Rick Perry compares homosexuality to alcoholism

[JoeB131]

And even if gays are mentally ill (what they are not), why shouldn't they have the right to marry. In whaf ways does it offend you in everyday life?

Ah the old and getting tired "how does it affect you personally" argument.

It's not how it affects the individual, it's how it affects society and in particular, children. In Utah, for example, getting married elevates you to a new status where you are eligible to adopt orphans. However, the LBGT cult icon Harvey Milk took in orphaned minor teens, sodomized them and presided as their father figure and guardian at the same time. So this expressed set of values towards children becomes very problematic when talking about elevating this same cult of people to "married" in Utah, and other states that mandate you are married in order to adopt.

Um, not really. Lot's of straight men abuse their step-daughters or even their biological daughters.

Then there's the terrible example to hold out to our young that one man using another man's anus as an artificial vagina is "OK, healthy and normal". Just in the recent same years the big media push for gay marriage and all things gay has started, there has been a 24% spike in new HIV cases for impressionable teen boys. Funny all these "new gays" in our population. But then again, I understand how monkey-see, monkey-do works.

Do you have a link that isn't to a homophobic Christian site?

If so, is there a spike because HIV is spread by gay sex or straight sex? Or is there a spike because we have more testing and reporting now?

Fun fact on that last point. Each boy that comes down with HIV will statistically become indigent and rely on taxpayers to pay for his average of $500,000 medical bills until he dies a lingering and horrible death of AIDS. All from the example of the "good and healthy" practice of men using other men's lower digestive tracts as artificial vaginas.

I think we're smarter than that. I think as a nation we can do better at that on thinking ahead before we go and do something stupid...

Again, the vast majority of people who have AIDS in the world contracted it through heterosexual contact. A much bigger culprit is Catholic Charities in Africa that don't teach about safe sex and discourage condom usage.

 

[Harry Dresden]

What the fuck?

Why does everyone think being open minded means that I have to accept the possibility that the Moon is made out of green cheese?

I am open to well founded arguments based on science and facts, not wild theories based on a belief that being gay is a disease that can be cured. Sexual preference is a choice, there is absolutely no scientific evidence to counter that contention, and plenty that actually backs it up. It is 100% proven that sexual preference is not genetic by the fact that monozygotic twins have made different choices about which gender to sleep with. This also seriously undermines the argument that it is caused by the mother smoking or other prenatal activities because monozygotic twins share the same placenta.

Seriously, I am not the one with the problem here, my opinions are based on science that has stood the test of time, not political expediency.

well since we have been to the Moon and know it aint cheese your point is kind of moot aint it?.......and yea your close minded about things that you dont want to believe that maybe possible.....you are like the people hundreds of years ago who did not believe the theories of Copernicus or Galileo because it interfered with what they believed aint possible.....for you not to even say there is a possibility it can be true says something about your "open mind".....an open minded person would say there can be a possibility,but i dont buy it,it will have to be proven......open minded people leave room for the "impossible" to be proven........sorry but i think you not only have problems being around guys you have problems accepting things that you just cant believe can be possibly true.....open your mind QW you are sounding like the people Dean talks about......

Are you sure we've been to he moon? The imbecile Democrat Representative said we landed on Mars.

at one time it was just a "speculation" by a scientist or 2 and they had people telling them how ridiculous that sounds and they were watching too much Buck Rodgers.... but yea we have been there.....why we never went back and built a base there is another story....

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Bad arguments for a good cause don't change the fact that it's a good cause. There are no good arguments against gay rights, no good arguments against full equality for gays in every measure.

If that were true no one would need to resort to bad arguments to defend "gay rights".

Name one bad argument I've ever made for gay rights.

Then name one good argument against them.

Taking things personal again?

 

[GreenBean]

Bad arguments for a good cause don't change the fact that it's a good cause. There are no good arguments against gay rights, no good arguments against full equality for gays in every measure.

WRONG: There are no Good Arguments for promoting Mental Illness - hence there are no good arguments for Gay Rights.

Gay Rights is not a Good Cause , unless of course yopu define their rights as the right to obtain Psychiatric help without harassment from the mentally ill gay community.

And even if gays are mentally ill (what they are not), why shouldn't they have the right to marry. In whaf ways does it offend you in everyday life?

