Happy Fourth of July!

ziggy wrote:

All I am doing is choosing to use my property, that I bought, paid for, and pay the taxes on as I see fit.

And that you "see fit" to determine other people's sexuality, and then to rent or not rent to them based on that, shows that you have a sexual agenda- however couched in property ownership your holier-than-thou pretentiousness belies.

If I won't sell my property to a company that wants to use it as a landfill, does that mean I have an agenda against landfills? If I fight to keep my property from being taken for use in the building of a highway does that mean I have an agenda against highways?

The truth is Ziggy your arguement is pathetic. You make claim after claim about how much you love liberty, but when it comes down to walking the walk you are a complete failure.

Stephanie wrote:

Yea, you do make that choice. You may not realize it or have a desire to do other wise, but you choose to be hetro or homosexual.

I'd really like to know what evidence you have to back that statement up.

Steph, you are what you were nurtured to be.

And there ain't no other way about it, excluding biological problems, that is. And that is because nurturing can not overcome all of such things. But then, many of such things are extremely important in determining the nurturing of a person.

Case in point, Steph, if you remember I told you my teeth rotted out at a very young age, but I might not of told you that I got my 1st set of "full uppers" before I even entered Freshmen Year of High School.

And the Dentist that made them didn't f'ing know or care how he done it and they fit so loose that I couldn't hardly open my mouth without them "falling down" and not knowing any better I apparently assumed that all false teeth fit the same way.

Well now Steph, those "falling down teeth" NURTURED me to become extremely introverted and quiet ...... and unable to say very much .... even if the hogs were eating me. And I was scared shitless to even think about talking to a pretty girl that interested me ........ out of fear that if I opened my mouth to "smile" or to even say "hello" that my upper teeth would fall down and scare the bejesus out of her ...... or that she would laugh her ass off at my prediciment.

And you know what Steph, that introvertedness persisted all the way through my college years and into my mid twenties before it started improving slightly and that was because I bought a set of teeth that really fit right. But then it took another 15+ years of corrective NURTURING to overcome the "worst of it" and even now, after 45 years, that introvertedness still tries to rear its ugly head noninfrequently ..... and often gets away with it.

So "Yes" Steph, one does make the choice to be hetero or homo, whether it is a conscious choice ...... "for fun or benefits", or a subconscious choice .......... "nurtured by environmental stimuli".

Steph, negative stimuli (pain, fear, anguish, mistreatment) is a far more effective "nurturer" than are positive stimuli. And I'm pretty sure there are far, far more homosexuals in our present day society as a result of negative nurturing than there could ever hope to be as a result of positive nurturing.

The negative nurturing that causes one to unconsciously choose to prefer same sex companionship most probably occurs more often sometime prior to their mid teenage years (16). And don't be asking what that "negative nurturing" was because I can't possibly name all the different ones.

Stephanie wrote:You're too intelligent to actually be comparing homosexuals with pedophiles, Sam. I'm not biting.

Steph, no one was comparing apples to oranges. I was merely asking you how you felt about putting apples or oranges or kumquats .... in the middle of your dinner table.

Stephanie wrote:However, I must ask, am I correct in believing you don't think women should serve in the military?

Steph, not in "front line" decision making positions.

And like General Patton said, not in "front line" fighting positions because a female has to wash her arse every day.

To the person or persons holding Stephanie Butcher hostage,

We know that you have kidnapped the pleasant and gracious Stephanie Butcher and are holding her hostage. The so-called "Stephanie" that is posting is obviously not Stephanie. We demand that you release her! FREE STEPHANIE!

Sincerely,
Keli Kookaburra Kilohana


P.S.
If our demands are not met POST HASTE, then the authorities WILL BE notified!!

Cato wrote:The truth is Ziggy your arguement is pathetic. You make claim after claim about how much you love liberty, but when it comes down to walking the walk you are a complete failure.

