The Homosexual Dilemma

[Where_r_my_Keys]

"Different" does not equal "disordered" or even "abnormal" since a certain amount of deviation is normal.

It literally does, when the subject is the standard of order. Where such deviates or 'differs' from the standard, different equals disorder.

 

[Syriusly]

[
Most states still have traditional marriage so your theory doesn't hold water. No state could deny homosexual marriage if it were unconstitutional.

All states still have 'traditional marriage'- and now in 35 states, same gender couples get married.

Judges have overturned state marriage bans for being unconstitutional- here is a hint- bans on mixed race marriages were unconstitutional even before the Supreme Court confirmed the lower courts decision that they were unconstitutional. States did indeed deny mixed race marriages even though they were unconstitutional.

And continued to do so until the Supreme Court ruling made the decision applicable to all states.

I didn't want to talk like I was trying to communicate with a toddler but if you insist....by traditional marriage, most people understand that to mean a man married to a woman if they are both eligible. And you're going to try to convince us that the Supreme Court case hasn't happened yet...because? Interracial marriage bans were obviously unconstitutional for reasons mention, men were treated differently. If you want to claim the state must be gender blind then you are saying it's unconstitutional for governments to have male and female restrooms. Your side is full of crap and is mostly forwarded through tyranny, not democracy.

Not sure how that responds to my post:

All states still have 'traditional marriage'- and now in 35 states, same gender couples get married.

I am not trying to convince you that the Supreme Court hasn't ruled yet- because it hasn't.

What I have pointed out that multiple judges have found the State laws to be unconstitutional- just as a judge at one time found Virginia's law against mixed race marriage unconstitutional.

The law was unconstitutional before the judge ruled it was- and afterwards the law became legally unenforceable.

Interracial marriage bans remained in effect until a court found them unconstitutional. IF they were 'obviously' unconstitutional- why then did the State of Virginia insist that the mixed race marriage ban was constitutional?

This is why people go to court- to ask the court to remedy what they believe is a violation of their constitutional rights.

Your side is full of crap and has a long tradition of discrimination and bullying towards homosexuals, and you claim foul when the courts are used against you, but have no problem using the courts to claim protection yourself.

Hypocrites and bigots.

 

[g5000]

Does Where_r_my_keys still think "different" and "evil" are synonymous?

 

[g5000]

Fact: People who eat the recommended daily amount of vegetables are abnormal. Most people don't. That makes non-daily-veggie-eaters "normal", and those who eat the right amount every day "abnormal."

We should ban those carrot loving freaks from getting married!

 

[g5000]

Less than one percent of Americans are worth more than $8.4 million.

We should ban those abnormal freaks from getting married!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Sub-species? Do you mean other species?

I mean subordinate, which is to say inferior... or those species designed for use by the superior species. .

What the hell is a superior species?

A superior species is a species which possess attributes which provide for it to exist at level superior to a subordinate ... .

For instance, cognitive capabilities which provide for it to consider greater levels of information, provide for superior status; evidenced in the example of the human being and the Ideological Leftist.

The human being possesses the means to reason objectivity, while the inferior Ideological Leftist, does not; starkly limiting the means of the Leftist to sustain itself within a free environment.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Less than one percent of Americans are worth more than $8.4 million.

We should ban those abnormal freaks from getting married!

 

[AVG-JOE]

When people talk about redefining marriage, that's exactly what they mean. They want to define it as something other than what it was. So you can define marriage as between gays, or multiple partners, or any other things you like. It has been redefined to mean something else.

You can define 'marriage' however you want. Nobody cares.

What people care about is treating some people differently in the eyes of the law. Either remove the economic advantages given to married couples or grant those benefits to ALL married couples.

This is NOT rocket science!

Apparently it is rocket science. If all men and all women are treated the same, that's called equality. Any eligible man can marry any eligible woman. Changing it to include men with men and women with women is a special consideration and has zip to do with equality. You can't be more equal if it's already equal.

Gays want to pretend they are a special class of citizens but deny they are after any special consideration.

Interesting... especially in light of your sig line.

Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives. -Ronald Reagan

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Does Where_r_my_keys still think "different" and "evil" are synonymous?

There is nothing in the record that indicates he has... so, the answer would be 'No'.

