Change the Premise and Opposition Wins Gay Legal Challenges: Simple as That

[bripat9643]

I've been saying as much for years. It doesn't matter to the homo lobby and its apologists. They aren't interested in facts or logic. so long as homos vote Democrat, they will push for "gay marriage." If homos started voting Republican tomorrow, libturds would forget about gay marriage as if they had amnesia.

What we see time and time again as the noose of gay-fascism tightens around the necks of conservatives and middle folks all the way just right of far left are defenses based on a false premise.

It seems that everyone, with no evidence whatsoever to support and tons of evidence to the contrary, has made the wrong assumption and assigned "legal fact' to it as a jumping off point for opposing the Lavender Reicht. That assumption-as-fact is "gays are a race of people".

They are factually NOT a race of people. They are an incomplete assortment of deviant sexual practitioners. They practice a certain type of sexuality that has to be by definition "non hetero" or as they call it "not a breeder". Those behaviors, compulsive or not, are still behaviors.

There is a disturbing conclusion that could be born inadvertently from this false-premise-as-fact. And that is, we regulate behaviors by a majority rule. We institute penal and civil codes to daily discriminate against behaviors. If one group of behaviors organizes as a de facto cult, without seeking actual legal recognition as a religion, what group of behaviors will come next and shove their dogma down the throats of those who are agreeing on the false premise in error?

Here is some evidence that sexual orientation is learned. You can vote on the poll after reading the links and the sources, which are quite prestigious.

[This one comes with over 300 references in its bibliography that support the title and conclusions] http://www.pphp.concordia.ca/fac/pfaus/Pfaus-Kippin-Centeno(2001).pdf

"Conditioning and Sexual Behavior: a Review"

Conditioning and Sexual Behavior: A ReviewJames 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

Its conclusions are that even in lower animals that you'd clearly assume were vastly more slavish to their DNA than we "monkey-see, monkey-do" post-natal learners, these lower creatures actually take cues from their environment on which peculiar aspects in their mate they select. And after a first few times with this mate, that they chose by observing a social matrix or set of norms, they became habituated to selecting that type of mate in the future. They were sexually oriented from their environment. ie: they learned what was considered normal and what wasn't from looking around them.

This has HUGE implications as LGBTs try to infuse every aspect of our culture with their various sexual tweaks. Think about it.

Here's an article on how child predators learn their orientation BEHAVIORS. It jibes with the Canadian university review above and even concludes its likely "a form of social learning took place"...

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 “victim-to-abuser cycle”
or “abused-abusers phenomena.”
5,23,24,46...

...
why the “abused abusers phenomena” 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

Next we have the CDC declaring that gay men have suffered a "pervasive" "epidemic" of having been molested as boys. Then they grew up gay. I wonder if there's a relation?

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...

So if gayness is learned, why are we treating it legally as if it wasn't? Why are we equating what is otherwise a mere compulsive or fixed or even chosen [think Anne Heche] temporary state of behaving 'as race'?

What other behaviors will debut to tell us we must accept them 'as race' once a legal precedent has been set on this false premise?

Next time you're in court with some gay people telling you "how it's going to be" and "what you're going to do for us" and "what parts of your religion we're allowing you to remain faithful to" and "we're going to teach your kids about fisting in schools or else!", and "you're going to celebrate our pedophile-messiah Harvey Milk...or else!", try putting the argument to the court that from the very onset, LGBT must be handled as behaviors and not race, unless they can prove they are a fixated group of non-changing people all having a similar genetic variant.

And to the LGBTs who have enjoyed this tidal wave of legal battles thusfar on the false premise, good luck once the real premise is introduced. Methinks once courts are convinced of your real affectations [behaviors] and no longer see you as a race of people, your legal outcomes might change just a tad...

 

[bripat9643]

Religion is a learned behavior and a choice. So I guess believers do not deserve equal rights either?

Is LGBT a federally recognized religion? No?

Was Heaven's Gate a recognized religion? Jonestown? Our country looks a the behaviors of various cults and decides which qualify as religions and which are dangerous to the overall population. When a cult tries to teach children that ass sex is "good for you", it's time to send in the feds and shut 'er down...

Were the members of the Heaven's Gate cult afforded the same rights, under the law, as believers or atheists? Yes. Were the Jonestown people afforded the same rights, under the law, as believers or atheists? Yes. Are gay couples afforded the same rights, under the law, as straight couples? No. Well, in some places they are. Soon to be everywhere in the US. Because treating different people differently under the law is unconstitutional.

Rights are a characteristic of individuals, not couples, so your entire spiel is bogus.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Is LGBT a federally recognized religion? No?

