Breaking News: U.S. Supreme Court Stops Gay Marriage In Utah

[Steve_McGarrett]

Jesus Christ. I didn't expect my thread to have lasted this long. Carry on!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

You lying sack of nasty shit. I said no such thing. I said if cognizant function is found in ADULT chickens and pigs giving them the ability to consent, YOU could fuck them. I did not apply your silly what if to children, you did.

Nasty Shit? Is there a non-nasty variant?

Huh... So this wasn't you?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...tops-gay-marriage-in-utah-51.html#post8514965

Sure looks like you... Cinemax Carpet Munchers canoodling in the avatar, just like your exquisite little divers.

Would you care to rescind and revise your position?

The query posed the looming certainty that "SCIENCE!" (The deceitful politicized farce which FRAUDULENTLY establishes itself as a scientific authority as a means to influence the Ignorant, NEVER to be confused with 'science') has already asserted that 'adult/child sexual relationships can actually benefit some children' in a white paper published by the APA some years ago, but was forced to retract, when the 'study' came under a PHALANX of public criticism, congress censured it and the research was soundly discredited by sexually normal, objective psychologists around the world.

But that didn't stop them, as the APA and the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is STILL pushing hard to establish Pedophilia is a 'sexual orientation', as a means of decriminalizing the deviancy, as it did for homosexuality, again all toward making it "LEGAL".

Part and parcel of the effort is found in the Education profession wherein they are now 'teaching' 8 year olds about every facet of sexual behavior. This as a means to 'educate' minor children in matters sexual, so that these children can be aware of the processes common to the behavior and the consequences stemming from such.

It becomes clear that 'the push' is international, wicked and designed to provide children with the means to make 'informed decisions' in matters of sexuality, so that such will be rationalized as children being 'cognizant' of the processes and consequences of sexuality, thus making them capable of making 'informed consent for sexual relationships with adults', AGAIN so as to provide the means to MAKE ADULT/CHILD SEX: "LEGAL".

And while the original query initially focused upon bestiality, which you agreed you'd endorse where "SCIENCE!" provided assurances that sub-species could consent to such, leaving the reader to conclude that if you endorse the flogging of animals, there would be no basis for you to reject the same for humans at an early stage of development; given the facts, the question simply asks:

IF (when) "SCIENCE!" declares that children are capable of consenting to sexual relationships with adults, will you advocate to change the laws to accommodate the sexually abnormal who will, as a result, use the change in the law to pursue minor children for the purpose of sexual graitification?​

If not, why not?

If so, why so?

.

.

.

.

The SILENCE, is DEAFENING!​

I was speaking only of adult chickens and pigs, not children. Knock off the bullshit if you wish to continue to engage.

WOW!

I guess that is all any objective observer needs to know about where about where the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality stands. Their intention is to "LEGALIZE" the sexual pursuit of children.

Does anyone need anything else?

Fuck off, shit for brains. Ignore on.

Well, I guess that settles that.

FTR: It should be noted that I stated at the outset that the sexually abnormal are a danger to children. And right here in our OWN little 'i-Community' we have a professed homosexual, who can't bring herself to DENOUNCE THE SEXUAL MOLESTATION OF CHILDREN!

Folks, you can NOT make this crap up!

Barb, there's the record, as it occurred what exactly did I make up?

 

[Barb]

Fuck off, shit for brains. Ignore on.

Well, I guess that settles that.

FTR: It should be noted that I stated at the outset that the sexually abnormal are a danger to children. And right here in our OWN little 'i-Community' we have a professed homosexual, who can't bring herself to DENOUNCE THE SEXUAL MOLESTATION OF CHILDREN!

Folks, you can NOT make this crap up!

Barb, there's the record, as it occurred what exactly did I make up?

My telling you to go take a flying fuck at a duck is not an act of advocating man / waterfowl relations, any more than what you made of Skye's sarcastic reply to you.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

You lying sack of nasty shit. I said no such thing. I said if cognizant function is found in ADULT chickens and pigs giving them the ability to consent, YOU could fuck them. I did not apply your silly what if to children, you did.

