The Homosexual Dilemma

[Coyote]

1. It is about science and how different conlcusions can come from the same research.

People Are Not Born Gay Affirms Royal College of Psychiatrists

Except that's not what happened. What happened was an anti gay group misinterpreted the study.

UK ‘gay cure’ group red-faced as psychiatrists point out they are wrong

Speaking to Gay Star News, a Royal College of Psychiatrists spokeswoman said it was a clear ‘misinterpretation’ of their actual statement.

‘Homosexuality is not a psychiatric disorder,’ it reads. ‘The College believes strongly in evidence-based treatment. There is no sound scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed.

‘The College would not support a therapy for converting people from homosexuality any more than we would do so from heterosexuality.

‘Psychiatrists should be committed to reducing inequalities, not supporting practices that are explicitly based on pathologizing homosexuality. As such, the College remains in favor of legislative efforts to ban such conversion therapies.’
​

2. Gay West New York cop claims in lawsuit he was harassed intimidated by police director NJ.com

There was a lot more than just "saying something" in that case. Also, you can't "say anything" at work, you know that right? Your "free speech" goes only as far as your employer allows.

Tebow's action of praying got media attention. However, had he not scored a toughdown, etc. there would have been no attention because he wouldn't have Tebowed. For Sam, the attention came before ever stepping foot on an NFL field. Tebow also had high school accomplishments. You don't start at Florida and win the Heisman if you don't.

You can't pretend Michael Sam didn't have accomplishments prior to coming out. He was SEC defensive player of the year and I think would be on a roster right now if he hadn't come out as gay.

Do you think role models are important? You obviously see Tebow as a role model for Christians and have no problem with that. Why can't Michael Sam be a role model for gay athletes? You may not realize it, but it is important for the gay High School football player in Iowa to see that there are others like him and it's okay to be athletic and gay.

5. Define equal. It doens't mean you get to do exactly the same things I do or vice versa.

Just ask them about polygamy or a sibling marriage. They are quicker to say no to it coming up with why equality should be denied than they are about bending over and taking one in the ass for the homos.

Polygamy and incest are both illegal so bringing them up is what is referred to in polite circles as a "slippery slope fallacy". They are completely unrelated to gays having equal access to civil marriage, and would either have a valid argument for legalization or they would not regardless of gays civilly marrying.

Quite a few countries have been marrying the gays for a while now. Even more countries perform legal polygamist marriages. None do both. There is no slippery slope.

There is a slippery slope. It started with the leftists instituting welfare, easy divorce, and single motherhood to destroy families.

Gay marriage is simply the latest step in that direction.

Mark

There is such a thing as a "slippery slope fallacy".

 

[kaz]

And the bakers being fined for refusing to serve gays are violating these reasonable, legal, and ethical civil laws.

To an authoritarian leftist, yes. To a liberal, no. A liberal walks out of a business that doesn't want to do business with them and goes to one that does. An authoritarian leftist runs to government to use force to compel them to do business. It's very clear.

As a liberal- I probably would not force a business who chose not to do business with me because I am white- or because the shop owner thought I was jewish or whatever. Mainly because I have never faced any discrimination in my life.

If I was part of a minority that had routinely been discriminated against by people all of my life- I might well take advantage of the laws put in place specifically to protect the rights of minorities from discrimination by business'.

I acknowledge Syriusly that you have a point that it's hard to say how I would react if I were in different circumstances. However, I hope I would realize they are the idiots and I don't even want to do business with them. Again, Jim Crow was enacted because government wanted discrimination and they couldn't count on people to do it on their own, so they used the force of government to compel them.

And we are all discriminated against. I think about how I dress and how I shave when I go to do certain transactions to ensure I am taken seriously. I stayed at a Hilton in Phoenix once. I checked into the hotel and left to go hiking without parking. I came back to the hotel sweaty and grubby. I asked where to park. The lady at the front said there's a pay garage across the street. I thought for a second and said I'm staying here, where do I park? She said the pay garage across the street. I was like hmm. I walked out the door, and the other direction it said hotel parking. I went in and asked for the manager. I told him what happened and said if she didn't think I was staying there ... ask for my key. I said the run around was ridiculous and a waste of my time. BTW, I was in management consulting, I was a Diamond VIP. I didn't run to government to bring a gun.

