Rick Perry compares homosexuality to alcoholism

[Seawytch]

And? He's right. Homosexuality is a choice and is a mental disease. Also put a damn link up.

Tell us about the day you chose not to be gay.

I think it was in second grade. I chassed a girl & kissed her. Not a BOY

Which one did you WANT to kiss? Which one were you physically and emotionally attracted to?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

I am conceding no such thing, I haven't read all your posts. My point still stands, if there were no good arguments against their position the gay rights the way that the extremist are presenting them activists wouldn't have to resort to calling people names.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

What do you know, a strawman argument for gay rights, AKA a bad argument for gay rights.

See why I didn't concede anything? Especially to you?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

I would like you to point out where this rightwinger ever tied to deny anyone any rights.

 

[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?

I am conceding no such thing, I haven't read all your posts. My point still stands, if there were no good arguments against their position the gay rights the way that the extremist are presenting them activists wouldn't have to resort to calling people names.

Names like what, bigot?

 

[Seawytch]

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.

I would like you to point out where this rightwinger ever tied to deny anyone any rights.

So you support marriage equality for gays?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Vote GOP. We believe fags are sick in the head and diseased. We care!

Wonderful, another bad argument for gay rights.

You know something, it is people like you that enable the idiots like GreenBean to look halfway intelligent. Just refute the idiot, and move on like an adult. Sexual preference in not a mental disorder, a genetic defect, or a birth defect, it is a choice. That makes it none of anyone else's business, period. End of discussion.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Tell us about the day you chose not to be gay.

It all started when I was a tadpole or sperm cell as the case may be

Gays are slow starters - their sexual orientation generally develops in the pre-pubescent formulative years. Theoretically the result of early, sometimes pre-cognizant childhood trauma.

So you are basically speaking out of your ass, basing your statements on prejudiced opinions and not scientific fact.

Quite a bit like you, psychology is not science. Basing your opinion of what causes people to be gay on psychology means you are basing your opinion on something other than science.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You attraction to females, was that a choice on your part? Could you choose to like sucking dicks?

Of course it was a choice. Just like you choose to pretend to be a conservative

Really? You chose to be attracted to females?

I certainly didn't. My preference for females was about as much a choice as whether or not I like carrots. I can force myself to eat a carrot, but that will never make me like them.

As for being conservative, when it comes to marriage I lean libertarian. I would like to see as little government involvement in marriage as possible. Some people seem to think we will all stop having sex if the government stops giving us cash and prizes for being married and having kids.

Interestingly enough, the more government involvement we have had in our marriages, the higher the divorce rate and illegitimacy has gone up.

You can't be a serious conservative if you think you should get government gifts for being married. But as long as the government is giving out cash and prizes, gays should have equal protection of those laws which provide those cash and prizes.

The fact that you do not remember making a choice does not mean yo did not make a choice.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

I am conceding no such thing, I haven't read all your posts. My point still stands, if there were no good arguments against their position the gay rights the way that the extremist are presenting them activists wouldn't have to resort to calling people names.

Names like what, bigot?

I am a bigot because I believe in free will?

You can search the entire board and never find a single thing negative against anyone's sexual preferences. You, however, love to jump to conclusions simply because people don't believe the same mumbo jumbo you insist is true, even though all the real science stacks up against our argument. If that is how you define bigotry than you are the one with the problem, not me.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

I would like you to point out where this rightwinger ever tied to deny anyone any rights.

So you support marriage equality for gays?

I oppose government regulation of marriage, so I guess that means my answer to your question is no.

 

[Seawytch]

I am conceding no such thing, I haven't read all your posts. My point still stands, if there were no good arguments against their position the gay rights the way that the extremist are presenting them activists wouldn't have to resort to calling people names.

Names like what, bigot?

I am a bigot because I believe in free will?

You can search the entire board and never find a single thing negative against anyone's sexual preferences. You, however, love to jump to conclusions simply because people don't believe the same mumbo jumbo you insist is true, even though all the real science stacks up against our argument. If that is how you define bigotry than you are the one with the problem, not me.

I just asked if "bigot" is what you considered "name calling". Is it?

I define bigotry as wanting to deny equal rights based on animus towards that group you wish to deny those rights.

What "conclusion" do you not believe science supports?

 

[GreenBean]

Perhaps smoking cocks is like smoking cigarettes. We can invent an "anti-gay" patch that will stop their addiction to dicks.

Not that easy , but Ex-gay therapy could help - it works on about the same ratio as substance abuse therapy. But the queer needs to want to quit ,and why should they when all these near do gooders and socio-fascist liberals running around telling them it's okay to be Gay, who cares if you die youngher, who cares if your a societal outcast, keep smoking that crack pipe faggot and when your done come on over and smoke big brothers penis pipe Gay is Not Okay

 

[Seawytch]

I would like you to point out where this rightwinger ever tied to deny anyone any rights.