I am not the one with a personal interest in trying to find out who anyone has sex with, or how, or even at all, nor trying to tell either homosexuals or hetereosexuals why they have sex they way they do, nor to tell them that it is right or wrong to have sex one way or another. That is your agenda. My agenda is one of live and let live liberty- including the liberty of consenting adults to have sex with whoever they care to, however they care to, and wherever they care to- whether in or on my property, your property, or someone else's property.

ziggy wrote:

Cato wrote:The truth is Ziggy your arguement is pathetic. You make claim after claim about how much you love liberty, but when it comes down to walking the walk you are a complete failure.

My agenda is one of live and let live liberty- including the liberty of consenting adults to have sex with whoever they care to, however they care to, and wherever they care to- whether in or on my property, your property, or someone else's property.

Ziggy, I can seperate bullcrap in to catagorys, so save it for some of your government educated sheeple. If you actually believed what you just wrote, we wouldn't be having this conversation. We are, so it is very obvious you don't really believe what you wrote. You speak about live and let live and yet demand that I use the property I own in a manner I choose not to. You demand I recognize and accept as normal behavior I deem wrong. If I don't you demand the govenrment force me to comply. No matter how you argue the point all you are managing to prove is that you are nothing more than a two-bit authoritarian.

You demand I recognize and accept as normal behavior I deem wrong. If I don't you demand the govenrment force me to comply.

I am not demanding anything. I am willing to let consenting adults do as they please sexually. You are the one who deems certain consenting adult sexual conduct to be "wrong"- and that it not take place where you "deem" to have authority to prohibit it. So who is the real "authoritarian" here?

ziggy wrote:I am willing to let consenting adults do as they please sexually. ..... and (not like you) ..... that it not take place where you "deem" to have authority to prohibit it. So who is the real "authoritarian" here?

Does this mean your home is "open" for queer couples to come in and engage in sex whenever they want to?

Why that is really nice of you, Zigster, really nice.

ziggy wrote:
I am not demanding anything. I am willing to let consenting adults do as they please sexually.

I think I have made it clear enough that I don't care what consenting adults do in the privacy thier bedroom.

ziggy wrote: You are the one who deems certain consenting adult sexual conduct to be "wrong"- and that it not take place where you "deem" to have authority to prohibit it. So who is the real "authoritarian" here?

I have to ask the same question as Sam. You would allow a homosexual couple in your house to have sex right there in the living room on the floor, while you and your spouse stood by.

Secondly, you seem to be saying you have no authority to use your property as you deem fit. That may be true for you, but if I own something, if I pay taxes on it, my rules will apply on that property. I don't give a tinkers damn what you, Terry, Obama, or anyoneelse happens to think or want.

I have to ask the same question as Sam. You would allow a homosexual couple in your house to have sex right there in the living room on the floor, while you and your spouse stood by.

What a couple of boobs. You know that zig didn't mean that. You and Sam are just trying to be disingenuous because your actual argument is weak

Zig is not opening his private residence to ANYONE to have sex in.

A rental property is different. For one thing, while they rent it, they have certain rights on that property, including the right to privacy.

I love how you and Sam try and twist the argument by using shit-poor analogies. It shows a weak argument or poor debate skills - perhaps both.

TerryRC wrote:
Zig is not opening his private residence to ANYONE to have sex in.

TerryRC wrote: A rental property is different. For one thing, while they rent it, they have certain rights on that property, including the right to privacy.

And I have the right to determine who I rent to. I also have the right to choose how I use my property. Now, I know that leftist, touchy feely types, like Ziggy and you, have persuaded the politicans to make laws that say otherwise, but I don't care anymore. I'll rent to whom I damn well please.

TerryRC wrote:I love how you and Sam try and twist the argument by using shit-poor analogies. It shows a weak argument or poor debate skills - perhaps both.

SamCogar wrote:Does this mean your home is "open" for queer couples to come in and engage in sex whenever they want to?

Unlike the properties Cato rents to the general public, my home is not for rent as a place of public accomodation. But when we have house guests, we do not expect to limit their mutual sexual conduct among themselves.

