does it strike anyone else how many gay issues there are?
just look at this table
we long ago decided to make this type of sexual deviance legal, letting people do whatever weird crap they want to do behind closed doors
and yet we have to go round and round discussing an ever increasing numbers of gripes they have and how they want the government to give them special rights and protections
it's like a form of exhibitionism where they want the world to focus on the sexuality over and over
Bad anonymous said "this is the problem with tolerating homosexuality
you never hear the end of it".
Punctuation and paragraphs bad anonymous - use them. You're not in the third grade anymore (or are you?).
You'll never hear the end of it while LGBTs are denied equal rights, but once we achieve those rights everyone moves on and there is precious little discussion on it - see Canada bad anonymous, no one talks about LGBT issues here anymore.
all the liberal yapping about how gays are "bullied" has now led to the formation of violent gay gangs
I think this is how the Mafia got started:
"Whenever there’s trouble around the Chinatown and Gallery Place Metro stations in the District, the finger of blame often points to a most unusual group of suspects: a black gay gang called Check It.
Depending on whom you talk to, they’re just a bunch of mischievous gender benders and drama queens, vulnerable gay youths seeking safety in numbers. Or, they’re one of the largest, more aggressive gangs in the city.
“I just got tired of people beating on me and calling me faggie,” Tayron Bennett, 21, told me recently. He’d helped to organize Check It while a student at Hine Junior High School. Other gay youths from his Trinidad neighborhood in Northeast soon joined, followed by gay youths from throughout the city.
D.C. police estimate that Check It has a core membership of about 20 and counts between 50 and 100 others as “associates.”
“At first, I tried fighting bullies one-on-one, but they don’t fight fair; they fight two and three on one,” Bennett said. So the youths got together and “started carrying mace, knives, brass knuckles and stun guns, and if somebody messed with one of us then all of us would gang up on them.”
Bennett had just been released from the D.C. jail when we spoke. He’d been arrested and charged with assault after a melee near Gallery Place earlier this year. But the charges were dropped the day he was scheduled to appear in court. He’d also gotten into a fight in jail and came out with a fresh scar on his scalp to show for it.
At Hine, Bennett had been unsure of his sexual identity and was hurt by schoolmates who said he acted gay. When a teacher also said he acted gay, Bennett went into a rage and hit the teacher with the buckle of his belt. He was arrested and expelled from school. He never went back. And he vowed never to run from a bully. No tears. No fears. If attacked on the streets, he wouldn’t even call the police. He’d just find a way to get his revenge."
"A report from the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the Environmental Protection Agency reveals that the scientific basis, on which the administration’s endangerment finding for greenhouse gases hinged, violated the EPA’s own peer review procedure.
In a report released Wednesday the inspector general found that the EPA failed to follow the Data Quality Act and its own peer review process when it issued the determination that greenhouse gases cause harm to “pubic health and welfare.”
“I appreciate the inspector general conducting a thorough investigation into the Obama-EPA’s handling of the endangerment finding for greenhouse gases,” Senator Daniel Inhofe said. “This report confirms that the endangerment finding, the very foundation of President Obama’s job-destroying regulatory agenda, was rushed, biased, and flawed. It calls the scientific integrity of EPA’s decision-making process into question and undermines the credibility of the endangerment finding.”"
following East Anglia, IPCC, the recent findings of CERN about the effect of sloar activity on the climate, and now, this, we shouldn't hear any more complaints when Rick Perry accurately states that the case for anthropogenic global warming has not been strong enough to warrant massive economic dislocation
“we long ago decided to make this type of sexual deviance legal, letting people do whatever weird crap they want to do behind closed doors”
Effectively, sexual deviance was always legal for heterosexuals. It was just some homophobes in power long ago that decided they would only prosecute homosexuals for sodomy and other forms of sexual deviance. The heterosexuals got left alone to do whatever nasty things their minds could dream up; if they kept it out of public site, no one was the wiser. No one fought them for the right to get married, even though several religions have promoted heterosexual pedophilia.
“and yet we have to go round and round discussing an ever increasing numbers of gripes they have and how they want the government to give them special rights and protections”
Being included in the anti-discrimination laws is not a “special protection.” It is granted to all sorts of people, including lunatic fringe religious groups. When LGBT folks have the same job, housing, and public accommodation protections that religious zealots have, they won’t have reason to complain about that anymore. Until they do though, you can expect them to keep complaining. It’s just how things like that work.
“it's like a form of exhibitionism where they want the world to focus on the sexuality over and over”
Actually, it’s the homophobes that keep focusing on the sexuality – why couldn’t homosexuals in the military execute their first amendment right to free speech until just a few days ago? Not because they couldn’t pass the physical or intellectual tests required to enter the military, or their ability to perform the jobs required of them, it was because a bunch of homophobes in power with an obsession for gay sex and control decided their prejudices and fear trumped gay peoples’ constitutional rights.
“this is the problem with tolerating homosexuality you never hear the end of it this is how they are going to gum up the military”
Oh, now they’re just going to “gum up the military.” Whatever happened to thousands of soldiers leaving because of the open gays? Oh yeah, another fanatical, apocalyptic Christian prediction that was never, ever going to come true.
“why can't they just shut up and move on?”
Don’t worry Anon, Harold Camping has assured us that the world will end on October 21st, 2011. You won’t have to deal with this much longer. Have a nice vacation in Bermuda or something and enjoy the world’s final days.
"Effectively, sexual deviance was always legal for heterosexuals"
normal heterosexual practices are not deviant
activity and preferences in contradiction to the purposes of the Creator are deviant
examples would be things like tree hugging, shoe sucking, farm animal buggering, and same gender naked cuddling
"It was just some homophobes in power long ago that decided they would only prosecute homosexuals for sodomy and other forms of sexual deviance"
could you nail down that timing a little more precisley?
what you call "homophobery" was never exactly deviant, was it?
truth is, with modern advances, the consequences of homosexuality are not as severe as they were "long ago" so we can probably tolerate it if it kept discreet
the exhibitionism, however, is problemattic
"The heterosexuals got left alone to do whatever nasty things their minds could dream up; if they kept it out of public site, no one was the wiser"
you have a problem with that?
"No one fought them for the right to get married,"
no, because they define the institution of marriage
"even though several religions have promoted heterosexual pedophilia"
ages for marriage have varied over the ages
so what?
"Being included in the anti-discrimination laws is not a “special protection.” It is granted to all sorts of people, including lunatic fringe religious groups. When LGBT folks have the same job, housing, and public accommodation protections that religious zealots have, they won’t have reason to complain about that anymore."
employment and housing arrangements are private dealings and should remain so
no one should be forced to deal with anyone that find disagreeable in a free society
everyone is free to seek others, that don't find them disagreeable, to engage in these type of arrangement with them and, barring that, to change to accomodate others
life, cinco
live it
"Until they do though, you can expect them to keep complaining"
well, expect an eventual backlash
"It’s just how things like that work"
well, it's a strategy that's not going to work out well for homosexuals
"Actually, it’s the homophobes that keep focusing on the sexuality"
actually, it's not
"– why couldn’t homosexuals in the military execute their first amendment right to free speech until just a few days ago?"
it was compromise made in response to a provocation by homosexuals in the early 90s
now, homosexuals have not lived up to the agreement
it will be duly noted
"Not because they couldn’t pass the physical or intellectual tests required to enter the military, or their ability to perform the jobs required of them, it was because a bunch of homophobes in power with an obsession for gay sex and control decided their prejudices and fear trumped gay peoples’ constitutional rights"
you are mistaken that there is constitutional entitlement to serve in the military
"Oh, now they’re just going to “gum up the military.”"
no, they will have an effect on recruitment as well
"Whatever happened to thousands of soldiers leaving because of the open gays?"
can you say "Obama's stimulus program failed to produce the jobs that Obama promised"?
btw, Herman Cain, Tea Party favorite and a man with no political experience at all, is within the margin of error in polls pitting him against Obama, released today by Ramussen
why aren't Dems putting up an alternative in their primary?
Walmart has passed provisions in its employee non-discrimination policy to protect transgender employees.
Phillip Keene, a company spokeperson, said that the changes went into effect "several weeks ago" and will safeguard workers from discrimination and harassment based on both gender identity and gender expression.
Though Keene was quoted as saying, "We've had a strong anti-discrimination policy for a long time," the company has a history of butting heads with LGBT workers and equality organizations. In 2010 an employee claimed he was stripped of many of his responsibilities and forced to wear a yellow vest while in the store after he admitted he was gay to a supervisor.
In January of this year the Stonewall Democratic Club of New York City joined other anti-Walmart groups intent on keeping the big box retailer out of New York City. Specifically citing homophobia as its motivation, the group released a statement saying:
"Wal-Mart represents a culture of intolerance and insensitivity towards LGBT employees and issues that is unwelcome in New York. Just last year more than 100 Wal-Mart stores were found to be promoting a children’s book that suggested that gay people can overcome 'sin' and convert to heterosexuality with the help of counseling. Wal-Mart CEO Mike Duke signed a petition in his home state of Arkansas that was aimed at preventing adoption by Gay and Lesbian parents."
They also noted that Walmart received a 40 on the 2011 Human Rights Campaign Corporate Equality Index, which grades companies on LGBT issues (in comparison, AT&T, Ford, and Procter & Gamble received perfect scores of 100). WalmartWatch.org reported that the company received a 15 point deduction for "a large-scale official or public anti-LGBT blemish on their recent records, specifically by opposing a shareholder resolution to amend their non-discrimination policies to include gender identity."
Earlier this year the Google search page went rainbow in honor of Pride month (though some LGBT people felt the rainbow wasn't prominent enough)."
surprise, gays get recognized and it's still something for them to whine about
can they just shut up?
"But a new feature that allows users to learn the sexuality of celebrities based on a synthesizing of articles found by the search engine takes things to a new level.
Using Google's gaydar is easy. You just type "is [name of suspected celebrity here] gay (or bi or straight)?" into the search box and Google will its "best guess" based on all of the available information (in the form of relevant websites) and present its findings. While it seems to work for many straight and out celebrities, controversial celebrities who have been accused of hiding in the closet don't seem to be fair game for the company's A.I. gaydar."
remember when Obama lied in his election campaign and said he disapproved of gay marriage?
I think he just trying to get votes by being dishonest:
"WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama said he thinks the courts will decide "fairly soon" whether to end the Defense of Marriage Act, saying that he believes the courts will agree with him that the law is unconstitutional.
"The position that my administration has taken, I think, will have a significant influence on the court as it examines the constitutionality of this law," he said Wednesday at a roundtable with Latino news outlets. "Once that law is put down, addressing these bi-national issues would flow from that decision."
The president announced in February that his administration would no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which bans gay marriage at a federal level, because he believes the law is unconstitutional.
HuffPost Latino Voices asked Obama at the roundtable how his administration would address bi-national couples, gay and lesbian men and women who want to petition for legal status for their foreign-born partners. Under the Defense of Marriage Act, these men and women are barred from doing so, even if they are legally allowed to marry in their state."
"A Daily Caller investigation has found that in addition to the failed company Solyndra, at least four other solar panel manufacturing companies receiving in excess of $500 million in loan guarantees from the Obama administration employ executives or board members who have donated large sums of money to Democratic campaigns.
And as questions swirl around possible connections between political donations and these preferential financing arrangements, the Obama White House suddenly began deflecting questions on Wednesday to the Democratic National Committee.
Asked Wednesday to comment on the connection between large Democratic donors and Obama administration loan guarantees to the companies they represent, the White House responded with a single sentence: “We refer your question to the Democratic National Committee.”
Concerns about the long-term viability of Solyndra, first made public by The Daily Caller back in February, have now expanded to include the financial health of other loan-guarantee recipient firms as well.
These companies have suffered from declining stock prices despite their favored status in the White House. Yet as the end of the federal government’s fiscal year looms on Friday, a new series of loans could be finalized amounting to more than nine times what taxpayers have already lost on the failed company Solyndra.
“Who was visiting the White House during this period of time?” Texas GOP Rep. Joe Barton asked. Barton is a former chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. “Who were they talking to and what were they talking about? Are there more loans at risk of not being paid back? Are these good investments or political favors?”
“The American people just lost a half billion dollars and they deserve answers to these questions before more money is wasted. Until we know exactly what happened, I think we should slow down this loan program and take a closer look at each case.”
“It is becoming more clear with each revelation that warning signs were ignored in the Solyndra case,” Barton continued. “Yet in the next 48 hours — because of a deadline that can still be changed — the Department of Energy is going to hand out another $5 billion in loans.”
