Gays blaming blacks for gay marriage ban in California

[Cecilie1200]

So . . . back to the original topic.

What I find interesting is how LITTLE Prop 8 opponents are blaming blacks, at least openly. Chuck Norris wrote an interesting op-ed piece (yes, THAT Chuck Norris) pointing out that, although overwhelming majorities of black voters in California supported Prop 8, despite voting Democrat on everything else, the nasty, anarchistic vitriol has rather ostentatiously been directed at WHITE people: white churches, white supporters passing out signs, white demonstrators . . .

After all, invading a black church and disrupting their service would be a hate crime.

 

[xsited1]

So . . . back to the original topic.

What I find interesting is how LITTLE Prop 8 opponents are blaming blacks, at least openly. Chuck Norris wrote an interesting op-ed piece (yes, THAT Chuck Norris) pointing out that, although overwhelming majorities of black voters in California supported Prop 8, despite voting Democrat on everything else, the nasty, anarchistic vitriol has rather ostentatiously been directed at WHITE people: white churches, white supporters passing out signs, white demonstrators . . .

After all, invading a black church and disrupting their service would be a hate crime.

Yep. Blacks are a protected race. Many black pastors in the Little Rock area told their congregations to vote for Obama. Was anything done about it? Nope.

 

[Macintosh]

Hilarious! You actually reject a group like NARTH, but embrace the APA, the Royal College and the WHO and ask what motive would they have? You must be joking. I apologize that I didn't see this before. I bow to your trollness.

So, uh, what motive?

Wait; let me guess: "The liberal scum sucking bottom-feeders are trying to indoctrinate the entire world with their godless ideology. They have hijacked every respected institution; that is, every institution that disagrees with my bigoted outlook."

Yeah, sorry. I shoulda known.

 

[Sunni Man]

I'm a little embarrassed that I didn't realize Macintosh was a troll sooner. I can usually tell after the first post.

True! His arguments were very weak and his so called evidence had basically no substance.

 

[Macintosh]

True! His arguments were very weak and his so called evidence had basically no substance.

LOL. And, uh, who is the troll?

 

[Sunni Man]

lol. And, Uh, Who Is The Troll?

You!!!!

 

[Macintosh]

You!!!!

Indeed. Trolls commonly provide evidence for all of their assertions. Evidence, mind you, from more than one or two respected institutions.

I mean, clearly.

 

[YWN666]

True! His arguments were very weak and his so called evidence had basically no substance.

I would say the same thing about your posts.

 

[YWN666]

SunniMan, your negative rep and your use of the phrase "fag lover" tells me that you're nothing but an ignorant bigot.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Indeed. Trolls commonly provide evidence for all of their assertions. Evidence, mind you, from more than one or two respected institutions.

I mean, clearly.

Again, how is the APA more credible than NARTH on the subject of homosexuality when people within the APA are divided on the issue of homosexuality? Is it because you don't agree with what NARTH says? There are no papers or studies that have refuted anything NARTH has stated, neither have any of the so called "respected" sources you keep using have published anything discrediting anything done by NARTH.

 

[Macintosh]

Again, how is the APA more credible than NARTH on the subject of homosexuality when people within the APA are divided on the issue of homosexuality? Is it because you don't agree with what NARTH says? There are no papers or studies that have refuted anything NARTH has stated, neither have any of the so called "respected" sources you keep using have published anything discrediting anything done by NARTH.

Bass, I do believe I explained all of this already. If you can't somehow discern why the APA was divided in the 70s - out with the old, in with the new - then I don't know what to tell you. I suspect by divided you mean the older, values-psychologists were marginalized. Do you know what those psychologists did? They started NARTH, which is funded by religious organizations. That's why they are not credible. They are operating with a motive.

Someone please explain to me what motive the APA, the Royal College, and the WHO are operating with? Explain it. Too, explain what motive National Geographic would have.

And the APA link clearly elaborates on their assertion that "conversion therapy" does not work. They explain why it does not work. They also explain, in detail, why homosexuality was removed from their list of mental illnesses. In fact, I believe I explained it.

