NOM Sets Sights on Starbucks for Gay ...

NOM Sets Sights on Starbucks for Gay Marriage Support

There are 263 comments on the EDGE story from Nov 14, 2012, titled NOM Sets Sights on Starbucks for Gay Marriage Support. In it, EDGE reports that:

The leaders of the anti-gay marriage group the National Organization for Marriage are furious that the LGBT community made great strides after Election Day.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at EDGE.

hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#250 Dec 10, 2012
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>I'm not sure why he did but a few weeks ago Jane explained to me that he posts under a female name. I didn't bookmark it so I don't know where it is but I wish I had. His words are much better than mine in this case.
His explanation for posing as a female was "intriguing".
I thought it was just an exercise in mental masturbation but it's Jane's reason so I can't really dispute it. Unlike his obsession with Baker.
I've watched him go though what he went through with me over Baker with three other people on these threads. In each case, everyone finally agrees on Baker's importance but the reasons differ.
Frankly I'm at the point where Jane has joined the David Moore list.
Is that that person who repetitively posts the bible verses? To me, that person is the equivalent of a satanic rapist.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#251 Dec 10, 2012
hi hi wrote:
<quoted text>
Is that that person who repetitively posts the bible verses? To me, that person is the equivalent of a satanic rapist.
The one I sometimes refer to as The Pekin Goatboy of 10,000 screen names, yes David Moore.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#252 Dec 10, 2012
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
oh look ANOTHER ad hominem post and NOTHING else from Lacez...
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#253 Dec 10, 2012
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>I'm not sure why he did but a few weeks ago Jane explained to me that he posts under a female name. I didn't bookmark it so I don't know where it is but I wish I had. His words are much better than mine in this case.
His explanation for posing as a female was "intriguing".
I thought it was just an exercise in mental masturbation but it's Jane's reason so I can't really dispute it. Unlike his obsession with Baker.
I've watched him go though what he went through with me over Baker with three other people on these threads. In each case, everyone finally agrees on Baker's importance but the reasons differ.
Frankly I'm at the point where Jane has joined the David Moore list.
You at the point where I have slightly educated you and you resist learning any more..
I mean that's the truth.

It is the position of many on your side that gender is not important. So I changed my name to a woman's name and lo and behold, it appears its important to you...

Is there a difference between the genders or something?

So, In short, i changed my name so you all could make a big deal out of it and prove you lie when you claim there is no differences among the genders...
see how well it worked?

now the FUNNIEST part is that you guys all think there is something weird about being a man and using a female name ON A A BOARD, but you claim its very normal to do in real life?

classic!

In the end, you came here insisting Baker was a state case and learning you were wrong...and yet I learned nothing from you...
THAT'S "reality" (my previous name BTW)

But you are also right, three people have insisted on here in error that baker was not a scotus case...so yes, your side does go on and on while remaining very ignorant on the very basics...

most had never read any of the scotus cases even though they declare endlessly what they say..
I make them read the cases...
you are welcome...

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#254 Dec 10, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
Poor Jane, no valid points in sight for her.

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#256 Dec 11, 2012
Jane has achieved troll status. I just scroll right past her. She no longer exists.
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
Poor Jane, no valid points in sight for her.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#257 Dec 11, 2012
TomInElPaso wrote:
Jane has achieved troll status. I just scroll right past her. She no longer exists.
<quoted text>
just as I asked you to do..
I don't need to read your silly insults that you think are responses...

But you like all on your side cant seem to resist...

you do get that you are commenting on me right now, right?

a simple troll could not get you guys this mad, there are plenty, but I actually make a point and that is what you fear other people will read, and as usual your fear leads to hate..

Cue the personal attacks, but they only prove my point...

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#258 Dec 11, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
just as I asked you to do..
I don't need to read your silly insults that you think are responses...
But you like all on your side cant seem to resist...
you do get that you are commenting on me right now, right?
a simple troll could not get you guys this mad, there are plenty, but I actually make a point and that is what you fear other people will read, and as usual your fear leads to hate..
Cue the personal attacks, but they only prove my point...


You've not made any valid points, so how are we proving it?

It kills you to know that you are wrong, doesn't it?
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#259 Dec 11, 2012
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
not made any valid points,?
nope you haven't, nothing but ad hominem,
how many in a row is that for you?

“Extremely me”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#260 Dec 11, 2012
Uve wrote:
<quoted text>
Jane..we've been through this before. Follow the donations and they end up in Nigeria..
Don't forget Uganda.

A bunch of good "christians" put a lot of money and effort behind trying to make being gay punishable by the death penalty in that country.

They've lost their battle in the "developed" world.

Europe, North America, South America, Asia and even parts of Africa have started rejecting the anti-gay sentiments of these religious bigots.

They are trying to build a firewall in less developed countries that they feel are more open to fundamentalist influence and foreign cash.

“Extremely me”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#261 Dec 11, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
You at the point where I have slightly educated you and you resist learning any more..
I mean that's the truth.
It is the position of many on your side that gender is not important. So I changed my name to a woman's name and lo and behold, it appears its important to you...
Is there a difference between the genders or something?
So, In short, i changed my name so you all could make a big deal out of it and prove you lie when you claim there is no differences among the genders...
see how well it worked?
now the FUNNIEST part is that you guys all think there is something weird about being a man and using a female name ON A A BOARD, but you claim its very normal to do in real life?
classic!
In the end, you came here insisting Baker was a state case and learning you were wrong...and yet I learned nothing from you...
THAT'S "reality" (my previous name BTW)
But you are also right, three people have insisted on here in error that baker was not a scotus case...so yes, your side does go on and on while remaining very ignorant on the very basics...
most had never read any of the scotus cases even though they declare endlessly what they say..
I make them read the cases...
you are welcome...
"Is there a difference between the genders or something?"

