I Was Right All Along! Johns Hopkins Research: No Evidence People Are Born Gay or Transgender

[bodecea]

as they used to say about lefthandedness.

Left handed people aren't wrapping themselves in the Constitution wailing about their special rights either.

What are these special rights of which you speak?

 

[Leo123]

There are all kinds of rebuttals available but none you fools will accept. Gay rights have no affect on straight people but here you are trying to claim gays shouldn't have rights.

Any group claiming special rights over others affects everyone you dufus.

What are these special rights of which you speak?

I dunno, you tell me. I keep hearing about 'gay rights.'

 

[WEATHER53]

There are all kinds of rebuttals available but none you fools will accept. Gay rights have no affect on straight people but here you are trying to claim gays shouldn't have rights.

Any group claiming special rights over others affects everyone you dufus.

What are these special rights of which you speak?

I would say that being an advocate for a gay parade but dismissive of a heterosexual one is seeking speciality and not equality.

 

[bodecea]

There are all kinds of rebuttals available but none you fools will accept. Gay rights have no affect on straight people but here you are trying to claim gays shouldn't have rights.

Any group claiming special rights over others affects everyone you dufus.

What are these special rights of which you speak?

I dunno, you tell me. I keep hearing about 'gay rights.'

And are they special rights?

 

[Dragonlady]

JH has smashed our delusions, hurt our feelings, and they don’t know what they are talking about
Lib 201

Can't hurt feelings if you don't know what you're talking about ...

Only in la la land is JH not credible versus liberal emotions.

The study reached NO CONCLUSIONS, fool. What are we supposed to take away from, "no conclusive evidence". It's not "no evidence".

They did a study and reached no conclusions. It's like "No collusion, no obstruction". It's not what the Mueller Report says either, but you're trying to sell us on the idea that it does.

 

[bodecea]

There are all kinds of rebuttals available but none you fools will accept. Gay rights have no affect on straight people but here you are trying to claim gays shouldn't have rights.

Any group claiming special rights over others affects everyone you dufus.

What are these special rights of which you speak?

I would say that being an advocate for a gay parade but dismissive of a heterosexual one is seeking speciality and not equality.

And if you were to see my posts in the straight parade thread, you would see that I am not at all dismissive. More power to them.

 

[WEATHER53]

JH has smashed our delusions, hurt our feelings, and they don’t know what they are talking about
Lib 201

Can't hurt feelings if you don't know what you're talking about ...

Only in la la land is JH not credible versus liberal emotions.

The study reached NO CONCLUSIONS, fool. What are we supposed to take away from, "no conclusive evidence". It's not "no evidence".

They did a study and reached no conclusions. It's like "No collusion, no obstruction". It's not what the Mueller Report says either, but you're trying to sell us on the idea that it does.

That is incorrect. A conclusion was reached in “there is a lack of evidence that...” You are just trying to suggest that if the wording is not pleasing to you then it is invalid

 

[SomeDudeUDunno]

Everybody knows this is a tough topic to discuss in general. It's hard not to be snarky or aggressive in your delivery when you believe you've got it all figured out. But I would like to remind us all that a human being is behind the text you're reading. Try to remember that when conversing. Makes communication easier and more respectful...thus more productive.

 

[Dragonlady]

There are all kinds of rebuttals available but none you fools will accept. Gay rights have no affect on straight people but here you are trying to claim gays shouldn't have rights.

Any group claiming special rights over others affects everyone you dufus.

What are these special rights of which you speak?

I would say that being an advocate for a gay parade but dismissive of a heterosexual one is seeking speciality and not equality.

Parades have nothing to do with gay rights. The fact that you think that having a straight pride parade is a necessity, shows that you know NOTHING about gay rights.

Gay rights are the right to get married to the person you love. The right to not be fired if your boss finds out you're gay. Not to be evicted if your landlord finds out you're gay. Not to be beaten up because you're gay. In short, to be allowed to live your live as a gay man or woman and being treated no differently than straight people.

 

[SomeDudeUDunno]

There are all kinds of rebuttals available but none you fools will accept. Gay rights have no affect on straight people but here you are trying to claim gays shouldn't have rights.

Any group claiming special rights over others affects everyone you dufus.

