What are your attitudes about Homosexuals?

[Seawytch]

Holding an opinion different than mine is fine...speaking it out loud makes it available for public censure.

I see, so those who fail to conform to your beliefs must remain silent.

Not mine, societies. It used to be okay to be openly racist...now it isn't. It used to be okay to be openly anti gay...now it isn't. I'm glad of both.

I don't think you understand the meaning of the word bigot. Yes, I am intolerant of intolerance. I am intolerant of racism, misogyny, anti gay bigotry, religious bigotry and a few others I'm sure.

You are intolerant of view contrary to your own, and use defamation as a means of coercing others to bow to your views.



You define "bigot."

Defamation? who was "defamed"? If you are publicly anti gay, you're as uncool as people who are openly racist. Yeah, I'm okay with that, sue me.

You toss about "discrimination" as an epithet, highlighting your own stupidity. I find your openly anti-Christian bigotry more of a problem than I do anti-gay bigotry.

I state, factually, that discrimination is the same regardless of your target. Name an instance of this anti Christian bigotry you allege. I don't want to keep Christians from marrying and I can't, by law, deny them Public Accommodation even if I wanted to (which I don't)

Personally, I don't give a fuck what you do. You want to eat dog turds? Have at. But you demand that I celebrate your behavior, to which I tell you to fuck off.

Nobody has asked you to celebrate anything. You can cry yourself to sleep for all I care. Gays are marrying whether you "give a fuck" or not and it's not okay to be anti gay publicly. I'm glad.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Funny, I lived near Portsmouth, Virginia in a neighborhood with four lesbian families in a quarter mile area. Folks were mighty "kindly" to us all. Our lesbian friend's house was the hangout for all the kids and adults. The garage was always up and chairs out for "chit chats" with the neighbors. Good times!

The blacks (natives) don't like gays.
Go ask one.
You four, lying-under-oath, dishonorable out of town "twats" are an anomaly

So only black people live in Southern Virginia? You can speak for all blacks in Virginia? Do you have a special license to do that?

Overall...A national Gallup poll conducted November 26-29, 2012 found 53% of African Americans thought marriages between same-sex couples should be recognized officially and should have the same rights as straight married couples.

That is a dramatic reversal in five years.

 

[JakeStarkey]

So although the study yopu cited does lend weight to your side of the debate - it most certainly does not debunk LJs statement.

It certainly suggests that Lj and you have it wrong.

 

[billyerock1991]

Some are fun to be with, some are total assholes

Just like everyone else

you hit the nail right on the head ... just like everybody else accept for one thing ... amazing huh !!!!

 

[Ibentoken]

Now this is interesting.
Conservative Media Refuse to Cover New Book on Gay Movement

 

[LockeJaw]

No it doesn't because I am right. Sorry Jake.

 

[Silhouette]

Nobody has asked you to celebrate anything. You can cry yourself to sleep for all I care. Gays are marrying whether you "give a fuck" or not and it's not okay to be anti gay publicly. I'm glad.

They're not "marrying" legally Seawytch..

The AG of Oklahoma and voters in the varoius states who were told their vote doesn't count "give a fuck" about your cult forcing fascist rule on our American legal system..

KRMG talked with Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt Wednesday in Tulsa, after a judge ruled the state’s ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.

Pruitt expressed the hope that the case will eventually be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court because of one question.

He says, “Is there really a Constitutional right? Is there cases that support that individuals sexual orientation should be the heart of equal protection under the 14th Amendment? And that’s just not the case.”

Pruitt says courts have previously ruled that the 14th amendment wasn't written for gays and lesbians, but rather to protect people from discrimination based on characteristics of race or gender, not behavior.... Oklahoma attorney general says law is clear on same-sex marriage | www.krmg.com

And over 300+ researchers from the world's leading institutions will back that up: http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...wins-gay-legal-challenges-simple-as-that.html

 

[LockeJaw]

Ofcourse the 14th amendment was not written to protect behavior.

When are the pro-gay normaliAtion folks here going to take on that argument?

Sil's thread on it is dead as a doornail....and it's hard to keep it alive when the people who disagree won't even acknowledge the argument.

Bump the thread, Sil. This one needs to die.

 

[Silhouette]

Ofcourse the 14th amendment was not written to protect behavior.

When are the pro-gay normaliAtion folks here going to take on that argument?

Sil's thread on it is dead as a doornail....and it's hard to keep it alive when the people who disagree won't even acknowledge the argument.

Bump the thread, Sil. This one needs to die.