Companies like First Solar, SolarReserve, SunPower Corporation and Abengoa SA have already, collectively, received billions in loans through Obama administration stimulus programs to build solar power plants in the southwestern United States.
Yet each, with the exception of the privately held SolarReserve, has seen its stock price hammered at the same time it was lobbying the Obama administration and Congress for billions in loan guarantees."
"A study showing sexual orientation change is possible for homosexuals has been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
The October issue of the Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy contains a longitudinal study of Christians seeking help from ministries associated with Exodus International for their unwanted same-sex attractions. Of the 98 subjects, more than half were reported as successful; 23 percent reported a complete change in orientation after six years.
Dr. Stanton Jones, a psychologist at Wheaton College in Illinois and the study’s lead author, said the opportunity to study sexual orientation change was too intriguing to pass up.
“At the time, the American Psychological Association (APA) prominently on its web page said sexual orientation could not be changed,” he said. “Very few people were looking into it.”
In 2007, Jones and his colleague, Dr. Mark Yarhouse of Regent University, published their three-year findings of the group in a book (Ex-Gays? A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation, InterVarsity Press). It was rejected by peer-reviewed scientific journals for not following subjects long enough or tracking changes as they occurred — valid concerns the authors addressed in their latest work.
However, the APA also excoriated the authors for not using a laboratory model with a control group — and said in 2009 that the findings were “unpersuasive.”
That, said Jones, is not a valid concern.
“All methodologies have drawbacks,” he said. “The more rigorous you get, the further removed you get from real life. We followed more of a real-life model than a hyper-controlled experimental model. We think the results challenge the reigning mindset that change is impossible or is extraordinarily rare.
“It is a bit frustrating to me to see APA saying research shows it is impossible or rarely happens when in my mind, no such research exists,” he continued. “When anecdotes that people have changed are treated with cynicism, it’s fueled by the anecdotes of people who’ve had the opposite experience. To say (change is) impossible is an overstatement of the facts, in our opinion.”
Jones said the fact that the subjects were all Christians with strong convictions about moral behavior most likely played a pivotal role in helping the successful ones change their orientation.
“We were trying to address the basic question ‘Is change possible?’ The fact that anyone changed is what came out of this study,” he said."
Bad anonymous Jones and Stanton's study is a dishonest piece of bunk and here's why:
"Here’s how it turned out after 6 to 7 years of tracking participants:
98 The number of subjects when the study began: 72 men and 26 women.
37 The number of subjects who dropped out of the study and did not report their results. I don’t think we can count any of them as an ex-gay “win.”
12 The number who stopped trying to change, and embraced their gay identity.
18 The number who were reportedly chaste, “with substantive dis-identification with homosexual orientation.”
In other words, they’ve managed to stop having sex, and don’t think about getting same-sex down-and-dirty as much as they used to.
This isn’t a change in orientation, any more than a straight person is no longer straight because they’ve used prayer to become celibate and partially push some of their sexual feelings underground.
17 The number who apparently stayed with the study, but whose outcomes are not described in the summary. Presumably, they’re not clear ex-gay “wins” either.
14 The number who reported “successful ‘conversion’ to heterosexual orientation and functioning.”
That’s a meager 14% success rate.
Or is it? Let’s learn more about those 14 people.
First, it’s probably not 14. The study cautions us that the 14 conversions and 18 celibates represent “likely overly optimistic projections of anticipated success.”
In other words — less than 14 actual conversions.
But wait. Check out what “conversion” means:
Most of the individuals who reported that they were heterosexual at Time 3 did not report themselves to be without experience of homosexual arousal, and did not report heterosexual orientation to be unequivocal and uncomplicated.
You know what they call straight people who experience homosexual arousal, and whose orientation is at most equivocal? Bisexual. Most of the 14 heterosexual “conversions” seem to be bisexuals.
This leaves us with at most — at most — 6 individuals who went from gay to straight (as of now, at least; who knows where they’ll be in another 7 years).
And the authors aren’t willing to go even that far. Their single-sentence summary:
In short, the results do not prove that categorical change in sexual orientation is possible for everyone or anyone, but rather that meaningful shifts along a continuum that constitute real changes appear possible for some.
Wow. Out of 98 highly-motivated subjects, the authors found that a small, unspecified number can use prayer and counseling to shut down their sexual feelings or become a bit more bi. And possibly none who turned straight.
Frankly, I’m surprised they couldn’t find more. The authors claim their results:
…challenge the commonly expressed views of the mental health establishment that change of sexual orientation is impossible or very uncommon…
Actually, it looks more like the results confirm those views. If the antigay camp sees this as vindication and victory, they must be even more desperate than I thought.
Theo said "On the study,I can’t help but notice that the authors retreat to the same deliberately vague verbiage that Exodus employs, i.e., “change” is “possible”. That is intended to convey that a gay person has a reasonable chance of converting to straight. What it actually means is that after years of effort and religious conversion, a shift of any magnitude on the Kinsey scale might be the outcome for at least one human being on the planet.
It is also worth noting that these participants are an extremely motivated and very religious group. Not only are they pursuing conversion, but they have stuck with the effort for at least 7 years if not longer. I believe that they were still in the program at the time the study last reported in. They are dramatically unrepresentative of the general population or the gay population.
Whatever % actually converted greater than zero would have absolutely no bearing on expected results when such efforts are applied to the population of gays and lesbians. It would make as much sense to say that because 5% of applicants for the US Special Forces – drawn from volunteers from the very best of the 3 branches of the armed forces – actually make it, there is a 5% chance for any American to make it in.
I’d also note that this is all self-reported. No participant has any incentive to report failure and all have great incentives to report success. Reporting failure means undermining the program and discouraging gays from seeking healing in Christ, and so arguably is itself sinful. And reporting failure means disappointing the program’s leaders and shaming oneself with respect to other participants. And if this weren’t enough, both authors of the study to whom the data are provided are conservative Christians. This is not to say that the responses are skewed; it is only to note that all the incentives to misreport flow in one direction.".
Patrick said "NOM, as is their custom with things that for which they want plausible deniability in the public sphere but which they want to get out to their followers, posted the link and excerpt without independent comment. The excerpt, of course, avoided the cautions that the success numbers are presumed by the authors to be overly-optimistic, that 40% of the participants have dropped out, that the population was highly motivated and small, and that the authors have explicitly stated that the results do not mean that anyone — much less everyone — can change from gay to straight, or that any given individual can change at all.
It’s also worth noting that there are independent, fairly reliable means of determining physiological attraction — such as MRI scans while viewing selected images designed to stimulate attraction response. I have yet to hear of any ex-gay who is willing to use such means to prove a change in orientation. Why — if they are being honest about a change in orientation rather than simply a change in behavior — has no ex-gay submitted to such a test?".
Timothy said "Did NOM mention that one of the few "successes" came back later (after the research but before publishing) and said that he never was a success, but that he so wanted to be and to please them that he gave the answers that he did?".
Just as Theo said, there's no reason to believe any of the 6% of claimed successes were telling the truth.
As we can see when you look at Yarhouse and Jones study objectively and remove the dishonesty it is rife with once again we can see there is no evidence that anyone can change from gay to straight and in fact the reality of their study tends to prove that no one can change from gay to straight despite how desperately they may want to.
"Jones said the fact that the subjects were all Christians with strong convictions about moral behavior most likely played a pivotal role in helping the successful ones change their orientation."
Yeah, that's what they tell you. If you just pray enough, if you just believe enough, if your convictions about moral behavior are just strong enough, you too can become what you are not.
How many decades did Ted Haggard, another Christian with strong convictions, last in the closet before coming out as bisexual in earlier this year?
this event has flustered nasty Priya so much that she has to make eight (count 'em, folks) instant comments to obscure the FACT that a peer-reviewed study has determined that hoomosexual preference can change
you have to ask yourself:
why do hoomosexual advocate feel it is so vital to preserve the mistaken idea that this desire cannot be overcome?
can't they just say that maybe these preferences can change but argue from the perspective of liberatarianism?
it's because they don't just want liberty
they want an excuse to infringe on the liberty of others
LOL, its a hoot all right bad anonymous that you're too stupid to see the irony of your bitching about my 7 posts when you made the first 17 on this thread. That's what psychologists call projection, you accuse others of the the very thing you're most guilty of.
Its hilarious that after I've destroyed the false claims of Jones and Yarhouse with a detailed fact based analysis your pathetic response is a childish "No you didn't!".
Bad anonymous said "they want an excuse to infringe on the liberty of others".
Your liberty ends when it infringes on the liberty of LGBTs. You don't have a right to oppress us. Tell me bad anonymous, other than your erroneous belief that you've got a right to deny LGBTs their rights, just exactly what liberty of yours do you think we're infringing on? (imaginary liberties don't count, remember).
I'm not "bitching" about your, now, nine posts in the last hour
I'm just chuckling at how many comments you make, and how quickly, to one post
just seems that we've hit a sore point
this study is peer-reviewed so, unless you have some credential we're unaware of, your "destruction of the false claims of Jones and Yarhouse with a detailed fact based analysis" really is pointless
even if you had some expertise, based on the reasoning of the TTF community, it's worthless unless your comments are subjected to peer-review so how can we trust them?
face it, nasty Priya, the world now knows the truth
hoomosexuals are not helpless marionettes of biology any more than trans are porcelain dolls
they can successfully resist their urges and they eventually fade
LOL, bad anonymous, your willful stupidity is amazing. You make 15 of the first 17 posts and yet magically think the 8 I've made are excessive - shows your total disconnect with reality.
Its irrelevant that the journal is peer reviewed. Lots of pay for publish journals are peer reviewed and they print everything that is submitted to them. Peer review says nothing about quality and this journal has a low quality ranking.
The fact is that the "study" is rife with dishonesty, particularly in defining people who simply cease having sex as successful conversions from gay to straight even though they still have their same sex attractions - absolutely absurd. Take that away from Jones and Yarhouse's study and there goes most of their "successes". Another prominent example of their dishonesty is their calculation of their "50%" "success" rate. Not only did most of the people they included as "successes" not change their same sex attractions when they calculated the "success" rate they excluded 37 of the original 98 participants from the calculation who dropped out of the program. Its a safe bet none of them changed their attractions.
The remaining sample size of 61 is insignificant and only 6% of those claimed success and they reported they still had same sex attractions and did not, as Jones and Yarhouse said "report heterosexual orientation to be unequivocal and uncomplicated." (a definition of "heterosexuality" no rational person would use).
Given that these were a highly selected group not representative of the general gay population and that they were highly motivated to lie about success no honest scientist would claim anyone had changed from gay to heterosexual and that this journal was "peer reviewed" means nothing given the objective facts of the "study" carried out by biased researchers who oppose gayness, think its a sin and that all gays should change.
In fact the results of this "study" provide far more proof gays cannot change orientation than it provides proof that they can.
Bad anonymous, your hiding from my previous question is very telling. Tell us bad anonymous, other than your erroneous belief that you've got a right to deny LGBTs their rights, just exactly what liberty of yours do you think we're infringing on? (imaginary liberties don't count, remember).
Or do you just want to be honest for a change and admit your claim that "they want an excuse to infringe on the liberty of others". is just another one of your dishonest talking points?
"You make 15 of the first 17 posts and yet magically think the 8 I've made are excessive"
I never said you made too many posts
I just find it remarkable how flustered this topic made you
why, for example, do you write nine posts in one sitting?
why not combine them?
probably the same reason you deleted one
you're typing faster than you think because you're so flustered
oops! she fergot sumpin' she wanted to say
"Its irrelevant that the journal is peer reviewed. Lots of pay for publish journals are peer reviewed and they print everything that is submitted to them. Peer review says nothing about quality"
that's rich
can I quote you on that?
I made these same points many times and everyone here acted like I'd urinated on their favorite golden cow
peer review has been treated by TTFers like a sacred process, beyond questioning, responsible for all the advances we've made in civilization
now, it doesn't serve there bias so it must go
ha-ha!!
"The fact is that the "study" is rife with dishonesty, particularly in defining people who simply cease having sex as successful conversions from gay to straight even though they still have their same sex attractions"
if they had been dishonest, you wouldn't be discusssing it
obviously, if you knew about it, they were honest in their recounting of the results
I think your summary is not exactly correct though
"Its a safe bet none of them changed their attractions"
you're gambling now?
there's no reason to believe anything other than what was reported
you seem to think no one has recovered from homosexuality unless they never have a twinge of temptation
sin doesn't work that way
once you take a step into a certain type of sin, it causes some damage that never completely disappears this side of heaven, but can be minimized
if you want to call that bi, go ahead
but, remember, bi's have a choice, by definition
how is that a justification for infringing on the rights of others?
