Judge's Personal Life Debated After Gay Ruling

[LurkerNoMore]

I don't know about sexual harassment by gays in the locker room, but tony has been intellectually harassed by Straw for four pages now.

Give up dude, you can't back pedal anymore after you fall off a cliff.

[tonymctones]

I don't know about sexual harassment by gays in the locker room, but tony has been intellectually harassed by Straw for four pages now.

Give up dude, you can't back pedal anymore after you fall off a cliff.

lmao

FACTS>opinions...

what facts has he stated?

[LurkerNoMore]

lmao

FACTS>opinions...

what facts has he stated?

His entire dissection of your "facts" regarding legal sexual harassment is all he needed to do.  You can't substitute projection and "hyperbole" for facts yourself you know.

I guess you have to try again.

[tonymctones]

His entire dissection of your "facts" regarding legal sexual harassment is all he needed to do.  You can't substitute projection and "hyperbole" for facts yourself you know.

I guess you have to try again.

ok well lets see here dispute these facts...

gays are allowed to be in a place where they can view ppl they find sexually attractive naked...straights get arrested for doing this in the places that gays are allowed to do this...

fact

gays are LEGALLY allowed to be in these places

fact

straights are LEGALLY barred from being in these places...

fact

again just b/c youre personally ok with it doesnt change the facts and doesnt change the facts

FACTS>opinions

dispute these facts...

[LurkerNoMore]

You appear to want to be oogled by gays.

FACT

You seem highly disturbed that gays might be in those places and WON'T oogle you.

FACT

You are reducing a completely irrelevant issue of marriage down to nothing more than juvenile sexual immaturity as though gays are nothing more than 13 year olds with their first nudie magazine. (Projection much?)

FACT

Your argument about "legally harassing" is bullshit because no harassment is legal.

FACT

Try again with better facts I suppose.  You ain't done much here with what you got so far.  Straw took you and your little rant apart fairly easy.

[chadstallion]

Do you have tourette's syndrome? You keep repeating yourself, stuttering fag.

lol; thanks for taking time to reply. it does take more than being called a fag to be considered an insult.
and, I just like to encourage others to play along here.

[chadstallion]

You appear to want to be oogled by gays.

FACT

You seem highly disturbed that gays might be in those places and WON'T oogle you.

FACT

You are reducing a completely irrelevant issue of marriage down to nothing more than juvenile sexual immaturity as though gays are nothing more than 13 year olds with their first nudie magazine. (Projection much?)

FACT

Your argument about "legally harassing" is bullshit because no harassment is legal.

FACT

Try again with better facts I suppose.  You ain't done much here with what you got so far.  Straw took you and your little rant apart fairly easy.

all great, interesting and funny points.  please keep up the posts; it just gets them all the more riled up.  which is the point here!

[tonymctones]

You appear to want to be oogled by gays.

FACT

You seem highly disturbed that gays might be in those places and WON'T oogle you.

FACT

You are reducing a completely irrelevant issue of marriage down to nothing more than juvenile sexual immaturity as though gays are nothing more than 13 year olds with their first nudie magazine. (Projection much?)

FACT

Your argument about "legally harassing" is bullshit because no harassment is legal.

FACT

Try again with better facts I suppose.  You ain't done much here with what you got so far.  Straw took you and your little rant apart fairly easy.

1.This is an opinion not a fact...I actually dont give a shit one way or the other I just cant stand the hypocrisey of retards such as yourself and straw.

2. This is an opinion not a fact...This has nothing to do with gay marriage in which I am in favor of giving everyone civil unions not just gays but straights too...AGAIN EQUAL...

3. Reread the thread and get back to me when you catch up...

4.reread the thread and get back to me...

FACTS>opinions...

dispute the facts...with facts not opinions...

[Straw Man]

Tony - it must be tough for you when nobody understands what is so obvious to you.

[chadstallion]

a hoot.

[tonymctones]

Tony - it must be tough for you when nobody understands what is so obvious to you.

As I know your disorder Ill remind you that many ppl do...doc, oz, beach, hugo and many others have agreed with me on this during the many many times me and you have posted on this topic...

LOL if chad and lurker make you feel better about your opinion and make you believe that your opinion trumps the FACTS...then your disorder has progressed to a point that Im not sure you should be in public by yourself...

again FACTS>opinions

Ive stated facts...youve stated opinions...