Already did Those opposed, join me there? [Read the OP first though, vote and then join the conversation] http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...ns-gay-legal-challenges-simple-as-that-6.html

 

[Uncensored2008]

Not mine, societies. It used to be okay to be openly racist...now it isn't. It used to be okay to be openly anti gay...now it isn't. I'm glad of both.

ROFL

Bullshit - you mistake the Hollywood elite for "society."

Society finds homosexuality at best uncomfortable, despite the propaganda efforts of Hollywood to shove it down everyone's throat. Phil Robertson is consistent with the view of that overwhelming majority of society.

Defamation? who was "defamed"? If you are publicly anti gay, you're as uncool as people who are openly racist. Yeah, I'm okay with that, sue me.

Any person who DARES hold an opinion against special privilege for homosexuals and the mainstreaming of aberrant behavior. Robertson and Cathy instantly pop to mind. Because the anti-culture controls the media, demagoguery is the primary weapon in your war on culture.

I state, factually, that discrimination is the same regardless of your target.

So then, discriminating against eating rat poison is the same as discriminating against red heads?

And you want to rule the rest of us?

Name an instance of this anti Christian bigotry you allege. I don't want to keep Christians from marrying and I can't, by law, deny them Public Accommodation even if I wanted to (which I don't)

You have to be fucking kidding me...

At this second you don't have the ability to deny housing and employment to Christians - at least not openly, but that is creeping in by the day.

The anti-culture HATES Christians above all.

Nobody has asked you to celebrate anything. You can cry yourself to sleep for all I care. Gays are marrying whether you "give a fuck" or not and it's not okay to be anti gay publicly. I'm glad.

Demanding that homosexuals can force bakers to bake cakes for them is no different than forcing McDonalds to serve dog turds, to fulfill your culinary delights.

The anti-culture are thugs, forcing your views on all others.

So I reiterate, fuck the queers - you are anti-liberty thugs.

 

[JOSweetHeart]

Actually I know orientation is not a choice. That you think you can choose leads to only one conclusion, bisexuality. You believe you could choose to be with a woman. That must mean there is an underlying attraction, yes? See, there is no way I could choose to be emotionally and sexually attracted to a man. I wasn't born that way. I can't make myself want to be attracted to men, but since you think you could make yourself attracted to women, the only logical explanation is that you are bisexual or gay.

You just love being wrong, don't you?

To me, it is all about capability. I believe that we are all capable of going with whoever we want to, just like we are all capable of lying, stealing, cheating, etc., but it doesn't mean that we will actually do such things. I believe that you are capable of going with someone opposite your gender. You are just convinced that you do not have it in you to do such a thing.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

P.S. To me, it will always be a choice and if you or anyone else don't like anyone having such a belief, it is your problem and no one else's.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Derideo - I believe we've had this conversation before , allthough It may have been someone else - I'm not sure.

You do Understand the difference between Fact and Theory - do you not ?

In addition - the keyword in LJs statement is "Concrete" concrete evidence implies factual evidence - not - Theoretical or even hypothetical but FACTUAL. So although the study yopu cited does lend weight to your side of the debate - it most certainly does not debunk LJs statement.

The dispute is over the use of the term "ZERO". Zero means nothing whatsoever. Obviously that is false given all the factual evidence provided above that points to a plausible epigenetic cause.

Oh that's so cute - poor frustrated little fella



That would be true, if all he said was

ZERO

. But in the context you are using it - you're simply quoting him out of context The word zero was used as an adjective to describe the word CONCRETE. The word CONCRETE was used as an adjective to describe evidence - to quote in context tou need all three words - failure to do so is altering the intent of someones statement , and I know you're a bigger person than that .

Obviously that is false given all the factual evidence provided above that points to a plausible epigenetic cause

You still don't understand the difference between Fact and Theory ?

I think I need to re-evaluate my opinion of your caliber , you just went down a few notches there my friend. Although I will credit you with recognizing that "Plausible" only means it could conceivably, possibly maybe be factual if and when the theory ever proves out .

Perhaps it's a matter of intelligence ? Is English yourfirst Language ?

tu capti ? .... Certe pessimus omnium hominum es, an necesse sit !

The context that LJ framed his allegation was "Zero Concrete Evidence".

No matter how you want to parse those 3 terms he is wrong!

The term "zero" is utterly false. The term "evidence" is fallacious in the light of the indisputable known genetic and epigenetic facts that relate to how gender and sexual attraction develops in the fetus. Therefore using the terms "zero evidence" is erroneous because indisputable genetic evidence exists.

