the reputation of the Church.

That she has no intent to repent of this moral failure and remedy the situation provides the Church no choice but to enforce its contract, the terms of which she agreed to.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#700 Apr 24, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
No variable added.
Homosexual couples cannot procreate.
That was and is the topic of this conversation.
Neither can obedient nuns and priests.

What is your point?

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#701 Apr 24, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
So now it's not the sex, it's the living arrangement. You bounce around like a fart in a kettle.
Obviously, you're running out of air down there?
Shall I send Reader to rescue you?
She knows her way around the rabbit hole very well.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Columbus Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Who do you support for Governor in Ohio in 2010? (Oct '10) 7 min Pope Che Reagan C... 31,155
New bus line targets New Albany commuters 58 min They cannot kill ... 2
blaze aka daydream aka smiles aka Rachael Jarvis 1 hr wwow 8
Trees nut fruit shade and timber 2 hr Arborist 4
The Michael Brown Case 2 hr Colbert 67
Is Barack Obama Doing a Good Job as President? (Aug '13) 3 hr scirocco 3,351
Hey pale rider 9 hr -The-Artist- 35
•••
•••
Columbus Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Columbus Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Columbus People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Columbus News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Columbus
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••