[LurkerNoMore]

.doc, oz, beach, hugo and many others

Then perhaps you should get one of those to articulate your point for you because you have failed to make it.  Whatever it is.

You fail simply because you base your entire argument on the premise of "legal harassment".  Harassment is not legal at all.  No matter what gender or what sexuality.  Saying "legal harassment" is about as clueless as saying "legal rape" or "legal theft".  It makes no sense.  Just like your posts.

You already have showed yourself as biased because as you claim you want to right to go into women locker rooms and "legally harass"     them.  I am beginning to think you have never seen a pair of titties in your life.

[tonymctones]

Then perhaps you should get one of those to articulate your point for you because you have failed to make it.  Whatever it is.

You fail simply because you base your entire argument on the premise of "legal harassment".  Harassment is not legal at all.  No matter what gender or what sexuality.  Saying "legal harassment" is about as clueless as saying "legal rape" or "legal theft".  It makes no sense.  Just like your posts.

You already have showed yourself as biased because as you claim you want to right to go into women locker rooms and "legally harass"     them.  I am beginning to think you have never seen a pair of titties in your life.

LOL WOW again reread the article...the legal harrassment was hyperbole...you do know what hyperbole is dont you?

fact is though they are legally allowed to be in a position where they can sexually harrass naked ppl they find sexually attractive...

again dispute the fact...

FACTS>opinions...

[LurkerNoMore]

LOL WOW again reread the article...the legal harrassment was hyperbole...you do know what hyperbole is dont you?

fact is though they are legally allowed to be in a position where they can sexually harrass naked ppl they find sexually attractive...

again dispute the fact...

FACTS>opinions...

No, they are not LEGALLY allowed anything.

Again, your entire argument is based on a flawed viewpoint and biased outlook.

I am LEGALLY allowed to be in the same supermarket as black people.  If I wanted to harass them, it would not make a whit of difference of WHERE it occurred.  Instead, it would be about WHAT my actions were.  Not the right that I or the black people had to be in that supermarket.

If you want to talk nonsense and chase your tail in circles because not a single other person is coming forward to support/defend/explain this stupid argument you are choking on, then that is your problem.  Seriously, turn on HBO and see a set of tits for once and then you will move forward from the 9 year old stance.

[tonymctones]

No, they are not LEGALLY allowed anything.

Again, your entire argument is based on a flawed viewpoint and biased outlook.

I am LEGALLY allowed to be in the same supermarket as black people.  If I wanted to harass them, it would not make a whit of difference of WHERE it occurred.  Instead, it would be about WHAT my actions were.  Not the right that I or the black people had to be in that supermarket.

If you want to talk nonsense and chase your tail in circles because not a single other person is coming forward to support/defend/explain this stupid argument you are choking on, then that is your problem.  Seriously, turn on HBO and see a set of tits for once and then you will move forward from the 9 year old stance.

youre correct but...

ahhh you see there is a difference we seperate men and women in the situation that gays are allowed to be in b/c there is a potential for sexual harrassment...why are gays allowed to be in that situation when it was deemed straights shouldnt be?

nobody else is denied to be in the supermarket...

LOL youre coming along keep following the cheese...

[Dos Equis]

youre correct but...

ahhh you see there is a difference we seperate men and women in the situation that gays are allowed to be in b/c there is a potential for sexual harrassment...why are gays allowed to be in that situation when it was deemed straights shouldnt be?

nobody else is denied to be in the supermarket...

LOL youre coming along keep following the cheese...

Tony I think the issue is privacy more than sexual harassment.  We separate women and men in bathrooms and showers primarily due to privacy. 

You definitely raise a legitimate point (one that I've raised many times before), that there are privacy concerns with allowing openly gay men and women to share the same facilities as heterosexual men and women.  Gays and lesbians are akin to the "opposite sex."  There really isn't any logical distinction.  It is something that needs to be addressed.   

The contention that they already share facilities is silly, because they don't do so openly.  It would be like saying a man disguised as a woman is sharing facilities with women and the women don’t care.   

But good luck trying to reason with some of these folks.    

[tonymctones]

Tony I think the issue is privacy more than sexual harassment.  We separate women and men in bathrooms and showers primarily due to privacy. 

You definitely raise a legitimate point (one that I've raised many times before), that there are privacy concerns with allowing openly gay men and women to share the same facilities as heterosexual men and women.  Gays and lesbians are akin to the "opposite sex."  There really isn't any logical distinction.  It is something that needs to be addressed.   