What are these special rights of which you speak?

I would say that being an advocate for a gay parade but dismissive of a heterosexual one is seeking speciality and not equality.

Parades have nothing to do with gay rights. The fact that you think that having a straight pride parade is a necessity, shows that you know NOTHING about gay rights.

Gay rights are the right to get married to the person you love. The right to not be fired if your boss finds out you're gay. Not to be evicted if your landlord finds out you're gay. Not to be beaten up because you're gay. In short, to be allowed to live your live as a gay man or woman and being treated no differently than straight people.

If someone tries to deny gays those rights, they are punished. As they should be. At least in the case of letting one be who they are without violent reprecussion. On the other hand, I don't want a gay business owner to be forced to do business with me either.

 

[bodecea]

There are all kinds of rebuttals available but none you fools will accept. Gay rights have no affect on straight people but here you are trying to claim gays shouldn't have rights.

Any group claiming special rights over others affects everyone you dufus.

What are these special rights of which you speak?

I would say that being an advocate for a gay parade but dismissive of a heterosexual one is seeking speciality and not equality.

Parades have nothing to do with gay rights. The fact that you think that having a straight pride parade is a necessity, shows that you know NOTHING about gay rights.

Gay rights are the right to get married to the person you love. The right to not be fired if your boss finds out you're gay. Not to be evicted if your landlord finds out you're gay. Not to be beaten up because you're gay. In short, to be allowed to live your live as a gay man or woman and being treated no differently than straight people.

If someone tries to deny gays those rights, they are punished. As they should be. At least in the case of letting one be who they are without violent reprecussion. On the other hand, I don't want a gay business owner to be forced to do business with me either.

The thing is...PA laws are not written to protect only one race, one gender, one religion or one sexual orientation. A straight person is protected from being discriminated against for being straight just as much.

 

[SomeDudeUDunno]

Any group claiming special rights over others affects everyone you dufus.

What are these special rights of which you speak?

I would say that being an advocate for a gay parade but dismissive of a heterosexual one is seeking speciality and not equality.

Parades have nothing to do with gay rights. The fact that you think that having a straight pride parade is a necessity, shows that you know NOTHING about gay rights.

Gay rights are the right to get married to the person you love. The right to not be fired if your boss finds out you're gay. Not to be evicted if your landlord finds out you're gay. Not to be beaten up because you're gay. In short, to be allowed to live your live as a gay man or woman and being treated no differently than straight people.

If someone tries to deny gays those rights, they are punished. As they should be. At least in the case of letting one be who they are without violent reprecussion. On the other hand, I don't want a gay business owner to be forced to do business with me either.

The thing is...PA laws are not written to protect only one race, one gender, one religion or one sexual orientation. A straight person is protected from being discriminated against for being straight just as much.

If that's what PA law is, fine. I see nothing wrong with it.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

What are these special rights of which you speak?

I would say that being an advocate for a gay parade but dismissive of a heterosexual one is seeking speciality and not equality.

Parades have nothing to do with gay rights. The fact that you think that having a straight pride parade is a necessity, shows that you know NOTHING about gay rights.

Gay rights are the right to get married to the person you love. The right to not be fired if your boss finds out you're gay. Not to be evicted if your landlord finds out you're gay. Not to be beaten up because you're gay. In short, to be allowed to live your live as a gay man or woman and being treated no differently than straight people.

If someone tries to deny gays those rights, they are punished. As they should be. At least in the case of letting one be who they are without violent reprecussion. On the other hand, I don't want a gay business owner to be forced to do business with me either.

The thing is...PA laws are not written to protect only one race, one gender, one religion or one sexual orientation. A straight person is protected from being discriminated against for being straight just as much.

If that's what PA law is, fine. I see nothing wrong with it.

The problem is PA laws are being used to force individuals to go against their faith or religious beliefs. That's a violation of their Constitutional rights.

 

[SomeDudeUDunno]

I would say that being an advocate for a gay parade but dismissive of a heterosexual one is seeking speciality and not equality.

Parades have nothing to do with gay rights. The fact that you think that having a straight pride parade is a necessity, shows that you know NOTHING about gay rights.