 

[AVG-JOE]

When people talk about redefining marriage, that's exactly what they mean. They want to define it as something other than what it was. So you can define marriage as between gays, or multiple partners, or any other things you like. It has been redefined to mean something else.

You can define 'marriage' however you want. Nobody cares.

What people care about is treating some people differently in the eyes of the law. Either remove the economic advantages given to married couples or grant those benefits to ALL married couples.

This is NOT rocket science!

NO ONE was being treated differently. This "discrimination" was not happening.

Mark

If there was / is no discrimination happening, explain the brew-ha ha.

​

 

[Conservative65]

1. It's not the findings but what you want to make them say. Just look at the global warming issue. Two distinct sides on the same thing based on research both claim to be true.

This isn't Global Warming we're talking about. So far you have not refuted any of these studies.

2. How many have sued claiming they were fired because they were gay. It's the automatica assumption.

Can't you answer a question or provide examples? We aren't talking about people being fired because they were gay (people have sued about being fired because they were black, Christian, female, disabled - so what?). You said sued becaues people said something about them.

3. It shows you use something that happens once in how many thousands of cases as if it is a regular occurrence.

4. Tebow actually accomplished something before he Tebowed on the field. The media made Michael Sam a hero without ever having stepped foot on an NFL field.

Michael Sam had a good Highschool career, good enough to get multiple scholarships. So he accomplished something. But beyond that - he and Tebow are the same because the media made them heros NOT because of accomplishment. Do you get it?

5. Difference is free exercise of religion is written in the Constitution where the word marriage doesn't. Different even if you are too ******* stupid to realize it.

Equal Protection IS.

By the way, those same ones you say argue equality are the first ones to deny equality to certain types of marriages they oppose. Just suggest polygamy and theyll find all sorts of personal reasons for situations that don't affect them to say it shouldn't happen. To them I respond, if you don't want to marry more than one person don't.

You sure about that?

I don't care one way or the other about polygamy. If consenting adults choose that - so be it. It's their right.

1. It is about science and how different conlcusions can come from the same research.

People Are Not Born Gay Affirms Royal College of Psychiatrists

2. Gay West New York cop claims in lawsuit he was harassed intimidated by police director NJ.com

4. Tebow's action of praying got media attention. However, had he not scored a toughdown, etc. there would have been no attention because he wouldn't have Tebowed. For Sam, the attention came before ever stepping foot on an NFL field. Tebow also had high school accomplishments. You don't start at Florida and win the Heisman if you don't.

5. Define equal. It doens't mean you get to do exactly the same things I do or vice versa.

Just ask them about polygamy or a sibling marriage. They are quicker to say no to it coming up with why equality should be denied than they are about bending over and taking one in the ass for the homos.

 

[Conservative65]

That's the motivation behind their entire agenda. If you don't do what I want, I ***** and whine and make someone force it on society.

Don't worry, when I'm gone, my kids will continue to fight against you ****** lovers.

Oh I am sure you will try to pass your bigotry on.

But just like racial bigotry- it is on its way out- the first step is to make it socially unacceptable to be a bigot like yourself.

I'm sure you'll pass on that an abnormal lifestyle is the same as one that actually is normal.

I'm sure you'll pass one that anyone not agreeing with your beliefs is a bigot.

Oh I pass on that anyone who judges people by who they are- rather than by their actions and speech- is a bigot.

Then you should pass that along to all those who hate Christians because they are Christians.

I find that absolutely equally offensive.

Bigots who hate Christians just because they are Christians are just as much bigots as those who hate homosexuals because they think that they are f*ggots.

And yes- I say that regularly.

Strange that pro same sex marriage folks says it's OK to do that to Christians because pointing out bigotry isn't bigotry.

 

[hipeter924]

When people talk about redefining marriage, that's exactly what they mean. They want to define it as something other than what it was. So you can define marriage as between gays, or multiple partners, or any other things you like. It has been redefined to mean something else.

You can define 'marriage' however you want. Nobody cares.

What people care about is treating some people differently in the eyes of the law. Either remove the economic advantages given to married couples or grant those benefits to ALL married couples.

This is NOT rocket science!

Apparently it is rocket science. If all men and all women are treated the same, that's called equality. Any eligible man can marry any eligible woman. Changing it to include men with men and women with women is a special consideration and has zip to do with equality. You can't be more equal if it's already equal.