Duh, of course there's a difference, that's why I married a man.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#262 Dec 11, 2012
JackMcIntosh wrote:
<quoted text>
"Is there a difference between the genders or something?"
Duh, of course there's a difference, that's why I married a man.
and that's why you, as two men, are different from a man and woman...see how that works?

and so you don't have to address the differences in the genders in your "marriage" do you?
men are from mars, women are from...what do you care?

see what I mean?

“Extremely me”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#263 Dec 11, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
and that's why you, as two men, are different from a man and woman...see how that works?
and so you don't have to address the differences in the genders in your "marriage" do you?
men are from mars, women are from...what do you care?
see what I mean?
No "Jane" I really don't see what you mean.

Two people fall in love, decide to share their lives together and get legally married.

I'm not even sure why you think gender is an issue.

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#264 Dec 11, 2012
JackMcIntosh wrote:
<quoted text>
No "Jane" I really don't see what you mean.
Two people fall in love, decide to share their lives together and get legally married.
I'm not even sure why you think gender is an issue.
Jane has no valid points, so he pretends to be a lawyer and bring up a bunch of opinions that he can't back up.

You know, he never answered me when I asked what negative impacts on anything or anyone would occur if marriage equality was present in his society.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#265 Dec 11, 2012
JackMcIntosh wrote:
<quoted text>
No "Jane" I really don't see what you mean.
Two people fall in love, decide to share their lives together and get legally married.
I'm not even sure why you think gender is an issue.
why don't you think it is?
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#266 Dec 11, 2012
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
no valid points,
wow, you are a combination of lides and MONA...
a double fail!

five posts today, and nothing, are you going to ever say anything of value?
the only time it looks like you read my posts is when I write how you are 20 and live with mom...

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#267 Dec 11, 2012
I understand why Mona no longer directly responds to Jane.
It's like talking to a 10 year old who doesn't want to hear what you say.

Me: "You're wrong and here is my proof."
Jane: "No I'm not, blah blah blah I can't hear you! I'm just going to respond with 'you have no valid points' even when you're not addressing me."

And so, the "lawyer" is ignored by the rest of the court and his opinions are never taken seriously (because they all know he's not a real lawyer).
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#268 Dec 11, 2012
Lacez wrote:
Me: "You're wrong and here is my proof."
.
Ten post today and not even one small part on point..
In what galaxy did you even make a point let alone support it.

Oh right, you didn't.

But you understand why MONA would post to me but never to me?

Either ignore me or don't (I have asked you many times to ignore me) but that tack is silly, childish, and only shows me FEAR...

because I dont back down to mere insults and that's all you (and MONA) have...
as evidenced by ALL of your posts.

Should I put up all that you provided us today?
I can do that if you like so we can look at what great "arguments" you make...

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#269 Dec 11, 2012
Lacez wrote:
I understand why Mona no longer directly responds to Jane.
It's like talking to a 10 year old who doesn't want to hear what you say.
Me: "You're wrong and here is my proof."
Jane: "No I'm not, blah blah blah I can't hear you! I'm just going to respond with 'you have no valid points' even when you're not addressing me."
And so, the "lawyer" is ignored by the rest of the court and his opinions are never taken seriously (because they all know he's not a real lawyer).
Mona isn't the only one who has decided to ignore Jane. As far as the name he uses, my first guess was his old name "reality" got banned.

But the more I think about it, I doubt that he was banned. More likely he got tired of being ignored under the name "reality" so now he needs this new name.

Thing is, people are ignoring him. Like you said, he's like the little child with fingers stuck in their ears yelling "No! No! No!"

Anyone want to take bets that he'll now make some sort of childish claim of victory now that hardly anyone is responding to him.

Oh wait, I think he already did that on a previous page.

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#270 Dec 11, 2012
I find it amusing that he came back as a woman. Seems like some sort of psychological daydreaming for him/her. The fact that she admitted she is a he certainly shows a demented need for attention.
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Mona isn't the only one who has decided to ignore Jane. As far as the name he uses, my first guess was his old name "reality" got banned.
But the more I think about it, I doubt that he was banned. More likely he got tired of being ignored under the name "reality" so now he needs this new name.
Thing is, people are ignoring him. Like you said, he's like the little child with fingers stuck in their ears yelling "No! No! No!"
Anyone want to take bets that he'll now make some sort of childish claim of victory now that hardly anyone is responding to him.
Oh wait, I think he already did that on a previous page.

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.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Gay club lube dispenser filled with acid 12 min Frankie Rizzo 23
News Indiana lawmakers to discuss ongoing LGBT right... 1 hr TerriB1 12
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 1 hr Poof1 16,160
News Man charged after lubricant dispenser filled wi... 2 hr Mite Be 32
News Transgender Ken doll cake triggers outrage afte... 2 hr Gov Corbutt of th... 59
News Prostate massage: the secret to a better sex life? (Sep '15) 2 hr Raul 6
News Study: Children Of Same-Sex Parents More Likely... 3 hr Lawrence Wolf 158
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 4 hr sgt Wiitold Kowal 38,911
More from around the web