Alas, it was written-off. Why? The infamous "liberal bias" retort. What kind of an answer is that? Why is it you cannot prove it? If it's as obvious as you folks would like us to believe, then you shouldn't have a problem sustaining this notion.

It's hilarious that you chastise me for ignoring NARTH for legitimate reasons, yet remain unaware that you are doing the same thing; albeit, you have no legitimate reason to write-off the APA, the Royal College, the WHO, or National Geographic. Your reason, although not legitimate, is simply "liberal bias."

Give me a break.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Bass, I do believe I explained all of this already. If you can't somehow discern why the APA was divided in the 70s - out with the old, in with the new - then I don't know what to tell you. I suspect by divided you mean the older, values-psychologists were marginalized. Do you know what those psychologists did? They started NARTH, which is funded by religious organizations. That's why they are not credible. They are operating with a motive.

Someone please explain to me what motive the APA, the Royal College, and the WHO are operating with? Explain it. Too, explain what motive National Geographic would have.

And the APA link clearly elaborates on their assertion that "conversion therapy" does not work. They explain why it does not work. They also explain, in detail, why homosexuality was removed from their list of mental illnesses. In fact, I believe I explained it.

Alas, it was written-off. Why? The infamous "liberal bias" retort. What kind of an answer is that? Why is it you cannot prove it? If it's as obvious as you folks would like us to believe, then you shouldn't have a problem sustaining this notion.

It's hilarious that you chastise me for ignoring NARTH for legitimate reasons, yet remain unaware that you are doing the same thing; albeit, you have no legitimate reason to write-off the APA, the Royal College, the WHO, or National Geographic. Your reason, although not legitimate, is simply "liberal bias."

Give me a break.

You haven't provided evidence to support anything, you've leaned on the APA and the fallacious appeal to authority fallacy to prove something you haven't proven. You only reason you ignore NARTH is because you don't like what they say.

 

[Sunni Man]

You only reason you ignore NARTH is because you don't like what they say.

You nailed it Mr. Bass!!!

 

[Vintij]

No, it isn't.

First you can't define "democracy", now you can't define "elitism". Hopefully, Santa Claus will bring you a dictionary in your stocking this year.



No, what we REALLY want is people like you, who think it's a good idea to revoke everyone else's rights and freedoms and tell them how to live and what to think for their own good.

FYI, that is the definition of "elitism" you were looking for earlier.



You scare me. You really, really do. You are the reason that totalitarian dictatorships come to power and wreak horror on humanity.



Memo to me: America's public schools are even more broken than I thought, if this is the detritus being produced.

Look, I dont see anything here that actually proves what your point is. Infact, I am very unclear as to what your point is. After reading through your posts you said I should not be talking about education.....well that makes no sense. Why question my credentials without displaying your own first, and second why question my credentials when I am not the one on "FOX NEWS CHANNEL" reporting "BREAKING NEWS" with zero credentials. At least Bill Oreilly has credentials for his biased reporting, thats a start. Perhaps you can fill me in on your credentials, since you have so much free time on your hands.....clearly you have not educated yourself to do something that involves working on the weekends. Let me ask you why you have some all encompassing ascribed knowledge that gives you some type of papal infallibility in all of the fields you have responded in? What have I missed while attending graduate school? Is it now the "norm" to obsess over someones posts and respond with one or two non cited, unclear, biased commentary thinking one has actually proven anything to anyone?


Second, you actually pulled out the definition of democracy proving my point. In the definition it said "Represented by elected officials" ........lol thank you for that. Never did I say that the people were not in power here you obsessive fan of mine. I know you love to twist everything I say and credulously spew out one liners that seem to make you look somewhat more educated or more informed than me on this subject, but the truth is I see nothing new to your argument. I mean for christ sake the only thing you cited was a definition which proved that ELECTED OFFICIALS REPRESENT THE PEOPLE OF THE US. That gives all the power to the people, BUT.......it gives all the LEGISTLATIVE responsibility and federal/state legal constitutional interpretation to the elected officials you dimwit. I have never actually met someone who thinks that the American people should decide what to ammend on a constitution based on a populiar vote. like I said, if this were true....many things would be different. But I guess we will not see the results of prop 8 until the state supreme court rules on it. Believe me as soon as they do, I will contact you for a civil discussion on the matter