It's part of life. That doesn't make it fair, but you have to deal with it the right way. And forcing a bigot to do business isn't the right way. There are plenty of options.

 

[Coyote]

And the bakers being fined for refusing to serve gays are violating these reasonable, legal, and ethical civil laws.

To an authoritarian leftist, yes. To a liberal, no. A liberal walks out of a business that doesn't want to do business with them and goes to one that does. An authoritarian leftist runs to government to use force to compel them to do business. It's very clear.

We've resolved the authority issue, as the states clearly have the authority over commerce within their States.

What's left are ethical issues. And I think its perfectly ethical and reasonable for a State to require those doing business with the public to treat the public fairly and equally.

You disagree. So?

So, I am a liberal and you are an authoritarian leftist.

Nope. You're just an anarchist with an opinion. One I don't give a shit about in this thread.

Do you have anything else to say about homosexuality?

Yes, gays have every right to be left alone, they have no right to demand anything from anyone.

Just like everyone else.

People, any people, have a right to demand equality.

 

[kaz]

To an authoritarian leftist, yes. To a liberal, no. A liberal walks out of a business that doesn't want to do business with them and goes to one that does. An authoritarian leftist runs to government to use force to compel them to do business. It's very clear.

We've resolved the authority issue, as the states clearly have the authority over commerce within their States.

What's left are ethical issues. And I think its perfectly ethical and reasonable for a State to require those doing business with the public to treat the public fairly and equally.

You disagree. So?

So, I am a liberal and you are an authoritarian leftist.

Nope. You're just an anarchist with an opinion. One I don't give a shit about in this thread.

Do you have anything else to say about homosexuality?

Yes, gays have every right to be left alone, they have no right to demand anything from anyone.

Just like everyone else.

People, any people, have a right to demand equality.

No you don't. Go to your bank and demand they treat you like a million dollar account holder. Go to government and demand to be treated like a politician.

You have the right to be left alone if you're not harming anyone. No one has the right to demand anything from others, including government.

 

[Coyote]

All peope have a right to be treated with respect until their individual actions warrant otherwise.
All people have a right to be treated equally under the law.
People opposing same-sex marriage fall back on the same tired old arguments:
Gays are being "pushy"
Gays are asking for "special rights"
Marriage is between one man and one woman.
It will destroy the institution of marriage.

On the first - how is it that people trying to gain equal rights, get labeled pushy? Women demanding the vote? Blacks and civil rights? Those advocating for the rights of the unborn and those advocating for the rights of women over their own bodies? Advocating for fundamental rights is not "pushy" and marriage is recognized as a fundamental right.

Gays are asking for "special rights"...no, not really, because - to turn yet another argument on it's head (that gays already have the right to marry, they can marry anyone of the opposite sex) - there is no special right here, heterosexuals will have the same right to marry someone of the same sex.

Marriage is between one man and one woman. Marriage, and the reasons for it as an institution has evolved and changed throughout history (for example, marriage at in medievil Europe was reserved for upper classes for political and inheritance reasons while the lower classes cohabitated), it varies according to culture and has not always been one/one. Opponents of same sex marriage are essentially saying marriage can't change anymore and ignoring history.

It will destroy the institution of marriage. This is the one I find hysterically funny. How exactly will that happen? No one has been able to explain how the marriages, of a subset of the approx 4% gay population, is going to have any affect on the rest of the 96% who might or might not choose to marry.

Marriage is a fundamental right. In today's western world, we recognize that right, and it is not attached to procreation alone. We recognize the right of two elderly people to marry just as we recognize the right of two young people to marry. Extending that dignity and respect for the union of two people in love to a same-sex marriage is not that much of a stretch.

People have a right to happyness as long as that right does not infringe on the rights of others or hurt others. Marriage is widely recognized as a socially stabilizing influence and there is no reason that would not apply to same sex marriages as well.

Same sex marriage hurts NO ONE. It's not "shoving" anything into someone else's face. It's about recognizing the union of two people who want to spend the rest of their lives together under the legal protections and benefits of marriage.

 

[Skylar]

There is such a thing as a "slippery slope fallacy".