Nasty Shit? Is there a non-nasty variant?

Huh... So this wasn't you?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...tops-gay-marriage-in-utah-51.html#post8514965

Sure looks like you... Cinemax Carpet Munchers canoodling in the avatar, just like your exquisite little divers.

Would you care to rescind and revise your position?

The query posed the looming certainty that "SCIENCE!" (The deceitful politicized farce which FRAUDULENTLY establishes itself as a scientific authority as a means to influence the Ignorant, NEVER to be confused with 'science') has already asserted that 'adult/child sexual relationships can actually benefit some children' in a white paper published by the APA some years ago, but was forced to retract, when the 'study' came under a PHALANX of public criticism, congress censured it and the research was soundly discredited by sexually normal, objective psychologists around the world.

But that didn't stop them, as the APA and the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is STILL pushing hard to establish Pedophilia is a 'sexual orientation', as a means of decriminalizing the deviancy, as it did for homosexuality, again all toward making it "LEGAL".

Part and parcel of the effort is found in the Education profession wherein they are now 'teaching' 8 year olds about every facet of sexual behavior. This as a means to 'educate' minor children in matters sexual, so that these children can be aware of the processes common to the behavior and the consequences stemming from such.

It becomes clear that 'the push' is international, wicked and designed to provide children with the means to make 'informed decisions' in matters of sexuality, so that such will be rationalized as children being 'cognizant' of the processes and consequences of sexuality, thus making them capable of making 'informed consent for sexual relationships with adults', AGAIN so as to provide the means to MAKE ADULT/CHILD SEX: "LEGAL".

And while the original query initially focused upon bestiality, which you agreed you'd endorse where "SCIENCE!" provided assurances that sub-species could consent to such, leaving the reader to conclude that if you endorse the flogging of animals, there would be no basis for you to reject the same for humans at an early stage of development; given the facts, the question simply asks:

IF (when) "SCIENCE!" declares that children are capable of consenting to sexual relationships with adults, will you advocate to change the laws to accommodate the sexually abnormal who will, as a result, use the change in the law to pursue minor children for the purpose of sexual graitification?​

If not, why not?

If so, why so?

.

.

.

.

The SILENCE, is DEAFENING!​

I was speaking only of adult chickens and pigs, not children. Knock off the bullshit if you wish to continue to engage.

WOW!

I guess that is all any objective observer needs to know about where about where the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality stands. Their intention is to "LEGALIZE" the sexual pursuit of children.

Does anyone need anything else?

Fuck off, shit for brains. Ignore on.

Well, I guess that settles that.

FTR: It should be noted that I stated at the outset that the sexually abnormal are a danger to children. And right here in our OWN little 'i-Community' we have a professed homosexual, who can't bring herself to DENOUNCE THE SEXUAL MOLESTATION OF CHILDREN!

Folks, you can NOT make this crap up!

Barb, there's the record, as it occurred what exactly did I make up?

My telling you to go take a flying fuck at a duck is not an act of advocating man / waterfowl relations,

So true. And may I just add, spoken as only a lady of your station could express it.

any more than what you made of Skye's sarcastic reply to you.

Oh! Now who's making things up.

Folks, what Barb is desperately trying to accomplish here is to revise the record, wherein The Witch was being sarcastic. As a means to avoid answering a direct and otherwise very simple question, which would be readily answered by any reasonable, objective person possessing a sound sense of morality and mind.

When in truth, the sarcasm was clearly offered purely as a deflective means to avoid the question.

It's all part and parcel of the Relativist Left and their ludicrous Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality, a hold over from the long since discredited progressive farce of Eugenics.

The uninitiated will find that "Eugenics" brought the word Dr. Joseph Mengele, of the German Medical Corps, who carved up live children in grotesque ways, to observe their reactions. It was all in the name of "SCIENCE!", of course.