So you support marriage equality for gays?

I oppose government regulation of marriage, so I guess that means my answer to your question is no.

So you're not married, never been married? Does your state and federal legislator know you wish to get rid of all involvement in civil marriage?

 

[GreenBean]

I am conceding no such thing, I haven't read all your posts. My point still stands, if there were no good arguments against their position the gay rights the way that the extremist are presenting them activists wouldn't have to resort to calling people names.

Names like what, bigot?

I am a bigot because I believe in free will?

You can search the entire board and never find a single thing negative against anyone's sexual preferences. You, however, love to jump to conclusions simply because people don't believe the same mumbo jumbo you insist is true, even though all the real science stacks up against our argument. If that is how you define bigotry than you are the one with the problem, not me.

I am a bigot because I believe in free will?

Free Will is Never an Option when dealing with Gay Socio-Fascists - you must totally prostrate and subjugate yourself to their will and revel in their perversions - or you are simply a "homophobic bigot"

 

[GreenBean]

And they still do - and they also defend the rights of faggots and dykes to obtain psychological help and escape from their mental depravity.

Vote GOP. We believe fags are sick in the head and diseased. We care!

Wonderful, another bad argument for gay rights.

You know something, it is people like you that enable the idiots like GreenBean to look halfway intelligent. Just refute the idiot, and move on like an adult.

They keep trying to -refute that is- but can't -because I am right, as is Silhouette, Mal, LockeJaw, Warrior, Drifting Sand, pop23 ecetra etcetra etc....

Sexual preference in not a mental disorder, a genetic defect, or a birth defect, it is a choice. That makes it none of anyone else's business, period. End of discussion.

What you fail to recognize windbag , is that it's not about any Gay couple satiating their erotic dysphoria in private- I find it detestable - but as you said "none of my business"

So far as being a choice..lol ....well , I'll refrian from calling you a few choice insults that come to mind . Yes, I guess you could call it a "Choice" in the same manner that the closely related and at times concurrent dysphorias of pedophillia, beastiality and necrophilia are also a "choice" . Smoking crack is a choice too - I guess they should be left alone as well ?

My personal attacks on Gay individuals , as opposed to attacks on the agenda as a whole is an outgrowth of my informed opinion that they have no Right to feel good about themselves - like a puppy they need to have their noses rubbed in their excrement , to be figuratively smacked down and made to feel like shit . Only then , whence they've hit rock bottom and come to the realization that they are sick - will some of them seek help .

Gay is Not Okay

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Names like what, bigot?

I am a bigot because I believe in free will?

You can search the entire board and never find a single thing negative against anyone's sexual preferences. You, however, love to jump to conclusions simply because people don't believe the same mumbo jumbo you insist is true, even though all the real science stacks up against our argument. If that is how you define bigotry than you are the one with the problem, not me.

I just asked if "bigot" is what you considered "name calling". Is it?

I define bigotry as wanting to deny equal rights based on animus towards that group you wish to deny those rights.

What "conclusion" do you not believe science supports?

Calling someone a bigot simply because they don't agree with your definition of gay rights is definitely name calling. If it bothers you, you should stop doing it.

Science has conclusively proven that people are not born gay, it is not an immutable characteristic. Baisng a defense of gay rights on the assumption that people do not have free will is idiotic and will eventually expose you as an idiot.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So you support marriage equality for gays?

I oppose government regulation of marriage, so I guess that means my answer to your question is no.

So you're not married, never been married? Does your state and federal legislator know you wish to get rid of all involvement in civil marriage?

Marriage is something private between two people, and no business of anyone else. In other words, I don;t expose my private life on this forum, go barking up some other tree in search of personal tidbits to satisfy your gratuitous and misplaced curiosity.

 

[Bush92]

Bigots like to focus on the sex lives of homosexuals. This diverts from the actual issue which is to provide homosexuals the same legal protections under the law which heterosexual marriages receive.

The government showers a thousand different prizes on marriage. Gays are merely asking for the same prizes to be provided for their marriages. Social security survivor benefits, joint federal tax returns, etc., etc., etc.

But the bigots don't want to talk about that. For some strange reason, they want to climb under the sheets with homosexuals and talk about pole smoking!

You will notice it is always the bigot who brings up sex when talking about equal protection of the laws for gays.

Why do they need legal protection? Keep your lifestyle to yourself and nobody will care. Shove it in everyone's face and you piss them off.

Why does your marriage need legal protection? Why do you need all those government cash and prizes for being married?

Got a problem with traditional values on marriage that are pretty much accepted world wide?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I would like you to point out where this rightwinger ever tied to deny anyone any rights.

So you support marriage equality for gays?

I oppose government regulation of marriage, so I guess that means my answer to your question is no.

That's a convenient dodge.

The question is, if marriage is going to be regulated by the government, should the regulations be equally applied to opposite sex and same sex marriages?