The contention that they already share facilities is silly, because they don't do so openly.  It would be like saying a man disguised as a woman is sharing facilities with women and the women don’t care.   

But good luck trying to reason with some of these folks.    

Agreed about the privacy...why is there a need for privacy? b/c of there are opposite sexes, and what the significance of that? they are sexually attracted to one another just like gays with ppl of the same sex...

Privacy is definitely a part of it probably the biggest part but the reasons behind the need for privacy are important. You illustrated quite eloquently with your cross dressing scenario something I had never thought of using in the debates such as this...thanks

Ya I know, I dont expect to change any minds but the simple fact they dont see the issue and continue to deny it is uber ignorant to me and I would think a person of rational thought would see it but then again...

[LurkerNoMore]

youre correct but...

ahhh you see there is a difference we seperate men and women in the situation that gays are allowed to be in b/c there is a potential for sexual harrassment...why are gays allowed to be in that situation when it was deemed straights shouldnt be?

nobody else is denied to be in the supermarket...

LOL youre coming along keep following the cheese...

Because it is a separation due to GENDER, not SEXUALITY.  Duh!!!!!

Why do you seem so eager to assume that gays are going to engage in sexual harassment?  Hey NEWS FLASH!!  There are already gays in your locker room.  Deal with it. 

[tonymctones]

Because it is a separation due to GENDER, not SEXUALITY.  Duh!!!!!

Why do you seem so eager to assume that gays are going to engage in sexual harassment?  Hey NEWS FLASH!!  There are already gays in your locker room.  Deal with it. 

LOL YES you made the logical leap...

now why does gender matter?

again youre doing good keep following the cheese...

[LurkerNoMore]

There is no cheese to follow.  There is nothing more than you continuing to blow smoke out of your ass over a insipid and biased viewpoint that has absolutely NO bearing or logical argument in the context of anything.

But if this is how you entertain yourself, please continue.  As I said earlier... not a single person has come along to try to help you out with this delusional compairson.

[tonymctones]

There is no cheese to follow.  There is nothing more than you continuing to blow smoke out of your ass over a insipid and biased viewpoint that has absolutely NO bearing or logical argument in the context of anything.

But if this is how you entertain yourself, please continue.  As I said earlier... not a single person has come along to try to help you out with this delusional compairson.

hahahah you stopped right before enlightenment...

answer the question...why does gender matter? it isnt some arbitrary attribute there is reasoning behind seperating ppl by gender...what is it?

LOL I suspect you already know and now see the folly in your stance...but if you dont then please tell us why gender matters?

[tonymctones]

Tony I think the issue is privacy more than sexual harassment.  We separate women and men in bathrooms and showers primarily due to privacy. 

You definitely raise a legitimate point (one that I've raised many times before), that there are privacy concerns with allowing openly gay men and women to share the same facilities as heterosexual men and women.  Gays and lesbians are akin to the "opposite sex."  There really isn't any logical distinction.  It is something that needs to be addressed.   

The contention that they already share facilities is silly, because they don't do so openly.  It would be like saying a man disguised as a woman is sharing facilities with women and the women don’t care.   

But good luck trying to reason with some of these folks.    

LOL actually someone has come along to help...

and many others have expressed the issue in past threads...

but just for you ill lay it out kindergarden style...

what is the reason for seperating ppl by gender?

[LurkerNoMore]

In your mind it is because of sexuality reasons.  In legal opinion it is due to gender.

Kind of sad you have to actually ask the person calling you on your bullshit what you are trying to say exactly.  Seems as though you don't buy into your own whining.

Not surprising Straw took you apart so easily.

[tonymctones]

In your mind it is because of sexuality reasons.  In legal opinion it is due to gender.

Kind of sad you have to actually ask the person calling you on your bullshit what you are trying to say exactly.  Seems as though you don't buy into your own whining.

Not surprising Straw took you apart so easily.

LOL im trying to let you lead yourself lurker...obviously me telling you wont work b/c I could say the sky is blue and you would disagree just to disagree...

the legal differentation is gender but thats not the reason for the seperation by gender that is as you stated for sexuality reasons...

please elaborate on that for me

[LurkerNoMore]

Apparently the rest of us are not as fluent in stupid as Tony is.

Hence the conversation with himself.