"why do hoomosexual [sic] advocate [sic] feel it is so vital to preserve the mistaken idea that this desire cannot be overcome?"
The question is why do homophobes feel it is so vital to preserve the mistaken idea that you can take a gay person and pray the gay away to create a straight person.
Why do you put all your faith in this single study but ignore all the other peer reviewed studies that have found attempts at sexual orientation change are harmful and fail most of the time?
This Yarmouth study found "23 percent reported a complete change in 6 years." Would you urge your daughter to marry a "completely changed" ex-gay who underwent the same treatments used in this Yarmouth study?
And if 23% made a complete change in orientation in 6 years, that means 77% did not. It seems to me you'd have to be pretty desperate to call a 77% failure rate "success."
"The question is why do homophobes feel it is so vital to preserve the mistaken idea that you can take a gay person and pray the gay away to create a straight person"
nobody thinks "you can pray the gay away"
they think with counseling and prayer a motivated person can overcome temptation and eventually replace it with normal desires
"Why do you put all your faith in this single study"
actually, I don't
"but ignore all the other peer reviewed studies that have found attempts at sexual orientation change are harmful"
actually, there are no peer reviewed studies showing any substantial harm from a general attempt to overcome deviant temptations
"This Yarmouth study found "23 percent reported a complete change in 6 years." Would you urge your daughter to marry a "completely changed" ex-gay who underwent the same treatments used in this Yarmouth study?"
are you saying bi's should only be allowed to marry homosexuals?
"And if 23% made a complete change in orientation in 6 years, that means 77% did not. It seems to me you'd have to be pretty desperate to call a 77% failure rate "success.""
not really
a treatment for cancer with that rate of success would be considered a smashing success
besides, it proves the claim of impossibility but lunatic fringers is wrong
it may also indicate that if you study the successes more closely, you can find out what works
take heart, TTFers
there is hope that a cure may be found for your condition yet
"Your liberty ends when it infringes on the liberty of LGBTs"
Wow Priya.
Just wow.
Disagree entirely. I have a right to teach my son whatever I want, including that homosexual behavior is unnatural. He found the thought of cutting off his member sufficiently abhorrent and crazy that I didn't have to do too much with that one. He thought I was kidding.
My rights to raise my children in my beliefs is something the vast majority of Americans agree with. I can and do teach them according to my beliefs. I am not the one trying to limit what preachers preach, YOU ARE. I am not the one trying to limit what you say, you are trying to limit my free speech. You have a right to express your opinion and I have a right to express mine. where we come into direct conflict is when you try to get public schools to use my tax dollars to teach my children positions that I disagree with on matters that don't belong in the public school to start with (like discussions on homosexuality).
that is an unbeliveable statement you made, but very telling. I would never attempt to interfere with your free speech rights, but you find my free speech rights subservient to yours.
Renowned political commentator Ann Coulter has written a new blog post to discuss the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell," which took place on September 20, and the booing of a gay soldier who asked a question at a recent Republican presidential candidate debate.
Says Coulter:
"…The audience was not "booing a soldier" during one of the video questions, as the media, president and vice president have alleged. The audience was booing the soldier's demand that Republican presidential candidates commit to not overturning a sleazy partisan vote taken in the twilight days of the heavily Democratic 2010 Congress... Of course there was booing for that!"
Coulter goes on to say that it is not an "anti-gay position; it is a pro-military position" because "sexual bonds are disruptive to the military bond."
She writes:
"Soldiers, sailors and Marines living in close quarters who are having sex with one another, used to have sex with one another or would like to have sex with one another simply cannot function as a well-oiled fighting machine. A battalion of married couples facing a small unit of heterosexual men would be slaughtered."
Coulter is known for astute candor.
In 2007 she called John Edwards a "faggot."
In September 2010 she headlined gay conservative group GOProud's Homocon summit and told the audience that gay marriage "is not a civil right -- you're not black."
Nobody's after your parental or child's educational rights, Theresa. Calm down. What you tell your son does not tramp on anyone's rights. Tell him the moon is made of green cheese and the stork brings babies if you want. But if the public schools "teach [your] children positions that [you] disagree with on matters that [you feel] don't belong in the public school to start with (like discussions on homosexuality)" then you need to find yourself a school that teaches just exactly what you want taught. The class that has discussions on homosexuality is sex ed, which is optional.
This is America! We know that all of us - LGBT, straight, male, female, black, white - are created equal with equal rights. Liberty and justice are for all of us. Your uptight heteroelitism is revolting.
"Nobody's after your parental or child's educational rights"
this is simply untrue
"What you tell your son does not tramp on anyone's rights"
as long as he keeps it to himself, right?
"Tell him the moon is made of green cheese and the stork brings babies if you want"
Theresa is not doing that
the public schools, however, are teaching fairy tales about homosexuality to advance the gay agenda
"But if the public schools "teach [your] children positions that [you] disagree with on matters that [you feel] don't belong in the public school to start with (like discussions on homosexuality)" then you need to find yourself a school that teaches just exactly what you want taught"
why should she?
her views represent the mainstream and the public schools are funded by the mainstream
"The class that has discussions on homosexuality is sex ed, which is optional"
why don't they have breakout classes for the kids whose parents are clamoring that they be indoctrinated with the gay agenda?
it's a trick question
there aren't enough such parents to fill up a break-out section
"This is America! We know that all of us - LGBT, straight, male, female, black, white - are created equal with equal rights"
don't blacks have the right to not be insulted by comparing their racial identity to sexual deviance
lunatic fringers want to infringe on the liberty of others and receive special protection
"Liberty and justice are for all of us"
that's true
why do homosexual advocates want more than that at the expense of others
"Your uptight heteroelitism is revolting"
heterosexuality should be favored by a healthy society
unless there are special laws making crimes against her more serious than those against others, she believes her liberty is infringed
but the poor dear is not really thinking of herself but, instead, the homosexuals who insist that everyone else's definition of marriage be changed to their preferences
they are deprived of their liberty to steal everyone else's language
just emailed Jim my tax rates table. this Thursday night. would make a great weekend debate jim, over the truth behind the presidents monologue on tax rates and the "rich not paying their fair share".... and quite timely, considering the president's obession with this subject.
if you are up for it. You are going to lose if you post the facts.
are you honest ?
will you debate the facts ?
see, I think you wlll. they are true numbers. run them yourself if you don't believe me.
the President is desperately trying to start a class warfare in hopes of getting re-elected
unfortunately for him, we've never been that kind of country
we want more rich people, not less
Democrats, who are not suicidal, are not planning to pass his jobs-through-taxes bill:
"On Tuesday, President Barack Obama tried to keep the pressure on Congress to consider his nearly $450 billion jobs bill, saying it had been two weeks since he sent the bill to Capitol Hill "and now I want it back."
"I want it back, passed, so I can sign this bill and start putting people back to work," Obama said Tuesday.
So why have Democrats delayed action in the U.S. Senate on President Obama’s latest stimulus bill?
Senator Dick Durbin, the number two Democrat in the Senate says:
“There are some senators who are up for election who say I’m never gonna vote for a tax increase while I’m up for election. So, we’re not gonna have 100% Democratic senators. That’s why it needs to be bi-partisan and I hope we can find some Republicans who will join us to make it happen.”
But so far, Durbin concedes Democrats don’t have the votes in the senate to pass it, “I don’t think we do but, uh, we can work on it.”
When someone sneezes, it's common for a person in the vicinity to respond, "bless you."
But for making that remark, students in Steven Cuckovich's health class in Vacaville, Calif. lost 25 points off a test. The next day, someone used the phrase again when a student sneezed, and Will C. Wood High School student Erica Fagan told KXTV that Cuckovich docked points off everyone's grades.
"The blessing doesn't really make sense anymore," Cuckovich told KTXL. "When you sneezed in the old days, they thought you were dispelling evil spirits out of your body. So they were saying 'God bless you' for getting rid of evil spirits. But today, what you're doing really doesn't make sense."
Parents aren't pleased, and the school's principal agrees that the punishment doesn't fit the offense. But Cuckovich says students will still face consequences for the act, just in a less severe way, The Christian Post reports.
Students also told KXTV that the sneezing-response rule isn't in the syllabus for the class -- a one-semester course required for graduation.
The Vacaville Unified School District issued a statement Thursday saying that it's investigating "this reported classroom disruption," KGO-TV reports.
A federal appeals court in California ruled this month, in favor of a school's decision, that a math teacher for Poway Unified School District cannot display banners proclaiming "In God We Trust," "One Nation Under God," "God Bless America" and "God Shed His Grace On Thee."
PRINCETON, NJ -- In thinking about the 2012 presidential election, only 45% of Democrats and independents who lean Democratic say they are more enthusiastic about voting than usual, while nearly as many, 44%, are less enthusiastic. This is in sharp contrast to 2008 and, to a lesser extent, 2004, when 79% of Democrats expressed heightened enthusiasm about voting.
"Your liberty ends when it infringes on the liberty of LGBTs"
in regards to a typical catholic family."
I can't speak as to what Priya meant, but her claim is equally true stated this way:
"LGBT's liberty ends when it infringes on your liberty"
Each of us in America has the right to live free. And we recognize that we are not all the same, and that's OK. We respect our differences and melt into the melting pot. Blacks don't hate whites, Jews don't hate Catholics, gays don't hate straights, Catholics don't hate gays (right, Theresa?).
Your Catholic family and my non-Catholic family are equally free to say whatever they want. Everybody should know that some courts have found some speech about crimes committed can turn those crimes into hate crimes.
Speaking of crime,it's a crime that wages are taxed so much higher rates than investment income is. The rich investor class has turned the US tax code to their benefit. Why should wages of us working stiffs be taxed at such high rates while those with enough capital to invest are taxed at lower rates on the profits their investments bring home? To create jobs? What jobs have all those tax breaks at the top created since Bush enacted them? My longterm unemployed friend is dying to know.
Here's what those tax cuts for the rich have enabled rather than jobs:
"Gap between US rich and poor quadruples since 1979" http://uwire.com/2011/03/01/gap-between-us-rich-and-poor-quadruples-since-1979/
It's about time the protests on Wall Street are starting to get picked up by the MSM. The blatant police brutality used against the peaceful Wall Street protestors exercising their right to free speech has made the protests more difficult for the MSM to ignore. Both ends of the spectrum are reporting about them now.
"Pepper Spray and a Police Dept. Whose Power Grows Unchecked" http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/30/nyregion/a-harsh-view-of-police-power-in-pepper-spray-episode.html?_r=1&ref=nyregion
"Occupy Wall Street protest sparks nationwide movement" http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/omkara/2011/sep/29/occupy-wall-street-protest-sparks-nationwide-movem/
"Each of us in America has the right to live free"
and our society is one where homosexuals have been free to do whatever they want behind closed doors
but they want more than freedom
they want us to favor them with harsher penalties for perpetrators of crimes against them
they want to force others to engage in economic tranasctions with them
after they force these economic transactions, they want the other party forced to not say anything that implies their sexual preferences are not normal
they want schools to teach that their sexual preferences are normal
et al
you get the point
freedom was only the first step in the agenda
"And we recognize that we are not all the same, and that's OK"
that's an opinion and not in the realm of government
"We respect our differences and melt into the melting pot. Blacks don't hate whites, Jews don't hate Catholics, gays don't hate straights, Catholics don't hate gays (right, Theresa?)"
behavior and desire are components of character and fair game for evaluating people, unlike race
btw, the homosexual agenda considers "hate" to be any negative opinion that has no empirical basis
so people of different religious viewpoints may have negative views of each other based on matters that are not empirically determinable
if that's what you mean by "hate", there is a constitutional guarantee to it
it might be wise, actually, to consider homosexuality like we do religion
at least then, the schools won't be allowed to promote it
"Your Catholic family and my non-Catholic family are equally free to say whatever they want"
becoming less true every day
if a kid went to school and stated his belief that homosexuality is immoral, he can be accused of "bullying" and contributing to "hatred" and "bias"
same with employers or landlords
"Everybody should know that some courts have found some speech about crimes committed can turn those crimes into hate crimes"
oh, we know
this means you have to be more closely scrutinized by the law if you don't view homosexuality positively
yet another infringement of our liberty
"Speaking of crime,it's a crime that wages are taxed so much higher rates than investment income is"
actually, dividends are taxed twice and the net is that investors pay more taxes than those trade labor for cash
"The rich investor class has turned the US tax code to their benefit"
not only untrue but the philanthropy of this class is a major driver of the quality of life we enjoy in our modern paradise
"Why should wages of us working stiffs be taxed at such high rates while those with enough capital to invest are taxed at lower rates on the profits their investments bring home?"
your wages aren't taxed at higher rates, you idiot
"To create jobs? What jobs have all those tax breaks at the top created since Bush enacted them? My longterm unemployed friend is dying to know"
tell him the economy was at full employment for most of the Bush term
the rates of unemployment we have seen since Obama was sworn in has been a commonplace fact in Western Europe for decades
if we continue to emulate their socialist model, as Obama is trying to do, unemployment will remain where it is indefinitely
let your long-term buddy in on who to vote for if he wants a job
"Here's what those tax cuts for the rich have enabled rather than jobs"
liberals were whining about this long before Bush
the American people haven't ever considered it to be a major issue
"they want us to favor them with harsher penalties for perpetrators of crimes against them"
Just like members of religious and racial groups, the elderly and the disabled and other groups protected by law from discrimination get for crimes perpetrated against them based on hate for their group.