Much as The Tuskegee syphilis experiment was an infamous clinical study conducted between 1932 and 1972 by the progressive U.S. Public Health Service, as a means to 'observe' what would happen when they repeatedly injected syphilis into innocent and otherwise people, who trusted them, as doctors.

Much the same as Progressives have demanded the RIGHT to take the lives of 55 million pre-born children, the most innocent of human life, for whom they are directly responsible for conceiving, through their willful and waton behavior, this resting in that human life representing an inconvenience to them.

Much as the public currently trusts educators, in public schools, who are going about 'educating' prepubescent adolescents about human sexuality. Crimes against humanity which history will show to be among the most egregious in the history of the species.

Now how do otherwise seemingly reasonable people rationalize this sort of insanity?

They're socialist.

Socialism rests in Relativism.

Relativism rejects objectivity.

Objectivity is ESSENTIAL to truth, trust, morality and justice.

No truth, no trust.

No trust, no morality.

No Morality, no Justice.

Deceit <=> FRAUD <=> Ignorance
>>> >> S O C I A L I S M << <<<​

 

[Seawytch]

Trust me Barb, ignore is your friend. He's not interested in debate, just trolling.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The incessant narcissistic display of meanness by Sil and Where_ will continue right to the day when SCOTUS refuses to hear Utah's appeal.

Neither "cult" or natural law defenses will even be permitted by the Circuit Court much less SCOTUS.

These two boobs know it is over, so all they can do is emit a fury that signifies nothing.

So in your interpretation, to have a differing opinion on a very controversial topic, complete with back and forth exchange, probing questions and the like, renders one a "narcissist" who is "mean"?

I'm thinking maybe Hitler had a peculiarly offensive label he used to put on people who disagreed heatedly and intrepidly that jews shouldn't be sent to the gas chambers. Is absence of a debate on this topic your end-game Jake? By any means necessary to get there?

Proves my point: called on for your questionable behavior and you invoke Hitler.

Proponents of universal marriage want to put folks in execution chambers?

You are very disturbed emotionally.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We are all "VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO ADULTS PURSUING CHILDREN FOR SEX" by homosexual and heterosexual adults.

Any accusations or implications that violate Board policies will be immediately reported.

Let's evaluate the level of screaming abuse that notice gets.

 

[Silhouette]

Proves my point: called on for your questionable behavior and you invoke Hitler.

Proponents of universal marriage want to put folks in execution chambers?

You are very disturbed emotionally.

Another strawman. Wow, you must really be threatened by something I'm talking about Jake.

As you know, the comparison was to shutting down free speech in objection to an objectionable thing.

Children, as you even said yourself, should not be around people who are suspect to abuse them. Like your aunt for instance, like you said. You have SOME reason for not wanting to leave your kids alone with her. And I will assume it's a good one. You have heard something or know something about her value system or what she has done that makes you believe that your children will come to physical or psychological harm in her presence. And therefore, your protective instincts kicked in, and you do whatever it takes to keep them from going to her house to be with her without other supervisorial adults around.

Likewise, we as a society have SOME reasons [see my signature] for not wanting to leave our orphaned kids alone with this LGBT cult. And they are good reasons. We have heard something or know something [see my signature] about their value system or what they have done that makes us believe that our orphans will come to physical or psychological harm in their presence. And therefore, our protective instincts [and a mandate by law] kicks in, and we do whatever it takes to keep them from going to their homes to be with them without other supervisorial adults around.

 

[beagle9]

Proves my point: called on for your questionable behavior and you invoke Hitler.

Proponents of universal marriage want to put folks in execution chambers?

You are very disturbed emotionally.

Another strawman. Wow, you must really be threatened by something I'm talking about Jake.

As you know, the comparison was to shutting down free speech in objection to an objectionable thing.

Children, as you even said yourself, should not be around people who are suspect to abuse them. Like your aunt for instance, like you said. You have SOME reason for not wanting to leave your kids alone with her. And I will assume it's a good one. You have heard something or know something about her value system or what she has done that makes you believe that your children will come to physical or psychological harm in her presence. And therefore, your protective instincts kicked in, and you do whatever it takes to keep them from going to her house to be with her without other supervisorial adults around.

