The Homosexual Dilemma

[hipeter924]

The social con far right wacks will not be allowed to make arbitrary permissible standards about who can marry who. Those days are over.

Once again the social con crazies make arguments ab absurdum about marriage equality as a slippery slope.

They are sore losers, and so get more desperate and paranoid about gays, even as the rest of America cares less and less about what two adults get up to in their bedroom, let alone who they marry: Gay Marriage Pew Research Center

2013
Against: 43 For: 50
2014
Against: 39 For: 54

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The social con far right wacks will not be allowed to make arbitrary permissible standards about who can marry who. Those days are over.

Once again the social con crazies make arguments ab absurdum about marriage equality as a slippery slope.

So you agree it's time to allow NAMBLA members to start loving little boys and marrying them, right? Or do you have a few "arbitrary permissible standards" of your own you think are more valid than others?

Damn, it's so fun to turn moral relativist arguments against them!

I hope that isn't the argument you are trying to make here. But.......as I noted earlier, you can't seem to distinquish between consent of law-abiding, tax-paying adults....and an adult sexually abusing a child.

Law abiding, tax paying adults? Can you dig your hole any deeper? Half the country doesn't pay taxes and many people don't obey the law...which has virtually NOTHING to do with this discussion. You're getting desperate now.

 

[Coyote]

Don't have to because the sillies above in the thread flatly state there isn't. It's their obligation to show by objective evidence. If there is not any such, then the problem is relative, and the far social con right has clearly shown they have no objective argument for denying marriage equality.

When their puffed up pretend intelligentsia pops up out of the box and spew their nonsense, it is time to pass coffee and donuts and enjoy the burlesque.

REDFISH: Show me the scientific evidence that hetero and homo sexuality are not genetically determined

JAKEMALARKEY: It's their obligation to show by objective evidence. If there is not any such ....

The human genome is complete and the Human Genome Project is over .... Most of the major science journals reported on the progress in the field of genetics, .... The one piece of information that never materialized from the Human Genome Project was the identification of the so-called gay gene. There is none, Homosexuality is not truly a genetic issue, but as Freud and Socarides theorized - it's a Mental disorder.

Science vs. the Gay Gene

Pathology of Homosexuality

I find it hard to take anything seriously from a site that considers evolution a myth

Here's some stuff for thought:
How our genes could make us gay or straight - The Washington Post
A gay Gene - Is Homosexuality Inherited Assault On Gay America FRONTLINE PBS

Most scientists seem to think that homosexuality is a combination of genetics (likely not one gene), enviroment, and biology. It's hard to untangle causes but they're pretty much in agreement that it's hard-wired, not a mental disorder.

I find it hard to take anything seriously from a site that considers evolution a myth

Coyote - WTF are you babbling about ? Stop howling at the moon and spit it out little fella

- The True.Origin Archive -

Okay - so what has that to do with what I posted ?

I don't always you agree with what you post - in fact some of your stuff is off the wall - does that mean you lose ALL credibility. The article YOU linked to is not the article I linked to - if you can't refute the content and they are presenting valid evidence who cares what their other opinions are ?

And just for the record - I'm not a Christian and have written against Christianity on an independent blog I maintain - so don't even try the Bible thumper argument .

What has to do with what you posted is the articles I linked to after the comment. I haven't called you a bible thumper - but sources matter and when you choose a bad one, it can come back to smack you.

Most of what that article is saying is that there is no "gay gene" -- but that is not what the scientists are claiming. What studies have been done seem to show some genetic influence on sexual orientation and genetic influences are not always simple dominant/recessive modes of inheritance. For example some traits may only show up or become activiated under certain environmental influences (piglets show one phenotype when they are kept in domestic conditions, but if they become feral, other genes switch on and change the phenotype quite drastically).

Your source is picking apart studies largely by focusing on searching for "a gay gene". It also takes a critical look at "ex-gay" type therapies. The conclusion it draws from those are that some - a very tiny proportion - of self selected gays can change their orientation for at least 5 years and it attempts to use that to imply it's malleable.