Was Heaven's Gate a recognized religion? Jonestown? Our country looks a the behaviors of various cults and decides which qualify as religions and which are dangerous to the overall population. When a cult tries to teach children that ass sex is "good for you", it's time to send in the feds and shut 'er down...

Were the members of the Heaven's Gate cult afforded the same rights, under the law, as believers or atheists? Yes. Were the Jonestown people afforded the same rights, under the law, as believers or atheists? Yes. Are gay couples afforded the same rights, under the law, as straight couples? No. Well, in some places they are. Soon to be everywhere in the US. Because treating different people differently under the law is unconstitutional.

Gay couples [behavior of trying to reproduce with the same gender] cannot become married because marriage is defined as between a man and woman in all but 3 states. Just as blind people cannot drive because driving [behavior] is defined as for those who are sighted. Blind people do not qualify. By your description, they are being discriminated against. You might say that a blind person driving could harm other people. I would then counter that via the social acme of marriage, gay people who revere Harvey Milk, sexual predator of minor orphans, would then be able to access adoptable orphans they couldn't otherwise get at...not being married... Thus being a predictable harm to orphans.

And I'll remind you that in most states, if not all of them, a conviction is not necessary to step in to stop the potential of child endangerment. One has only to suspect that a child might be endangered and thereby is required to act to protect that child. Or they can be prosecuted themselves.

In my logic class in college, I got an A+. Follow the logic here: "If....then".

If LGBT people revere and apologize for a known sexual predator of minor children, and even make a postage stamp of him as representing their socio-sexual value system, allowing those people access to orphaned minors to take home in an unsupervised situation such as adoption means then they must be blocked from that action. Or you can be prosecuted.

This is a perfect example of the compartmentalization of the mind to avoid cognitive dissonance.

LGBT people do not value sex with minors. Pedophiles do. Some LGBT people are pedophiles. By your logic that means all LGBT people are a potential threat to children. Seem logical to you? If so then this will make sense: Some straight people are pedophiles so by your logic, all straight people are a potential threat to children and therefore no one should be allowed to marry or adopt children.

Send that to your logic teacher and see what kind of grade you get.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Is LGBT a federally recognized religion? No?

Was Heaven's Gate a recognized religion? Jonestown? Our country looks a the behaviors of various cults and decides which qualify as religions and which are dangerous to the overall population. When a cult tries to teach children that ass sex is "good for you", it's time to send in the feds and shut 'er down...

Were the members of the Heaven's Gate cult afforded the same rights, under the law, as believers or atheists? Yes. Were the Jonestown people afforded the same rights, under the law, as believers or atheists? Yes. Are gay couples afforded the same rights, under the law, as straight couples? No. Well, in some places they are. Soon to be everywhere in the US. Because treating different people differently under the law is unconstitutional.

Rights are a characteristic of individuals, not couples, so your entire spiel is bogus.

If you want to legally marry the woman who wants to marry you and it harms no one, you can. If a homosexual wants to marry the homosexual who wants to marry him/her and it harms no one, he/she cannot. Not equal under the law.

Clear enough for you?

 

[bodecea]

Religion is a learned behavior and a choice. So I guess believers do not deserve equal rights either?

Is LGBT a federally recognized religion? No?

Was Heaven's Gate a recognized religion? Jonestown? Our country looks a the behaviors of various cults and decides which qualify as religions and which are dangerous to the overall population. When a cult tries to teach children that ass sex is "good for you", it's time to send in the feds and shut 'er down...

Wait...religions have to be federally recognized?

 

[Peach]

One more on the subject:

Gene Regulation May Explain How Homosexuality Flourishes

No one can "force" those with hatred of gay Americans to allow them in their home, attend services uniting them, be it legal marriage or a symbolic ceremony. No one is required to "approve" of their relationships, nor endorse them. Hatred is allowed in this nation, but our laws prevent much of it from infringing on the liberities of others. (Ignore invitations to the weddings, birthdays, or other special events of gay Americans, In fact you can build a fire and BURN them. Just comply with local ordinances if you do so.)

 

[Silhouette]

One more on the subject:

Gene Regulation May Explain How Homosexuality Flourishes

No one can "force" those with hatred of gay Americans to allow them in their home, attend services uniting them, be it legal marriage or a symbolic ceremony. No one is required to "approve" of their relationships, nor endorse them. Hatred is allowed in this nation, but our laws prevent much of it from infringing on the liberities of others. (Ignore invitations to the weddings, birthdays, or other special events of gay Americans, In fact you can build a fire and BURN them. Just comply with local ordinances if you do so.)