The feeble attempt to qualify his allegation with the term "concrete" merely compounds the fallacy. The term implies that the evidence must be "irrefutable" in order to be acceptable to those whose homophobia is based purely upon their beliefs in religious texts whose veracity has be taken on faith alone.

Science is not about absolutes. It is about knowledge. As new knowledge is acquired it builds upon, and sometimes refutes, prior knowledge. But it is never an absolute. That is something that only those with religious faith believe in.

So the use of the term "concrete" exposes an ignorance of the scientific process and the deliverables in terms of knowledge. Inheritance has something that had only been investigated since 1866. The concept of DNA was unknown prior to 1950. It took another 50 years from discovering the chemical basis of DNA to actually mapping the human genome.

So to expect that science has developed absolute "concrete evidence" about one specific obscure aspect of the immense complexity of human DNA and exactly how every single step of how it works from the joining of the egg and the sperm through to the final development of a fully functioning adult is nothing short of absurd in the 13 year time frame since the mapping of the genome.

Given that you are defending LJ and have been vocal about your own antipathy towards facts and knowledge it is unlikely that you followed any of the above. So feel free to continue to amuse me and others with your unenlightened rantings about the "evils" of homosexuals.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Lol @ Deliaro! "The font of all knowledge" my ass! It's little unearned ego is all battered and bruised because it was proven wrong & a liar as usual, so it resorts to pretending to be totally oblivious to the difference between "promising theory" & "proven fact" & "strong indication" & "concrete evidence".

If it were smart, it would abandon this thread...but it's not.

It doesn't matter if you can respond to my comments, you ignorant lying twat. I don't see them unless I click on them...that's the point. You don't control the conversation, I do.

Deliaro is 100% fail.

at LJ!

I am so occupying the vacuum between his ears.

He can't help himself but click on my responses now just in case I have responded to one of his incessant whines about me.

His obsession with me is too funny for words!

 

[LockeJaw]

Once again, it fails to understand it cannot claim anything is a "fact" until it is proven in this discussion. The people researching this stuff aren't making the claims it makes...but it keeps on and on and on.

Total buffoon.

Fountain of all bullshit. Lol!

 

[LockeJaw]

No smoking gun, no evidence. Theory is not proof, and that is all they have for this particular scientific study at this time.

Now shut up & cry in a corner, Deliaro.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No it doesn't because I am right. Sorry Jake.

That is your right to uninformed and incorrect.

The evidence leans strongly to hard wiring. Sorry, it is what it is.

 

[LockeJaw]

Follow the bouncing ball Starkey & Deliaro, if you can:
"No-smoking-gun-has-been-found-so-far. In-spite-of-massive-research-efforts, no-gene-or -group-of-genes-has-been-definitively-proven-to-cause-homosexuality."


Nothing you or anyone else can say or do at this point in time changes that FACT of REALITY, okay Starkey?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Once again, it fails to understand it cannot claim anything is a "fact" until it is proven in this discussion. The people researching this stuff aren't making the claims it makes...but it keeps on and on and on.

Total buffoon.

Fountain of all bullshit. Lol!

So according to LJ there is no factual evidence that DNA determines gender and sexual preferences.

LJ is also denying that there is factual evidence that epigenetic markers are a key in determining both gender and sexual preference.

LJ is even denying the factual evidence that genes are known to behave erratically.

On top of that LJ is denying the factual evidence that the mathematical modeling of the epigenetic failure rates would be a plausible explanation for gender and sexual preferences not producing the same results 100% of the time.

All of that factual evidence simply does not exist in LJ's homophobic bubble.

Instead LJ prefers to believe in myths and fables about "environmental factors" that have never been proven to exist.

Still at LJ!

 

[Derideo_Te]

OK, so we have 31 people say that homosexuals should have no special protections, and only 1 that says they hate homosexuals.

I know this is not a scientific pole, but it pretty well proves to my mind that opposition to the militant gay agenda has ZERO to do with hatred at all.

Only 31 people have voted for "no special protections" but what about the other votes?

They should be protected under Civil Rights laws = 28
They should be allowed to marry = 22
They should be protected from any discrimination = 27

That is 77 votes for being allowed to marry and protected against discrimination.

Might not be scientific but that is a truer reflection of the nation as a whole than the assumption you based your conclusion on.

 

[LockeJaw]

When I used the term "concrete evidence" it comes directly from a medical journal article I posted days before you even entered this thread...it came from EPIGENETIC SCIENTIST'S own words, not mine. So now you are calling the researchers themselves ignorant of their own field.

Quit trying.

You're nothing but F-A-I-L.