Is Homosexuality a Mental Disorder ?

[protectionist]

heterofascism and homophobia are certainly mental disorders

Switching the truth, and turning it backwards, means nothing, except to expose the switcher as a fool.

The truth is this: you are emotionally and mentally turned around for sure.

Even in the last days, the very elect will be fooled as were the crusaders, the conquistadores, and the Puritans.

Step along, protectionist.

 

[protectionist]

A bigger question is growing out of this; Why can't we question aberrant sexual behavior? WHY NOT? What is so threatening about that?

You can, and you are doing this.

What you CAN'T do is to kill people because they are gay, or beat them up, or slander them, or cause them any harm. You can't prevent them having the same rights as anyone else, and the Constitution prevents the government from stopping them having the same rights as anyone else.

I'm tired of people coming in here and waving the Constitution around, but not SHOWING where in the Constitution they are talking about. OK. So there's your challenge. You want to hide behind the Constitution ? You have to SHOW where in it is the protection for queers you refer to, and HOW can this be ?

 

[protectionist]

Homosexual behavior is un-natural and abnormal , heterosexual behavior practiced by somewhere around 95% of the Human Population is the only acceptable and biologically useful purpose of sex. Procreation - Breeding

The only thing Homosexual activity breeds is decadence and disease. HIV being the most well known of these, but queers are also carriers and breeders of a host of abhorrent plagues all relevant to their perverted practices.

So far as the argument that it's no one else's business what faggots do amongst themselves - Well try telling that to the innocent victims of the plagues spread by homosexual depravity. The hemophiliacs, the babies born HIV positive because some one somewhere had sex with a 1/2 *** {Bi} and infected someone else and so on down the line. How many have lost their lives because some ****** needed to get his rocks off ?

How much more must we normal , mentally independently thinking people who are not the mindless products of Liberal Big Brother indoctrination tolerate ? How many more outlandish lies and factual distortions must we endure by the Gay Activists and Liberal Media - You faggots who can't control your insatiable promiscuity have inflicted upon society untold damages - If you can't keep it zipped - perhaps a Leper colony is where you belong .

Inasmuch as you clearly are among those who are inflexibly intolerant of homosexuality, and inasmuch as there seems to be a hell of a lot of homosexuals at large in our society, what would you recommend as an effective means of controlling or eliminating their presence?

How about paying their passage to another country ? And some extra money to help them along once they get there.

PS - ONE WAY ticket.

 

[protectionist]

As per the Lords of Political Correctness

Thou Shalt not question the Gay Agenda

To question it leads one to think and explore the facts about a particular issue- to rationalize about these facts in an unbiased manner , particularly by free thinkers who are not under the hypnotic subliminal control of the Lords of Liberalism leads to discovery of Truths which the Queer Militia would rather have kept quiet.

No, you are not permitted to question or contradict the Gay Newspeak.

Got It !!??

So, how many of you have been arrested so far? Wait, none of you? How's that? You are questioning this, and you're not being locked up, so..... it means you CAN question this.

Well, I think it's more than that. It's almost like post 389 POST #389 never even occured.

Why is that? I think it is because it made both ideological sides of this debate are uncomfortable with the truth. Neither side has a very open and accommodating mind. Both are shut down to solving the issue and evolving this nation to a rational and equitable state of existence.

First to address the side that is against the LGBT agenda, they don't want to face up to the fact that there is a biological and evolutionary component to being gay. That is hard to face in the political arena. Yes, being gay is not a choice. Not anymore than having Down's syndrome, ADHD, autism, left-handedness, or MS. So to create a political atmosphere hostile to those members of our population afflicted with this malady is not just cruel, it is backwards, and ignorant.

Secondly to those members of the LGBT community that are open-minded enough to read up on the scientific data on their condition, they have to face up to the fact that their condition is not normal, it is an abnormality, an illness, like any other person that suffers from a disability that evolution has allowed to continue into the gene pool.

It is much easier to organize politically and try to normalize your perversion, to try to change society, even if it means destroying society, rather than to face up to your illness.