Likewise, we as a society have SOME reasons [see my signature] for not wanting to leave our orphaned kids alone with this LGBT cult. And they are good reasons. We have heard something or know something [see my signature] about their value system or what they have done that makes us believe that our orphans will come to physical or psychological harm in their presence. And therefore, our protective instincts [and a mandate by law] kicks in, and we do whatever it takes to keep them from going to their homes to be with them without other supervisorial adults around.

Notice how Jake is trying so hard to stop the debate here, and this by constantly making threats that he will report this and how he will report that ? He is wanting a slip so bad that it isn't even funny. What does he think maybe, that he could get people banned, and then him and his cronies would have free reign to do what ever they please, and without any opposition to it ? He's dreaming if he thinks that away. It is the same thing that is going on out in the physical or real world so to speak, so look out for these people, as they are super controlling. It sounds like pure desperation on his part in trying to defend the indefensible if that is what he is trying to do, and this by trying to stop the debating of a conversation here like he is with his threats. He is controversial in most debates as you will notice of him, so I wouldn't take him to seriously really, but I think you all already know this about him. Is he the purest definition of a troll on a message board maybe ? I'm not to sure what the qualifiers are, but he seems to qualify as one for sure. Great points you make, instead of threats Sil.

Now lets see if he can somehow rise to the occasion, instead of trying to trash the debate with his tripe now.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No one is stopping the debate here, but the arguments of homosexual predators and Natural Law fall flat. They will not be admitted before the courts, nor should they be.

The only arguments will be based on Jacksonian majority will (one of Sil's favorites) and the 14th (which Sil hates).

All the other, particularly the ad homming and the meanness, reveals the far right knows it is going to get is reactionary right wing ass handed to them.

 

[Silhouette]

refusing the same rights to certain people because of how they are born is a civil rights issue

But the question of the cult of LGBT being "born that way" has not been answered. Well, truthfully, there are studies out there... So the entire premise that the LGBT "civil rights" gig rests upon may indeed be, and most likely is flawed. You know what happens to the rest of an argument when it's foundation's premise is shattered, right?

ATLANTA [2005 Clinical Psychiatry News] -- Substance abuse is pervasive among gay men and is so intricately intertwined with epidemics of depression, partner abuse, and childhood sexual abuse that adequately addressing one issue requires attention to the others as well, said Ronald Stall, Ph.D., chief of prevention research for the division of HIV/AIDS prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta...

Mayo Clinic 2007

One of the most obvious examples of an environmental
factor that increases the chances of an individual becoming
an offender is if he or she were sexually abused as a child.
This relationship is known as the &#8220;victim-to-abuser cycle&#8221;
or &#8220;abused-abusers phenomena.&#8221;
5,23,24,46...

...
why the &#8220;abusedabusers phenomena&#8221; occurs: identification with the aggressor,
in which the abused child is trying to gain a new
identity by becoming the abuser; an imprinted sexual
arousal pattern established by early abuse; early abuse
leading to hypersexual behavior; or a form of social learning took place http://www.drrichardhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf

Here's a peer-reviewed scientific review of some 350 peer-reviewed studies and conclusions drawn from them. Note the title:

Conditioning and Sexual Behavior: A Review

James G. Pfaus,1 Tod E. Kippin, and Soraya Centeno
Center for Studies in Behavioral Neurobiology, Department of Psychology, Concordia
University, 1455 deMaisonneuve Bldg. W., Montre´al, Que´bec, H3G 1M8 Canada
http://www.pphp.concordia.ca/fac/pfaus/Pfaus-Kippin-Centeno(2001).pdf

The study concludes that across species, even in lower animals, that social factors induce an individual to select a mate according to influences outside himself. And once that selection is made, repetition and powerful conditioning of sexual release paired with *the object of the influenced choice* = sexual preference in the future.

This last study is particularly an onerous harbinger for the future of our society as we normalize and hold out as icons, members of the church of LGBT for children to mimic.