It doesn't , and personally I could give a rats ass if two mentally disturbed perverts want to cohabitate , play house, and do all the things that real people do. [Of course not all the things that real people do - they can't have real sex - only gay sodomy, and the only thing they can breed is disease] . Actually IMO it's their constitutional right as Americans

 

[GreenBean]

Bad arguments for a good cause don't change the fact that it's a good cause. There are no good arguments against gay rights, no good arguments against full equality for gays in every measure.

If that were true no one would need to resort to bad arguments to defend "gay rights".

Name one bad argument I've ever made for gay rights.

Then name one good argument against them.

good arguments against them.

1.]They are Mentally disturbed and need treatment / counseling - ex-gay therapy despite the socio-fasicts rabid and awkward attempts to discredit it -it's real , it's viable, it works in a higher percentage of cases than the socio-fasicts and Gay Agendaites will allow to be revealed.

2.] They are the most prolific molestors of Children on the Planet. Gay Men comprise a minute 2 - 4% of the population, yet are responsible for between 33 and 35% of all child molestation cases. Yet another fact that the socio-fascists try to sweep under the rug , in part by hiding behind semantic two step shuffle shoe word games.

3.] They are infested, disease ridden, plague carriers who should have been quarrantined in leper colonies back in the 80s -in fact they are the closest thing to a "Zombie Apocalypse" that reality has spawned

 

[NYcarbineer]

If that were true no one would need to resort to bad arguments to defend "gay rights".

Name one bad argument I've ever made for gay rights.

Then name one good argument against them.

good arguments against them.

1.]They are Mentally disturbed and need treatment / counseling - ex-gay therapy despite the socio-fasicts rabid and awkward attempts to discredit it -it's real , it's viable, it works in a higher percentage of cases than the socio-fasicts and Gay Agendaites will allow to be revealed.

2.] They are the most prolific molestors of Children on the Planet. Gay Men comprise a minute 2 - 4% of the population, yet are responsible for between 33 and 35% of all child molestation cases. Yet another fact that the socio-fascists try to sweep under the rug , in part by hiding behind semantic two step shuffle shoe word games.

3.] They are infested, disease ridden, plague carriers who should have been quarrantined in leper colonies back in the 80s -in fact they are the closest thing to a "Zombie Apocalypse" that reality has spawned

No, I said good arguments.

P.S., since you offered nothing about lesbians, I assume your 'reasoning' concludes that lesbians should have equal rights, including marriage rights,

but not gay men.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If that were true no one would need to resort to bad arguments to defend "gay rights".

Name one bad argument I've ever made for gay rights.

Then name one good argument against them.

good arguments against them.

1.]They are Mentally disturbed and need treatment / counseling - ex-gay therapy despite the socio-fasicts rabid and awkward attempts to discredit it -it's real , it's viable, it works in a higher percentage of cases than the socio-fasicts and Gay Agendaites will allow to be revealed.

2.] They are the most prolific molestors of Children on the Planet. Gay Men comprise a minute 2 - 4% of the population, yet are responsible for between 33 and 35% of all child molestation cases. Yet another fact that the socio-fascists try to sweep under the rug , in part by hiding behind semantic two step shuffle shoe word games.

3.] They are infested, disease ridden, plague carriers who should have been quarrantined in leper colonies back in the 80s -in fact they are the closest thing to a "Zombie Apocalypse" that reality has spawned

Why would you deny equal rights to a gay man who isn't a child molestor, or who doesn't have a sexually transmitted disease?

Where in our Constitution is it stated or even implied that it is permissible to deny whole demographic groups of Americans their civil rights based on an argument that there are bad individuals within that group?

 

[NYcarbineer]

If that were true no one would need to resort to bad arguments to defend "gay rights".

Name one bad argument I've ever made for gay rights.

Then name one good argument against them.

Taking things personal again?

Okay, so you're conceding that I've never made a bad argument for gay rights. What was your point then? That if somewhere there exists a bad argument for gay rights that must mean that there are no good arguments for gay rights?

 

[GreenBean]

Name one bad argument I've ever made for gay rights.

Then name one good argument against them.

good arguments against them.

1.]They are Mentally disturbed and need treatment / counseling - ex-gay therapy despite the socio-fasicts rabid and awkward attempts to discredit it -it's real , it's viable, it works in a higher percentage of cases than the socio-fasicts and Gay Agendaites will allow to be revealed.

2.] They are the most prolific molestors of Children on the Planet. Gay Men comprise a minute 2 - 4% of the population, yet are responsible for between 33 and 35% of all child molestation cases. Yet another fact that the socio-fascists try to sweep under the rug , in part by hiding behind semantic two step shuffle shoe word games.