What would facing up to the abnormality mean? It would mean finding a special place in our society for these members of our society. From the research I have done, I believe the ADA would already accommodate some in LGBT community, seriously. Or it would mean reducing the chance that someone is born with this affliction. It would mean de-stigmatizing this abnormality among all segments of society, while at the same time, teaching those who have it healthy ways to deal with it. Perhaps even medications could be developed.

I think the SCIENCE behind it is very important. But it seems no one is interested in the facts, research, and knowledge gained through SCIENTIFIC research. The only thing that seems to be important are the politics, dogma, and the social engineering aspects involved with the issue.

What are you saying is >> "a political atmosphere hostile to those members of our population afflicted with this malady" ???

 

[MisterBeale]

So, how many of you have been arrested so far? Wait, none of you? How's that? You are questioning this, and you're not being locked up, so..... it means you CAN question this.

Well, I think it's more than that. It's almost like post 389 POST #389 never even occured.

Why is that? I think it is because it made both ideological sides of this debate are uncomfortable with the truth. Neither side has a very open and accommodating mind. Both are shut down to solving the issue and evolving this nation to a rational and equitable state of existence.

First to address the side that is against the LGBT agenda, they don't want to face up to the fact that there is a biological and evolutionary component to being gay. That is hard to face in the political arena. Yes, being gay is not a choice. Not anymore than having Down's syndrome, ADHD, autism, left-handedness, or MS. So to create a political atmosphere hostile to those members of our population afflicted with this malady is not just cruel, it is backwards, and ignorant.

Secondly to those members of the LGBT community that are open-minded enough to read up on the scientific data on their condition, they have to face up to the fact that their condition is not normal, it is an abnormality, an illness, like any other person that suffers from a disability that evolution has allowed to continue into the gene pool.

It is much easier to organize politically and try to normalize your perversion, to try to change society, even if it means destroying society, rather than to face up to your illness.

What would facing up to the abnormality mean? It would mean finding a special place in our society for these members of our society. From the research I have done, I believe the ADA would already accommodate some in LGBT community, seriously. Or it would mean reducing the chance that someone is born with this affliction. It would mean de-stigmatizing this abnormality among all segments of society, while at the same time, teaching those who have it healthy ways to deal with it. Perhaps even medications could be developed.

I think the SCIENCE behind it is very important. But it seems no one is interested in the facts, research, and knowledge gained through SCIENTIFIC research. The only thing that seems to be important are the politics, dogma, and the social engineering aspects involved with the issue.

What are you saying is >> "a political atmosphere hostile to those members of our population afflicted with this malady" ???

Indeed. So if we study the causes, and possible treatments, should we not make a political atmosphere more accommodating to the LGBT community?

I don't see so much hostility toward those with breast cancer, MS or autism, so why all the hostility toward the LGBT community? Is it because they refuse to get treatment? Or is it because they refuse to acknowledge that theirs is an illness?

Bear in mind, the title of this thread is, "Is Homosexuality a Mental Disorder" and I have posted ample scientific studies, proof, and articles with links to studies that prove it is a biological condition, not so much a "mental disorder", but a genetic disorder, specifically, a hormonal disorder. So, should society treat it any differently than any other genetic disorder?

 

[MisterBeale]

After all, what would you want society to do if you child had it, or your grand child had it?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Pretty shallow retort to try to equate govt of the people, by the people, for the people, with MOB RULE. Retort unaccepted. Strike 1.

They would not have the right to protect themselves from black people voting because black people (by race) are a protected group (homosexuals are not) Strike 2.

30 states don't ban abnormal people from marrying. Strike 3. Plenty of people who are abnormal still marry. They ban homosexuals (who happen to be abnormal) from marrying, because this poses a cultural harm to society, which those stated define that to be THE DANGER that it causes. Especially in the bad example it would set (especially to minors)

Okay, let's stop with the silly "strike 1" nonsense.

Mob rule is when the people can act like a mob, and individuals don't stand a chance.

Do you agree or disagree that an individual in the US has protections against the wishes of the majority?
If the majority said "no guns" what would say?
If the majority said "you can't talk about basketball" what would you say?
If the majority said "everyone has to be practicing Muslim" what would you say?
If the majority said "only white people can marry" what would you say?