"they want to force others to engage in economic tranasctions with them"
Their money is just as green as everyone else's.
"after they force these economic transactions, they want the other party forced to not say anything that implies their sexual preferences are not normal"
Same with Christians who cry don't dis our religious views and have anti-discrimination laws to back them up.
"they want schools to teach that their sexual preferences are normal"
Gays love members of the same sex just like straights love members of the opposite sex. It is normal to be sexually attracted to someone based on your sexual orientation. Only homophobes try to stop a class of people from marrying who they love, promoting promiscuity rather than monogamy for some.
We had a battle over the sex ed curriculum here in MoCo and the majority opinion won out even after all the publicity put out and lawsuits brought by the homophobes at CRC. If you object to your student learning that some people are gay, opt them out of sex ed classes or out of the system. The choice is yours. But the majority has spoken and been upheld in the courts on every level the CRG used to try to stop them.
"what the #*!*!* are they protesting about?"
I put up a URL to a New York Times article and a Washington Times article so everyone can figure out what they are protesting about from reading press coverage of their protest.
And here's how Fox News is starting to cover it now:
"Unions Joining Wall St Protest" http://nation.foxnews.com/occupy-wall-street/2011/09/29/unions-joining-wall-st-protest
and here's Megyn Kelly discussing it with her panel of experts for you
"Excessive Force Used at Wall Street Protest?" http://video.foxnews.com/v/1183550850001/excessive-force-used-at-wall-street-protest/
and you can compare Megyn's panel discussion to the account of an actual eye-witness who was in the video being discussed by Megyn's panel
"Eye-witness to police brutality
Jeanne Mansfield, a witnessed the entire mace incident at the Occupy Wall Street protests, describes her experience on The Last Word." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/44725263#44725263
LOL, I see bad anonymous is still afraid to address any of the problems and dishonesty in the Jones and Yarhouse study - no surprise there, he can't dispute anything I posted. All he's got is a childish "Is too!" in response to the overwhelming facts and figures I posted.
Jones and Yarhouse excluded 37 failures from their calculation of their "success" rate. Then they Then they included 43 people who had no change in attractions whatsoever as "successes". Of the remaining 6 "successes" all were based on unconfirmed self reports from highly religious people with a strong incentive to lie because it would be a sin to give people the impression they can't come to jesus by changing their orienation.
The Jones and Yarhouse study is a joke. It proves it is impossible for even the most highly motivated of gays to change orientation.
And of course bad anonymous still has no examples of what liberties of his he thinks gays are infringing upon...because that's just another one of his dishonest talking points.
I said "Your liberty ends when it infringes on the liberty of LGBTs"
Theresa said "Wow Priya. Just wow. Disagree entirely. I have a right to teach my son whatever I want, including that homosexual behavior is unnatural.".
I never said you didn't. As good anonymous said it is equally true that LGBT's liberty ends when it infringes upon your liberty. Or perhaps you've heard it phrased this way - "Your right to swing your fist ends when it contacts my nose.". You think that gays liberties should be limited but not yours, that it shouldn't work both ways. Justice demands that it does.
The point is that no one has absolute freedom to do whatever they want to others, there are limits to a person's freedom when it comes into conflict with someone else's freedom. For example the right of a gay man to live trumps your right to kill him because your religion said to.
That's the problem with religious bigots like you Theresa, you think your freedoms should be absolute, that you should have the right to do anything you want to gays and they should have no right to be free from your attacks. Those days are gone Theresa, demanding they come back is only going to see you marginalized as the wild-eyed frothing at the mouth bigot you are.
Theo said "I’d like to suggest, as I have in the past, that BTB do one of its in-depth pieces on the motive behind the big emphasis on mutability. The motives of the conflicted homosexuals who want to resolve that conflict by becoming heterosexual are clear enough. But why are all the anti-gay groups so heavily focused on this issue, even when it becomes clear that actual orientation change – assuming it is ever possible – is an uncommon occurrence and would not eliminate or even substantially reduce the number of homosexuals in the populace?
The answer is that these groups believe or pretend to believe that civil rights protections only extend to groups defined by immutable characteristics and religion (which they claim gets included because it is mentioned in the Constitution). This is simply a lie. It has no bearing in reality. Mutability is not a prerequisite for civil rights protection. Civil rights are creations of statute and can be bestowed upon whatever group a legislature wants to protect. For example, federal law protects against discrimination based on the mutable condition of pregnancy – which include both being pregnant and not being pregnant. Colorado protects workers from being discriminated against based on their recreational activities. California forbids discrimination against workers who speak out on matters of public policy. And there are many, many examples.
Mutability is one non-decisive factor in one component of judicial analysis of an Equal Protection Clause claim. But even in that context, groups defined by mutable characteristics may receive greater judicial protection while other groups with immutable characteristics may receive the minimum.
The whole argument is a deception and the Christian Right gets away with it b/c they know that Americans are ignorant about their legal system and are not going to parse the issue.
The main issue is not whether a small number of homosexuals somewhere in the world have truly converted after 7 years of religiously motivated effort. The issue is whether homosexual orientation is a fundamental part of a person’s identity and is not something that can be altered as a matter of convenience. So I think that we should turn these results around. Rather than let the other side turn this into a game of “gotcha” in which even 1 genuine conversion proves that homosexuality is mutable, I think we should argue that, even assuming the study is legitimate and the results accurate, such a low success rate following such a long treatment period for a highly motivated group proves that homosexuality is not mutable for the vast majority of gays. Consider: if it were suddenly possible for 1 in 1,000 African Americans to “turn white” if only they would alter their self-identity, change their religion, and listen to Pat Boone music 3X/week for 7 years, would that justify striking African Americans from civil rights laws or recognizing them as a discrete group in society?".
Amen and amen, Priya Lynn!! The "Family Values" ogres who have attempted to pirate this site need a little come-uppance about their bigotry, hypocracy, and ignorance.
This little game they have gotten into playing recently: "Oh, woe is me...everybody is attacking me because of my religious beliefs" is such a fraud - the obvious defense of a small group of malcontents who want to assume the "victim" role in order to get the sympathy of people who are not convinced by their "reasoning" (and that is definitely a "sic") and inability to convince people to their point of view by intelligent discource. Praxiteles
here's Ahnold Schwarzenegger recalling how he decided to run for governor while en route to the Jay Leno show, and after telling everyone, including his wife, that he was not going to run:
"I just thought, This will freak everyone out. It’ll be so funny. I’ll announce that I’m running. I told Leno I was running. And two months later I was governor. What the fuck is that? All these people are asking me, ‘What’s your plan? Who’s on your staff?’ I didn’t have a plan. I didn’t have a staff. I wasn’t running until I went on Jay Leno.
You have to realize the thing was so much fun! We had a great time! There were times of frustration. There were times of disappointment. But if you want to live rather than just exist, you want the drama. You have to step back and say, ‘I was elected under odd circumstances. And I’m going out in odd circumstances.’ You can’t have it both ways. You can’t be a spoiled brat."
on to TTFer nonsense:
"Just like members of religious and racial groups, the elderly and the disabled and other groups protected by law from discrimination get for crimes perpetrated against them based on hate for their group"
all wrong
a crime is a crime
no one set of people deserves more protection than another
especially not based on sexual deviance
"Their money is just as green as everyone else's."
yes, it is
which is why they have no hardship worthy of governmental intervention
they'll have no trouble finding someone to take their money in our capitalist society
we don't need the government forcing people to deal with them
homosexuals can take the same chances that someone won't like them that the rest of us do
"Same with Christians who cry don't dis our religious views and have anti-discrimination laws to back them up"
actually, Christians rarely complain about their views being dissed
they actually love nothing more than to engage the culture
when the government excludes Christianity, however, that's not an issue of discrimination
it's a matter of constitutional matter of religious liberty
religious discrimination laws are made for other religions not Christianity
"Gays love members of the same sex just like straights love members of the opposite sex. It is normal to be sexually attracted to someone based on your sexual orientation"
well, you're entitled to your opinion
but personal opinions only belong in schools if a counter opinion is allowed
btw, "orientation" is a biased term
"preference" would be more appropriate
"Only homophobes try to stop a class of people from marrying who they love,"
"homophobe" is biased term
"misohomogenity" would be more appropriate
nobody's trying to stop you from doing anything
what you want is recognition by the government that same gender sexual deviance is normal
liberty isn't the issue
"promoting promiscuity rather than monogamy for some"
no, those who oppose redefining marriage would be happy to see homosexuals eschew the random and vast promiscuity that is so common among them
"We had a battle over the sex ed curriculum here in MoCo and the majority opinion won out"
you mean the majority of the school board
the Apple ballot has been so powerful because there has been a perception that MC schools are so singularly excellent
that perception will fade as the reality sinks in that MC schools decline yearly while other counties in Maryland and the DC area move ahead
"If you object to your student learning that some people are gay, opt them out of sex ed classes or out of the system"
what a stupid comment
there are few children that learn of the existence of homosexuality in MC schools
the curriculum instead tells them what their attitude about homosexuality should be
fortunately, most kids can see through it
but why should they be subjected to this propaganda?
"The choice is yours"
the taxpayer haven't been given a choice about whether they want to fund the teaching of fairy tales in schools
one thing homosexual advocates avoid at all costs is a direct vote on their agenda
they never win
so they seek activist judges, play legal games with citizen petitions, and try to intimidate those who seek to place referendums
the fear of public opinion is clear
"But the majority has spoken and been upheld in the courts on every level the CRG used to try to stop them"
see above
"I put up a URL to a New York Times article and a Washington Times article so everyone can figure out what they are protesting about"
can you put it in your own words?
c'mon, we need a laugh
"Priya Lynn said..."
here's that laugh we were looking for
"I see bad anonymous is still afraid to address any of the problems and dishonesty in the Jones and Yarhouse study - no surprise there, he can't dispute anything I posted"
like you, I'm not a scientist
all I know is that a peer-reviewed study found that homosexuals can change preferences and that nasty Priya doesn't like that
"All he's got is a childish "Is too!" in response to the overwhelming facts and figures I posted"
your facts and figures weren't peer-reviewed, nasty
"Jones and Yarhouse excluded 37 failures from their calculation of their "success" rate. Then they Then they included 43 people who had no change in attractions whatsoever as "successes". Of the remaining 6 "successes" all were based on unconfirmed self reports"
all sexuality studies rely on self-reporting
"The Jones and Yarhouse study is a joke. It proves it is impossible for even the most highly motivated of gays to change orientation"
actually, it suggests that most homosexuals are actually bi, meaning they do have a choice
no need to cry for special government protection based on the inability to change
waddup!
"And of course bad anonymous still has no examples of what liberties of his he thinks gays are infringing upon"
oh, I've noted several examples
go ahead and read all the posts again
don't worry, your top won't get mad at you
"...because that's just another one of his dishonest talking points"
"it is equally true that LGBT's liberty ends when it infringes upon your liberty"
it already does
"Or perhaps you've heard it phrased this way - "Your right to swing your fist ends when it contacts my nose.""
an inflammatory statement
no one has suggested leaglizing assaults on homosexuals
"You think that gays liberties should be limited but not yours,"
that's a lie you've made without backing it up
"no one has absolute freedom to do whatever they want to others, there are limits to a person's freedom when it comes into conflict with someone else's freedom. For example the right of a gay man to live trumps your right to kill him because your religion said to."
no one has suggested that there is a right to kill a homosexual
homogayables have the same protection of the law that normal people have
they aren't satisfied with that
they want deviance exalted to a protected status
"you think your freedoms should be absolute, that you should have the right to do anything you want to gays and they should have no right to be free from your attacks"
there is no guarantee that anyone will not be a victim of a crime
anyone who is attacked can press charges
"Those days are gone Theresa,demanding they come back is only going to see you marginalized as the wild-eyed frothing at the mouth bigot you are"
to you, the whole whole must seem like drooling zombies
are you delusions the result of history of drug use?