3.] They are infested, disease ridden, plague carriers who should have been quarrantined in leper colonies back in the 80s -in fact they are the closest thing to a "Zombie Apocalypse" that reality has spawned

No, I said good arguments.

P.S., since you offered nothing about lesbians, I assume your 'reasoning' concludes that lesbians should have equal rights, including marriage rights,

but not gay men.

The only thing Lesbians and Gay Men have in common is same sex attraction - the sex drive of females, regardless of any dysphoric orientation is vastly different from that of males. Lesbians are not the same despicable sub-humans as their male counter parts ,[ in most respects. ]

 

[GreenBean]

Name one bad argument I've ever made for gay rights.

Then name one good argument against them.

good arguments against them.

1.]They are Mentally disturbed and need treatment / counseling - ex-gay therapy despite the socio-fasicts rabid and awkward attempts to discredit it -it's real , it's viable, it works in a higher percentage of cases than the socio-fasicts and Gay Agendaites will allow to be revealed.

2.] They are the most prolific molestors of Children on the Planet. Gay Men comprise a minute 2 - 4% of the population, yet are responsible for between 33 and 35% of all child molestation cases. Yet another fact that the socio-fascists try to sweep under the rug , in part by hiding behind semantic two step shuffle shoe word games.

3.] They are infested, disease ridden, plague carriers who should have been quarrantined in leper colonies back in the 80s -in fact they are the closest thing to a "Zombie Apocalypse" that reality has spawned

Why would you deny equal rights to a gay man who isn't a child molestor, or who doesn't have a sexually transmitted disease?

Where in our Constitution is it stated or even implied that it is permissible to deny whole demographic groups of Americans their civil rights based on an argument that there are bad individuals within that group?

First you have to define, refine and qualify much of the vocabulary we are throwing at each other. Your statement makes perfect sense if you disregard all the variables, which could potentially be a clusterfuck of monumental proportions.

Where in our Constitution is it stated or even implied

The Constitution , like the Bible, Koran and Bagavad Gita has been so widely interpreted at different times by different people it has become evident that one could draw just about any conclusions one wants to suit his/her agenda or ideology. Even the High Priesthood [SCOTUS] flip flops from era to error on their interpretations. If I chose to, I could disect the Constitution and find perhaps a half dozen arguments to support my point of view, and if you had the inclination - I'm sure you could also - So lets leave the constitution out of this -shall we ? Let's think about common human decency and mutual self respect

...permissible to deny whole demographic groups of Americans their civil rights based on an argument that there are bad individuals within that group?

You're Right - It's not a nice thing to deny whole demographic groups their civil rights based on an argument that there are bad individuals within their group. Homosexuals however, are not a Demographic Group per se. They may be part of another Demographic Group, such as Whites, Blacks, Native Americans, Jews or what have you -but a mental disease does not constitute a Demographic group - it constitutes a disfunctional disadvantage , not only to the individual, but to the society at large.

Why would you deny equal rights to a gay man who isn't a child molestor, or who doesn't have a sexually transmitted disease?

State your definition of equal rights -
The right to marry another pervert - sure wtf , just get the fk outta my face with it Okay ?

The right to adopt Children ? Absofuckinglutely not ! At least in the case of Male Homosexuals anyway -

The right to donate Blood ? No way Jose, keep your diseases to yourselves !

 

[Kosh]

Name one bad argument I've ever made for gay rights.

Then name one good argument against them.

Taking things personal again?

Okay, so you're conceding that I've never made a bad argument for gay rights. What was your point then? That if somewhere there exists a bad argument for gay rights that must mean that there are no good arguments for gay rights?

Yes gay rights, so that one person can claim marriage to another person and plunder their social security..

Other than that what rights do gays not have?

Marriage? Marriage is not a right!

 

[Seawytch]

Taking things personal again?

Okay, so you're conceding that I've never made a bad argument for gay rights. What was your point then? That if somewhere there exists a bad argument for gay rights that must mean that there are no good arguments for gay rights?

Yes gay rights, so that one person can claim marriage to another person and plunder their social security..

Other than that what rights do gays not have?

Marriage? Marriage is not a right!

It's a lot more than just Social Security. I take it you're not married?

Tax Benefits

• Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.
• Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.

Estate Planning Benefits

• Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.
• Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
• Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.
• Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse's behalf.

Government Benefits

• Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
• Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
• Receiving public assistance benefits.