Robert Spitzer conducted a study on 200 self-selected individuals (143 males, 57 females) in an effort to see if participants could change their sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual (2003, 32:403-417). He reported some minimal change from homosexual to heterosexual orientation that lasted at least five years (p. 403). Spitzer observed:​

The majority of participants gave reports of change from a predominantly or exclusively homosexual orientation before therapy to a predominantly or exclusively heterosexual orientation in the past year (p. 403).​

In summarizing his findings, Spitzer declared: “Thus, there is evidence that change in sexual orientation following some form of reparative therapy does occur in some gay men and lesbians.” He thus concluded: “This study provides evidence that some gay men and lesbians are able to also change the core features of sexual orientation” (p. 415). ​

However, that study has been widely politicized and misrepresented:

Spitzer s Apology Changes Ex-Gay Debate NPR

Dr. Robert Spitzer's research was widely cited by those who conduct conversion therapy as proof that it worked. Dr. Spitzer says his findings were misinterpreted, and apologized. The American Psychological Association has said there is no evidence that it's possible to change sexual orientation.​

Can some gay people change their orientation? Apparently. But it's also likely that homosexuality overlaps with bisexuality and people who self-identify as homosexual are in reality bisexual.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The social con far right wacks will not be allowed to make arbitrary permissible standards about who can marry who. Those days are over.

Once again the social con crazies make arguments ab absurdum about marriage equality as a slippery slope.

They are sore losers, and so get more desperate and paranoid about gays, even as the rest of America cares less and less about what two adults get up to in their bedroom, let alone who they marry: Gay Marriage Pew Research Center

2013
Against: 43 For: 50
2014
Against: 39 For: 54

Amazing how that never translated into states changing their laws in favor of gay marriage. In fact, even very blue states have kept marriage as one man and one woman. A rational person would conclude that polls don't tell the whole story. A rational person, that is.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The social con far right wacks will not be allowed to make arbitrary permissible standards about who can marry who. Those days are over.

Once again the social con crazies make arguments ab absurdum about marriage equality as a slippery slope.

So you agree it's time to allow NAMBLA members to start loving little boys and marrying them, right? Or do you have a few "arbitrary permissible standards" of your own you think are more valid than others?

Damn, it's so fun to turn moral relativist arguments against them!

I agree your thinking is analogous to NAMBLA in being weird and out there.

For instance, the claim about 12 year olds above, only those mentally incapable do not understand the above applies to horny heterosexual men as well as anybody else.

Age of consent is a red herring argument, nothing more.

Talk about NAMBLA or horny polygamous patriarchs are arguments absurdum.

You make as much sense (none) as does NAMBLA, St. Mike.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And the foolish appeal absurdum above to Jacksonin democracy means nothing in law. SCOTUS says you are wrong. Public opinion has turned against you. We are not going back to the bad old days.

 

[bodecea]

The social con far right wacks will not be allowed to make arbitrary permissible standards about who can marry who. Those days are over.

Once again the social con crazies make arguments ab absurdum about marriage equality as a slippery slope.

So you agree it's time to allow NAMBLA members to start loving little boys and marrying them, right? Or do you have a few "arbitrary permissible standards" of your own you think are more valid than others?

Damn, it's so fun to turn moral relativist arguments against them!

I hope that isn't the argument you are trying to make here. But.......as I noted earlier, you can't seem to distinquish between consent of law-abiding, tax-paying adults....and an adult sexually abusing a child.

Law abiding, tax paying adults? Can you dig your hole any deeper? Half the country doesn't pay taxes and many people don't obey the law...which has virtually NOTHING to do with this discussion. You're getting desperate now.

Homosexual Americans are law-abiding, tax-paying citizens. Even tho you'd like to, you cannot deny us equal rights.

And are you going to say for sure that half the country doesn't pay taxes? You gonna stand by that ridiculous statement?

 

[hipeter924]

The social con far right wacks will not be allowed to make arbitrary permissible standards about who can marry who. Those days are over.

Once again the social con crazies make arguments ab absurdum about marriage equality as a slippery slope.