Once again, one of the priests and ministers of LGBT introduces a false premise: "opposition to gay marriage" = "hate".

Opposition to gay marriage may mean hate, but it also may mean alarm, disgust, disagreement, concern for adoptable kids [given Harvey Milk worship in LGBT] and many other things.

So don't lump all those reasons into one word Peach. That sounds pretty Naziesque of you to say that anyone who opposes the Lavender Reicht on any topic is by definition a "hater".

Your link and study pale in comparison to the ones in the OP. You know, the Mayo Clinic, the University of Quebec and the CDC? You may have heard of those institutions that beg to differ. Go back and read the links if you haven't. You might be surprised at the evidence those that opposed the LGBT cult have in their legal portfolio that LGBT does not = race.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The point of this thread is that if LGBT cultees cannot qualify as to the 14th Amendment, why are they winning all these cases as if they do? Why are these particular set of behaviors called a "race" in legal terms when none others are?

The point of this thread is hate and ignorance directed at gay Americans.

This has been explained to you several times, here and in scores of other threads addressing the same topic. You’re clearly too blinded by hate to understand and accept these simple facts of Constitutional case law.

Constitutional protection do not apply solely to race and religion, the substantive component of the Due Process Clause affords citizens the right to express themselves as individuals free from interference by the state, to indeed express their individual liberty as private persons:

[T]he protection of liberty under the Due Process Clause has a substantive dimension of fundamental significance in defining the rights of the person.

[L]iberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex.

In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), the Court reaffirmed the substantive force of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

Again, this is settled, accepted, and fundamental Constitutional jurisprudence, where the right to decide for oneself the meaning of his life is Constitutionally protected, including the choice to conduct one’s life as a homosexual.

Consequently, whether one is gay as a result of birth or choice is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant – it has no merit or bearing whatsoever on the right gay Americans have to access marriage law or to be afforded protection pursuant to public accommodations laws.

 

[Peach]

One more on the subject:

Gene Regulation May Explain How Homosexuality Flourishes

No one can "force" those with hatred of gay Americans to allow them in their home, attend services uniting them, be it legal marriage or a symbolic ceremony. No one is required to "approve" of their relationships, nor endorse them. Hatred is allowed in this nation, but our laws prevent much of it from infringing on the liberities of others. (Ignore invitations to the weddings, birthdays, or other special events of gay Americans, In fact you can build a fire and BURN them. Just comply with local ordinances if you do so.)

Once again, one of the priests and ministers of LGBT introduces a false premise: "opposition to gay marriage" = "hate".

Opposition to gay marriage may mean hate, but it also may mean alarm, disgust, disagreement, concern for adoptable kids [given Harvey Milk worship in LGBT] and many other things.

So don't lump all those reasons into one word Peach. That sounds pretty Naziesque of you to say that anyone who opposes the Lavender Reicht on any topic is by definition a "hater".

Your link and study pale in comparison to the ones in the OP. You know, the Mayo Clinic, the University of Quebec and the CDC? You may have heard of those institutions that beg to differ. Go back and read the links if you haven't. You might be surprised at the evidence those that opposed the LGBT cult have in their legal portfolio that LGBT does not = race.

I posted one study from Mayo; there are a plethoria of studies, more point to genetic factors that "Gee, I guess I'll be gay".

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil in arguing that Change the Premise and Opposition Wins Gay Legal Challenges: Simple as That is arguing that reality should be changed.

The great majority of America now loathes the social conservative far right.

 

[Peach]

One more on the subject:

Gene Regulation May Explain How Homosexuality Flourishes

No one can "force" those with hatred of gay Americans to allow them in their home, attend services uniting them, be it legal marriage or a symbolic ceremony. No one is required to "approve" of their relationships, nor endorse them. Hatred is allowed in this nation, but our laws prevent much of it from infringing on the liberities of others. (Ignore invitations to the weddings, birthdays, or other special events of gay Americans, In fact you can build a fire and BURN them. Just comply with local ordinances if you do so.)

Once again, one of the priests and ministers of LGBT introduces a false premise: "opposition to gay marriage" = "hate".

Opposition to gay marriage may mean hate, but it also may mean alarm, disgust, disagreement, concern for adoptable kids [given Harvey Milk worship in LGBT] and many other things.

So don't lump all those reasons into one word Peach. That sounds pretty Naziesque of you to say that anyone who opposes the Lavender Reicht on any topic is by definition a "hater".

Your link and study pale in comparison to the ones in the OP. You know, the Mayo Clinic, the University of Quebec and the CDC? You may have heard of those institutions that beg to differ. Go back and read the links if you haven't. You might be surprised at the evidence those that opposed the LGBT cult have in their legal portfolio that LGBT does not = race.