And, wouldn't you just know....in the same years that the church of LGBT has forced "gay marriage" on many states and gone on a media blitz promoting gayness to kids as normal, sometimes even as a matter of law, like in California...those self same years there has been a sudden spike in HIV cases in boys ages 13-24:

Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM))a represent approximately 2% of the United States population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV. In 2010, young MSM (aged 13-24 years) accounted for 72% of new HIV infections among all persons aged 13 to 24, and 30% of new infections among all MSM....

...In 2010, MSM accounted for 63% of estimated new HIV infections in the United States and 78% of infections among all newly infected men. From 2008 to 2010, new HIV infections increased 22% among young (aged 13-24) MSM CDC ? Fact Sheet - Gay and Bisexual Men ? Gender ? Risk ? HIV/AIDS

And they continue to increase and "nobody knows why".....Except I do. See the Pfaus/Centino study. Federal and state laws mandate that if a person has good reason to believe, like oh, maybe 350 + peer-reviewed scientific studies from the nation's leading researchers, that a child might come to harm from a given thing, person or group of people, that person is mandated by law to report that suspected thing, person or group of people. You don't need a conviction. It's the one area of law that you can be prosecuted for just having good reason to suspect and not actual concrete facts in your hands.

However, in this case, we have more than enough concrete facts in our hands. Then you look at my signature and draw in your breath.....Houston, we have a problem...

 

[Seawytch]

refusing the same rights to certain people because of how they are born is a civil rights issue

But the question of the cult of LGBT being "born that way" has not been answered. Well, truthfully, there are studies out there... So the entire premise that the LGBT "civil rights" gig rests upon may indeed be, and most likely is flawed. You know what happens to the rest of an argument when it's foundation's premise is shattered, right?

ATLANTA [2005 Clinical Psychiatry News] -- Substance abuse is pervasive among gay men and is so intricately intertwined with epidemics of depression, partner abuse, and childhood sexual abuse that adequately addressing one issue requires attention to the others as well, said Ronald Stall, Ph.D., chief of prevention research for the division of HIV/AIDS prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta...

Here's a peer-reviewed scientific review of some 350 peer-reviewed studies and conclusions drawn from them. Note the title:

Conditioning and Sexual Behavior: A Review



James G. Pfaus,1 Tod E. Kippin, and Soraya Centeno

Center for Studies in Behavioral Neurobiology, Department of Psychology, Concordia

University, 1455 deMaisonneuve Bldg. W., Montre´al, Que´bec, H3G 1M8 Canada

http://www.pphp.concordia.ca/fac/pfaus/Pfaus-Kippin-Centeno(2001).pdf

The study concludes that across species, even in lower animals, that social factors induce an individual to select a mate according to influences outside himself. And once that selection is made, repetition and powerful conditioning of sexual release paired with *the object of the influenced choice* = sexual preference in the future.



This last study is particularly an onerous harbinger for the future of our society as we normalize and hold out as icons, members of the church of LGBT for children to mimic.



And, wouldn't you just know....in the same years that the church of LGBT has forced "gay marriage" on many states and gone on a media blitz promoting gayness to kids as normal, sometimes even as a matter of law, like in California...those self same years there has been a sudden spike in HIV cases in boys ages 13-24:

Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM))a represent approximately 2% of the United States population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV. In 2010, young MSM (aged 13-24 years) accounted for 72% of new HIV infections among all persons aged 13 to 24, and 30% of new infections among all MSM....



...In 2010, MSM accounted for 63% of estimated new HIV infections in the United States and 78% of infections among all newly infected men. From 2008 to 2010, new HIV infections increased 22% among young (aged 13-24) MSM CDC ? Fact Sheet - Gay and Bisexual Men ? Gender ? Risk ? HIV/AIDS

And they continue to increase and "nobody knows why".....Except I do. See the Pfaus/Centino study. Federal and state laws mandate that if a person has good reason to believe, like oh, maybe 350 + peer-reviewed scientific studies from the nation's leading researchers, that a child might come to harm from a given thing, person or group of people, that person is mandated by law to report that suspected thing, person or group of people. You don't need a conviction. It's the one area of law that you can be prosecuted for just having good reason to suspect and not actual concrete facts in your hands.