You even brought out totalitarian arguments, okay how desperate can you get. Nobody said anything about a system of government in which the people have little to no political contribution to the system of chiefdom or rule based. The fact that we elect our officials alone, makes totalitarianism impossible......and since I never said that the people should NOT elect officials, your claim is once again dis-proven. I am actually beginning to question your rep rating. How can someone with such a high rep score actually believe the biased opinions that come out of their mouth. And whats worse, is that your opinions are not something new. I have heard all of this before and it clearly indicates your lack of ability to read something other than a google search quiry.

I really wish you had a few books to read on the subject, perhaps even the literal capacity to understand what you are reading.

If you are going to be obsessive over my posts, at least add something that is factual that you are not contractually obligated to say by your diety or whatever it is you follow (at least thats what it sounds like). I know what the bible say's you tool. Unless you can prove to me that it is NOT a sin to breed outside of wedlock, well then your religion argument falls flat. How can it not be a sin to be born that way either when (according to the old king james testamen) every baby is born with "original sin". Which is why there is baptism. My question is, if one can be born with original sin, why can they not be born with other sin? And does it even matter? One can just repent their sins, which is fine but my argument was that the bastards who accuse gays of sinning, are the same bastards who must repent every day of their clear and explicit refusal to follow their own commandments. Why dont you talk to me about pope John XII and his homosexual behavior and the raping of his own sisters. Or perhaps you would like to talk to me about Pope Benedict IX and his sexual relations with his own daughter and even some animals. My point is that homosexuality is not a sin, and if it were....many leaders of many churches would not be where they are today, nor would dozens of popes have any divine authority over anyone. Which means that our vote on prop 8 is clear hypocritical injustice.

PS. Do me a favor, respond with one post. I dont have time to read dozens of multiquoted posts. Infact I am probably the only one who read pages 41 and 42 on this thread (which is mostly you ranting and raving all over the reservation, gushing with confusing hypocritical irony).

 

[joe77]

Just jumping in...

Bass, I do believe I explained all of this already. If you can't somehow discern why the APA was divided in the 70s - out with the old, in with the new - then I don't know what to tell you. I suspect by divided you mean the older, values-psychologists were marginalized. Do you know what those psychologists did? They started NARTH, which is funded by religious organizations. That's why they are not credible. They are operating with a motive.

Of course NARTH has a motive. Every non-profit has some kind of motive, usually to the exclusion of other motives. That's...kind of the point, yeah? Because they receive donations from religious organizations doesn't make them not credible. It just means they receive funding from religious organizations. You'd have to actually "prove" their claims wrong for your claim of their non-credibility to be true. Being biased doesn't mean the same as telling lies.

 

[Macintosh]

Just jumping in...



Of course NARTH has a motive. Every non-profit has some kind of motive, usually to the exclusion of other motives. That's...kind of the point, yeah? Because they receive donations from religious organizations doesn't make them not credible. It just means they receive funding from religious organizations. You'd have to actually "prove" their claims wrong for your claim of their non-credibility to be true. Being biased doesn't mean the same as telling lies.

NARTH has a specific motive; critical distinction. They'll not be content until they prove homosexuality is a choice. The same does not ring true for groups like the APA, the Royal College, the WHO, and National Geographic. Secondly, the links and explanations from credible organizations prove NARTH wrong for me.

Again, had you people taken the time to read the links I provided, you might not be blubbering on and on.

 

[Macintosh]

You haven't provided evidence to support anything, you've leaned on the APA and the fallacious appeal to authority fallacy to prove something you haven't proven. You only reason you ignore NARTH is because you don't like what they say.

LOL. So, providing evidence for my assertion is an "appeal to authority"? How niggardly sad that statement is. Had I said, "Nuh-uh, that can't be true 'cause the APA says it isn't" then you could accuse me of appealing to authority. I've not done that. I've used the APA, the Royal College, my own explanations, and National Geographic.

So, before you blubber on like the ignorant N you are, perhaps you ought learn what "appeal to authority" means before using it.