Employment Benefits

• Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
• Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
• Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
• Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse's close relatives dies.

Medical Benefits

• Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
• Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.

Death Benefits

• Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
• Making burial or other final arrangements.

Family Benefits

• Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
• Applying for joint foster care rights.
• Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.
• Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.

Housing Benefits

• Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."
• Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.

Consumer Benefits

• Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.
• Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.
• Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.

Other Legal Benefits and Protections

• Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).
• Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).
• Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can't force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.
• Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.
• Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.
• Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.

And yes, marriage is a right, a fundamental right.

14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right

 

[rightwinger]

Taking things personal again?

Okay, so you're conceding that I've never made a bad argument for gay rights. What was your point then? That if somewhere there exists a bad argument for gay rights that must mean that there are no good arguments for gay rights?

Yes gay rights, so that one person can claim marriage to another person and plunder their social security..

Other than that what rights do gays not have?

Marriage? Marriage is not a right!

Heterosexuals get married so that they can plunder social security?

 

[Crystalclear]

And why are so many people against honosexual men, but not lesbians?(enjoying lesbian porn too much?)

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

If he has any influence in 2016 Presidential run get ready for 8 more years of a Democrat.
Time is now to call these kooks out.

God willing we'll have a democratic president. It may not be ideal but it sure as hell beats any republican.

Bring on the dumb kooks like Perry. Let Hillary have her solid victory.

God willing? Lol

Fruit loop

 

[NYcarbineer]

good arguments against them.

1.]They are Mentally disturbed and need treatment / counseling - ex-gay therapy despite the socio-fasicts rabid and awkward attempts to discredit it -it's real , it's viable, it works in a higher percentage of cases than the socio-fasicts and Gay Agendaites will allow to be revealed.

2.] They are the most prolific molestors of Children on the Planet. Gay Men comprise a minute 2 - 4% of the population, yet are responsible for between 33 and 35% of all child molestation cases. Yet another fact that the socio-fascists try to sweep under the rug , in part by hiding behind semantic two step shuffle shoe word games.

3.] They are infested, disease ridden, plague carriers who should have been quarrantined in leper colonies back in the 80s -in fact they are the closest thing to a "Zombie Apocalypse" that reality has spawned

Why would you deny equal rights to a gay man who isn't a child molestor, or who doesn't have a sexually transmitted disease?

Where in our Constitution is it stated or even implied that it is permissible to deny whole demographic groups of Americans their civil rights based on an argument that there are bad individuals within that group?

First you have to define, refine and qualify much of the vocabulary we are throwing at each other. Your statement makes perfect sense if you disregard all the variables, which could potentially be a clusterfuck of monumental proportions.



The Constitution , like the Bible, Koran and Bagavad Gita has been so widely interpreted at different times by different people it has become evident that one could draw just about any conclusions one wants to suit his/her agenda or ideology. Even the High Priesthood [SCOTUS] flip flops from era to error on their interpretations. If I chose to, I could disect the Constitution and find perhaps a half dozen arguments to support my point of view, and if you had the inclination - I'm sure you could also - So lets leave the constitution out of this -shall we ? Let's think about common human decency and mutual self respect

...permissible to deny whole demographic groups of Americans their civil rights based on an argument that there are bad individuals within that group?

You're Right - It's not a nice thing to deny whole demographic groups their civil rights based on an argument that there are bad individuals within their group. Homosexuals however, are not a Demographic Group per se. They may be part of another Demographic Group, such as Whites, Blacks, Native Americans, Jews or what have you -but a mental disease does not constitute a Demographic group - it constitutes a disfunctional disadvantage , not only to the individual, but to the society at large.

Why would you deny equal rights to a gay man who isn't a child molestor, or who doesn't have a sexually transmitted disease?

State your definition of equal rights -
The right to marry another pervert - sure wtf , just get the fk outta my face with it Okay ?

The right to adopt Children ? Absofuckinglutely not ! At least in the case of Male Homosexuals anyway -

The right to donate Blood ? No way Jose, keep your diseases to yourselves !

Shouldn't we thus deny young black men the right to become policemen, or join the military, or shouldn't we just allow discrimination against young black men in general,

just because the statistics show that demographic to have a higher likelihood of committing crimes?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Why would you deny equal rights to a gay man who isn't a child molestor, or who doesn't have a sexually transmitted disease?

Where in our Constitution is it stated or even implied that it is permissible to deny whole demographic groups of Americans their civil rights based on an argument that there are bad individuals within that group?

