Should LGBT Be Outlawed ?

[protectionist]

Closets are no place for anyone to.live. Not going back to.the paranoia that fueled the 50's. Americans know better now. The real perverts are the people who dwell on other people's lives and plot against them.

The real perverts are the people who have sex with people of their own sex, and go around thinking it to be normal.

 

[protectionist]

As long as two people are of legal age in the state they are in and BOTH consenting, and doing nothing obscene.
Then no.

I've seen more obscenity from straights in public than I ever have from gays.
Walking around groping each other, walking around with each others hands DOWN EACH OTHERS PANTS, guys scratching their dicks in public, girls wearing see thru clothes, girls scraching their asses and "digging for gold" and then sniffing their fingers (WHAT is it with that deranged shit?), etc........

Sounds like you are looking to deflect away from the abnormalities of homo perverts.

 

[Chillicothe]

Two men seeking out a public place just to show off with lewd acts is on purpose.

In the context of the discussion the reference was to kissing on a public bench.
If that is what you are suggesting is "lewd"......well, amigo, what about the guy & gal who were on a nearby bench also kissing. Both couples are being "lewd"?

And trust me on this next assertion: but couples really do kiss "on purpose"... it is an intentional act. Leastwise, in my personal experience I kissed the girls on purpose. They kissed back, or they may even have initiated it...but they or me did it because we wanted to do it. Intentionally. Duh!

Now, your experience may be different but I never witnessed nor experienced an 'accidental' kiss.
How does that happen?
Does it happen frequently to you?
Why do you think that is?

I gotta admit that posters who are befuddled by the act of mere kissing seems way way over in CloudCuckoo-stan.
Or......some posters are really really inexperienced in human interactions.

I love this bar. Some days it is a circus of the bizarre.
Wish we could have old videos of Doctor Ruth educating some of the poor incels who frequent this venue.

 

[TemplarKormac]

In the context of the discussion the reference was to kissing on a public bench.
If that is what you are suggesting is "lewd"......well, amigo, what about the guy & gal who were on a nearby bench also kissing. Both couples are being "lewd"?

I said lewd. I did not say kissing was lewd.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Another thing:

Don't preach to me.

 

[protectionist]

The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly mention LGBTQ+ individuals or issues. However, constitutional interpretations and judicial decisions have evolved over time to extend rights and protections to LGBTQ+ individuals through various amendments and legal principles.

Key Supreme Court cases have played crucial roles in advancing LGBTQ+ rights.

For instance, in Lawrence v. Texas (2003), the Court struck down sodomy laws, affirming the right to privacy and personal liberty.

In United States v. Windsor (2013), the Court ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was unconstitutional, thereby recognizing same-sex couples for federal benefits.

Most significantly, in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, grounding the decision in the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses.

Additionally, the Constitution's broad guarantees of liberty and equality have been invoked to support LGBTQ+ rights.

Over time, societal attitudes have shifted, and protections for LGBTQ+ individuals have been increasingly recognized at both state and federal levels, reflecting a growing understanding of equality and civil rights.

While LGBTQ+ rights are not explicitly outlined in the Constitution, judicial interpretations continue to shape the legal landscape, affirming the principle that all individuals deserve equal protection under the law.

It’s too late to expel LGBTQ+ members from this blue planet. It’s better to live peacefully. You wouldn’t want to witness a civil war between conservatives and the LGBTQ+ communities, right?

This thread has really turned into a hell of a mess.

I would just say that the US Supreme court shouldn't be supporting perverts.

 

[Stann]

The real perverts are the people who have sex with people of their own sex, and go around thinking it to be normal.

You have so.much to learn. Really pathetic attitude. Sexual orientation , wether it be heterosexual. , homosexual or bisexual occur before puberty. Perversions occurs after puberty. You have some kind of perversion being interested in.other people's sex and love lives. .

 

[Chillicothe]

The real perverts are the people who have sex with people of their own sex,

Well, homophobia ain't in the closet, that's for sure.
We are witnessing evidence of that sad manifestation of human obtuseness on this very venue.

A bit of free advice for you, poster protectionist......if homosexual acts, even kissing, upsets you, well then, don't do it.

At minimum quit peeping at those same sex couples who kiss on public benches. You ogling them is a bit more of an intrusive perversion than the couple expressing their affection to each other.

This venue, on some nights, is like walking into the Mos Eisley Cantina. The world of Incel-istan be here.

 

[protectionist]

They had laws like that years ago. They realized they were wrong. This is a road we should never want to go down again. Minorities have to be protected from the tyranny of the misguided majority.Fortunately most people know better.

It is not desirable to have perverts all over the place, spreading their looney perversions around. The normal need to be protected from the abnormal.

 

[protectionist]

You have so.much to learn. Really pathetic attitude. Sexual orientation , wether it be heterosexual. , homosexual or bisexual occur before puberty. Perversions occurs after puberty. You have some kind of perversion being interested in.other people's sex and love lives. .

There is no such thing as sexual "orientation". Sex is not something that one is oriented to. It is assigned by biology at birth, and never changes.

 

[Chillicothe]

I said lewd. I did not say kissing was lewd.