Would you say that the majority, the mob, can't do this? Or would you roll over and accept what you get?

Why are black people a protected group? Why not gay people? Seems a little unfair for one group to be protected? In fact it seems a little silly on your part to see one group as protected and not another.
How are they protected exactly? By the constitution? Then why not the other one?

As for calling people "abnormal", what is normal exactly? You tell me, I really, really want to know what you think "normal" and "abnormal" are. Like a definition that I can use when you write these words so I know what you mean.

And, when you say "abnormal people can't marry" i'm going to assume EVERYONE under "abnormal" can't marry too. Just because sometimes I like being pedantic to make a point.

 

[MisterBeale]

As for calling people "abnormal", what is normal exactly? You tell me, I really, really want to know what you think "normal" and "abnormal" are. Like a definition that I can use when you write these words so I know what you mean.

And, when you say "abnormal people can't marry" i'm going to assume EVERYONE under "abnormal" can't marry too. Just because sometimes I like being pedantic to make a point.

I can answer these questions. The rest of your post was mostly drivel. If you look at people with an LGBT condition as just regular people, then they are already protected by the constitution the same as any one else.

As far as what make them "abnormal," it is their brains silly.

Gay brains structured like those of the opposite sex
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html#.UxwRD4Uz16A

The scans reveal that in gay people, key structures of the brain governing emotion, mood, anxiety and aggressiveness resemble those in straight people of the opposite sex.

The differences are likely to have been forged in the womb or in early infancy, says Ivanka Savic, who conducted the study at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden.

"This is the most robust measure so far of cerebral differences between homosexual and heterosexual subjects," she says.

What this means, is that you need to prevent a person with an abnormal brain from being in a position of influence in society. Children are impressionable, they can get the idea that being abnormal, being sick, or not think right, is healthy. This is corrupt for society.

Should we let them get "married?" I don't really know. What I do know is that we shouldn't elevate and legitimize their relationships in the minds of children to a level of normalcy that is the same as healthy adults. These relationships are dysfunctional. We know that through scientific study. Now, I have already posted that link, and many others. If you refuse to read the scientific evidence I've posted, and do not do the thinking, I cannot do the thinking for you.

Cancer is becoming epidemic in our society because we live among so many chemicals, EM radiation, and our food system is so compromised and filthy with so many artificial chemicals. Should we try to normalize cancer now? Or should we give up finding a cure and treatments?

 

[protectionist]

Well, I think it's more than that. It's almost like post 389 POST #389 never even occured.

Why is that? I think it is because it made both ideological sides of this debate are uncomfortable with the truth. Neither side has a very open and accommodating mind. Both are shut down to solving the issue and evolving this nation to a rational and equitable state of existence.

First to address the side that is against the LGBT agenda, they don't want to face up to the fact that there is a biological and evolutionary component to being gay. That is hard to face in the political arena. Yes, being gay is not a choice. Not anymore than having Down's syndrome, ADHD, autism, left-handedness, or MS. So to create a political atmosphere hostile to those members of our population afflicted with this malady is not just cruel, it is backwards, and ignorant.

Secondly to those members of the LGBT community that are open-minded enough to read up on the scientific data on their condition, they have to face up to the fact that their condition is not normal, it is an abnormality, an illness, like any other person that suffers from a disability that evolution has allowed to continue into the gene pool.

It is much easier to organize politically and try to normalize your perversion, to try to change society, even if it means destroying society, rather than to face up to your illness.

What would facing up to the abnormality mean? It would mean finding a special place in our society for these members of our society. From the research I have done, I believe the ADA would already accommodate some in LGBT community, seriously. Or it would mean reducing the chance that someone is born with this affliction. It would mean de-stigmatizing this abnormality among all segments of society, while at the same time, teaching those who have it healthy ways to deal with it. Perhaps even medications could be developed.

I think the SCIENCE behind it is very important. But it seems no one is interested in the facts, research, and knowledge gained through SCIENTIFIC research. The only thing that seems to be important are the politics, dogma, and the social engineering aspects involved with the issue.

What are you saying is >> "a political atmosphere hostile to those members of our population afflicted with this malady" ???