Gay rights are the right to get married to the person you love. The right to not be fired if your boss finds out you're gay. Not to be evicted if your landlord finds out you're gay. Not to be beaten up because you're gay. In short, to be allowed to live your live as a gay man or woman and being treated no differently than straight people.

If someone tries to deny gays those rights, they are punished. As they should be. At least in the case of letting one be who they are without violent reprecussion. On the other hand, I don't want a gay business owner to be forced to do business with me either.

The thing is...PA laws are not written to protect only one race, one gender, one religion or one sexual orientation. A straight person is protected from being discriminated against for being straight just as much.

If that's what PA law is, fine. I see nothing wrong with it.

The problem is PA laws are being used to force individuals to go against their faith or religious beliefs. That's a violation of their Constitutional rights.

We need to, as christians...move away from these places. They'll learn their lesson quicker that way.

 

[bodecea]

What are these special rights of which you speak?

I would say that being an advocate for a gay parade but dismissive of a heterosexual one is seeking speciality and not equality.

Parades have nothing to do with gay rights. The fact that you think that having a straight pride parade is a necessity, shows that you know NOTHING about gay rights.

Gay rights are the right to get married to the person you love. The right to not be fired if your boss finds out you're gay. Not to be evicted if your landlord finds out you're gay. Not to be beaten up because you're gay. In short, to be allowed to live your live as a gay man or woman and being treated no differently than straight people.

If someone tries to deny gays those rights, they are punished. As they should be. At least in the case of letting one be who they are without violent reprecussion. On the other hand, I don't want a gay business owner to be forced to do business with me either.

The thing is...PA laws are not written to protect only one race, one gender, one religion or one sexual orientation. A straight person is protected from being discriminated against for being straight just as much.

If that's what PA law is, fine. I see nothing wrong with it.

Yep...something along the lines of

I would say that being an advocate for a gay parade but dismissive of a heterosexual one is seeking speciality and not equality.

Parades have nothing to do with gay rights. The fact that you think that having a straight pride parade is a necessity, shows that you know NOTHING about gay rights.

Gay rights are the right to get married to the person you love. The right to not be fired if your boss finds out you're gay. Not to be evicted if your landlord finds out you're gay. Not to be beaten up because you're gay. In short, to be allowed to live your live as a gay man or woman and being treated no differently than straight people.

If someone tries to deny gays those rights, they are punished. As they should be. At least in the case of letting one be who they are without violent reprecussion. On the other hand, I don't want a gay business owner to be forced to do business with me either.

The thing is...PA laws are not written to protect only one race, one gender, one religion or one sexual orientation. A straight person is protected from being discriminated against for being straight just as much.

If that's what PA law is, fine. I see nothing wrong with it.

The problem is PA laws are being used to force individuals to go against their faith or religious beliefs. That's a violation of their Constitutional rights.

Why would someone want to get a business license and yet have a business where their religion keeps them from following business law?

Why would taxi drivers get taxi-licenses yet refuse to pick up some passengers based on their religious beliefs? Yank their licenses.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The so called study which is actually a propaganda piece did not find evidence because they did not look for evidence-evidence that I know exists and that I have posted right here.

Yes we realize your stilted emotional assessment overrides the primere research hospital in the world.
You are one sharp cookie in analyzing and thwarting JH efforts and conclusions.

You didn't bother to read my rebuttal to the OP did you? It is decidedly unemotional

I read it and it’s twisted nutterville

Brilliant retort. Just fucking brilliant!!!!

Thank you. There is no rebuttal available and naturally you could not offer one.

What the fuck does that mean? That is just a pathetic cop out.

 

[Dragonlady]

Parades have nothing to do with gay rights. The fact that you think that having a straight pride parade is a necessity, shows that you know NOTHING about gay rights.

Gay rights are the right to get married to the person you love. The right to not be fired if your boss finds out you're gay. Not to be evicted if your landlord finds out you're gay. Not to be beaten up because you're gay. In short, to be allowed to live your live as a gay man or woman and being treated no differently than straight people.

If someone tries to deny gays those rights, they are punished. As they should be. At least in the case of letting one be who they are without violent reprecussion. On the other hand, I don't want a gay business owner to be forced to do business with me either.

The thing is...PA laws are not written to protect only one race, one gender, one religion or one sexual orientation. A straight person is protected from being discriminated against for being straight just as much.