Gays want to pretend they are a special class of citizens but deny they are after any special consideration.

Interesting... especially in light of your sig line.

Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives. -Ronald Reagan

Well, Reagan was a hypocrite abroad though:
Efra n R os Montt - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Given Ríos Montt's staunch anticommunism and ties to the United States, the Reagan administration continued to support the general and his regime, paying a visit to Guatemala City in December 1982.[22] During a meeting with Ríos Montt on December 4, Reagan declared: "President Ríos Montt is a man of great personal integrity and commitment. ... I know he wants to improve the quality of life for all Guatemalans and to promote social justice."[23][24]

President Ronald Reagan claimed Guatemala's human rights conditions were improving and used this to justify several major shipments of military hardware to Ríos Montt; $4 million in helicopter spare parts and $6.3 million in additional military supplies in 1982 and 1983 respectively. The decision was taken in spite of records concerning human rights violations, by-passing the approval from Congress.[25][26][27][28][29] Meanwhile, a then-secret 1983 CIA cable noted a rise in "suspect right-wing violence" and an increasing number of bodies "appearing in ditches and gullies."[30] In turn, Guatemala was eager to resurrect the Central American Defense Council, defunct since 1969, to join forces with the right-wing governments of El Salvador and Honduras in retaliations against the leftist Sandinista government of Nicaragua.

As long as they were the 'right people' he believed that government shouldn't run their lives.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Oh I am sure you will try to pass your bigotry on.

But just like racial bigotry- it is on its way out- the first step is to make it socially unacceptable to be a bigot like yourself.

I'm sure you'll pass on that an abnormal lifestyle is the same as one that actually is normal.

I'm sure you'll pass one that anyone not agreeing with your beliefs is a bigot.

Oh I pass on that anyone who judges people by who they are- rather than by their actions and speech- is a bigot.

Then you should pass that along to all those who hate Christians because they are Christians.

I find that absolutely equally offensive.

Bigots who hate Christians just because they are Christians are just as much bigots as those who hate homosexuals because they think that they are f*ggots.

And yes- I say that regularly.

Strange that pro same sex marriage folks says it's OK to do that to Christians because pointing out bigotry isn't bigotry.

Such is the nature of the bigot.

Nature requires that the first person to project bigotry on another, is demonstrating the defining trait of a bigot.

 

[Conservative65]

Marriage is a function of nature, not law... it of course has a legal component, but nature designed it and it is nature that requires that such is the joining of one man and one woman, and it is nature that precludes any two people of the same gender who play house, from every being married.

Nope. Nature has *******. We made up marriage. Its a legal arrangement that's useful in organization in a civilization. But its not necessary for reproduction. Else everything that reproduces would have marriage.

And only we do. We made it up, so it can be whatever we want it to be.

The Law may provide it to be LEGAL that a person can flap their arms and fly... it is nature that defines such flight as 'falling' as well as the punishment for such, over toward the sudden stop right at the end there.

Marriage isn't gravity. Marriage is a social construct that we invented. It can encompass one man and one woman. Or one man and many women. Or one man and one man. Or one woman and one woman.

Its flexible like that. And in 36 of 50 States in our country, marriage includes same sex unions.

How many of them were made legal by the legislative process vs. a pro *** activist judge?

 

[MaryL]

The Homosexual Dilemma exists only in the minds of those who dislike marriage equality, much like folks who disliked interracial marriage.

Tough for them back then and tough for you today because we are never going back.

Get over it and don't marry someone you don't love is the best advice you can get.

This is a totally false argument. Like if Christians say that if YOU don't accept Creationism , you are anti-truth...it may be more in the mind of gays, and the preposterous gay agenda steamroller propaganda brainwashing they are trying to perpetrate. Sorry, I am not buying it. In years to come, homosexuality will be proven to be just a sexual dysfunction, not a class of people in need of protection. I think it's going to make the supreme court reevaluate civil justice issues after the way homos have hoodwinked American culture.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

When people talk about redefining marriage, that's exactly what they mean. They want to define it as something other than what it was. So you can define marriage as between gays, or multiple partners, or any other things you like. It has been redefined to mean something else.

You can define 'marriage' however you want. Nobody cares.

What people care about is treating some people differently in the eyes of the law. Either remove the economic advantages given to married couples or grant those benefits to ALL married couples.