Oh, its a classic. You'll find all the best fallacies represented here. The most common being an Appeal to Authority. Where homosexuality is wrong because 'nature' said it was. Or 'god' said it was. Or whatever.

There's no logical or rational basis behind it. Nor can they offer much in terms of reasoned, rational arguments. Its the main reason why most gay marriage opponents have such a rough time in court. As the motivation for many of them is 'God Hates Fags!'. But you can't really argue that in court.

So they're left with a litany of half baked 2nd tier arguments that are easily refuted....as they don't make the slightest sense.

 

[Coyote]

We've resolved the authority issue, as the states clearly have the authority over commerce within their States.

What's left are ethical issues. And I think its perfectly ethical and reasonable for a State to require those doing business with the public to treat the public fairly and equally.

You disagree. So?

So, I am a liberal and you are an authoritarian leftist.

Nope. You're just an anarchist with an opinion. One I don't give a shit about in this thread.

Do you have anything else to say about homosexuality?

Yes, gays have every right to be left alone, they have no right to demand anything from anyone.

Just like everyone else.

People, any people, have a right to demand equality.

No you don't. Go to your bank and demand they treat you like a million dollar account holder. Go to government and demand to be treated like a politician.

You have the right to be left alone if you're not harming anyone. No one has the right to demand anything from others, including government.

So women had no right to demand the vote?
Blacks had no right to demand an end to Jim Crowe?

 

[Coyote]

Gays would not have to complain about their rights if it wasn't for big government that is taking their rights away in the first place.
The smaller the government the more rights all of us have.
Gays have been unfairly taxed with inheritance laws because of bigger government.
They can't see their loved ones because of hospital rules of only relatives.
That is not only for Gays rights but for all of us, just recently a littler girl who survived a plane crash wanted the man who helped her when she knocked on his door, to go to the hospital with her, but he couldn't because he was not a relative. Hospitals had to make that rule because of bid government.
That little girl had just lost her parents and all she wanted was a kind grownup with her for comfort.
If it wasn't for the stupid rules of big government for marriage licenses, gays could get married how ever they wished.
The bigger the government the more of all of our rights are being taken away.
The smaller the government the more rights we have for all of us as Americans.

Your conclusion is false, and the material above it does not lead to your conclusion.

Only through bigger government were the slaves freed, women enfranchised, segregation ended, older teens empowered, and soon gays will be able to marry everywhere just like all heterosexuals.

Slaves were freed because of the war, government itself was not able to do it even though it tried.
The others you mentioned was to free them with laws, it was not bigger government.
Forcing American Churches to marry Gays is violating the 1st amendment.

No one is talking about forcing churches to do anything. It's not about churches. They're free to marry whom they want under the auspices of their religious beliefs. This is government recognition of marriages and the benefits it bestows on married couples.

 

[Coyote]

Anyone here that that can prove that homosexuals NEED to get married, I will buy you a GOOD cup coffee, you name it. Really.

Don't hold your breath...

The purpose of the demand for marriage is that with marriage come legitimacy... what they don't understand is that legitimacy comes as a result of the standard that defines it. Therefore, they're chasing something that can't be had until THEY turn from that which renders them illegitimate.

It's some fairly sad stuff... but insanity has always been sad.

And they're willing to settle for appearances, because real marriage cannot be redefined. Gay couple can play house and delude themselves, but they can never marry for real. The Bible refers to this as "strong delusions". They forget that marriage is ordained by God and is not up for personal interpretation.

Marriage in this era is for many reasons. In western culture it is mostly about love. Two people love each other and want to commit to a long term (hopefully) permanent relationship with each other that might or might not include children, that might include purchasing and building a home together, shared assets, a shared future together that is recognized legally and - if religion is involved, by a religious service. It is a relationship recognized right now, in many areas, as limited only to hetero couples.

And people can't do all that without government? Why not?

Because in our country marriage is recognized by the government which confers special priveledges and legal benefits to those couples that may or may not be obtained by unmarried couples.

 

[Syriusly]

I choose not to be attracted to men.

I find a lot of things repugnant. Does that mean it isn't a choice on those either?

Then you are probably bisexual.

As a heterosexual I can say with great certainty- I do not find men sexually attractive- and cannot chose to find them sexually attractive.

