Laymen's Closing Arguments on Gay Marriage

[Idadunno]

The Supreme Court can give gays the right to marry, but they cannot force people to do something that the person is against--forced marriage, forcing a kid to eat spinach, forcing me to post on a website, forcing a person who refuses to shoot someone because it is against his or her religion to join the Army (if we had a draft), etc. The thin line is when prejudice people use religions to push their agendas. Not everyone who is against serving gays (weddings) is a religious person but will use that excuse, but to say that no one can refuse service means people in Nazi uniforms will pile into Jewish deli's demanding service and Whites Only signs will appear in stores and restaurants because their religion says African-Americans are an abomination. No religion states that? They can make one.
It's a question of who do we protect more than who has to bake a cake. Or like Spock would say... the needs of many are greater than the needs of one.
Your Mayo clinic quote is about sexual abuse, not homosexuals. That is irrelevant. Your quote about homosexual depression is also irrelevant because heterosexuals suffer from the same ailments and since heterosexuals outnumber homosexuals, that really isn't a good argument. Children are watching--yes they are! And they learn racism and prejudice from our behavior. I love how people try to make it sound like there are no kids in foster homes, put up for adoption, left on the street, or who clean up their drugged out heterosexual mom or dad. The stats proving heterosexuals to be better parents than homosexuals is inconclusive. There might be 99 bad heterosexual parents reported to every one homosexual parent, but without breaking down numbers to balance one to one ratios.... and that would be impossible because to pick 1000 heterosexual couples to compare to 1000 homosexual couples, one could easily pick 1000 couple who have never been reported or whose kid never landed in jail. Since there would be millions to choose from, it would not be hard to trick out a study in one's favor, but that study would be inconclusive because it cannot be accurate. Also, people fail to consider that those gays babies came from heterosexual parents.
My favorite thing to type is.... they were born that way. I could link many genetics sites but it is my experience that no one reads or wants to admit being wrong so I get verbally bashed regardless. But for anyone interested, Google epigentics. The skinny of it is.... epigenetics is the body's operating system (OS). It tells the hardware what to do and sometimes it flips the wrong switches.
You do not have to like gays, but you do not have the right to take away their rights.

 

[Skylar]

The thin line is when prejudice people use religions to push their agendas. Not everyone who is against serving gays (weddings) is a religious person but will use that excuse, but to say that no one can refuse service means people in Nazi uniforms will pile into Jewish deli's demanding service and Whites Only signs will appear in stores and restaurants because their religion says African-Americans are an abomination. No religion states that?

No religion mentions denying cake to same sex couples. Yet, here we are. Religious is a delightfully subjective medium, meaning what its adherents believe it means, based on whatever basis they choose. As a person's religious beliefs is whatever they say it is. That's a pretty powerful standard for overriding civil law.

If we use 'religious belief' as a basis of ignoring laws or justifing discrimination, it doesn't remain limited to wedding cakes. Its already expanding with automechanics, pizzerias, bars and even apartments boldly declaring that they won't serve gays in any capacity due to their religious beliefs. This isn't hypothetical. This is already happening.

Which begs the question: if religion trumps civil law, what laws couldn't you ignore based on your religious beliefs?

Your Mayo clinic quote is about sexual abuse, not homosexuals. That is irrelevant.

He knows that. But he's hoping you won't actually check it. Its a crass propagandist's tactic.

He's been corrected on this issue at least 20 times. Yet he keeps trying to slip it in when no one is looking. As is often true of the anti-gay marriage crowd, their arguments largely rely on the ignorance of their audience.

Your quote about homosexual depression is also irrelevant because heterosexuals suffer from the same ailments and since heterosexuals outnumber homosexuals, that really isn't a good argument. Children are watching--yes they are! And they learn racism and prejudice from our behavior. I love how people try to make it sound like there are no kids in foster homes, put up for adoption, left on the street, or who clean up their drugged out heterosexual mom or dad. The stats proving heterosexuals to be better parents than homosexuals is inconclusive.

Perhaps. Justice Kennedy has argued that the data is too new and the polling samples too small. But logically there are some reasons to think that homosexuals may make better parents on average.