This is NOT rocket science!

Apparently it is rocket science. If all men and all women are treated the same, that's called equality. Any eligible man can marry any eligible woman. Changing it to include men with men and women with women is a special consideration and has zip to do with equality. You can't be more equal if it's already equal.

Gays want to pretend they are a special class of citizens but deny they are after any special consideration.

Interesting... especially in light of your sig line.

Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives. -Ronald Reagan

Well, Reagan was a hypocrite abroad though:
Efra n R os Montt - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Given Ríos Montt's staunch anticommunism and ties to the United States, the Reagan administration continued to support the general and his regime, paying a visit to Guatemala City in December 1982.[22] During a meeting with Ríos Montt on December 4, Reagan declared: "President Ríos Montt is a man of great personal integrity and commitment. ... I know he wants to improve the quality of life for all Guatemalans and to promote social justice."[23][24]

President Ronald Reagan claimed Guatemala's human rights conditions were improving and used this to justify several major shipments of military hardware to Ríos Montt; $4 million in helicopter spare parts and $6.3 million in additional military supplies in 1982 and 1983 respectively. The decision was taken in spite of records concerning human rights violations, by-passing the approval from Congress.[25][26][27][28][29] Meanwhile, a then-secret 1983 CIA cable noted a rise in "suspect right-wing violence" and an increasing number of bodies "appearing in ditches and gullies."[30] In turn, Guatemala was eager to resurrect the Central American Defense Council, defunct since 1969, to join forces with the right-wing governments of El Salvador and Honduras in retaliations against the leftist Sandinista government of Nicaragua.

As long as they were the 'right people' he believed that government shouldn't run their lives.

Being anti-communist usually requires one to bring the pain to communists.

Communists have a long history of mass-murder, OKA: Terrorism to help people find the inner communist... and just as long a history weeping and gnashing their tooth, when they find others presenting an effective defense, through the execution of a lethal offense against them.

We see this hypocrisy on a daily basis in their tooth gnashing hysterics regarding the sub-human Palestinians.

Which is why the Left is quickly becoming irrelevant in the US and why they presently have a majority in a tiny minority of State and local governments, along with the minority status in the US Federal Legislature.

But hey... such is the nature of evil. It's prone to gluttony, greed and over-estimating its power and influence.

 

[g5000]

Does Where_r_my_keys still think "different" and "evil" are synonymous?

There is nothing in the record that indicates he has... so, the answer would be 'No'.

Then why are you so hung up on gays being abnormal? You are obviously drawing a moral conclusion based on your obsession with their abnormality.

 

[Conservative65]

1. Who is doing the research?

Who like in what? Individual people? Scientific disciplines?
Here are some links to research publications:
Linkage between sexual orientation and chromosome Xq28 in males but not in females - Nature Genetics
PET and MRI show differences in cerebral asymmetry and functional connectivity between homo- and heterosexual subjects
Gay brains structured like those of the opposite sex - life - 16 June 2008 - New Scientist

Huh... yet their not of the opposite sex? So... that would tend toward evidence that the homosexual brain is disordered, thus is demonstrably abnormal... deviating from biological normality.

"Different" does not equal "disordered" or even "abnormal" since a certain amount of deviation is normal.

Similar in nature to the brain of the sociopath, the predeterminate value required for the psychotic, which also differs from the normal brain. And like those brains, there's not a SCINTILLA distinction, GENETICALLY.

You have a link or study showing that the brain of a homosexual is similar to the brain of a sociopath or psychotic? That's news to me pubes, but maybe you just made it up

Now research also shows that through training the brains observable patterns can be altered, thus where an individual male for example, were to be sexually stimulated by a male... in a loving and caring manner, in the earliest stages of postnatal development, that the cerebral function of the traditional male brain would therefore be trained to respond to sexual stimulation as would be expected by a female, who's natural tendency would be triggered by males.

SO... that doesn't really help ya much.

What else ya got?

Got a link that shows that and that the persons actual orientation changed as a result cause it sounds like you are talking about infantile pedophilia and I've not heard much research on that.

At the point a person is attracted to the same gender, it's abnormal.

 

[g5000]

People Are Not Born Gay Affirms Royal College of Psychiatrists

Why don't you link to the Royal College of Psychiatrists instead of an anti-gay site?