Indeed. So if we study the causes, and possible treatments, should we not make a political atmosphere more accommodating to the LGBT community?

I don't see so much hostility toward those with breast cancer, MS or autism, so why all the hostility toward the LGBT community? Is it because they refuse to get treatment? Or is it because they refuse to acknowledge that theirs is an illness?

Bear in mind, the title of this thread is, "Is Homosexuality a Mental Disorder" and I have posted ample scientific studies, proof, and articles with links to studies that prove it is a biological condition, not so much a "mental disorder", but a genetic disorder, specifically, a hormonal disorder. So, should society treat it any differently than any other genetic disorder?

I asked you tell me WHAT you are talking about when you said there is >> "a political atmosphere hostile to those members of our population afflicted with this malady"

You posted something, but it wasn't an answer to my question, so I ask again. WHAT are you talking about ? What hostility ? How ?

 

[protectionist]

Pretty shallow retort to try to equate govt of the people, by the people, for the people, with MOB RULE. Retort unaccepted. Strike 1.

They would not have the right to protect themselves from black people voting because black people (by race) are a protected group (homosexuals are not) Strike 2.

30 states don't ban abnormal people from marrying. Strike 3. Plenty of people who are abnormal still marry. They ban homosexuals (who happen to be abnormal) from marrying, because this poses a cultural harm to society, which those stated define that to be THE DANGER that it causes. Especially in the bad example it would set (especially to minors)

Okay, let's stop with the silly "strike 1" nonsense.

Mob rule is when the people can act like a mob, and individuals don't stand a chance.

Do you agree or disagree that an individual in the US has protections against the wishes of the majority?
If the majority said "no guns" what would say?
If the majority said "you can't talk about basketball" what would you say?
If the majority said "everyone has to be practicing Muslim" what would you say?
If the majority said "only white people can marry" what would you say?

Would you say that the majority, the mob, can't do this? Or would you roll over and accept what you get?

Why are black people a protected group? Why not gay people? Seems a little unfair for one group to be protected? In fact it seems a little silly on your part to see one group as protected and not another.
How are they protected exactly? By the constitution? Then why not the other one?

As for calling people "abnormal", what is normal exactly? You tell me, I really, really want to know what you think "normal" and "abnormal" are. Like a definition that I can use when you write these words so I know what you mean.

And, when you say "abnormal people can't marry" i'm going to assume EVERYONE under "abnormal" can't marry too. Just because sometimes I like being pedantic to make a point.

1. You seem to be putting a very low value on the wishes of the majority. Not very American of you. We value majority rule quite highly. It's called democracy, not mob rule. We are a democratic republic. You need to get that straight.

2. Sure individuals have protections against the majority. Ex. > Currently, 76% of the American people oppose affirmative action, yet we still have it.

3. Sure I would say the majority can't do this if it was unconstitutional or otherwise illegal. We are a nation of laws. But our laws can be changed also, to reflect the wishes of the majority.

4. The reason why blacks are protected is because they (race) is mentioned in the 1964 Civil Rights Act and that is because their status (race) is involuntary. Sexual orientation is voluntary, and homosexuality is a perverse mental aberration, which is to be discouraged, not encouraged.

5. I've defined what I mean by normal and abnormal 100 ******* TIMES in this thread. Read it!!

6. I didn't say abnormal people shouldn't marry. I do say people with the abnormality of homosexuality shouldn't marry someone of their same sex.

7. You seem to be having trouble understanding simple things. Maybe you should read the thread instead of skipping over it, and read it a bit more slowly.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Okay, so now we're getting to meat of things. I've been on this forum like a day. I've been on plenty of forums over plenty of issues where I show stats and facts etc and all I get is people ignoring them.

So. The deal is, I present this stuff, you acknowledge it. I don't care if you an argument to back up your side, but you're going to have to go to a higher level than swearing in giant red words, or insulting. Okay?
(I don't do insults, it's showing someone's lack of an argument, and I get really tired of people who do that).

So, here's your facts.

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)

The first case to make an explicit interpretation of the US Constitution that there is a right to privacy. And to make it smooth, it claimed a "right to marital privacy".