I see no "Lavender Reich"; I also accept you do not gay Americans because of your opposition to same gender marriage. But reading DEVIANT repeatedly is disturbing. Maybe your beliefs, perhaps religious, require same. Yet I am of the Christian faith, and harbor no such feelings. Christ to me is exemplifies peace, love & charity........

 

[bripat9643]

Were the members of the Heaven's Gate cult afforded the same rights, under the law, as believers or atheists? Yes. Were the Jonestown people afforded the same rights, under the law, as believers or atheists? Yes. Are gay couples afforded the same rights, under the law, as straight couples? No. Well, in some places they are. Soon to be everywhere in the US. Because treating different people differently under the law is unconstitutional.

Rights are a characteristic of individuals, not couples, so your entire spiel is bogus.

If you want to legally marry the woman who wants to marry you and it harms no one, you can. If a homosexual wants to marry the homosexual who wants to marry him/her and it harms no one, he/she cannot. Not equal under the law.

Clear enough for you?

Since the two unions are not biologically equal, why should the law treat them equally? Do we allow men to make a habit of using women's restrooms? A man can procreate with a women. He can't procreate with another man. Hence, the law has a justification for treating the two cases differently. It's not a violation of anyone's rights. Whether it harms anyone is irrelevant. However, there is certainly the potential for harm in the case of adoption.

 

[Silhouette]

I see no "Lavender Reich"; I also accept you do not gay Americans because of your opposition to same gender marriage. But reading DEVIANT repeatedly is disturbing. Maybe your beliefs, perhaps religious, require same. Yet I am of the Christian faith, and harbor no such feelings. Christ to me is exemplifies peace, love & charity........

Oh no, I'm not a practicing christian. When I say "deviant" I mean in the purest sense.

One man cannot reproduce with the lower digestive tract of another man. That deviates from the true act of sex. I understand he's using that orifice as an artificial vagina. But it's not the real thing. Though it is odd he is seeking what males seek: an internal entrance to another's body in order to ejaculate into. He just got mixed up in his imprinting and now wants the world to see what he does as "normal". It's the same thing when lesbians use dildos and strapon penises. One acting and looking like a male while playing the "role". Begs the question if there aren't a lot of closet heteros in the homosexual population. In either case it's deviant and isn't normal..

It isn't. It never will be. Sorry to have to break the news to you...

 

[Silhouette]

Since the two unions are not biologically equal, why should the law treat them equally? Do we allow men to make a habit of using women's restrooms? A man can procreate with a women. He can't procreate with another man. Hence, the law has a justification for treating the two cases differently. It's not a violation of anyone's rights. Whether it harms anyone is irrelevant. However, there is certainly the potential for harm in the case of adoption.

Well their lawyers are busy busy busy. One of the hurdles was to make the genders equal; which of course they're not. And you take young hormone charged teens and tell them they can use each other's shower and restroooms and you're going to have a lot of unwanted pregnancies showing up.

The stark fact of reality is that a woman is a woman with hormones to match. And a man is a man with hormones to match. Their natural inclination is towards each other to reproduce. Some of them have been skewed in that natural biological drive to want to copulate with anuses and dildos in their quest to mimic the real thing without actually "going there". It's a mental problem and their lawyers are promoting it as if it's a genetic racial trait.

Therein lies the false premise. Judges shouldn't be making decisions off of false premises.

 

[Silhouette]

Sil in arguing that Change the Premise and Opposition Wins Gay Legal Challenges: Simple as That is arguing that reality should be changed.

The great majority of America now loathes the social conservative far right.

Men want to have sex with anuses, using them as artificial vaginas, and women want to have sex with other mannish women who are wearing strapon penises and I am the one arguing reality should be changed???

Nice spin, Jakey. Suppose there are issues of closeted heterosexuality with in the "gay" population? mmmm.....could be....

 

[bripat9643]

Sil in arguing that Change the Premise and Opposition Wins Gay Legal Challenges: Simple as That is arguing that reality should be changed.

The great majority of America now loathes the social conservative far right.

Men want to have sex with anuses, using them as artificial vaginas, and women want to have sex with other mannish women who are wearing strapon penises and I am the one arguing reality should be changed???

Nice spin, Jakey. Suppose there are issues of closeted heterosexuality with in the "gay" population? mmmm.....could be....

Jakey can't even find his way home when he's a block from his house. Expecting him to be logical is absurd.

 

[Peach]

RECENT science:

The search for a "gay gene" may be off-target, new research finds. Another process called epigenetics that switches genes on and off may explain why homosexuality runs in families.