I like Jennifer Anniston and Holly Hunter and Jessica Alba- not Brad Pitt or George Clooney.

If you think you could chose to be turned on by a photo of Clooney in a bathing suit- then you are probably bisexual.

I could choose to be a criminal. Does that make me one?

I don't find men sexually attractive either because I choose not to.

You can't choose your attraction, only whether to act on them or not. If you are not attracted to men, you can't make yourself attracted to men, trust me on this. (It's why reparative "therapy" has such a high failure rate)

And that's what at issue. The Action and the choice to take that action.

The desire is irrelevant... the choice to act on that desire is what brings the negative consequences.

You can't choose your attraction, only whether to act on them or not.

Actually - you can't CONSCIOUSLY choose your attractions - perverted attractions are generally derived from early childhood traumatic experiences . While normal heterosexual attractions are our biological norm.

You can't choose your attractions but you can choose how to act on them.

With normal human beings, how others conduct themselves with other adults in private isn't an issue.

 

[Syriusly]

And the bakers being fined for refusing to serve gays are violating these reasonable, legal, and ethical civil laws.

To an authoritarian leftist, yes. To a liberal, no. A liberal walks out of a business that doesn't want to do business with them and goes to one that does. An authoritarian leftist runs to government to use force to compel them to do business. It's very clear.

As a liberal- I probably would not force a business who chose not to do business with me because I am white- or because the shop owner thought I was jewish or whatever. Mainly because I have never faced any discrimination in my life.

If I was part of a minority that had routinely been discriminated against by people all of my life- I might well take advantage of the laws put in place specifically to protect the rights of minorities from discrimination by business'.

I acknowledge Syriusly that you have a point that it's hard to say how I would react if I were in different circumstances. However, I hope I would realize they are the idiots and I don't even want to do business with them. Again, Jim Crow was enacted because government wanted discrimination and they couldn't count on people to do it on their own, so they used the force of government to compel them.

Jim Crow was enacted because white voters wanted discrimination, and wanted to force all business's to go along with it.
Beyond Jim Crow were business's and business associations which enacted their own racial discrimination- restrictive covenents for home ownership in housing developments, etc.

And it took government action- and law suits- to end that discrimination.

Law suits by people who were claiming their constitutional rights.

 

[GreenBean]

And the bakers being fined for refusing to serve gays are violating these reasonable, legal, and ethical civil laws.

To an authoritarian leftist, yes. To a liberal, no. A liberal walks out of a business that doesn't want to do business with them and goes to one that does. An authoritarian leftist runs to government to use force to compel them to do business. It's very clear.

As a liberal- I probably would not force a business who chose not to do business with me because I am white- or because the shop owner thought I was jewish or whatever. Mainly because I have never faced any discrimination in my life.

If I was part of a minority that had routinely been discriminated against by people all of my life- I might well take advantage of the laws put in place specifically to protect the rights of minorities from discrimination by business'.

I acknowledge Syriusly that you have a point that it's hard to say how I would react if I were in different circumstances. However, I hope I would realize they are the idiots and I don't even want to do business with them. Again, Jim Crow was enacted because government wanted discrimination and they couldn't count on people to do it on their own, so they used the force of government to compel them.

Jim Crow was enacted because white voters wanted discrimination, and wanted to force all business's to go along with it.
Beyond Jim Crow were business's and business associations which enacted their own racial discrimination- restrictive covenents for home ownership in housing developments, etc.

And it took government action- and law suits- to end that discrimination.

Law suits by people who were claiming their constitutional rights.

You are attempting to "Frame" the debate to suit your needs. To have it seem as if those opposed to Homosexuality and the persistent efforts of Homosexuals to indoctrinate the younger generation are themselves the villains -who invade the privacy of people who simply wish to be left in peace.

This tactic is known as "Jamming" - it is derived from tactics developed by the Communist Chinese in the Korean War era.

If all they wanted was to be left in peace - there would be no debate -

The very nature of the Homosexual dementia in most perverts demands they be the center of attraction - thus the flagrant exhibitionism - "In your face" queerdom.