First you have to define, refine and qualify much of the vocabulary we are throwing at each other. Your statement makes perfect sense if you disregard all the variables, which could potentially be a clusterfuck of monumental proportions.



The Constitution , like the Bible, Koran and Bagavad Gita has been so widely interpreted at different times by different people it has become evident that one could draw just about any conclusions one wants to suit his/her agenda or ideology. Even the High Priesthood [SCOTUS] flip flops from era to error on their interpretations. If I chose to, I could disect the Constitution and find perhaps a half dozen arguments to support my point of view, and if you had the inclination - I'm sure you could also - So lets leave the constitution out of this -shall we ? Let's think about common human decency and mutual self respect



You're Right - It's not a nice thing to deny whole demographic groups their civil rights based on an argument that there are bad individuals within their group. Homosexuals however, are not a Demographic Group per se. They may be part of another Demographic Group, such as Whites, Blacks, Native Americans, Jews or what have you -but a mental disease does not constitute a Demographic group - it constitutes a disfunctional disadvantage , not only to the individual, but to the society at large.

Why would you deny equal rights to a gay man who isn't a child molestor, or who doesn't have a sexually transmitted disease?

State your definition of equal rights -
The right to marry another pervert - sure wtf , just get the fk outta my face with it Okay ?

The right to adopt Children ? Absofuckinglutely not ! At least in the case of Male Homosexuals anyway -

The right to donate Blood ? No way Jose, keep your diseases to yourselves !

Shouldn't we thus deny young black men the right to become policemen, or join the military, or shouldn't we just allow discrimination against young black men in general,

just because the statistics show that demographic to have a higher likelihood of committing crimes?

Ideally we should deny liberals the opportunity to govern based on stats. Sadly half of America is oblivious

 

[g5000]

I would like every right winger to remember topics like this one the next time you feel an urge to brag about how the Republican party defended the rights of minorities a long time ago.

 

[GreenBean]

Why would you deny equal rights to a gay man who isn't a child molestor, or who doesn't have a sexually transmitted disease?

Where in our Constitution is it stated or even implied that it is permissible to deny whole demographic groups of Americans their civil rights based on an argument that there are bad individuals within that group?

First you have to define, refine and qualify much of the vocabulary we are throwing at each other. Your statement makes perfect sense if you disregard all the variables, which could potentially be a clusterfuck of monumental proportions.



The Constitution , like the Bible, Koran and Bagavad Gita has been so widely interpreted at different times by different people it has become evident that one could draw just about any conclusions one wants to suit his/her agenda or ideology. Even the High Priesthood [SCOTUS] flip flops from era to error on their interpretations. If I chose to, I could disect the Constitution and find perhaps a half dozen arguments to support my point of view, and if you had the inclination - I'm sure you could also - So lets leave the constitution out of this -shall we ? Let's think about common human decency and mutual self respect



You're Right - It's not a nice thing to deny whole demographic groups their civil rights based on an argument that there are bad individuals within their group. Homosexuals however, are not a Demographic Group per se. They may be part of another Demographic Group, such as Whites, Blacks, Native Americans, Jews or what have you -but a mental disease does not constitute a Demographic group - it constitutes a disfunctional disadvantage , not only to the individual, but to the society at large.

Why would you deny equal rights to a gay man who isn't a child molestor, or who doesn't have a sexually transmitted disease?

State your definition of equal rights -
The right to marry another pervert - sure wtf , just get the fk outta my face with it Okay ?

The right to adopt Children ? Absofuckinglutely not ! At least in the case of Male Homosexuals anyway -

The right to donate Blood ? No way Jose, keep your diseases to yourselves !

Shouldn't we thus deny young black men the right to become policemen, or join the military, or shouldn't we just allow discrimination against young black men in general,

just because the statistics show that demographic to have a higher likelihood of committing crimes?

African Americans are a class of people , a race that historically has been down trodden and beat upon. Being Black does not qualify as a Mental Illness. Being Gay does. Mentally depraved and psychologically damaged people should never be allowed access to children .

Statistics also demonstrate that alcohol has a differennt effect on Native Americans, using that logic it should be illegal to sell liquor to Indians [And it once was].

 

[GreenBean]

I would like every right winger to remember topics like this one the next time you feel an urge to brag about how the Republican party defended the rights of minorities a long time ago.

And they still do - and they also defend the rights of faggots and dykes to obtain psychological help and escape from their mental depravity. What they don't support is discrimination against Children by forcing them to bow down to an agenda of diseased perversion.