Hey "Just shut up" (and don't we all wish that YOU WOULD):
"this is the problem with tolerating homosexuality...you never hear the end of it"
As if we don't live in a society that NEVER STOPS talking about its supposed heterosexuality superiority, its shameful, lewd, and degrading sexual behaviours, illegal and immoral trysts, slavish display of semi-naked (or naked) women,love of,and salivation over, never-ending sexual scandal exposures of prominent individuals in our society, etc. etc.
However you have answered your own question: "why can't they just shut up and move on?"
"because...they can't...they were born that way"
Funny and ironic that we have to tolerate heterosexuals (of your ilk) who think that Jesus will protect them, even though they were "born that way".
Oh, and by the way, would you be more precise in describing "how they want the government to give them special rights and protections"?
One can only assume that you are a sexual-compulsive elitist who thinks only you have rights and protections in the United States of America.
Maybe if you are contrite enough about your hypocrisy and hatred, your God will forgive you.
"these groups believe or pretend to believe that civil rights protections only extend to groups defined by immutable characteristics"
that's right
and, even then, only in cases of insurmountable hardships
"and religion (which they claim gets included because it is mentioned in the Constitution)"
reading, nasty
try it
"This is simply a lie. It has no bearing in reality. Mutability is not a prerequisite for civil rights protection. Civil rights are creations of statute and can be bestowed upon whatever group a legislature wants to protect."
please
homosexuals want this immutability claim because they think it solidifies their claim to victimization
"For example, federal law protects against discrimination based on the mutable condition of pregnancy – which include both being pregnant and not being pregnant"
we want to preference life but not sexual deviance
let's just call it "good versus evil"
"Colorado protects workers from being discriminated against based on their recreational activities"
that's their problem
"California forbids discrimination against workers who speak out on matters of public policy"
"Mutability is one non-decisive factor in one component of judicial analysis of an Equal Protection Clause claim"
you're the ones that want to teach immutability in schools
"But even in that context, groups defined by mutable characteristics may receive greater judicial protection while other groups with immutable characteristics may receive the minimum"
they shouldn't unless it's a quality that we wabt to encourage
"The whole argument is a deception and the Christian Right gets away with it b/c they know that Americans are ignorant about their legal system and are not going to parse the issue"
please
you are the ones who consider the issue so vital
"The main issue is not whether a small number of homosexuals somewhere in the world have truly converted after 7 years of religiously motivated effort. The issue is whether homosexual orientation is a fundamental part of a person’s identity and is not something that can be altered as a matter of convenience"
no, it's a matter of whether it's fair to consider behavior and desire as a component of character
MLK wanted his grandchildren judged on the content of their character
why do you hate MLK?
"So I think that we should turn these results around. Rather than let the other side turn this into a game of “gotcha” in which even 1 genuine conversion proves that homosexuality is mutable, I think we should argue that, even assuming the study is legitimate and the results accurate, such a low success rate following such a long treatment period for a highly motivated group proves that homosexuality is not mutable for the vast majority of gays"
why do you want to do that when immutability is not important to you?
why not just say a peer-reviwed study shows change is possible and leave it at that?
because immutabilty is a key plank in the gay agenda platform
"Consider: if it were suddenly possible for 1 in 1,000 African Americans to “turn white” if only they would alter their self-identity, change their religion, and listen to Pat Boone music 3X/week for 7 years, would that justify striking African Americans from civil rights laws or recognizing them as a discrete group in society?"
doesn't matter
being black would still not be an element of character
Bad anonymous said "no one set of people deserves more protection than another". Heterosexuals are protected in exactly the same way as gays by hate crimes laws based on sexual orientation. No one is getting more protection than anyone else.
especially not based on sexual deviance
Bad anonymous said "actually, Christians rarely complain about their views being dissed". HahahahahahahahHahahahahHahhha!
Bad anonymous said "they actually love nothing more than to engage the culture". HahahahahahahahHahahahahHahhha! Right! That's why virtually every anti-gay christian blog refuses to allow gay supportive comments or their arguments to be challenged.
Bad anonymous said "religious discrimination laws are made for other religions not Christianity". You're particularly loopy today. All religious discrimination laws refer to religion in general, none single out any specific religions - they apply to all religions.
Good anonymous said "Gays love members of the same sex just like straights love members of the opposite sex. It is normal to be sexually attracted to someone based on your sexual orientation"
Bad anonymous said "well, you're entitled to your opinion but personal opinions only belong in schools if a counter opinion is allowed." Its a well established fact universally accepted by every mainstream medical and mental health organization. Opinions to the contrary of reality have no place in schools.
Bad anonymous said "btw, "orientation" is a biased term "preference" would be more appropriate". False! The majority of heterosexuals and gays are exclusively attracted to one sex, there is no "preference". Unless you're suggesting you yourself are same sex attracted - is that what you're telling us?
Good anonymous said "Only homophobes try to stop a class of people from marrying who they love,"
Bad anonymous said ""homophobe" is biased term". No, its entirely accurate, unless you want to admit you were lying about the whole "gays are destructive to society" thing.
Bad anonymous said "nobody's trying to stop you from doing anything". Please, stop shovelling the BS, not even you believe the crap you're spewing. You want to deny gays the right to marry, adopt, and you want to criminalize same sex sex.
Bad anonymous said "what you want is recognition by the government that same gender sexual deviance is normal". False! we don't care about sexual deviance, we care about getting equal treament from the government.
Bad anonymous said "liberty isn't the issue". This from the bigot who's called for criminal sanctions for same sex sex.
Good anonymous said "promoting promiscuity rather than monogamy for some"
Bad anonymous said "no, those who oppose redefining marriage would be happy to see homosexuals eschew random promiscuity." Bullshit. If that was true you'd be advocating for marriage for gays just as you advocate it for heterosexuals because you say it encourages monogamy.
Good anonymous said ""If you object to your student learning that some people are gay, opt them out of sex ed classes or out of the system"
Bad anonymous said "what a stupid comment". What's stupid is that you think you have a right to prevent the teaching of reality - you don't.
Bad anonymous said "the curriculum instead tells them what their attitude about homosexuality should be". Just as the curriculum tells them they shouldn't assume someone is a bad person just because they are black. That's exactly what schools should be doing.
Bad anonyomous said "fortunately, most kids can see through it". Its fun to see you still living in your dream world. The majority of americans support full equality rights for gays and the VAST majority of those under 24 do. That percentage increases every year, get used to it bad anonymous.
Bad anonymous said "one thing homosexual advocates avoid at all costs is a direct vote on their agenda". Minority rights should never be left up the vote of the tyranny of the majority.
Bad anonymous said "so they seek activist judges, play legal games with citizen petitions, and try to intimidate those who seek to place referendums". We win in the courts and legislatures because arguments against equality aren't sustainable. That's why a the percentage of Americans who support full equality is growing at an ever increasing rate.
Bad anonymous said "all I know is that a peer-reviewed study found that homosexuals can change preferences and that nasty Priya doesn't like that". LOL, still clinging to your unsupported claim that gays can change in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary from every study ever done, including this one. You obviously know very little while I on the other hand am deeply familiar with the wholesale flaws and dishonesty in this stuy that has been widely debunked. Jones and Yarhouse excluded 37 failures from their calculation of their "success" rate. Then they Then they included 43 people who had no change in attractions whatsoever as "successes". Of the remaining 6 "successes" all were based on unconfirmed self reports by highly religious people heavily motivated to lie because it would be a sin to give people the impression that they can't come to Jesus by changing their orientation.
Bad anonymous said "all sexuality studies rely on self-reporting". LOL, right, because all the "exgays" claiming to have changed orientation know that if they had to prove it with an MRI, or penile plethysmographs their lies would be exposed. There's a reason why none of these "successes" will allow independent verification of their claims.
I said "The Jones and Yarhouse study is a joke. It proves it is impossible for even the most highly motivated of gays to change orientation"
Bad anonymous said actually, it suggests that most homosexuals are actually bi, meaning they do have a choice". The studies that have been done show most gays are exclusively same sex attracted. Regardless bisexuals don't have a choice in who they are attracted to either, we can't stop being attracted to both sexes. You're showing one of the fundamental dishonesties Jones and Yarhouse's claims of "success" are based on. They claim to be studying whether or not people can change same sex attractions into opposite sex attractions and then when people change their behavior (which of course can be done) they falsely portray that as a successful change in sexual orientation when in fact no changes in attractions have occurred at all.
Bad anonymous said "no need to cry for special government protection based on the inability to change". No one is asking for special protection, what were asking for is the same rights you have. You accuse us of trying to deny you liberty when obviously its the other way arround. And whether or not people can change is irrelevant to the denial of equal rights. It is not justifiable to deny people equal rights just because they can change. Religion is a changeable feature of a person, but we don't hear you arguing that that justifies denying people rights because of it.
And of course bad anonymous still has no examples of what liberties of his he thinks gays are infringing upon because that's just another one of his dishonest talking points.
"the spelling skills of TTFers is always good for a laugh...especially when they start talking about "intelligence"
I'm so grateful and thankful that you hold me to spelling error standards that you don't hold for yourself. Another example of your "superiority"?
"could you nail down that timing a little more precisley?" Precisley? Maybe you ought to check your dictionary, if you have one (no, it isn't another name for Bible).
"misohomogenity" You've got to be kidding!! Just one more example of your "intelligence deviancy".
"so, now you're merely tolerating us, uh?"
Oh yes...we are amazingly tolerant and Christian in dealing with those like you who are so in need of acceptance and love.
Bad anonymous said "no one has suggested leaglizing assaults on homosexuals"
I never said anyone did. You however have supported the criminalization of same sex sex.
I said to Theresa"You think that gays liberties should be limited but not yours,"
Bad anonymous said "that's a lie you've made without backing it up". False! She objected to the idea that her liberty ended when it infringed on the liberty of gays - she stated she thinks her liberties shouldn't be limited.
I said "no one has absolute freedom to do whatever they want to others, there are limits to a person's freedom when it comes into conflict with someone else's freedom. For example the right of a gay man to live trumps your right to kill him because your religion said to."
Bad anonymous said "no one has suggested that there is a right to kill a homosexual". False! Your bible demands it and many christians agree with it.
Bad anonymous said "homogayables have the same protection of the law that other people have". False! Gays aren't afforded the same protections of marriage that heterosexuals have. Gays don't have the right not to be fired from their jobs or evicted from their homes for who they are as Christians do.
Bad anonymous said "they aren't satisfied with that". False! All we ask for is quality under the law.
Bad anonymous said "they want deviance exalted to a protected status". False! No LGBT has ever asked for that.
I said "you think your freedoms should be absolute, that you should have the right to do anything you want to gays and they should have no right to be free from your attacks"
Bad anonymous said "there is no guarantee that anyone will not be a victim of a crime". I never said there was.
Bad anonymous said "anyone who is attacked can press charges". Not if antigay christians like you and Theresa have your way. Then Christians will be allowed to attack LGBTs at will with impunity.
Theo said "these groups believe or pretend to believe that civil rights protections only extend to groups defined by immutable characteristics"
Bad anonymous said "that's right". LOL, and yet you are obviously wrong.
Theo said "and religion (which they claim gets included because it is mentioned in the Constitution) This is simply a lie. It has no bearing in reality. Mutability is not a prerequisite for civil rights protection. Civil rights are creations of statute and can be bestowed upon whatever group a legislature wants to protect."
Bad anonymous said "homosexuals want this immutability claim because they think it solidifies their claim to victimization". Nonsense. Our victimization is obvious, persistant and heinous, whether or not gayness is immutable is irrelevant. Many christians however are deathly afraid of the huge volumes of studies tending to show gayness is inborn. If that's true that means their god is a capricious bastard, punishing people for the way he made them. Christians are terrified of admitting what a monster their god would be if he really existed.
Theo said "For example, federal law protects against discrimination based on the mutable condition of pregnancy – which include both being pregnant and not being pregnant"
Bad anonymous said "we want to preference life but not sexual deviance let's just call it "good versus evil"". It is evil to attack and oppress innocent people - you're all about evil when it comes to LGBTs.