However, in this case, we have more than enough concrete facts in our hands. Then you look at my signature and draw in your breath.....Houston, we have a problem...

Then let me answer it for you. I was born gay.

 

[Silhouette]

refusing the same rights to certain people because of how they are born is a civil rights issue

But the question of the cult of LGBT being "born that way" has not been answered. Well, truthfully, there are studies out there... So the entire premise that the LGBT "civil rights" gig rests upon may indeed be, and most likely is flawed. You know what happens to the rest of an argument when it's foundation's premise is shattered, right?









Here's a peer-reviewed scientific review of some 350 peer-reviewed studies and conclusions drawn from them. Note the title:







The study concludes that across species, even in lower animals, that social factors induce an individual to select a mate according to influences outside himself. And once that selection is made, repetition and powerful conditioning of sexual release paired with *the object of the influenced choice* = sexual preference in the future.



This last study is particularly an onerous harbinger for the future of our society as we normalize and hold out as icons, members of the church of LGBT for children to mimic.



And, wouldn't you just know....in the same years that the church of LGBT has forced "gay marriage" on many states and gone on a media blitz promoting gayness to kids as normal, sometimes even as a matter of law, like in California...those self same years there has been a sudden spike in HIV cases in boys ages 13-24:

Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM))a represent approximately 2% of the United States population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV. In 2010, young MSM (aged 13-24 years) accounted for 72% of new HIV infections among all persons aged 13 to 24, and 30% of new infections among all MSM....



...In 2010, MSM accounted for 63% of estimated new HIV infections in the United States and 78% of infections among all newly infected men. From 2008 to 2010, new HIV infections increased 22% among young (aged 13-24) MSM CDC ? Fact Sheet - Gay and Bisexual Men ? Gender ? Risk ? HIV/AIDS

And they continue to increase and "nobody knows why".....Except I do. See the Pfaus/Centino study. Federal and state laws mandate that if a person has good reason to believe, like oh, maybe 350 + peer-reviewed scientific studies from the nation's leading researchers, that a child might come to harm from a given thing, person or group of people, that person is mandated by law to report that suspected thing, person or group of people. You don't need a conviction. It's the one area of law that you can be prosecuted for just having good reason to suspect and not actual concrete facts in your hands.



However, in this case, we have more than enough concrete facts in our hands. Then you look at my signature and draw in your breath.....Houston, we have a problem...

Then let me answer it for you. I was born gay.

Self diagnosis doesn't count in the legal arena. Check the title of the thread dear. Now check my signature. When children's welfare is at stake, we're going to need a little more proof in court than "It's true because I say so!"

 

[Barb]

"Self diagnosis" in re: sexual orientation is irrelevant to (at least!) the thread, crone.

See, that last might seem harsh, but it has the virtue of being honest.

diagnosis assumes an illness. You might not think people pick up on the very purposeful words you choose, but you (and the fumbler of keys) would be wrong.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Trust me Barb, ignore is your friend. He's not interested in debate, just trolling.

So I'm a troll, because in the process of conveing sound argument, I posed a series of queries, that required the contributor to respond by either, confirming or rejecting, the notion that she supports the normalization of the sexual abnormality which seeks gratification through sexual relations with children?

Those who may have wondered "What does Relativism actually look like?", the contribution to which I am responding is a first class example of it.

Folks this is so twisted, that I can barely find the stomach to even look at it anymore.

If an objective reader would like to re-consider the last 6 or 7 pages and offer their opinion on how my reading of this is, misguided of otherwise incorrect, I would sure appreciate the feedback.