Where does it day it explicitly? It doesn't.

However, there is the 9th Amendment:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

This was made by the founding fathers to basically say that there are lots of rights, the specifically protected some they thought were extremely important, but they didn't want to limit rights to those that had protected.

The US Constitution is a living document, living in the sense it can be changed, and living in the sense it can be interpreted. At the present time the Supreme Court upholds the precedent set in Griswold, therefore it is the Constitution.

They used Griswold is Roe v. Wade and other such cases.

This is your right to privacy.

Now, you might argue that this is just the unelected US Supreme Court. They did vote 7-2 on this matter and two did say basically that there was no explicit right to privacy.
However in the US is matters that a majority say that it does exist and is protected by the US Constitution, therefore it is.

It was also used in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) to get rid of laws against sodomy, hence why gay sex is now legal in every part of the USA. This therefore upholds sexual privacy, on top of marriage privacy.

They have also used the 14th Amendment in the Griswold case. It's interesting because the 14A says:

"1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

What are the privileges of people?
What are the immunities of people?
What is the liberty of people?
And what does "equal protection of the laws" mean?

The last point, the equal protection of the laws, came about in 1866 with the Civil Rights Act and then followed 2 years later by this amendment.

It has been used in Brown v. Board of Education, one of the most known and famous of all cases that ended segregation in the US. Ie, they ruled that separate is not equal and cannot be.
So, You look at marriage, how is it equal if some can marry and others can’t marry based on something as arbitrary as the way they were born? The answer is quite simple.

The privileges and immunities clause of the amendment is, well, almost non-existant, it’s simply not used in constitutional law right now.
As for liberty, this is the due process clause.
Here’s a quote "Although the Court has not assumed to define 'liberty' with any great precision, that term is not confined to mere freedom from bodily restraint. Liberty under law extends to the full range of conduct which the individual is free to pursue, and it cannot be restricted except for a proper governmental objective." Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954)

Basically, an individual cannot be stopped from doing things unless there is a proper governmental objective. I really don’t think gay marriage, or gay sex falls under that.

All in all the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment were designed to stop government interference in people’s lives when doing what they want to do that doesn’t hurt other people, or doesn’t have a negative impact on people. Gay marriage doesn’t have a negative impact on your life, it makes no difference whether two men are married or not to your life, nor to the US constitution.
However, laws which give benefits to married couples that cannot be had by people who are not allowed to marry their choice of consenting adult, are having their rights and their equal protections of the law infringed upon, and in a very, very unfair way.

 

[Infidel]

Pretty shallow retort to try to equate govt of the people, by the people, for the people, with MOB RULE. Retort unaccepted. Strike 1.

They would not have the right to protect themselves from black people voting because black people (by race) are a protected group (homosexuals are not) Strike 2.

30 states don't ban abnormal people from marrying. Strike 3. Plenty of people who are abnormal still marry. They ban homosexuals (who happen to be abnormal) from marrying, because this poses a cultural harm to society, which those stated define that to be THE DANGER that it causes. Especially in the bad example it would set (especially to minors)

Okay, let's stop with the silly "strike 1" nonsense.

Mob rule is when the people can act like a mob, and individuals don't stand a chance.

Do you agree or disagree that an individual in the US has protections against the wishes of the majority?
If the majority said "no guns" what would say?
If the majority said "you can't talk about basketball" what would you say?
If the majority said "everyone has to be practicing Muslim" what would you say?
If the majority said "only white people can marry" what would you say?

Would you say that the majority, the mob, can't do this? Or would you roll over and accept what you get?

Why are black people a protected group? Why not gay people? Seems a little unfair for one group to be protected? In fact it seems a little silly on your part to see one group as protected and not another.
How are they protected exactly? By the constitution? Then why not the other one?

As for calling people "abnormal", what is normal exactly? You tell me, I really, really want to know what you think "normal" and "abnormal" are. Like a definition that I can use when you write these words so I know what you mean.

And, when you say "abnormal people can't marry" i'm going to assume EVERYONE under "abnormal" can't marry too. Just because sometimes I like being pedantic to make a point.