Theo said "Colorado protects workers from being discriminated against based on their recreational activities" California forbids discrimination against workers who speak out on matters of public policy"
Bad anonymous said "so what?". LOL, I love your willful stupidity. What's "so what?" is that this proves legal protections aren't based solely on immutability as you falsely claimed. Theo said "Mutability is one non-decisive factor in one component of judicial analysis of an Equal Protection Clause claim"
Bad anonymous said "you're the ones that want to teach immutability in schools". So what? Dozens and dozens of studies suggest gayness is determined at birth. Anyone of these studies on their own is not conclusive but looked at as a group it is virtually impossible to argue that gayness is a result of upbringing. There's nothing wrong with teaching children the truth.
Theo said "But even in that context, groups defined by mutable characteristics may receive greater judicial protection while other groups with immutable characteristics may receive the minimum"
Bad anonymous said "they shouldn't unless it's a quality that we wabt to encourage". False. We give greater judicial protection to qualities that are morally neutral, that we don't necessarily want to discourage or encourage, such as skin colour. Its no different with sexual orientation.
Theo said "The whole argument is a deception and the Christian Right gets away with it b/c they know that Americans are ignorant about their legal system and are not going to parse the issue"
Bad anonymous said "you are the ones who consider the issue so vital". Nonsense. We deserve equal rights regardless, its irrelevant if gayness is a choice. It is anti-gay christians who have hung their hat on the idea that if gayness is a choice gays don't deserve equal rights.
Theo said "The main issue is not whether a small number of homosexuals somewhere in the world have truly converted after 7 years of religiously motivated effort. The issue is whether homosexual orientation is a fundamental part of a person’s identity and is not something that can be altered as a matter of convenience"
Bad anonymous said "no, it's a matter of whether it's fair to consider behavior and desire as a component of character". Of course behavior is a component of character, but same sex relationships and desire harm no one and are thus morally neutral. It is a grave injustice to use a harmless characteristic as a reason to deny people equal rights.
Bad anonymous said "MLK wanted his grandchildren judged on the content of their character why do you hate MLK?". We love Martin Luther King, you obviously hate his idea that people shouldn't be judged based on harmless characteristics.
Theo said "So I think that we should turn these results around. Rather than let the other side turn this into a game of “gotcha” in which even 1 genuine conversion proves that homosexuality is mutable, I think we should argue that, even assuming the study is legitimate and the results accurate, such a low success rate following such a long treatment period for a highly motivated group proves that homosexuality is not mutable for the vast majority of gays"
Bad anonymous said "why do you want to do that when immutability is not important to you?" Because large numbers of anti-gay christians figure mutability justifies discrimination. They are not particularly open to reason so we must approach them where they are and show them their bigotry is not justified even by their own standards.
Bad anonymous said "why not just say a peer-reviwed study shows change is possible and leave it at that?"
Because unlike you we value the truth. Jones and Yarhouse excluded 37 failures from their calculation of their "success" rate. Then they Then they included 43 people who had no change in attractions whatsoever as "successes". Of the remaining 6 "successes" all were based on unconfirmed self reports by highly religious people heavily motivated to lie because it would be a sin to give people the impression that they can't come to Jesus by changing their orientation.
Theo said "Consider: if it were suddenly possible for 1 in 1,000 African Americans to “turn white” if only they would alter their self-identity, change their religion, and listen to Pat Boone music 3X/week for 7 years, would that justify striking African Americans from civil rights laws or recognizing them as a discrete group in society?"
Bad anonymous said "doesn't matter being black would still not be an element of character behavior and desire would". It does matter, no one should be discriminated against based on harmless characteristics. Being black is no different than being LGBT.
My server log tells me the name of the company that Anon is commenting from, I know his IP number, he is using IE8 in Windows 7 with his screen resolution set to 1536x864. Nobody is really Anonymous over the Internet.
But ... I think that calling somebody's workplace and threatening their livelihood over a political disagreement would be just about the lowest dirty trick you could stoop to, and I will not be part of it. Occasionally people in the comments talk about doing that sort of thing to me, that's fine for rightwing nuts but I hope our side does not act like that.
"WASHINGTON -- Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) is a proud father of a newborn baby, making him the first openly gay parent in the U.S. Congress.
On Friday, Polis and his partner, Marlon Reis, sent out an announcement about the arrival of their son, Caspian Julius, who is 8 pounds, 12 ounces.
"Baby and parents are doing well, baby has learned to cry already! No gifts please, just nice thoughts for Caspian, humankind, the planet, and the universe!" read the announcement.
Polis and Reis have declined to comment on whether it was a surrogate pregnancy or an adoption.
“We are so thrilled for the congressman and his partner,” said Jennifer Chrisler, executive director of the Family Equality Council, an organization that advocates for LGBT families. “Little Caspian Julius is so lucky to have two wonderful and loving dads. On behalf of America’s growing number of LGBT parents, we want to send the family our warmest wishes.”
Polis is a co-sponsor of the Every Child Deserves A Family Act, which would "ban discrimination in adoption or foster care placement based on the sexual orientation, marital status or gender identity of the potential parent, or the sexual orientation or gender identity of the child," according to a press release from the office of Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.), who introduced the bill."
Jim said "My server log tells me the name of the company that Anon is commenting from...".
I knew bad anonymous was immoral but even I didn't think he'd stoop to stealing from his employer in order to support his attacks on innocent people - he's a bigger scumbag than I imagined.
Decades of research by the top experts in the field show children of gays and lesbians do just as well, if not better than children of heterosexuals.
The beastly anti-gay religionists would prefer to leave children rot in orphanages or passed from foster home to foster home to foster home rather than see them go to fully qualified loving gay parents. Says a lot about the bigots and none of it good that they would sacrifice the health and well-being of innocent children in service to their attacks on innocent gays and lesbians.
78 Comments:
does it strike anyone else how many gay issues there are?
just look at this table
we long ago decided to make this type of sexual deviance legal, letting people do whatever weird crap they want to do behind closed doors
and yet we have to go round and round discussing an ever increasing numbers of gripes they have and how they want the government to give them special rights and protections
it's like a form of exhibitionism where they want the world to focus on the sexuality over and over
this is the problem with tolerating homosexuality
you never hear the end of it
this is how they are going to gum up the military
why can't they just shut up and move on?
because...they can't
they were born that way
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Bad anonymous said "this is the problem with tolerating homosexuality
you never hear the end of it".
Punctuation and paragraphs bad anonymous - use them. You're not in the third grade anymore (or are you?).
You'll never hear the end of it while LGBTs are denied equal rights, but once we achieve those rights everyone moves on and there is precious little discussion on it - see Canada bad anonymous, no one talks about LGBT issues here anymore.
please
homosexuals have the same rights as everyone else
what they want is to force everyone to treat homosexuality as the equivalent of heterosexuality
won't ever happen
there isn't a "right" to have any sexual preference applauded by those who don't share it
and they will never shut up as long as they are tolerated in polite society
you never seem to have any problem understanding my writing style but if it disturbs you, well, then, you're going to be disturbed
but, then, is that anything new?
no, nasty Priya is obviously very disturbed
all the liberal yapping about how gays are "bullied" has now led to the formation of violent gay gangs
I think this is how the Mafia got started:
"Whenever there’s trouble around the Chinatown and Gallery Place Metro stations in the District, the finger of blame often points to a most unusual group of suspects: a black gay gang called Check It.
Depending on whom you talk to, they’re just a bunch of mischievous gender benders and drama queens, vulnerable gay youths seeking safety in numbers. Or, they’re one of the largest, more aggressive gangs in the city.
“I just got tired of people beating on me and calling me faggie,” Tayron Bennett, 21, told me recently. He’d helped to organize Check It while a student at Hine Junior High School. Other gay youths from his Trinidad neighborhood in Northeast soon joined, followed by gay youths from throughout the city.
D.C. police estimate that Check It has a core membership of about 20 and counts between 50 and 100 others as “associates.”
“At first, I tried fighting bullies one-on-one, but they don’t fight fair; they fight two and three on one,” Bennett said. So the youths got together and “started carrying mace, knives, brass knuckles and stun guns, and if somebody messed with one of us then all of us would gang up on them.”
Bennett had just been released from the D.C. jail when we spoke. He’d been arrested and charged with assault after a melee near Gallery Place earlier this year. But the charges were dropped the day he was scheduled to appear in court. He’d also gotten into a fight in jail and came out with a fresh scar on his scalp to show for it.
At Hine, Bennett had been unsure of his sexual identity and was hurt by schoolmates who said he acted gay. When a teacher also said he acted gay, Bennett went into a rage and hit the teacher with the buckle of his belt. He was arrested and expelled from school. He never went back. And he vowed never to run from a bully. No tears. No fears. If attacked on the streets, he wouldn’t even call the police. He’d just find a way to get his revenge."
sounds more like Clockwork Orange than the Mafia
a new Climatgate scandal is brewing:
"A report from the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the Environmental Protection Agency reveals that the scientific basis, on which the administration’s endangerment finding for greenhouse gases hinged, violated the EPA’s own peer review procedure.
In a report released Wednesday the inspector general found that the EPA failed to follow the Data Quality Act and its own peer review process when it issued the determination that greenhouse gases cause harm to “pubic health and welfare.”
“I appreciate the inspector general conducting a thorough investigation into the Obama-EPA’s handling of the endangerment finding for greenhouse gases,” Senator Daniel Inhofe said. “This report confirms that the endangerment finding, the very foundation of President Obama’s job-destroying regulatory agenda, was rushed, biased, and flawed. It calls the scientific integrity of EPA’s decision-making process into question and undermines the credibility of the endangerment finding.”"
following East Anglia, IPCC, the recent findings of CERN about the effect of sloar activity on the climate, and now, this, we shouldn't hear any more complaints when Rick Perry accurately states that the case for anthropogenic global warming has not been strong enough to warrant massive economic dislocation
Anon blathered again:
“we long ago decided to make this type of sexual deviance legal, letting people do whatever weird crap they want to do behind closed doors”
Effectively, sexual deviance was always legal for heterosexuals. It was just some homophobes in power long ago that decided they would only prosecute homosexuals for sodomy and other forms of sexual deviance. The heterosexuals got left alone to do whatever nasty things their minds could dream up; if they kept it out of public site, no one was the wiser. No one fought them for the right to get married, even though several religions have promoted heterosexual pedophilia.
“and yet we have to go round and round discussing an ever increasing numbers of gripes they have and how they want the government to give them special rights and protections”
Being included in the anti-discrimination laws is not a “special protection.” It is granted to all sorts of people, including lunatic fringe religious groups. When LGBT folks have the same job, housing, and public accommodation protections that religious zealots have, they won’t have reason to complain about that anymore. Until they do though, you can expect them to keep complaining. It’s just how things like that work.
“it's like a form of exhibitionism where they want the world to focus on the sexuality over and over”
Actually, it’s the homophobes that keep focusing on the sexuality – why couldn’t homosexuals in the military execute their first amendment right to free speech until just a few days ago? Not because they couldn’t pass the physical or intellectual tests required to enter the military, or their ability to perform the jobs required of them, it was because a bunch of homophobes in power with an obsession for gay sex and control decided their prejudices and fear trumped gay peoples’ constitutional rights.
“this is the problem with tolerating homosexuality
you never hear the end of it
this is how they are going to gum up the military”
Oh, now they’re just going to “gum up the military.” Whatever happened to thousands of soldiers leaving because of the open gays? Oh yeah, another fanatical, apocalyptic Christian prediction that was never, ever going to come true.
“why can't they just shut up and move on?”
Don’t worry Anon, Harold Camping has assured us that the world will end on October 21st, 2011. You won’t have to deal with this much longer. Have a nice vacation in Bermuda or something and enjoy the world’s final days.
Have a nice day,
Cynthia
"Effectively, sexual deviance was always legal for heterosexuals"
normal heterosexual practices are not deviant
activity and preferences in contradiction to the purposes of the Creator are deviant
examples would be things like tree hugging, shoe sucking, farm animal buggering, and same gender naked cuddling
"It was just some homophobes in power long ago that decided they would only prosecute homosexuals for sodomy and other forms of sexual deviance"
could you nail down that timing a little more precisley?
what you call "homophobery" was never exactly deviant, was it?
truth is, with modern advances, the consequences of homosexuality are not as severe as they were "long ago" so we can probably tolerate it if it kept discreet
the exhibitionism, however, is problemattic
"The heterosexuals got left alone to do whatever nasty things their minds could dream up; if they kept it out of public site, no one was the wiser"
you have a problem with that?