OK, we are making progress. Two gay men, or two gay women kissing on a public bench is no longer a lewd act in your view. Those folks will be relieved that you are no longer judging them.

 

[TemplarKormac]

OK, we are making progress. Two gay men, or two gay women kissing on a public bench is no longer a lewd act in your view. Those folks will be relieved that you are no longer judging them.

I wasn't judging them in the first place.

Public indecency on the other hand. Picking out public places to express their gayness. Kissing is fine, but trying to put on a display is not.

 

[Mac1958]

I see no reason to play religious police.

Well, let's not be surprised if we start going down that road.

I think we're going to be seeing some pretty ugly shit. It's already started with "your body, MY choice" and those anonymous texts to Black Americans.

Remember, there is no bottom now. And the MAGA "Christians" are doing to their religion what Jihadis do to theirs.

 

[Stann]

Well, homophobia ain't in the closet, that's for sure.
We are witnessing evidence of that sad manifestation of human obtuseness on this very venue.

A bit of free advice for you, poster protectionist......if homosexual acts, even kissing, upsets you, well then, don't do it.

At minimum quit peeping at those same sex couples who kiss on public benches. You ogling them is a bit more of an intrusive perversion than the couple expressing their affection to each other.

This venue, on some nights, is like walking into the Mos Eisley Cantina. The world of Incel-istan be here.
View attachment 1040171

Years ago , many years ago when I was younger A friend and I were waiting in line in the winter to go to.a concert. A straight couple a few feet ahead of us in line were both wrapped up in a blanket together. Let's just say they found a very entertaining way to.pass the time. We laughed about it. Protectionist would have probably had a stroke over it.

 

[Chillicothe]

"The normal need to be protected from the abnormal."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ummm, what?

So, can we presume that poster 'protectionist' considers himself (herself?) "normal"?
And if that is, in fact, the case, well then, the poster seemingly feels that he/she is in some sort of danger....or let' call it, "risk".......of being, recruited, persuaded, seduced, 'turned' by someone who is homosexual? And he/she needs protection from seduction?

If that is the case, then the obvious questions must be: Why would he/she feel vulnerable.
Or, and this is not meant pejoratively, but......what about poster 'protectionist' makes him/her think they'd even be attractive to someone of their same gender?

Attractive enough to the object of seduction?

 

[Stann]

I wasn't judging them in the first place.

Public indecency on the other hand. Picking out public places to express their gayness. Kissing is fine, but trying to put on a display is not.

You assume far too much , you do not know what they were thinking or feeling. You are judging and being a fool.

 

[protectionist]

Well, homophobia ain't in the closet, that's for sure.
We are witnessing evidence of that sad manifestation of human obtuseness on this very venue.

A bit of free advice for you, poster protectionist......if homosexual acts, even kissing, upsets you, well then, don't do it.

At minimum quit peeping at those same sex couples who kiss on public benches. You ogling them is a bit more of an intrusive perversion than the couple expressing their affection to each other.

This venue, on some nights, is like walking into the Mos Eisley Cantina. The world of Incel-istan be here.
View attachment 1040171

1. There is no such thing as "homophobia". There is no phobia attached to homosexuality. Homosexuality is a mental disorder, that sex perverts suffer from. A phobia is an irrational fear of something. There is no connection here.
And you need to be more careful about throwing the word "phobia" around recklessly, to fit whatever you think is somehow politically helpful to you. There are some of us - myself included (agoraphobia) who actually suffer from REAL phobias, and your phony use of the word, is quite offensive to us.

2. Nobody is peeping or ogling at anybody, and your mischaracterization is typical of the phoniness of the left that contributed to Trump's big win, in addition to other Republicans.

3. Homo men kissing on a park bench is out in the open, and people walking by, see it as well as the many other things they see. You are who needs advice. Your subjectivity is glaring.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You assume far too much , you do not know what they were thinking or feeling. You are judging and being a fool.

If they are doing it not for the sake of love, they are doing it to force it on others. If they do it with an ulterior motive, they do it on purpose, not in love.

Plain and simple.

 

[Chillicothe]

Kissing is fine,

OK, again, we be cool.
For poster Kormac a gay couple kissing on a public bench is not a threat to anything.
As said before, we are making progress here,

------------------------------------------------------------------

MAGA "Christians" are doing to their religion what Jihadis do to theirs.

There is the old meme that MAGA Christians are just ISIS....but with beer and bacon.

 

[protectionist]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ummm, what?

So, can we presume that poster 'protectionist' considers himself (herself?) "normal"?
And if that is, in fact, the case, well then, the poster seemingly feels that he/she is in some sort of danger....or let' call it, "risk".......of being, recruited, persuaded, seduced, 'turned' by someone who is homosexual? And he/she needs protection from seduction?

If that is the case, then the obvious questions must be: Why would he/she feel vulnerable.
Or, and this is not meant pejoratively, but......what about poster 'protectionist' makes him/her think they'd even be attractive to someone of their same gender?

Attractive enough to the object of seduction?

Yes, I am normal.

No, no need to be protected from seduction, or any of the other ridiculous things you mention.

Only thing needing to be protected from, is the disturbing sight of sickening perverts doing their lunacies.