1. You seem to be putting a very low value on the wishes of the majority. Not very American of you. We value majority rule quite highly. It's called democracy, not mob rule. We are a democratic republic. You need to get that straight.

2. Sure individuals have protections against the majority. Ex. > Currently, 76% of the American people oppose affirmative action, yet we still have it.

3. Sure I would say the majority can't do this if it was unconstitutional or otherwise illegal. We are a nation of laws. But our laws can be changed also, to reflect the wishes of the majority.

4. The reason why blacks are protected is because they (race) is mentioned in the 1964 Civil Rights Act and that is because their status (race) is involuntary. Sexual orientation is voluntary, and homosexuality is a perverse mental aberration, which is to be discouraged, not encouraged.

5. I've defined what I mean by normal and abnormal 100 ******* TIMES in this thread. Read it!!

6. I didn't say abnormal people shouldn't marry. I do say people with the abnormality of homosexuality shouldn't marry someone of their same sex.

7. You seem to be having trouble understanding simple things. Maybe you should read the thread instead of skipping over it, and read it a bit more slowly.

Your homophobia has been duly noted. Just try not to think of hard cocks too much, that's a tad gay.

 

[frigidweirdo]

1. You seem to be putting a very low value on the wishes of the majority. Not very American of you. We value majority rule quite highly. It's called democracy, not mob rule. We are a democratic republic. You need to get that straight.

2. Sure individuals have protections against the majority. Ex. > Currently, 76% of the American people oppose affirmative action, yet we still have it.

3. Sure I would say the majority can't do this if it was unconstitutional or otherwise illegal. We are a nation of laws. But our laws can be changed also, to reflect the wishes of the majority.

4. The reason why blacks are protected is because they (race) is mentioned in the 1964 Civil Rights Act and that is because their status (race) is involuntary. Sexual orientation is voluntary, and homosexuality is a perverse mental aberration, which is to be discouraged, not encouraged.

5. I've defined what I mean by normal and abnormal 100 ******* TIMES in this thread. Read it!!

6. I didn't say abnormal people shouldn't marry. I do say people with the abnormality of homosexuality shouldn't marry someone of their same sex.

7. You seem to be having trouble understanding simple things. Maybe you should read the thread instead of skipping over it, and read it a bit more slowly.

Firstly. Stop it with the giant swearing. It's not smart or clever.
Secondly, I wasn't replying to you, so, you go about swearing about how you've done something a million times. Whatever, I've not read it, and I've been on this board a day and I am not reading every post you've ever written to find it out.

1) Yes, I put a very low value on the wishes of the majority. Just like the founding fathers. You have a problem with the founding fathers?
The US has a kind of democracy. There is no Proportional Representation for Congress or for the President, that's the wishes of the majority.
The Senate is based on the wishes of the state. The house is closer, but still, it's FPTP for each member.
Let's try the House elections 2010 (because it was the last year they had an election without the presidential election), there was a turn out of 40.9% of those who could vote.
The Republicans got 51.7% of those votes but had far more than 51.7% of the seats.
Senate election, well, it's hard to really estimate because not everyone votes at the same time, hardly the will of the people there.

Presidential election 2012, 58.2% of people voted, of these 51.1% voted for the president. Ie, most people DIDN'T vote for him. He got something like 30% of all eligable votes. The will of the people? I don't think so.

Also, in history, the will of the majority has meant the death of the minority. I can point to plenty of places, like Thailand, Chechnya, Kosovo among many where minorities are or have been pounded on by the desire of the majority.

2) People might oppose, but to be honest, most of the people probably don't have much of a clue about what it means or doesn't mean.
You have votes, you vote in politicians, if so many people didn't want it, why hasn't it changed?

3) You talk now about the constitution and a nation of laws. The laws say Gay Marriage should be constitution. But then you oppose it. Even if you don't like gay sex, and why the hell you're thinking about gay sex I don't know, why do you want to stop people marrying?
I don't even agree with marriage or basketball. Hate them both. But I wouldn't want to stop someone having the choice to do either if they choose.

