Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
hSil 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.
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.
Yeah my dog licks his balls and ass, does that make it normal for humans to do also?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"...
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...
My male dog disagrees and proves that this is garbage EVERY TIME he tries to hump one of his male buddies....
Yeah my dog licks his balls and ass, does that make it normal for humans to do also?
Sil keeps on stamping her little footsies in rage and hate.
Sil keeps on stamping her little footsies in rage and hate.
WTF?
Do you have a point or a rebuttal or just an ad hominem? Noted: gay advocates feel at liberty to belittle or slander any opposition. But go ahead and try to do the same to them.
The Nazi Party started out the same way: zero tolerance of critical review from anyone for any reason.
I call you out on a false premise and conclusion, and CORRECTLY pointed out you are raging because no one will legitimize your fucking nonsense, and what do you do: you stamp your little feetsies and rage.
Critical review requires objective evidence and premises that make sense.
You, in my opinion, don't meet those criteria, Sil.
Sil, for example, it is you who misread Windsor, deliberately, to get a false premise.
From the Quebec University Review, here are some sub category titles:
"INFLUENCE OF LEARNING ON SEXUAL
EXCITEMENT"
"INFLUENCE OF LEARNING ON
LOCATING A MATE"
"INFLUENCE OF LEARNING ON
OVERCOMING OBSTACLES TO MATING"
"INFLUENCE OF LEARNING ON
COURTSHIP BEHAVIOR"
"INFLUENCE OF LEARNING ON SEXUAL
AROUSAL AND COPULATORY
BEHAVIORS"
"INFLUENCE OF LEARNING ON SEXUAL
PARTNER PREFERENCES"...
Again, the article comes with over 300 references supporting its conclusions. I think the scale is coming down heavy and hard on the side of learned behaviors... http://www.pphp.concordia.ca/fac/pfaus/Pfaus-Kippin-Centeno(2001).pdf
From the Quebec University Review, here are some sub category titles:
"INFLUENCE OF LEARNING ON SEXUAL
EXCITEMENT"
"INFLUENCE OF LEARNING ON
LOCATING A MATE"
"INFLUENCE OF LEARNING ON
OVERCOMING OBSTACLES TO MATING"
"INFLUENCE OF LEARNING ON
COURTSHIP BEHAVIOR"
"INFLUENCE OF LEARNING ON SEXUAL
AROUSAL AND COPULATORY
BEHAVIORS"
"INFLUENCE OF LEARNING ON SEXUAL
PARTNER PREFERENCES"...
Again, the article comes with over 300 references supporting its conclusions. I think the scale is coming down heavy and hard on the side of learned behaviors... http://www.pphp.concordia.ca/fac/pfaus/Pfaus-Kippin-Centeno(2001).pdf
Which remain constitutionally protected.
Yeah my dog licks his balls and ass, does that make it normal for humans to do also?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.
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"...
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?
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...
My male dog disagrees and proves that this is garbage EVERY TIME he tries to hump one of his male buddies....
Yeah my dog licks his balls and ass, does that make it normal for humans to do also?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.
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"...
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?
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...
My male dog disagrees and proves that this is garbage EVERY TIME he tries to hump one of his male buddies....
Yeah my dog licks his balls and ass, does that make it normal for humans to do also?My male dog disagrees and proves that this is garbage EVERY TIME he tries to hump one of his male buddies....
Do you honestly think...that if human males could lick their balls and ass....they wouldn't?
From the Quebec University Review, here are some sub category titles:
"INFLUENCE OF LEARNING ON SEXUAL
EXCITEMENT"
"INFLUENCE OF LEARNING ON
LOCATING A MATE"
"INFLUENCE OF LEARNING ON
OVERCOMING OBSTACLES TO MATING"
"INFLUENCE OF LEARNING ON
COURTSHIP BEHAVIOR"
"INFLUENCE OF LEARNING ON SEXUAL
AROUSAL AND COPULATORY
BEHAVIORS"
"INFLUENCE OF LEARNING ON SEXUAL
PARTNER PREFERENCES"...
Again, the article comes with over 300 references supporting its conclusions. I think the scale is coming down heavy and hard on the side of learned behaviors... http://www.pphp.concordia.ca/fac/pfaus/Pfaus-Kippin-Centeno(2001).pdf
Which remain constitutionally protected.
So you're saying that a legal precedent has been set that some [just some but not all] deviant sexual behaviors have ascended to equal status as "race" as applicable in protections from the US Constitution.
The next question that begs is which deviant sexual behaviors [or any other type of behavior for that matter] is exempt from these protections, and why, specifically? [Hint, you cannot use "because the majority finds them unacceptable" or "they're icky"]
I'll await your answer... At least you're not pretending anymore that deviant sexual behaviors known as "LGBT" aren't learned or behaviors. Why not just come out with that at the next court hearing on the next gay lawsuit? You don't have to answer that question. We already know the answer..
Yeah my dog licks his balls and ass, does that make it normal for humans to do also?My male dog disagrees and proves that this is garbage EVERY TIME he tries to hump one of his male buddies....
Do you honestly think...that if human males could lick their balls and ass....they wouldn't?
The only thing you are using this thread for is to push your agenda. Which you feel to be factual...instead of using it to become better informed of the how and why this occurs in humans. If you are and American then you should believe that even gays should be free to live as they want because it is part of the preamble in the Constitution. But people like you want subjugation and condemnation.