First, every gay or lesbian couple who is having kids is doing so very intentionally. Most pregnancies among heterosexual couples are unplanned. The straight couple may or may not be emotionally or financially prepared to raise a child. They may or may not even be committed to each other. This can and does lead to many instances of stress, abuse, inadequate resources and single parenting.

With gay and lesbian couples this is all less likely. As they choose when they are ready. Virtually all same sex couples having kids are analogous to straight couples who have taken the time to plan out the best time to have a child. With outcomes predictably better on average than letting chance decide.

 

[Silhouette]

The Mayo Clinic's data on sexual abuse is sound. The CDC's information on the epidemic of gay men having been sexually abused as boys is sound. The mechanisms of classical conditioning explain your "switches getting thrown" theory...which is not innate by the way idadunno; it;s learned.

Two lesbians can never be a father to a child. Two gay men can never be a mother to a child. These are all physical hurdles that can't be climbed by your argument.

Also, in the lipstick lesbian example I gave, how little do we still know about this behavioral cult if they know so little about themselves. If a womans is attracted to all-things masculine in her partner, then she is heterosexual; or at the very least closeted heterosexual. With the incomplete umbrella of wavering sexual fetishes from year to year, how is it we can give them a static status in order to "grant them rights, priveleges etc".

The difference between behaviors and an innate static state like race or gender is the difference between night and day.

 

[Skylar]

The Mayo Clinic's data on sexual abuse is sound.

Nope. Even the Mayo Clinic study states unambiguously that same sex pedophiles and homosexuals aren't the same thing. You are literally ignoring they very study you cite .

And you know this. You just really hope we don't.

The CDC's information on the epidemic of gay men having been sexually abused as boys is sound. The mechanisms of classical conditioning explain your "switches getting thrown" theory...which is not innate by the way idadunno; it;s learned.

Says who? Neither the Mayo Clinic. Not the CDC.

That would be you citing yourself. And you're nobody.

Two lesbians can never be a father to a child. Two gay men can never be a mother to a child. These are all physical hurdles that can't be climbed by your argument.

They're also irrelevant to same sex marriage. As denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't mean their children magically have opposite sex parents. It only guarantees they never have married parents.

Which hurts the children. And helps no one.

No thank you.

Also, in the lipstick lesbian example I gave, how little do we still know about this behavioral cult if they know so little about themselves.

You assume a 'cult' based on your own bigotry and prejudices. And your subjective opinions don't define a 'cult'. They don't define anything objectively.

 

[Silhouette]

I'm not "assuming LGBT is a cult". I'm knowing it. You can just see the banners, the slogans and the propaganda classic of any cult, dripping from the photograph in my signature showing a banana-hammock graying man prouding leading a troop of boyscouts in a gay pride parade. Cults always seek out youth to incorporate into the fold. Boyscouts are the bras ring for the LGBTs. One can assume correctly that this 2014 New York gay pride parade included the usual line up of dryhumping, S&M and all the rest, in front of and behind the boyscout troop in the photo.

And, you're pretending the information doesn't exist. Will you contact the moderators when I post these quotes to refute your challenge that they "don't exist" claiming that I'm "spamming" because I've posted them before?

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

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...

You challenged me before that LGBT "isn't a cult" and so I showed 5 pictures of gay pride parades showing it is a cult. So you responded to my rebuttal by having the moderator on duty yesterday warn me not to post anymore pictures. I've not seen the moderators here ever warn someone not to post pictures, unless there was stark nudity in them. Yet mine, with no nudity, were requested not to be posted.

 

[Skylar]

I'm not "assuming LGBT is a cult". I'm knowing it.

Nope. You're assuming it is. You even made up your own definition of cult, laughably using as one of your criteria that they 'have banners'.

You don't know what you're talking about, in addition to your logic being a steaming rhetorical load of subjective imagination.

You can just see the banners, the slogans and the propaganda classic of any cult, dripping from the photograph in my signature showing a banana-hammock graying man prouding leading a troop of boyscouts in a gay pride parade.

As noted earlier, your criteria of what define a 'cult' is just some shit you made up. And your imagination doesn't define any 'cult'. To say nothing of every gay and lesbian person being a member of it.

Again, you simply don't know what you're talking about.