"No one fought them for the right to get married,"
no, because they define the institution of marriage
"even though several religions have promoted heterosexual pedophilia"
ages for marriage have varied over the ages
so what?
"Being included in the anti-discrimination laws is not a “special protection.” It is granted to all sorts of people, including lunatic fringe religious groups. When LGBT folks have the same job, housing, and public accommodation protections that religious zealots have, they won’t have reason to complain about that anymore."
employment and housing arrangements are private dealings and should remain so
no one should be forced to deal with anyone that find disagreeable in a free society
everyone is free to seek others, that don't find them disagreeable, to engage in these type of arrangement with them and, barring that, to change to accomodate others
life, cinco
live it
"Until they do though, you can expect them to keep complaining"
well, expect an eventual backlash
"It’s just how things like that work"
well, it's a strategy that's not going to work out well for homosexuals
"Actually, it’s the homophobes that keep focusing on the sexuality"
actually, it's not
"– why couldn’t homosexuals in the military execute their first amendment right to free speech until just a few days ago?"
it was compromise made in response to a provocation by homosexuals in the early 90s
now, homosexuals have not lived up to the agreement
it will be duly noted
"Not because they couldn’t pass the physical or intellectual tests required to enter the military, or their ability to perform the jobs required of them, it was because a bunch of homophobes in power with an obsession for gay sex and control decided their prejudices and fear trumped gay peoples’ constitutional rights"
you are mistaken that there is constitutional entitlement to serve in the military
"Oh, now they’re just going to “gum up the military.”"
no, they will have an effect on recruitment as well
"Whatever happened to thousands of soldiers leaving because of the open gays?"
can you say "Obama's stimulus program failed to produce the jobs that Obama promised"?
"Have a nice day"
go have some fun with a tree
btw, Herman Cain, Tea Party favorite and a man with no political experience at all, is within the margin of error in polls pitting him against Obama, released today by Ramussen
why aren't Dems putting up an alternative in their primary?
someone needs to sit Hillary down for a chat
the country's future depends on telling Barack Obama to not let the screen door smack his ((BEEP)) on the way out
Walmart has passed provisions in its employee non-discrimination policy to protect transgender employees.
Phillip Keene, a company spokeperson, said that the changes went into effect "several weeks ago" and will safeguard workers from discrimination and harassment based on both gender identity and gender expression.
Though Keene was quoted as saying, "We've had a strong anti-discrimination policy for a long time," the company has a history of butting heads with LGBT workers and equality organizations. In 2010 an employee claimed he was stripped of many of his responsibilities and forced to wear a yellow vest while in the store after he admitted he was gay to a supervisor.
In January of this year the Stonewall Democratic Club of New York City joined other anti-Walmart groups intent on keeping the big box retailer out of New York City. Specifically citing homophobia as its motivation, the group released a statement saying:
"Wal-Mart represents a culture of intolerance and insensitivity towards LGBT employees and issues that is unwelcome in New York. Just last year more than 100 Wal-Mart stores were found to be promoting a children’s book that suggested that gay people can overcome 'sin' and convert to heterosexuality with the help of counseling. Wal-Mart CEO Mike Duke signed a petition in his home state of Arkansas that was aimed at preventing adoption by Gay and Lesbian parents."
They also noted that Walmart received a 40 on the 2011 Human Rights Campaign Corporate Equality Index, which grades companies on LGBT issues (in comparison, AT&T, Ford, and Procter & Gamble received perfect scores of 100). WalmartWatch.org reported that the company received a 15 point deduction for "a large-scale official or public anti-LGBT blemish on their recent records, specifically by opposing a shareholder resolution to amend their non-discrimination policies to include gender identity."
"Can Google get much gayer?
Earlier this year the Google search page went rainbow in honor of Pride month (though some LGBT people felt the rainbow wasn't prominent enough)."
surprise, gays get recognized and it's still something for them to whine about
can they just shut up?
"But a new feature that allows users to learn the sexuality of celebrities based on a synthesizing of articles found by the search engine takes things to a new level.
Using Google's gaydar is easy. You just type "is [name of suspected celebrity here] gay (or bi or straight)?" into the search box and Google will its "best guess" based on all of the available information (in the form of relevant websites) and present its findings. While it seems to work for many straight and out celebrities, controversial celebrities who have been accused of hiding in the closet don't seem to be fair game for the company's A.I. gaydar."
remember when Obama lied in his election campaign and said he disapproved of gay marriage?
I think he just trying to get votes by being dishonest:
"WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama said he thinks the courts will decide "fairly soon" whether to end the Defense of Marriage Act, saying that he believes the courts will agree with him that the law is unconstitutional.
"The position that my administration has taken, I think, will have a significant influence on the court as it examines the constitutionality of this law," he said Wednesday at a roundtable with Latino news outlets. "Once that law is put down, addressing these bi-national issues would flow from that decision."
The president announced in February that his administration would no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which bans gay marriage at a federal level, because he believes the law is unconstitutional.
HuffPost Latino Voices asked Obama at the roundtable how his administration would address bi-national couples, gay and lesbian men and women who want to petition for legal status for their foreign-born partners. Under the Defense of Marriage Act, these men and women are barred from doing so, even if they are legally allowed to marry in their state."
you know all that money that Barack has raised?
the scandal is growing:
"A Daily Caller investigation has found that in addition to the failed company Solyndra, at least four other solar panel manufacturing companies receiving in excess of $500 million in loan guarantees from the Obama administration employ executives or board members who have donated large sums of money to Democratic campaigns.
And as questions swirl around possible connections between political donations and these preferential financing arrangements, the Obama White House suddenly began deflecting questions on Wednesday to the Democratic National Committee.
Asked Wednesday to comment on the connection between large Democratic donors and Obama administration loan guarantees to the companies they represent, the White House responded with a single sentence: “We refer your question to the Democratic National Committee.”
Concerns about the long-term viability of Solyndra, first made public by The Daily Caller back in February, have now expanded to include the financial health of other loan-guarantee recipient firms as well.
These companies have suffered from declining stock prices despite their favored status in the White House. Yet as the end of the federal government’s fiscal year looms on Friday, a new series of loans could be finalized amounting to more than nine times what taxpayers have already lost on the failed company Solyndra.
“Who was visiting the White House during this period of time?” Texas GOP Rep. Joe Barton asked. Barton is a former chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. “Who were they talking to and what were they talking about? Are there more loans at risk of not being paid back? Are these good investments or political favors?”
“The American people just lost a half billion dollars and they deserve answers to these questions before more money is wasted. Until we know exactly what happened, I think we should slow down this loan program and take a closer look at each case.”
“It is becoming more clear with each revelation that warning signs were ignored in the Solyndra case,” Barton continued. “Yet in the next 48 hours — because of a deadline that can still be changed — the Department of Energy is going to hand out another $5 billion in loans.”
Companies like First Solar, SolarReserve, SunPower Corporation and Abengoa SA have already, collectively, received billions in loans through Obama administration stimulus programs to build solar power plants in the southwestern United States.
Yet each, with the exception of the privately held SolarReserve, has seen its stock price hammered at the same time it was lobbying the Obama administration and Congress for billions in loan guarantees."
it happened again
a liberal "fact" has been proven WRONG:
"A study showing sexual orientation change is possible for homosexuals has been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
The October issue of the Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy contains a longitudinal study of Christians seeking help from ministries associated with Exodus International for their unwanted same-sex attractions. Of the 98 subjects, more than half were reported as successful; 23 percent reported a complete change in orientation after six years.
Dr. Stanton Jones, a psychologist at Wheaton College in Illinois and the study’s lead author, said the opportunity to study sexual orientation change was too intriguing to pass up.
“At the time, the American Psychological Association (APA) prominently on its web page said sexual orientation could not be changed,” he said. “Very few people were looking into it.”
In 2007, Jones and his colleague, Dr. Mark Yarhouse of Regent University, published their three-year findings of the group in a book (Ex-Gays? A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation, InterVarsity Press). It was rejected by peer-reviewed scientific journals for not following subjects long enough or tracking changes as they occurred — valid concerns the authors addressed in their latest work.
However, the APA also excoriated the authors for not using a laboratory model with a control group — and said in 2009 that the findings were “unpersuasive.”
That, said Jones, is not a valid concern.
“All methodologies have drawbacks,” he said. “The more rigorous you get, the further removed you get from real life. We followed more of a real-life model than a hyper-controlled experimental model. We think the results challenge the reigning mindset that change is impossible or is extraordinarily rare.
“It is a bit frustrating to me to see APA saying research shows it is impossible or rarely happens when in my mind, no such research exists,” he continued. “When anecdotes that people have changed are treated with cynicism, it’s fueled by the anecdotes of people who’ve had the opposite experience. To say (change is) impossible is an overstatement of the facts, in our opinion.”
Jones said the fact that the subjects were all Christians with strong convictions about moral behavior most likely played a pivotal role in helping the successful ones change their orientation.
“We were trying to address the basic question ‘Is change possible?’ The fact that anyone changed is what came out of this study,” he said."
Bad anonymous Jones and Stanton's study is a dishonest piece of bunk and here's why:
"Here’s how it turned out after 6 to 7 years of tracking participants:
98 The number of subjects when the study began: 72 men and 26 women.
37 The number of subjects who dropped out of the study and did not report their results. I don’t think we can count any of them as an ex-gay “win.”
12 The number who stopped trying to change, and embraced their gay identity.
18 The number who were reportedly chaste, “with substantive dis-identification with homosexual orientation.”
In other words, they’ve managed to stop having sex, and don’t think about getting same-sex down-and-dirty as much as they used to.
This isn’t a change in orientation, any more than a straight person is no longer straight because they’ve used prayer to become celibate and partially push some of their sexual feelings underground.
17 The number who apparently stayed with the study, but whose outcomes are not described in the summary. Presumably, they’re not clear ex-gay “wins” either.
14 The number who reported “successful ‘conversion’ to heterosexual orientation and functioning.”
That’s a meager 14% success rate.
Or is it? Let’s learn more about those 14 people.
First, it’s probably not 14. The study cautions us that the 14 conversions and 18 celibates represent “likely overly optimistic projections of anticipated success.”
In other words — less than 14 actual conversions.
But wait. Check out what “conversion” means:
Most of the individuals who reported that they were heterosexual at Time 3 did not report themselves to be without experience of homosexual arousal, and did not report heterosexual orientation to be unequivocal and uncomplicated.
You know what they call straight people who experience homosexual arousal, and whose orientation is at most equivocal? Bisexual. Most of the 14 heterosexual “conversions” seem to be bisexuals.
This leaves us with at most — at most — 6 individuals who went from gay to straight (as of now, at least; who knows where they’ll be in another 7 years).
This and the previous quote by Rob Tinsai:
And the authors aren’t willing to go even that far. Their single-sentence summary:
In short, the results do not prove that categorical change in sexual orientation is possible for everyone or anyone, but rather that meaningful shifts along a continuum that constitute real changes appear possible for some.
Wow. Out of 98 highly-motivated subjects, the authors found that a small, unspecified number can use prayer and counseling to shut down their sexual feelings or become a bit more bi. And possibly none who turned straight.
Frankly, I’m surprised they couldn’t find more. The authors claim their results:
…challenge the commonly expressed views of the mental health establishment that change of sexual orientation is impossible or very uncommon…
Actually, it looks more like the results confirm those views. If the antigay camp sees this as vindication and victory, they must be even more desperate than I thought.
Theo said "On the study,I can’t help but notice that the authors retreat to the same deliberately vague verbiage that Exodus employs, i.e., “change” is “possible”. That is intended to convey that a gay person has a reasonable chance of converting to straight. What it actually means is that after years of effort and religious conversion, a shift of any magnitude on the Kinsey scale might be the outcome for at least one human being on the planet.
It is also worth noting that these participants are an extremely motivated and very religious group. Not only are they pursuing conversion, but they have stuck with the effort for at least 7 years if not longer. I believe that they were still in the program at the time the study last reported in. They are dramatically unrepresentative of the general population or the gay population.
Whatever % actually converted greater than zero would have absolutely no bearing on expected results when such efforts are applied to the population of gays and lesbians. It would make as much sense to say that because 5% of applicants for the US Special Forces – drawn from volunteers from the very best of the 3 branches of the armed forces – actually make it, there is a 5% chance for any American to make it in.