 

[JakeStarkey]

this issue (But the question of the cult of LGBT being "born that way" has not been answered) is not an issue except in Sil's find. Move on, Sil.

this issue (children's welfare is at stake) is not an issue in this case

 

[JakeStarkey]

Trust me Barb, ignore is your friend. He's not interested in debate, just trolling.

So I'm a troll, because in the process of conveing sound argument, I posed a series of queries, that required the contributor to respond by either, confirming or rejecting, the notion that she supports the normalization of the sexual abnormality which seeks gratification through sexual relations with children?

Those who may have wondered "What does Relativism actually look like?", the contribution to which I am responding is a first class example of it.

Folks this is so twisted, that I can barely find the stomach to even look at it anymore.

If an objective reader would like to re-consider the last 6 or 7 pages and offer their opinion on how my reading of this is, misguided of otherwise incorrect, I would sure appreciate the feedback.

Where_R_my_keys continues to affiliate our gay and lesbian Board members as pedophiles with the notion that she supports the normalization of the sexual abnormality which seeks gratification through sexual relations with children? Reported.

This is a rules violation, in my opinion.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

refusing the same rights to certain people because of how they are born is a civil rights issue

But the question of the cult of LGBT being "born that way" has not been answered. Well, truthfully, there are studies out there... So the entire premise that the LGBT "civil rights" gig rests upon may indeed be, and most likely is flawed. You know what happens to the rest of an argument when it's foundation's premise is shattered, right?









Here's a peer-reviewed scientific review of some 350 peer-reviewed studies and conclusions drawn from them. Note the title:







The study concludes that across species, even in lower animals, that social factors induce an individual to select a mate according to influences outside himself. And once that selection is made, repetition and powerful conditioning of sexual release paired with *the object of the influenced choice* = sexual preference in the future.



This last study is particularly an onerous harbinger for the future of our society as we normalize and hold out as icons, members of the church of LGBT for children to mimic.



And, wouldn't you just know....in the same years that the church of LGBT has forced "gay marriage" on many states and gone on a media blitz promoting gayness to kids as normal, sometimes even as a matter of law, like in California...those self same years there has been a sudden spike in HIV cases in boys ages 13-24:

Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM))a represent approximately 2% of the United States population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV. In 2010, young MSM (aged 13-24 years) accounted for 72% of new HIV infections among all persons aged 13 to 24, and 30% of new infections among all MSM....



...In 2010, MSM accounted for 63% of estimated new HIV infections in the United States and 78% of infections among all newly infected men. From 2008 to 2010, new HIV infections increased 22% among young (aged 13-24) MSM CDC ? Fact Sheet - Gay and Bisexual Men ? Gender ? Risk ? HIV/AIDS

And they continue to increase and "nobody knows why".....Except I do. See the Pfaus/Centino study. Federal and state laws mandate that if a person has good reason to believe, like oh, maybe 350 + peer-reviewed scientific studies from the nation's leading researchers, that a child might come to harm from a given thing, person or group of people, that person is mandated by law to report that suspected thing, person or group of people. You don't need a conviction. It's the one area of law that you can be prosecuted for just having good reason to suspect and not actual concrete facts in your hands.



However, in this case, we have more than enough concrete facts in our hands. Then you look at my signature and draw in your breath.....Houston, we have a problem...

Then let me answer it for you. I was born gay.

Were ya?

So you were born with an abnormal sexual proclivity and because this makes you sad, you expect that everyone should just accept that, because you were born with it, it must be NORMAL?

Oh! Now THAT is Fascinatin'.

I wonder if the kids born with Down Syndrome are normal too? Or Scoliosis, is THAT NORMAL as well?

I wonder if Children born with the HIV are normal? And should we let those kids interact with the other normal kids?

I do know that there is a HUGE push within the Movement, which advocates to normalize sexual abnormality, to normalize HIV.

I recall when Magic Johnson was diagnosed, that he wanted to play ball despite being infected with death waiting to happen, that there was a MAJOR MEDIA EFFORT which sought to inform the public that people with HIV are just like everyone else, and that there's practically NO CHANCE of contracting the HIV from a person infected with it, unless you happen to have a means to get their blood into your body.