TerryRC wrote:A rental property is different. For one thing, while they rent it, they have certain rights on that property, including the right to privacy.

No shit, Dick Tracy, when did you get your 1st clue?

What a couple of boobs. You know that zig didn't mean that. You and Sam are just trying to be disingenuous because your actual argument is weak. I love how you and Sam try and twist the argument by using shit-poor analogies. It shows a weak argument or poor debate skills - perhaps both.

Maybe so on the boobs, but at least we are not dumber in the head than a hog is in the ass.

Which you display proof of by asserting and claiming that .... potential renters have rights to rental property ..... before they even rent the frigging property.

You must be a teriffic fan and supporter of Obama and his "anti-Rule of Law" Constitutional destroying Socialist agenda.


.

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:
I am not demanding anything. I am willing to let consenting adults do as they please sexually.

I think I have made it clear enough that I don't care what consenting adults do in the privacy thier bedroom.

ziggy wrote: You are the one who deems certain consenting adult sexual conduct to be "wrong"- and that it not take place where you "deem" to have authority to prohibit it. So who is the real "authoritarian" here?

I have to ask the same question as Sam. You would allow a homosexual couple in your house to have sex right there in the living room on the floor, while you and your spouse stood by.

Maybe not "in the living room on the floor"- but upstairs in a guest bedroom? Sure, why not?

Secondly, you seem to be saying you have no authority to use your property as you deem fit. That may be true for you, but if I own something, if I pay taxes on it, my rules will apply on that property. I don't give a tinkers damn what you, Terry, Obama, or anyoneelse happens to think or want.

You either believe in liberty for all, or you don't. If you believe in liberty for all, then your right to use your property that you make available as a place of public accomodation (to be rented to others for use as their dwelling home, for example) as you "deem fit", does not trump the liberty of people to engage in legal sexual relations in their home.

SamCogar wrote:Which you display proof of by asserting and claiming that .... potential renters have rights to rental property ..... before they even rent the frigging property.

Once on the house rental market as a place of general commercial accomodation, the public acquires certain potential rights re: that property, yes- including the right to rent it under terms applicable to all of the general public.

ziggy wrote:
You either believe in liberty for all, or you don't. If you believe in liberty for all, then your right to use your property that you make available as a place of public accomodation (to be rented to others for use as their dwelling home, for example) as you "deem fit", does not trump the liberty of people to engage in legal sexual relations in their home.

Your whole arguement is that homosexual couple have the liberty to live where ever they desire, but I don't have the liberty to use my property as I see fit.

There seems to be a bit of a contradiction there.

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:
You either believe in liberty for all, or you don't. If you believe in liberty for all, then your right to use your property that you make available as a place of public accomodation (to be rented to others for use as their dwelling home, for example) as you "deem fit", does not trump the liberty of people to engage in legal sexual relations in their home.

Your whole arguement is that homosexual couple have the liberty to live where ever they desire, but I don't have the liberty to use my property as I see fit.

There seems to be a bit of a contradiction there.

And your whole argument seems to be that your liberties trump the liberties of others.

There seems to be more than just a bit of a contradiction there.

ziggy wrote:
And your whole argument seems to be that your liberties trump the liberties of others.

Yu right Zig, yu right, Cato is just like all those voters in Phila that are wanting to trump the liberties of those Black Panthers who were exercising their rights to block the entrance to that Voting Precinct.

Screw those voters, right Zigster, those Black Panthers have rights too and Obama said so.

ziggy wrote:

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:
You either believe in liberty for all, or you don't. If you believe in liberty for all, then your right to use your property that you make available as a place of public accomodation (to be rented to others for use as their dwelling home, for example) as you "deem fit", does not trump the liberty of people to engage in legal sexual relations in their home.

Your whole arguement is that homosexual couple have the liberty to live where ever they desire, but I don't have the liberty to use my property as I see fit.

There seems to be a bit of a contradiction there.