They are sore losers, and so get more desperate and paranoid about gays, even as the rest of America cares less and less about what two adults get up to in their bedroom, let alone who they marry: Gay Marriage Pew Research Center

2013
Against: 43 For: 50
2014
Against: 39 For: 54

Amazing how that never translated into states changing their laws in favor of gay marriage. In fact, even very blue states have kept marriage as one man and one woman. A rational person would conclude that polls don't tell the whole story. A rational person, that is.

How does it feel being the 39 percent, or should I say 35% by the end of this year?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The social con far right wacks will not be allowed to make arbitrary permissible standards about who can marry who. Those days are over.

Once again the social con crazies make arguments ab absurdum about marriage equality as a slippery slope.

So you agree it's time to allow NAMBLA members to start loving little boys and marrying them, right? Or do you have a few "arbitrary permissible standards" of your own you think are more valid than others?

Damn, it's so fun to turn moral relativist arguments against them!

I agree your thinking is analogous to NAMBLA in being weird and out there.

For instance, the claim about 12 year olds above, only those mentally incapable do not understand the above applies to horny heterosexual men as well as anybody else.

Age of consent is a red herring argument, nothing more.

Talk about NAMBLA or horny polygamous patriarchs are arguments absurdum.

You make as much sense (none) as does NAMBLA, St. Mike.

Funny, because the comparison between NAMBLA and you has much more merit. After all, it will be YOUR gay marriage legal arguments they will use to push their agenda through the courts. They might even win a few key court battles. And they have YOU to thank for it.

 

[bodecea]

The social con far right wacks will not be allowed to make arbitrary permissible standards about who can marry who. Those days are over.

Once again the social con crazies make arguments ab absurdum about marriage equality as a slippery slope.

So you agree it's time to allow NAMBLA members to start loving little boys and marrying them, right? Or do you have a few "arbitrary permissible standards" of your own you think are more valid than others?

Damn, it's so fun to turn moral relativist arguments against them!

I agree your thinking is analogous to NAMBLA in being weird and out there.

For instance, the claim about 12 year olds above, only those mentally incapable do not understand the above applies to horny heterosexual men as well as anybody else.

Age of consent is a red herring argument, nothing more.

Talk about NAMBLA or horny polygamous patriarchs are arguments absurdum.

You make as much sense (none) as does NAMBLA, St. Mike.

Funny, because the comparison between NAMBLA and you has much more merit. After all, it will be YOUR gay marriage legal arguments they will use to push their agenda through the courts. They might even win a few key court battles. And they have YOU to thank for it.

Explain to us how allowing consenting adults marry "pushes" the agenda to sexually abuse children? How do you explain that legally?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The social con far right wacks will not be allowed to make arbitrary permissible standards about who can marry who. Those days are over.

Once again the social con crazies make arguments ab absurdum about marriage equality as a slippery slope.

So you agree it's time to allow NAMBLA members to start loving little boys and marrying them, right? Or do you have a few "arbitrary permissible standards" of your own you think are more valid than others?

Damn, it's so fun to turn moral relativist arguments against them!

I hope that isn't the argument you are trying to make here. But.......as I noted earlier, you can't seem to distinquish between consent of law-abiding, tax-paying adults....and an adult sexually abusing a child.

Law abiding, tax paying adults? Can you dig your hole any deeper? Half the country doesn't pay taxes and many people don't obey the law...which has virtually NOTHING to do with this discussion. You're getting desperate now.

Homosexual Americans are law-abiding, tax-paying citizens. Even tho you'd like to, you cannot deny us equal rights.

And are you going to say for sure that half the country doesn't pay taxes? You gonna stand by that ridiculous statement?

47% to be exact. You can thank Bush for that, increasing the child tax credit. Hell, I'm one of them with my own adorable little tax credits (ages 11, 6, 2, and 1). I don't pay a DIME in federal taxes and very little in state taxes. Property taxes....well that's folded into the mortgage so I don't even see it.