Which almost NEVER HAPPENS, why its practically NORMAL, if normal represents incurable viral infections, OKA: Escalating Premature, wholly unavoidable Misery and Death.

Of course those same people can't see ANYTHING NORMAL about Smoking, which will knock YEARS off a person's life. In contrast to HIV which knocks DECADES off a person's life.

Of course just a generation AGO, SMOKING was engaged in by a MAJORITY of the people in the US. Then because of the health risks, MOST of the SAME people that are claiming that Homosexuality is PERFECTLY NORMAL, despite it being realized in 2-3% of the population, decided that SMOKING SHOULD BE DISCOURAGED!

So will someone explain to me the difference?

Smoking Kills. Homosexuality KILLS. Smoking knocks down the average age of the average smoker, by 2-3 years. HIV shuts down the life of the average Homo by more than a DECADE.

Of course Smoking Stinks. But homosexuality causes depression.

Smoking is falsely claimed to be harmful to others. Homosexuality harms parents, siblings, friends and the children of all of the above.

Smoking is discouraged. Homosexuality is ENCOURAGED.

WTF?

 

[Seawytch]

But the question of the cult of LGBT being "born that way" has not been answered. Well, truthfully, there are studies out there... So the entire premise that the LGBT "civil rights" gig rests upon may indeed be, and most likely is flawed. You know what happens to the rest of an argument when it's foundation's premise is shattered, right?



















Here's a peer-reviewed scientific review of some 350 peer-reviewed studies and conclusions drawn from them. Note the title:















The study concludes that across species, even in lower animals, that social factors induce an individual to select a mate according to influences outside himself. And once that selection is made, repetition and powerful conditioning of sexual release paired with *the object of the influenced choice* = sexual preference in the future.







This last study is particularly an onerous harbinger for the future of our society as we normalize and hold out as icons, members of the church of LGBT for children to mimic.







And, wouldn't you just know....in the same years that the church of LGBT has forced "gay marriage" on many states and gone on a media blitz promoting gayness to kids as normal, sometimes even as a matter of law, like in California...those self same years there has been a sudden spike in HIV cases in boys ages 13-24:















And they continue to increase and "nobody knows why".....Except I do. See the Pfaus/Centino study. Federal and state laws mandate that if a person has good reason to believe, like oh, maybe 350 + peer-reviewed scientific studies from the nation's leading researchers, that a child might come to harm from a given thing, person or group of people, that person is mandated by law to report that suspected thing, person or group of people. You don't need a conviction. It's the one area of law that you can be prosecuted for just having good reason to suspect and not actual concrete facts in your hands.







However, in this case, we have more than enough concrete facts in our hands. Then you look at my signature and draw in your breath.....Houston, we have a problem...

Then let me answer it for you. I was born gay.

Self diagnosis doesn't count in the legal arena. Check the title of the thread dear. Now check my signature. When children's welfare is at stake, we're going to need a little more proof in court than "It's true because I say so!"

It's not a diagnosis. Who would know better? I can assure you that my sexual orientation is not a choice. Who are you to disagree? Did you choose?

 

[GreenBean]

Then let me answer it for you. I was born gay.

Self diagnosis doesn't count in the legal arena. Check the title of the thread dear. Now check my signature. When children's welfare is at stake, we're going to need a little more proof in court than "It's true because I say so!"

It's not a diagnosis. Who would know better? I can assure you that my sexual orientation is not a choice. Who are you to disagree? Did you choose?

"It's true because I say so!" is about all these pathetic and sad excuses for Human Beings have . I find it highly unlikely anyone is Born Gay There is no Gay Gene although homosexuals attempt to cling to half baked theories about hormone levels and etc... the fact remains that Gays are Made not Born

Homosexuality is the result of complex interaction between innate predispositions and environmental factors during childhood and early adolescence . In many cases the Homosexual was molested by another homosexual as a small child - Childhood traumatic experiences of which the person is cognizant of , as well as suppressed traumatic memories are key suspect factors.