 

[bodecea]

I'm not "assuming LGBT is a cult". I'm knowing it. You can just see the banners, the slogans and the propaganda classic of any cult, dripping from the photograph in my signature showing a banana-hammock graying man prouding leading a troop of boyscouts in a gay pride parade. Cults always seek out youth to incorporate into the fold. Boyscouts are the bras ring for the LGBTs. One can assume correctly that this 2014 New York gay pride parade included the usual line up of dryhumping, S&M and all the rest, in front of and behind the boyscout troop in the photo.

And, you're pretending the information doesn't exist. Will you contact the moderators when I post these quotes to refute your challenge that they "don't exist" claiming that I'm "spamming" because I've posted them before?

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

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...

You challenged me before that LGBT "isn't a cult" and so I showed 5 pictures of gay pride parades showing it is a cult. So you responded to my rebuttal by having the moderator on duty yesterday warn me not to post anymore pictures. I've not seen the moderators here ever warn someone not to post pictures, unless there was stark nudity in them. Yet mine, with no nudity, were requested not to be posted.

Banners. Didn't know a cult had to have banners. Is that the same as having a flag?

 

[Skylar]

I'm not "assuming LGBT is a cult". I'm knowing it. You can just see the banners, the slogans and the propaganda classic of any cult, dripping from the photograph in my signature showing a banana-hammock graying man prouding leading a troop of boyscouts in a gay pride parade. Cults always seek out youth to incorporate into the fold. Boyscouts are the bras ring for the LGBTs. One can assume correctly that this 2014 New York gay pride parade included the usual line up of dryhumping, S&M and all the rest, in front of and behind the boyscout troop in the photo.

And, you're pretending the information doesn't exist. Will you contact the moderators when I post these quotes to refute your challenge that they "don't exist" claiming that I'm "spamming" because I've posted them before?

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

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...

You challenged me before that LGBT "isn't a cult" and so I showed 5 pictures of gay pride parades showing it is a cult. So you responded to my rebuttal by having the moderator on duty yesterday warn me not to post anymore pictures. I've not seen the moderators here ever warn someone not to post pictures, unless there was stark nudity in them. Yet mine, with no nudity, were requested not to be posted.

Banners. Didn't know a cult had to have banners. Is that the same as having a flag?

Laughing.....who knew?

 

[Silhouette]

I'm not "assuming LGBT is a cult". I'm knowing it.

Nope. You're assuming it is. You even made up your own definition of cult, laughably using as one of your criteria that they 'have banners'.

You don't know what you're talking about, in addition to your logic being a steaming rhetorical load of subjective imagination.

You're assuming that people can't google "gay pride parade" to see with their own eyes if the LGBT subculture is in fact a cult. Have you ever seen the layout on a google search for "gay pride parade" under "images"? The evidence speaks for itself; you know, because I'm not allowed to post pictures at USMB to back up my rebuttal of your posts.

 

[Skylar]

I'm not "assuming LGBT is a cult". I'm knowing it.

Nope. You're assuming it is. You even made up your own definition of cult, laughably using as one of your criteria that they 'have banners'.

You don't know what you're talking about, in addition to your logic being a steaming rhetorical load of subjective imagination.

You're assuming that people can't google "gay pride parade" to see with their own eyes if the LGBT subculture is in fact a cult.

More accurately, a picture of a guy in rainbow underwear doesn't demosntrate a 'cult'. It merely demonstrates a guy in rainbow undewear.

All the other batshit you make up is just you citing yourself. And you don't know what you're talking about. You even made up your own definition of 'cult' which bizarrely included 'has a banner' as one of its criteria.

Your made up definitions are meaningless as well.

 

[Silhouette]

More accurately, a picture of a guy in rainbow underwear doesn't demosntrate a 'cult'. It merely demonstrates a guy in rainbow undewear.

All the other batshit you make up is just you citing yourself. And you don't know what you're talking about. You even made up your own definition of 'cult' which bizarrely included 'has a banner' as one of its criteria.

Your made up definitions are meaningless as well.

So you think that if you fixate on the word "banner", people can't google "gay pride parade" in "images" and see for themselves that what we are legally dealing with is a cult?

Good luck.

 

[Skylar]

More accurately, a picture of a guy in rainbow underwear doesn't demosntrate a 'cult'. It merely demonstrates a guy in rainbow undewear.

All the other batshit you make up is just you citing yourself. And you don't know what you're talking about. You even made up your own definition of 'cult' which bizarrely included 'has a banner' as one of its criteria.