Gay activism, [not the individual fruit cake who simply seeks more and more ways to get his rocks off] is the furthest thing from a civil rights movement that there ever was . It is a societal abomination that seeks to bend society to its will ,pervert the morals, denigrate the family structure - coupled with Lesbian Feminism [Which is the foundation of Leftist Feminism] it seeks to destroy the family unit by destroying the natural maternal and paternal parent images ingrained in our psyche since humanity separated itself from our primate ancestors.

Getting back to my original supposition
Jamming - The objective of jamming is to force opponents into silence by accusations of homophobia, latent homosexual tendencies and bigotry . The purpose being to create a social stigmatization of anyone whom opposes the Agenda. Jamming is to ridicule the opponent in the eyes of the world and to evoke the "pack mentality" .

Framing - is a psychological theory which suggests that people will have a different reaction to an idea when it is given a positive spin than they would if it was given a negative spin. Advertising professionals, public relations people and propagandists must possess a clear and concise knowledge and understanding of this concept to successfully spin their spiel. The implications of framing is that our decisions and opinions are based more on our predetermined attitudes rather than factual evidence. In communication, and advertising and propaganda campaigns framing defines how the media will shape mass opinion.

Framing, when properly executed in social discourse short-circuits counter arguments . No one can speak up against an effective frame and say, Why, yes, I do think women should be raped and I do think women should be sex objects. when discussing the Feminist "rape culture" frame . And no one can speak out against the Gay intrusion into public schools under the guise of tolerance and diversity and state I do think students should kill themselves, or I do think gay kids should be beat up.

Gay Brainwashing Techniques

 

[Coyote]

Gay brainwashing techniques? Seriously?

 

[Syriusly]

And the bakers being fined for refusing to serve gays are violating these reasonable, legal, and ethical civil laws.

To an authoritarian leftist, yes. To a liberal, no. A liberal walks out of a business that doesn't want to do business with them and goes to one that does. An authoritarian leftist runs to government to use force to compel them to do business. It's very clear.

As a liberal- I probably would not force a business who chose not to do business with me because I am white- or because the shop owner thought I was jewish or whatever. Mainly because I have never faced any discrimination in my life.

If I was part of a minority that had routinely been discriminated against by people all of my life- I might well take advantage of the laws put in place specifically to protect the rights of minorities from discrimination by business'.

I acknowledge Syriusly that you have a point that it's hard to say how I would react if I were in different circumstances. However, I hope I would realize they are the idiots and I don't even want to do business with them. Again, Jim Crow was enacted because government wanted discrimination and they couldn't count on people to do it on their own, so they used the force of government to compel them.

Jim Crow was enacted because white voters wanted discrimination, and wanted to force all business's to go along with it.
Beyond Jim Crow were business's and business associations which enacted their own racial discrimination- restrictive covenents for home ownership in housing developments, etc.

And it took government action- and law suits- to end that discrimination.

Law suits by people who were claiming their constitutional rights.

You are attempting to "Frame" the debate to suit your needs. To have it seem as if those opposed to Homosexuality and the persistent efforts of Homosexuals to indoctrinate the younger generation are themselves the villains -who invade the privacy of people who simply wish to be left in peace.

As of course are you- you frame it in the language of hate and bigotry.

And yes- bigots like yourself did invade the privacy of people who wanted to be left in peace.

For decades bigots like yourself would find a group of brave buddies and drive around to find a fem looking guy the 4 of you could bravely beat up- because you could call him gay.

For decades, bigots like yourself worked on police forces, rousting gays from bars- for daring to hang out with other gays- calling their employers to let them know that they were gay, and that it would be best if the bosses fired them.

For decades, bigots like yourself worked to get gays fired from employment- from the State Department to public school systems.

Only through the efforts of the gay community- by actually demanding their rights did that end.

And you bigots hate it.

Now your kind focus on trying to malign homosexuals.

Your kind label them child molesters and endanger children by telling people that the child molesters are all gay- putting every boy and girl at risk from the Jerry Sandusky and Roman Polanski's of the world.

Look at your participation on these boards- it is all about spreading your message of hate.