Here:

On the other hand, arguments from authority are an important part of informal logic. Since we cannot have detailed knowledge of a great many topics, we must often rely on the judgments of those who do. There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true, in contrast to claiming that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism: It can be true, the truth can merely not be proven, or made probable by attributing it to the authority, and the assumption that the assertion was true might be subject to criticism and turn out to have actually been wrong. If a criticism appears that contradicts the authority's statement, then merely the fact that the statement originated from the authority is not an argument for ignoring the criticism.​

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

Now, you ignoramus. Where did I say the APA was infallible? I haven't said that, nor have I relied on them solely. If you recall, not only did I use the APA, but the Royal College, the WHO, and National Geographic. Plus, I threw in some of my own knowledge on this issue. So, there has been no appeal to authority.

And I ignore NARTH for reasons I've already delineated. But why don't you tell us all why you ignore the APA, the Royal College, the WHO, and National Geographic. Please, please, please explain to us why.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

NARTH has a specific motive; critical distinction. They'll not be content until they prove homosexuality is a choice. The same does not ring true for groups like the APA, the Royal College, the WHO, and National Geographic. Secondly, the links and explanations from credible organizations prove NARTH wrong for me.

Again, had you people taken the time to read the links I provided, you might not be blubbering on and on.

Again, you have not proven that anything that NARTH says is wrong and or not credible, so dream on. Since you made that claim the burden of proof is on you to prove that NARTH isn't credible.

 

[Macintosh]

Again, you have not proven that anything that NARTH says is wrong and or not credible, so dream on. Since you made that claim the burden of proof is on you to prove that NARTH isn't credible.

Um, excuse me? Are you that retarded? Wasn't it you and every other bigot in this thread that was dismissive when presented with the APA links? Royal College? National Geographic? World Health Organization?

You ignorant asses said the APA was wrong and posted a NARTH link. LOL. That's appeal to authority. The burden of proof is on you folks. This it has been since we began this discussion.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Look, I dont see anything here that actually proves what your point is. Infact, I am very unclear as to what your point is. After reading through your posts you said I should not be talking about education.....well that makes no sense. Why question my credentials without displaying your own first, and second why question my credentials when I am not the one on "FOX NEWS CHANNEL" reporting "BREAKING NEWS" with zero credentials. At least Bill Oreilly has credentials for his biased reporting, thats a start. Perhaps you can fill me in on your credentials, since you have so much free time on your hands.....clearly you have not educated yourself to do something that involves working on the weekends. Let me ask you why you have some all encompassing ascribed knowledge that gives you some type of papal infallibility in all of the fields you have responded in? What have I missed while attending graduate school? Is it now the "norm" to obsess over someones posts and respond with one or two non cited, unclear, biased commentary thinking one has actually proven anything to anyone?

Um, my point is that you're an ignorant elitist praying that some kind socialist will come along and rescue you from the big, scary, independent folks around you who insist on participating in the democratic process and said kind socialist will then oppress those damned free thinkers and grind them under his heel and use them to support you and take care of you and tell you what to think so you won't have to do any of that distasteful stuff for yourself. The only proof I need of this point is your own posts.

If that's not clear enough for you, let me simple it up. I think you're an ignorant dumbass who doesn't know anything about America, fears it, and wants to destroy it. That help you any, or should I break out the Crayolas and start drawing diagrams?

Second, you actually pulled out the definition of democracy proving my point. In the definition it said "Represented by elected officials" ........lol thank you for that.

You really can't read, can you? "LOL" It says " . . . and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation . . ." That whole "I'm going to pick out part of what you said and pretend that was the whole quote" thing only works when you're talking to someone as ignorant, obtuse, and short-memoried as you are, and I'm afraid my cat is unable to come to the computer right now, so you'll have to deal with me.

Do NOT try that dishonest bullshit on me again.

Never did I say that the people were not in power here you obsessive fan of mine.

I take it back. You're not an ignorant dumbass. You're an ignorant, LYING dumbass. I don't waste much time on poltroons, and I don't waste ANY on liars. FLUSH!