If that's what PA law is, fine. I see nothing wrong with it.

The problem is PA laws are being used to force individuals to go against their faith or religious beliefs. That's a violation of their Constitutional rights.

We need to, as christians...move away from these places. They'll learn their lesson quicker that way.

The problem being that these so-called religious people are using "religious freedom" to discriminate against people they don't like. They discriminate against gays on the grounds that they're "sinners", but don't discrimate against adulterers, even though the penalty for adultery in the Bible is stoning to death. I would have no problem with their prohibition against serving "sinners" if they refused to serve all sinners, but it's this picking and choosing - serving liars, thieves, blasphemers, and adulterers, all of which are mentioned in the 10 Commandments, and not serving gays, which are not.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

If someone tries to deny gays those rights, they are punished. As they should be. At least in the case of letting one be who they are without violent reprecussion. On the other hand, I don't want a gay business owner to be forced to do business with me either.

The thing is...PA laws are not written to protect only one race, one gender, one religion or one sexual orientation. A straight person is protected from being discriminated against for being straight just as much.

If that's what PA law is, fine. I see nothing wrong with it.

The problem is PA laws are being used to force individuals to go against their faith or religious beliefs. That's a violation of their Constitutional rights.

We need to, as christians...move away from these places. They'll learn their lesson quicker that way.

The problem being that these so-called religious people are using "religious freedom" to discriminate against people they don't like. They discriminate against gays on the grounds that they're "sinners", but don't discrimate against adulterers, even though the penalty for adultery in the Bible is stoning to death. I would have no problem with their prohibition against serving "sinners" if they refused to serve all sinners, but it's this picking and choosing - serving liars, thieves, blasphemers, and adulterers, all of which are mentioned in the 10 Commandments, and not serving gays, which are not.

How would you propose to identify adulterers?

Good gawd....think before you post, loon

 

[bodecea]

The thing is...PA laws are not written to protect only one race, one gender, one religion or one sexual orientation. A straight person is protected from being discriminated against for being straight just as much.

If that's what PA law is, fine. I see nothing wrong with it.

The problem is PA laws are being used to force individuals to go against their faith or religious beliefs. That's a violation of their Constitutional rights.

We need to, as christians...move away from these places. They'll learn their lesson quicker that way.

The problem being that these so-called religious people are using "religious freedom" to discriminate against people they don't like. They discriminate against gays on the grounds that they're "sinners", but don't discrimate against adulterers, even though the penalty for adultery in the Bible is stoning to death. I would have no problem with their prohibition against serving "sinners" if they refused to serve all sinners, but it's this picking and choosing - serving liars, thieves, blasphemers, and adulterers, all of which are mentioned in the 10 Commandments, and not serving gays, which are not.

How would you propose to identify adulterers?

Good gawd....think before you post, loon

If someone deeply believed in their faith, they would ask....someone who goes "oh well, I will close my eyes and pretend I don't know" doesn't have a deeply believed faith in their religion....they are looking for excuses to not be held to their biblical rules.

Of course we ALL know of at least one serial adulterer..............no problem identifying him.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

If that's what PA law is, fine. I see nothing wrong with it.

The problem is PA laws are being used to force individuals to go against their faith or religious beliefs. That's a violation of their Constitutional rights.

We need to, as christians...move away from these places. They'll learn their lesson quicker that way.

The problem being that these so-called religious people are using "religious freedom" to discriminate against people they don't like. They discriminate against gays on the grounds that they're "sinners", but don't discrimate against adulterers, even though the penalty for adultery in the Bible is stoning to death. I would have no problem with their prohibition against serving "sinners" if they refused to serve all sinners, but it's this picking and choosing - serving liars, thieves, blasphemers, and adulterers, all of which are mentioned in the 10 Commandments, and not serving gays, which are not.

How would you propose to identify adulterers?

Good gawd....think before you post, loon

If someone deeply believed in their faith, they would ask....someone who goes "oh well, I will close my eyes and pretend I don't know" doesn't have a deeply believed faith in their religion....they are looking for excuses to not be held to their biblical rules.

Of course we ALL know of at least one serial adulterer..............no problem identifying him.

Bill Clinton? Gawd you're easy, Pete