And your whole argument seems to be that your liberties trump the liberties of others.

There seems to be more than just a bit of a contradiction there.

Gee, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then. I just keep on being my ol' bigoted self, thank you very much. Oh, by the way, Mr. Browning and Mr. Winchester say they'll defend my right to use my property as I please, law or not. They weren't too impressed with your arguement either, in case you are interested.

That is where Ziggy and I part ways. Cato is entitled to do with his property as he sees fit. This includes being selective, even discriminatory, when renting an apartment or home.

Cato wrote:Gee, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then. I just keep on being my ol' bigoted self, thank you very much. Oh, by the way, Mr. Browning and Mr. Winchester say they'll defend my right to use my property as I please, law or not.

Everyone who determines to violate the law- from shoplifters to murderers, robbers, rapists, whatever- ends up doing as he or she pleases, as you say, "law or not". Every lawbreaker has an excuse as to why the law should not apply to him or her. You are just one more among millions who make excuses abouty why the law should not apply to you.

Stephanie wrote:That is where Ziggy and I part ways. Cato is entitled to do with his property as he sees fit. This includes being selective, even discriminatory, when renting an apartment or home.

For Cato it is not about being "entitled to do with his property as he sees fit". That is just a ruse. For Cato it is about trying to tell others how they should conduct themselves sexually in their bedrooms, when legally it is none of his business how they conduct themselves sexually in their bedrooms- even if they rent their homes from Cato.

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:
I am not demanding anything. I am willing to let consenting adults do as they please sexually.

I think I have made it clear enough that I don't care what consenting adults do in the privacy thier bedroom.

ziggy wrote: You are the one who deems certain consenting adult sexual conduct to be "wrong"- and that it not take place where you "deem" to have authority to prohibit it. So who is the real "authoritarian" here?

I have to ask the same question as Sam. You would allow a homosexual couple in your house to have sex right there in the living room on the floor, while you and your spouse stood by.

Secondly, you seem to be saying you have no authority to use your property as you deem fit. That may be true for you, but if I own something, if I pay taxes on it, my rules will apply on that property. I don't give a tinkers damn what you, Terry, Obama, or anyoneelse happens to think or want.

Like I said, every lawbreaker has that attitude about the law- and a zillion excuses why the law should not apply to him or her. So just go ahead and break the law and- as you often say- be prepared to accept the consequences of doing so. BTW, those consequences include possible both fines and imprisonment. So when you get locked up, you will have a nice audience of big Bubbas to preach to about what you think is and is not proper sexual conduct. And they, like your examples of Mr. Browning and Mr. Winchester, won't be very impressed with your arguments, either. But I know that eventually you'll win them over- because you are oh so convincing when it comes to defending your liberty to dictate the sexuality of others- however directly or indirectly, or however couched in phony property rights arguments.

The negative nurturing that causes one to unconsciously choose to prefer same sex companionship most probably occurs more often sometime prior to their mid teenage years (16). And don't be asking what that "negative nurturing" was because I can't possibly name all the different ones.

Can you name even one of them?

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:

Cato wrote:The truth is Ziggy your arguement is pathetic. You make claim after claim about how much you love liberty, but when it comes down to walking the walk you are a complete failure.

My agenda is one of live and let live liberty- including the liberty of consenting adults to have sex with whoever they care to, however they care to, and wherever they care to- whether in or on my property, your property, or someone else's property.

Ziggy, I can seperate bullcrap in to catagorys, so save it for some of your government educated sheeple. If you actually believed what you just wrote, we wouldn't be having this conversation. We are, so it is very obvious you don't really believe what you wrote. You speak about live and let live and yet demand that I use the property I own in a manner I choose not to. You demand I recognize and accept as normal behavior I deem wrong. If I don't you demand the govenrment force me to comply. No matter how you argue the point all you are managing to prove is that you are nothing more than a two-bit authoritarian.

And you are a $300-$500 per month authoritarian- whetever the rental value of the property you would deny to those you suspect of being homosexual.