 

[hipeter924]

The social con far right wacks will not be allowed to make arbitrary permissible standards about who can marry who. Those days are over.

Once again the social con crazies make arguments ab absurdum about marriage equality as a slippery slope.

So you agree it's time to allow NAMBLA members to start loving little boys and marrying them, right? Or do you have a few "arbitrary permissible standards" of your own you think are more valid than others?

Damn, it's so fun to turn moral relativist arguments against them!

I hope that isn't the argument you are trying to make here. But.......as I noted earlier, you can't seem to distinquish between consent of law-abiding, tax-paying adults....and an adult sexually abusing a child.

Law abiding, tax paying adults? Can you dig your hole any deeper? Half the country doesn't pay taxes and many people don't obey the law...which has virtually NOTHING to do with this discussion. You're getting desperate now.

Homosexual Americans are law-abiding, tax-paying citizens. Even tho you'd like to, you cannot deny us equal rights.

And are you going to say for sure that half the country doesn't pay taxes? You gonna stand by that ridiculous statement?

He believes gay people are equivalent to pedobears with kiddies in the basement, so pretty sure ridiculous statements are the least of his troubles.

 

[bodecea]

The social con far right wacks will not be allowed to make arbitrary permissible standards about who can marry who. Those days are over.

Once again the social con crazies make arguments ab absurdum about marriage equality as a slippery slope.

So you agree it's time to allow NAMBLA members to start loving little boys and marrying them, right? Or do you have a few "arbitrary permissible standards" of your own you think are more valid than others?

Damn, it's so fun to turn moral relativist arguments against them!

I hope that isn't the argument you are trying to make here. But.......as I noted earlier, you can't seem to distinquish between consent of law-abiding, tax-paying adults....and an adult sexually abusing a child.

Law abiding, tax paying adults? Can you dig your hole any deeper? Half the country doesn't pay taxes and many people don't obey the law...which has virtually NOTHING to do with this discussion. You're getting desperate now.

Homosexual Americans are law-abiding, tax-paying citizens. Even tho you'd like to, you cannot deny us equal rights.

And are you going to say for sure that half the country doesn't pay taxes? You gonna stand by that ridiculous statement?

47% to be exact. You can thank Bush for that, increasing the child tax credit. Hell, I'm one of them with my own adorable little tax credits (ages 11, 6, 2, and 1). I don't pay a DIME in federal taxes and very little in state taxes. Property taxes....well that's folded into the mortgage so I don't even see it.

So...47% of our citizens buy no gas, register no cars, buy no products at any stores?

 

[bodecea]

The social con far right wacks will not be allowed to make arbitrary permissible standards about who can marry who. Those days are over.

Once again the social con crazies make arguments ab absurdum about marriage equality as a slippery slope.

So you agree it's time to allow NAMBLA members to start loving little boys and marrying them, right? Or do you have a few "arbitrary permissible standards" of your own you think are more valid than others?

Damn, it's so fun to turn moral relativist arguments against them!

I hope that isn't the argument you are trying to make here. But.......as I noted earlier, you can't seem to distinquish between consent of law-abiding, tax-paying adults....and an adult sexually abusing a child.

Law abiding, tax paying adults? Can you dig your hole any deeper? Half the country doesn't pay taxes and many people don't obey the law...which has virtually NOTHING to do with this discussion. You're getting desperate now.

Homosexual Americans are law-abiding, tax-paying citizens. Even tho you'd like to, you cannot deny us equal rights.

And are you going to say for sure that half the country doesn't pay taxes? You gonna stand by that ridiculous statement?

He believes gay people are equivalent to pedobears with kiddies in the basement, so pretty sure ridiculous statements are the least of his troubles.

I'm a little concerned about his self-proclaimed area of expertise.....and his inability to distinguish between adults and children.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Amazing how that never translated into states changing their laws in favor of gay marriage. In fact, even very blue states have kept marriage as one man and one woman.

Well that's false.