Your laws can be changed. So you could change the laws to make sure black people don't vote.
However most people say they support the constitution, they support the Bill of Rights, and then they turn around and cough and say "but not this bit"

You want rights or you don't want rights. There is no middle ground. You really, REALLY have to understand this. You take rights away from one, and you take them away from all and you make them mere privileges. And when the govt decides you're next, my god you are in for it.

4) The Civil Rights Act is an act of Congress.

Actually it outlawed discrimination on "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin"

How did Congress have the power to make such a law? They only have powers from the Constitution after all.
They used the 14th Amendment, which I spoke about in my previous post. Equal protection of the laws.
Now, times change. Back in 1964 blacks were being treated like dirt, gay civil rights simply wasn't an issue, morality at the time hadn't opened up as much as it has now. The 60s let to the 70s and 80s and then it seemed to go more sensible in the 90s and onwards.

Do you really think that "equal protection of the laws" used in this act would now not meet the requirement of gay marriage?

5) I've done this. However, I would still like a strict definition of what you believe it is. Maybe you've said it here and there but nothing concrete, nothing I can pin on you and quote you from.

6) Oh, so you're going to define to a very, very strict statement who can and cannot marry. This doesn't work. Like I've mentioned with equal protection of the laws. You can't single people out.
How about we ban marriage for black men between the ages of 31 and 33 with moles on their left cheek. You think this is going to last long?

So can I marry someone of the same sex? I'm not gay.

7) I don't have problem reading simple things. I just might not be saying what you want me to say, or I might actually want you to clarify something you have said.

8) You might want to sort out your anger issues.

 

[RKMBrown]

1. You seem to be putting a very low value on the wishes of the majority. Not very American of you. We value majority rule quite highly. It's called democracy, not mob rule. We are a democratic republic. You need to get that straight.

2. Sure individuals have protections against the majority. Ex. > Currently, 76% of the American people oppose affirmative action, yet we still have it.

3. Sure I would say the majority can't do this if it was unconstitutional or otherwise illegal. We are a nation of laws. But our laws can be changed also, to reflect the wishes of the majority.

4. The reason why blacks are protected is because they (race) is mentioned in the 1964 Civil Rights Act and that is because their status (race) is involuntary. Sexual orientation is voluntary, and homosexuality is a perverse mental aberration, which is to be discouraged, not encouraged.

5. I've defined what I mean by normal and abnormal 100 ******* TIMES in this thread. Read it!!

6. I didn't say abnormal people shouldn't marry. I do say people with the abnormality of homosexuality shouldn't marry someone of their same sex.

7. You seem to be having trouble understanding simple things. Maybe you should read the thread instead of skipping over it, and read it a bit more slowly.

Firstly. Stop it with the giant swearing. It's not smart or clever.
Secondly, I wasn't replying to you, so, you go about swearing about how you've done something a million times. Whatever, I've not read it, and I've been on this board a day and I am not reading every post you've ever written to find it out.

1) Yes, I put a very low value on the wishes of the majority. Just like the founding fathers. You have a problem with the founding fathers?
The US has a kind of democracy. There is no Proportional Representation for Congress or for the President, that's the wishes of the majority.
The Senate is based on the wishes of the state. The house is closer, but still, it's FPTP for each member.
Let's try the House elections 2010 (because it was the last year they had an election without the presidential election), there was a turn out of 40.9% of those who could vote.
The Republicans got 51.7% of those votes but had far more than 51.7% of the seats.
Senate election, well, it's hard to really estimate because not everyone votes at the same time, hardly the will of the people there.

Presidential election 2012, 58.2% of people voted, of these 51.1% voted for the president. Ie, most people DIDN'T vote for him. He got something like 30% of all eligable votes. The will of the people? I don't think so.

Also, in history, the will of the majority has meant the death of the minority. I can point to plenty of places, like Thailand, Chechnya, Kosovo among many where minorities are or have been pounded on by the desire of the majority.

2) People might oppose, but to be honest, most of the people probably don't have much of a clue about what it means or doesn't mean.
You have votes, you vote in politicians, if so many people didn't want it, why hasn't it changed?

3) You talk now about the constitution and a nation of laws. The laws say Gay Marriage should be constitution. But then you oppose it. Even if you don't like gay sex, and why the hell you're thinking about gay sex I don't know, why do you want to stop people marrying?
I don't even agree with marriage or basketball. Hate them both. But I wouldn't want to stop someone having the choice to do either if they choose.