That is all you have.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The hetero-fascists are indeed unAmerican in belief and behavior.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Gays would not have to complain about their rights if it wasn't for big government that is taking their rights away in the first place.
The smaller the government the more rights all of us have.
Gays have been unfairly taxed with inheritance laws because of bigger government.
They can't see their loved ones because of hospital rules of only relatives.
That is not only for Gays rights but for all of us, just recently a littler girl who survived a plane crash wanted the man who helped her when she knocked on his door, to go to the hospital with her, but he couldn't because he was not a relative. Hospitals had to make that rule because of bid government.
That little girl had just lost her parents and all she wanted was a kind grownup with her for comfort.
If it wasn't for the stupid rules of big government for marriage licenses, gays could get married how ever they wished.
The bigger the government the more of all of our rights are being taken away.
The smaller the government the more rights we have for all of us as Americans.

Your conclusion is false, and the material above it does not lead to your conclusion.

Only through bigger government were the slaves freed, women enfranchised, segregation ended, older teens empowered, and soon gays will be able to marry everywhere just like all heterosexuals.

Slaves were freed because of the army run by the government.

The force by the law of bigger government enforced freedom for the slaves and rights for women, minorities, and older teens.

"Forcing American Churches to marry Gays is violating the 1st amendment.

Big government ran the army and enforced the laws that freed slaves and guaranteed the rights of women, minorities, and older teens. If smaller government could have done it, then they should have done it. They did not.

The OP is about "homosexual dilemma" not making churches marry gays.

 

[Silhouette]

Gay brainwashing techniques? Seriously?

No, that's... Gay brainwashing techniques...Syriusly...

 

[kaz]

No you don't. Go to your bank and demand they treat you like a million dollar account holder. Go to government and demand to be treated like a politician.

You have the right to be left alone if you're not harming anyone. No one has the right to demand anything from others, including government.

So women had no right to demand the vote?
Blacks had no right to demand an end to Jim Crowe?

So, to you, demanding government gives you stuff = demanding government not take away your rights? I want government to give me a refrigerator = I want government to not take away my right to vote. I want government to buy me a TV = I want government to not tell me I can't use the public drinking fountain. Seriously, you don't know the difference?

If you still don't get it, you should Google "positive and negative rights."

 

[kaz]

Anyone here that that can prove that homosexuals NEED to get married, I will buy you a GOOD cup coffee, you name it. Really.

Don't hold your breath...

The purpose of the demand for marriage is that with marriage come legitimacy... what they don't understand is that legitimacy comes as a result of the standard that defines it. Therefore, they're chasing something that can't be had until THEY turn from that which renders them illegitimate.

It's some fairly sad stuff... but insanity has always been sad.

And they're willing to settle for appearances, because real marriage cannot be redefined. Gay couple can play house and delude themselves, but they can never marry for real. The Bible refers to this as "strong delusions". They forget that marriage is ordained by God and is not up for personal interpretation.

Marriage in this era is for many reasons. In western culture it is mostly about love. Two people love each other and want to commit to a long term (hopefully) permanent relationship with each other that might or might not include children, that might include purchasing and building a home together, shared assets, a shared future together that is recognized legally and - if religion is involved, by a religious service. It is a relationship recognized right now, in many areas, as limited only to hetero couples.

And people can't do all that without government? Why not?

Because in our country marriage is recognized by the government which confers special priveledges and legal benefits to those couples that may or may not be obtained by unmarried couples.

I see, so it's about the $$$. Gays don't feel valued unless they are paid for it. It's sad when you look at the history of oppression in the world what liberals think makes life unbearable and not worth living. They are soft and weak.


All government marriage is wrong. Government should not treat any citizens differently. The "previleges and legal benefits" should be open to all Americans, not just "couples."

 

[JakeStarkey]

And there is no question that homosexuality is replicated in every generation. It is part of Nature and has never threatened the continuation of mankind.

Now that depends. Every other generation didn't celebrate it.

Mark

Most don't "celebrate it". Wanting to not be forced to hide it is not "celebrating" it. They want to be treated the same way you are - like people.

The militiant straights want to "celebrate" their sexuality. Of course. So do gays.

The straights do not want gays to have the same rights under law.

That is deviant.

So Penis Breath - who, pray tell , in your warped little mind are the "militant" Heterosexuals -

Why,you are by all your dancing and prancing here, son.

Let it go. Marriage Equality is here and SCOTUS will nationalize it this year.