Your made up definitions are meaningless as well.

So you think that if you fixate on the word "banner", people can't google "gay pride parade" in "images" and see for themselves that what we are legally dealing with is a cult?

I'm 'fixating' on the fact that your definition of cult is made up gibberish. And that you added criteria off the top of your head, based on your imagination.

As for the pictures on google, how does a picture of a guy in rainbow underwear demonstrate a 'cult'. Let alone a 'cult' that all gays and lesbians belong to?

It obviously doesn't. It demonstrates a guy in rainbow underwear. All the 'cult' nonsense is more of the same imagination that produced your made up definitions.

Try again.

 

[mdk]

Banners and parades does not a cult make.

 

[Silhouette]

Banners and parades does not a cult make.

OK, I'll let you off the hook as a cult if you can define for me why lipstick lesbians are attracted to masculine traits in their bulldyke counterparts.

Please describe how this is not closeted heterosexuality. And if you can't describe that, how are we supposed to accept you as a static legal class if you yourselves can't nail down your own members? You're too fluid, too shifty. How can you claim a static legal status? What EXACTLY defines you? The lipstick-lesbian is the elephant in the living room.

 

[JakeStarkey]

 

[mdk]

Banners and parades does not a cult make.

OK, I'll let you off the hook as a cult if you can define for me why lipstick lesbians are attracted to masculine traits in their bulldyke counterparts.

Please describe how this is not closeted heterosexuality. And if you can't describe that, how are we supposed to accept you as a static legal class if you yourselves can't nail down your own members? You're too fluid, too shifty. How can you claim a static legal status? What EXACTLY defines you? The lipstick-lesbian is the elephant in the living room.

There isn't a hook to be left off, save the one you've imagined entirely. You're definition of a cult is nothing more than a figment of your imagination.

Sure. The one lesbian is likely a bisexual. You would have to ask her though b/c I don't know either of these women. What I do know is that one cheated on the other and broke her vows. I take my vows very seriously, she didn't. Either way, I don't care. I am also not going to define myself 'exactly' for you. I am not going to waste my time b/c you will never see gays as deserving of any legal status.

 

[Montrovant]

Banners and parades does not a cult make.

OK, I'll let you off the hook as a cult if you can define for me why lipstick lesbians are attracted to masculine traits in their bulldyke counterparts.

Please describe how this is not closeted heterosexuality. And if you can't describe that, how are we supposed to accept you as a static legal class if you yourselves can't nail down your own members? You're too fluid, too shifty. How can you claim a static legal status? What EXACTLY defines you? The lipstick-lesbian is the elephant in the living room.

Are you saying it is impossible for a heterosexual to be attracted to traits stereotypically found in their own gender? That a man cannot be attracted to 'masculine' traits in a woman and still be heterosexual, or vice versa?

One of the biggest problems I have with most arguments regarding homosexuality is how black and white people want to make human sexuality, no matter where they stand in the argument.

 

[Skylar]

Banners and parades does not a cult make.

OK, I'll let you off the hook as a cult if you can define for me why lipstick lesbians are attracted to masculine traits in their bulldyke counterparts.

Who says all are? And what relevance does your question have with your imaginary 'cult' nonsense?

Please describe how this is not closeted heterosexuality.

Please describe how anything you're asking has the slightest relevance to your 'cult' nonsense. You're just tossing up red herrings, desperately trying to change the topic.

Um, no. I'm happy with this one. With you citing you, making up your own definitions of a 'cult' which somehow involve banners, for some odd reason. Your imagination doesn't define a 'cult'. Nor does making up an imaginary definition.

Try again.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Why does Sil not condemn the Cult of Hetero-Fascist Child Abuse that has enshrined Duggar as cult hero?

 

[Skylar]

Why does Sil not condemn the Cult of Hetero-Fascist Child Abuse that has enshrined Duggar as cult hero?

Condemn? He defends and excuses Duggar. Insisting that his sexual assault on his sisters (one as young as 5) and babysitters was merely 'sexual experimentation'. And insists that the entire Duggar scandal is a plot by Oprah to influence the Supreme Court.

Yes, Oprah.

I can link to the thread. Just make sure you've got your hip boots on before visiting. As that OP is just chock full of batshit.