In the November 2012 elections 4 ballot initiatives appeared in the General Election: Maine, Washington, Maryland, and Minnesota. In all 4 cases the vote was won by the pro-marriage equality side. Maine, Washington, and Maryland directly authorizing SSCM. Minnesota ending up in a defeat of an anti-gay ban that resulted in SSCM being passed almost immediately by the legislature.

So the last 4 times the SSCM appeared on a General Election ballot, SSCM won.


>>>>

 

[bodecea]

Amazing how that never translated into states changing their laws in favor of gay marriage. In fact, even very blue states have kept marriage as one man and one woman.

Well that's false.

In the November 2012 elections 4 ballot initiatives appeared in the General Election: Maine, Washington, Maryland, and Minnesota. In all 4 cases the vote was won by the pro-marriage equality side. Maine, Washington, and Maryland directly authorizing SSCM. Minnesota ending up in a defeat of an anti-gay ban that resulted in SSCM being passed almost immediately by the legislature.

So the last 4 times the SSCM appeared on a General Election ballot, SSCM won.


>>>>

Do not expect saintmichael to acknowledge the truth in what you just posted.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

So you agree it's time to allow NAMBLA members to start loving little boys and marrying them, right? Or do you have a few "arbitrary permissible standards" of your own you think are more valid than others?

Damn, it's so fun to turn moral relativist arguments against them!

I hope that isn't the argument you are trying to make here. But.......as I noted earlier, you can't seem to distinquish between consent of law-abiding, tax-paying adults....and an adult sexually abusing a child.

Law abiding, tax paying adults? Can you dig your hole any deeper? Half the country doesn't pay taxes and many people don't obey the law...which has virtually NOTHING to do with this discussion. You're getting desperate now.

Homosexual Americans are law-abiding, tax-paying citizens. Even tho you'd like to, you cannot deny us equal rights.

And are you going to say for sure that half the country doesn't pay taxes? You gonna stand by that ridiculous statement?

47% to be exact. You can thank Bush for that, increasing the child tax credit. Hell, I'm one of them with my own adorable little tax credits (ages 11, 6, 2, and 1). I don't pay a DIME in federal taxes and very little in state taxes. Property taxes....well that's folded into the mortgage so I don't even see it.

So...47% of our citizens buy no gas, register no cars, buy no products at any stores?

You do know that state taxes and federal taxes are different, right?

No, you don't? I can explain it to you if you need it.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Amazing how that never translated into states changing their laws in favor of gay marriage. In fact, even very blue states have kept marriage as one man and one woman.

Well that's false.

In the November 2012 elections 4 ballot initiatives appeared in the General Election: Maine, Washington, Maryland, and Minnesota. In all 4 cases the vote was won by the pro-marriage equality side. Maine, Washington, and Maryland directly authorizing SSCM. Minnesota ending up in a defeat of an anti-gay ban that resulted in SSCM being passed almost immediately by the legislature.

So the last 4 times the SSCM appeared on a General Election ballot, SSCM won.


>>>>

Yet California passed a law banning same sex marriage and when that was overturned by a state court they passed another law amending the state constitution. That too was overturned by a federal court. It seems that you people know you can't win hearts and minds so you need black robed activists to cudgel the American people with your sick agenda.

 

[hipeter924]

I'm a little concerned about his self-proclaimed area of expertise.....and his inability to distinguish between adults and children.

If any of his children turn out to be bisexual or are attracted to the same sex, I sure would feel sorry for them. He is probably the type that would send his kids off to gay conversion therapy, or not allow 'fags' to play with his kids out the irrational fear that they could be 'turned gay'.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I'm a little concerned about his self-proclaimed area of expertise.....and his inability to distinguish between adults and children.

If any of his children turn out to be bisexual or are attracted to the same sex, I sure would feel sorry for them. He is probably the type that would send his kids off to gay conversion therapy, or not allow 'fags' to play with his kids out the irrational fear that they could be 'turned gay'.

I'm a little concerned you're sailing the shoals of a USMB rules violation. Since warning you repeatedly is against the rules too, this will serve as the first and final warning. Be careful what you say. We can discuss each other's political positions, but if it gets personal then I will start reporting posts.