Epigenetics are heritable changes caused by factors other than DNA. Instead of traits getting passed down through the genes, epigenetic change happens because of the way genes are regulated, or turned on and off.

These genetic regulators may be the reason homosexuality persists in nature despite the fact that gay people are less likely to reproduce, suggests the new study published in the journal The Quarterly Review of Biology.

 

[Silhouette]

RECENT science:

The search for a "gay gene" may be off-target, new research finds. Another process called epigenetics that switches genes on and off may explain why homosexuality runs in families.

Epigenetics are heritable changes caused by factors other than DNA. Instead of traits getting passed down through the genes, epigenetic change happens because of the way genes are regulated, or turned on and off.

These genetic regulators may be the reason homosexuality persists in nature despite the fact that gay people are less likely to reproduce, suggests the new study published in the journal The Quarterly Review of Biology.

In 1993, American geneticist Dean Hamer found families with several gay males on the mother’s side, suggesting a gene on the X chromosome. He showed that pairs of brothers who were openly gay shared a small region at the tip of the X, and proposed that it contained a gene that predisposes a male to homosexuality.

This year, a larger study of gay brothers, using the many genetic markers now available through the Human Genome Project, confirmed the original finding and also detected another “gay gene” on chromosome 8. This has unleashed a new flurry of comment.

If there are male-loving and female-loving alleles of tens or hundreds of genes battling it out in the population, everyone will inherit a mixture of different variants. Combined with environmental influences, it will be hard to detect individual genes.

Gay men and lesbian women may simply be the two ends of the same distribution.

Or, lots of gay men within certain families might mean that uncle Harvey might have been left to babysit the boys a little too often in their formative years.

In order to collect prize semen in the beef industry, bull cattle are trained every day to mount castrated steers [to save more valuable cows from the rough handling], that they thereafter become aroused at the sight, sounds and smells of in preference to cows. Are every one of those bulls "born gay"? Or is classical conditioning a real thing in psychology...

The incomplete list of sex deviants known as LGBT are not born wanting to use the anus as an artificial vagina or a strapon penis on a mannish woman as an artificial penis. They learn these behaviors. And they also indicate no small inclination of closeted heterosexuality within the "gay population"...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

One more on the subject:

Gene Regulation May Explain How Homosexuality Flourishes

No one can "force" those with hatred of gay Americans to allow them in their home, attend services uniting them, be it legal marriage or a symbolic ceremony. No one is required to "approve" of their relationships, nor endorse them. Hatred is allowed in this nation, but our laws prevent much of it from infringing on the liberities of others. (Ignore invitations to the weddings, birthdays, or other special events of gay Americans, In fact you can build a fire and BURN them. Just comply with local ordinances if you do so.)

Once again, one of the priests and ministers of LGBT introduces a false premise: "opposition to gay marriage" = "hate".

Opposition to gay marriage may mean hate, but it also may mean alarm, disgust, disagreement, concern for adoptable kids [given Harvey Milk worship in LGBT] and many other things.

So don't lump all those reasons into one word Peach. That sounds pretty Naziesque of you to say that anyone who opposes the Lavender Reicht on any topic is by definition a "hater".

Your link and study pale in comparison to the ones in the OP. You know, the Mayo Clinic, the University of Quebec and the CDC? You may have heard of those institutions that beg to differ. Go back and read the links if you haven't. You might be surprised at the evidence those that opposed the LGBT cult have in their legal portfolio that LGBT does not = race.

Hate is the sole motive, given the fact to seek to deny same-sex couples assess to marriage law is not rational, there is no objective, documented evidence in support, and it does not pursue a proper legislative end.

All one is left with is hate.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Rights are a characteristic of individuals, not couples, so your entire spiel is bogus.

If you want to legally marry the woman who wants to marry you and it harms no one, you can. If a homosexual wants to marry the homosexual who wants to marry him/her and it harms no one, he/she cannot. Not equal under the law.

Clear enough for you?

Since the two unions are not biologically equal, why should the law treat them equally? Do we allow men to make a habit of using women's restrooms? A man can procreate with a women. He can't procreate with another man. Hence, the law has a justification for treating the two cases differently. It's not a violation of anyone's rights. Whether it harms anyone is irrelevant. However, there is certainly the potential for harm in the case of adoption.

Because marriage is a union of two equal partners, same- or opposite sex, where ‘biology’ plays no role. We know this to be true because infertile opposite-sex couples are allowed to marry, as the ability to procreate is not a condition of marriage.

The mistake you make is to focus on gender, when instead you should focus on the fact that as with opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples are equally qualified to enter into the marriage contract.