Your laws can be changed. So you could change the laws to make sure black people don't vote.
However most people say they support the constitution, they support the Bill of Rights, and then they turn around and cough and say "but not this bit"

You want rights or you don't want rights. There is no middle ground. You really, REALLY have to understand this. You take rights away from one, and you take them away from all and you make them mere privileges. And when the govt decides you're next, my god you are in for it.

4) The Civil Rights Act is an act of Congress.

Actually it outlawed discrimination on "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin"

How did Congress have the power to make such a law? They only have powers from the Constitution after all.
They used the 14th Amendment, which I spoke about in my previous post. Equal protection of the laws.
Now, times change. Back in 1964 blacks were being treated like dirt, gay civil rights simply wasn't an issue, morality at the time hadn't opened up as much as it has now. The 60s let to the 70s and 80s and then it seemed to go more sensible in the 90s and onwards.

Do you really think that "equal protection of the laws" used in this act would now not meet the requirement of gay marriage?

5) I've done this. However, I would still like a strict definition of what you believe it is. Maybe you've said it here and there but nothing concrete, nothing I can pin on you and quote you from.

6) Oh, so you're going to define to a very, very strict statement who can and cannot marry. This doesn't work. Like I've mentioned with equal protection of the laws. You can't single people out.
How about we ban marriage for black men between the ages of 31 and 33 with moles on their left cheek. You think this is going to last long?

So can I marry someone of the same sex? I'm not gay.

7) I don't have problem reading simple things. I just might not be saying what you want me to say, or I might actually want you to clarify something you have said.

8) You might want to sort out your anger issues.

He's a retard. You're better off just ignoring him.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Switching the truth, and turning it backwards, means nothing, except to expose the switcher as a fool.

The truth is this: you are emotionally and mentally turned around for sure.

Even in the last days, the very elect will be fooled as were the crusaders, the conquistadores, and the Puritans.

Step along, protectionist.

Yours is the response of a cornered conspiracy nut.

 

[JakeStarkey]

A bigger question is growing out of this; Why can't we question aberrant sexual behavior? WHY NOT? What is so threatening about that?

You can, and you are doing this.

What you CAN'T do is to kill people because they are gay, or beat them up, or slander them, or cause them any harm. You can't prevent them having the same rights as anyone else, and the Constitution prevents the government from stopping them having the same rights as anyone else.

I'm tired of people coming in here and waving the Constitution around, but not SHOWING where in the Constitution they are talking about. OK. So there's your challenge. You want to hide behind the Constitution ? You have to SHOW where in it is the protection for queers you refer to, and HOW can this be ?

Better go talk to SCOTUS.

 

[JakeStarkey]

OK, I understand now.

Protectionist wants his views accepted as constitutional.

He wants those he opposes not accepted as constitutional.

And he believes the majoritarian democratic will trumps the Constitution.

Let's move on.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

"The Lebanese Psychiatric Society has declared homosexuality is not a mental illness."
Lebanese Psychiatric Society declares being homosexual is not a mental illness | Gay Star News

"MUMBAI: Homosexuality is not a mental illness or disease, the country's psychiatrists said in a joint statement on Thursday.
The Indian Psychiatric Society (IPS), an umbrella body for psychiatrists across the country, said this in response to the furore over its former president Dr Indira Sharma's statement on homosexuality last month."
Homosexuality is not a disease, psychiatrists say - The Times of India

"The Chinese Psychiatric Association decided that being gay is no longer a disease in the third edition of its new diagnostic guidelines published on April 20th this year."
Chinese Society More Tolerant of Homosexuality

And of course the American Psychiatric Association quit calling it a mental disorder in 1973.

 

[GISMYS]

You who reject GOD and God's Word===Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You who reject GOD and God's Word===Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

Wait, are you discussing this topic or just vomiting all over the page?

So, wait, let's stop fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, homosexuals, sodomites, thieves, drunkards, revilers, extortioners etc from marrying. Wait, that might be most people. Who's never, ever stolen anything in their life from anyone?