I’d also note that this is all self-reported. No participant has any incentive to report failure and all have great incentives to report success. Reporting failure means undermining the program and discouraging gays from seeking healing in Christ, and so arguably is itself sinful. And reporting failure means disappointing the program’s leaders and shaming oneself with respect to other participants. And if this weren’t enough, both authors of the study to whom the data are provided are conservative Christians. This is not to say that the responses are skewed; it is only to note that all the incentives to misreport flow in one direction.".
Patrick said "NOM, as is their custom with things that for which they want plausible deniability in the public sphere but which they want to get out to their followers, posted the link and excerpt without independent comment. The excerpt, of course, avoided the cautions that the success numbers are presumed by the authors to be overly-optimistic, that 40% of the participants have dropped out, that the population was highly motivated and small, and that the authors have explicitly stated that the results do not mean that anyone — much less everyone — can change from gay to straight, or that any given individual can change at all.
It’s also worth noting that there are independent, fairly reliable means of determining physiological attraction — such as MRI scans while viewing selected images designed to stimulate attraction response. I have yet to hear of any ex-gay who is willing to use such means to prove a change in orientation. Why — if they are being honest about a change in orientation rather than simply a change in behavior — has no ex-gay submitted to such a test?".
This comment has been removed by the author.
For a more detailed breakdown of the dishonesty and problems with the Jones and Yarhouse study see:
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/tag/jones-yarhouse-study
Timothy said "Did NOM mention that one of the few "successes" came back later (after the research but before publishing) and said that he never was a success, but that he so wanted to be and to please them that he gave the answers that he did?".
Just as Theo said, there's no reason to believe any of the 6% of claimed successes were telling the truth.
As we can see when you look at Yarhouse and Jones study objectively and remove the dishonesty it is rife with once again we can see there is no evidence that anyone can change from gay to straight and in fact the reality of their study tends to prove that no one can change from gay to straight despite how desperately they may want to.
"Jones said the fact that the subjects were all Christians with strong convictions about moral behavior most likely played a pivotal role in helping the successful ones change their orientation."
Yeah, that's what they tell you. If you just pray enough, if you just believe enough, if your convictions about moral behavior are just strong enough, you too can become what you are not.
How many decades did Ted Haggard, another Christian with strong convictions, last in the closet before coming out as bisexual in earlier this year?
wow!
this event has flustered nasty Priya so much that she has to make eight (count 'em, folks) instant comments to obscure the FACT that a peer-reviewed study has determined that hoomosexual preference can change
you have to ask yourself:
why do hoomosexual advocate feel it is so vital to preserve the mistaken idea that this desire cannot be overcome?
can't they just say that maybe these preferences can change but argue from the perspective of liberatarianism?
it's because they don't just want liberty
they want an excuse to infringe on the liberty of others
that's the way hoomosexual advocates are!!
LOL, its a hoot all right bad anonymous that you're too stupid to see the irony of your bitching about my 7 posts when you made the first 17 on this thread. That's what psychologists call projection, you accuse others of the the very thing you're most guilty of.
Its hilarious that after I've destroyed the false claims of Jones and Yarhouse with a detailed fact based analysis your pathetic response is a childish "No you didn't!".
Bad anonymous said "they want an excuse to infringe on the liberty of others".
Your liberty ends when it infringes on the liberty of LGBTs. You don't have a right to oppress us. Tell me bad anonymous, other than your erroneous belief that you've got a right to deny LGBTs their rights, just exactly what liberty of yours do you think we're infringing on? (imaginary liberties don't count, remember).
Judging from bad anonymous's last post he thinks he has the liberty to not be challenged on his B.S.
Hint bad anonymous: No you don't.
two more comments by nasty Priya
I'm not "bitching" about your, now, nine posts in the last hour
I'm just chuckling at how many comments you make, and how quickly, to one post
just seems that we've hit a sore point
this study is peer-reviewed so, unless you have some credential we're unaware of, your "destruction of the false claims of Jones and Yarhouse with a detailed fact based analysis" really is pointless
even if you had some expertise, based on the reasoning of the TTF community, it's worthless unless your comments are subjected to peer-review so how can we trust them?
face it, nasty Priya, the world now knows the truth
hoomosexuals are not helpless marionettes of biology any more than trans are porcelain dolls
they can successfully resist their urges and they eventually fade
you can't use that lame line any more
turns out, you use it or lose it
it's always good for the pro-family side when nasty Priya goes into one of her rants
the trick is to provoke her
we hit pay dirt today, baby!
LOL, bad anonymous, your willful stupidity is amazing. You make 15 of the first 17 posts and yet magically think the 8 I've made are excessive - shows your total disconnect with reality.
Its irrelevant that the journal is peer reviewed. Lots of pay for publish journals are peer reviewed and they print everything that is submitted to them. Peer review says nothing about quality and this journal has a low quality ranking.
The fact is that the "study" is rife with dishonesty, particularly in defining people who simply cease having sex as successful conversions from gay to straight even though they still have their same sex attractions - absolutely absurd. Take that away from Jones and Yarhouse's study and there goes most of their "successes". Another prominent example of their dishonesty is their calculation of their "50%" "success" rate. Not only did most of the people they included as "successes" not change their same sex attractions when they calculated the "success" rate they excluded 37 of the original 98 participants from the calculation who dropped out of the program. Its a safe bet none of them changed their attractions.
The remaining sample size of 61 is insignificant and only 6% of those claimed success and they reported they still had same sex attractions and did not, as Jones and Yarhouse said "report heterosexual orientation to be unequivocal and uncomplicated." (a definition of "heterosexuality" no rational person would use).
Given that these were a highly selected group not representative of the general gay population and that they were highly motivated to lie about success no honest scientist would claim anyone had changed from gay to heterosexual and that this journal was "peer reviewed" means nothing given the objective facts of the "study" carried out by biased researchers who oppose gayness, think its a sin and that all gays should change.
In fact the results of this "study" provide far more proof gays cannot change orientation than it provides proof that they can.
Bad anonymous, your hiding from my previous question is very telling.
Tell us bad anonymous, other than your erroneous belief that you've got a right to deny LGBTs their rights, just exactly what liberty of yours do you think we're infringing on? (imaginary liberties don't count, remember).
Or do you just want to be honest for a change and admit your claim that "they want an excuse to infringe on the liberty of others".
is just another one of your dishonest talking points?
"You make 15 of the first 17 posts and yet magically think the 8 I've made are excessive"
I never said you made too many posts
I just find it remarkable how flustered this topic made you
why, for example, do you write nine posts in one sitting?
why not combine them?
probably the same reason you deleted one
you're typing faster than you think because you're so flustered
oops! she fergot sumpin' she wanted to say
"Its irrelevant that the journal is peer reviewed. Lots of pay for publish journals are peer reviewed and they print everything that is submitted to them. Peer review says nothing about quality"
that's rich
can I quote you on that?
I made these same points many times and everyone here acted like I'd urinated on their favorite golden cow
peer review has been treated by TTFers like a sacred process, beyond questioning, responsible for all the advances we've made in civilization
now, it doesn't serve there bias so it must go
ha-ha!!
"The fact is that the "study" is rife with dishonesty, particularly in defining people who simply cease having sex as successful conversions from gay to straight even though they still have their same sex attractions"
if they had been dishonest, you wouldn't be discusssing it
obviously, if you knew about it, they were honest in their recounting of the results
I think your summary is not exactly correct though
"Its a safe bet none of them changed their attractions"
you're gambling now?
there's no reason to believe anything other than what was reported
you seem to think no one has recovered from homosexuality unless they never have a twinge of temptation
sin doesn't work that way
once you take a step into a certain type of sin, it causes some damage that never completely disappears this side of heaven, but can be minimized
if you want to call that bi, go ahead
but, remember, bi's have a choice, by definition
how is that a justification for infringing on the rights of others?
"why do hoomosexual [sic] advocate [sic] feel it is so vital to preserve the mistaken idea that this desire cannot be overcome?"
The question is why do homophobes feel it is so vital to preserve the mistaken idea that you can take a gay person and pray the gay away to create a straight person.
Why do you put all your faith in this single study but ignore all the other peer reviewed studies that have found attempts at sexual orientation change are harmful and fail most of the time?
This Yarmouth study found "23 percent reported a complete change in 6 years." Would you urge your daughter to marry a "completely changed" ex-gay who underwent the same treatments used in this Yarmouth study?
And if 23% made a complete change in orientation in 6 years, that means 77% did not. It seems to me you'd have to be pretty desperate to call a 77% failure rate "success."
"The question is why do homophobes feel it is so vital to preserve the mistaken idea that you can take a gay person and pray the gay away to create a straight person"
nobody thinks "you can pray the gay away"
they think with counseling and prayer a motivated person can overcome temptation and eventually replace it with normal desires
"Why do you put all your faith in this single study"
actually, I don't
"but ignore all the other peer reviewed studies that have found attempts at sexual orientation change are harmful"
actually, there are no peer reviewed studies showing any substantial harm from a general attempt to overcome deviant temptations
"This Yarmouth study found "23 percent reported a complete change in 6 years." Would you urge your daughter to marry a "completely changed" ex-gay who underwent the same treatments used in this Yarmouth study?"
are you saying bi's should only be allowed to marry homosexuals?
"And if 23% made a complete change in orientation in 6 years, that means 77% did not. It seems to me you'd have to be pretty desperate to call a 77% failure rate "success.""
not really
a treatment for cancer with that rate of success would be considered a smashing success
besides, it proves the claim of impossibility but lunatic fringers is wrong
it may also indicate that if you study the successes more closely, you can find out what works
take heart, TTFers
there is hope that a cure may be found for your condition yet
"Your liberty ends when it infringes on the liberty of LGBTs"
Wow Priya.
Just wow.
Disagree entirely.
I have a right to teach my son whatever I want, including that homosexual behavior is unnatural. He found the thought of cutting off his member sufficiently abhorrent and crazy that I didn't have to do too much with that one. He thought I was kidding.
My rights to raise my children in my beliefs is something the vast majority of Americans agree with. I can and do teach them according to my beliefs. I am not the one trying to limit what preachers preach, YOU ARE. I am not the one trying to limit what you say, you are trying to limit my free speech. You have a right to express your opinion and I have a right to express mine. where we come into direct conflict is when you try to get public schools to use my tax dollars to teach my children positions that I disagree with on matters that don't belong in the public school to start with (like discussions on homosexuality).
that is an unbeliveable statement you made, but very telling. I would never attempt to interfere with your free speech rights, but you find my free speech rights subservient to yours.
Unreal
Renowned political commentator Ann Coulter has written a new blog post to discuss the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell," which took place on September 20, and the booing of a gay soldier who asked a question at a recent Republican presidential candidate debate.
Says Coulter:
"…The audience was not "booing a soldier" during one of the video questions, as the media, president and vice president have alleged. The audience was booing the soldier's demand that Republican presidential candidates commit to not overturning a sleazy partisan vote taken in the twilight days of the heavily Democratic 2010 Congress... Of course there was booing for that!"
Coulter goes on to say that it is not an "anti-gay position; it is a pro-military position" because "sexual bonds are disruptive to the military bond."
She writes:
"Soldiers, sailors and Marines living in close quarters who are having sex with one another, used to have sex with one another or would like to have sex with one another simply cannot function as a well-oiled fighting machine. A battalion of married couples facing a small unit of heterosexual men would be slaughtered."
Coulter is known for astute candor.
In 2007 she called John Edwards a "faggot."
In September 2010 she headlined gay conservative group GOProud's Homocon summit and told the audience that gay marriage "is not a civil right -- you're not black."
Why she's not running for office is a mystery!
Nobody's after your parental or child's educational rights, Theresa. Calm down. What you tell your son does not tramp on anyone's rights. Tell him the moon is made of green cheese and the stork brings babies if you want. But if the public schools "teach [your] children positions that [you] disagree with on matters that [you feel] don't belong in the public school to start with (like discussions on homosexuality)" then you need to find yourself a school that teaches just exactly what you want taught. The class that has discussions on homosexuality is sex ed, which is optional.
This is America! We know that all of us - LGBT, straight, male, female, black, white - are created equal with equal rights. Liberty and justice are for all of us. Your uptight heteroelitism is revolting.
"Nobody's after your parental or child's educational rights"
this is simply untrue
"What you tell your son does not tramp on anyone's rights"
as long as he keeps it to himself, right?
"Tell him the moon is made of green cheese and the stork brings babies if you want"
Theresa is not doing that
the public schools, however, are teaching fairy tales about homosexuality to advance the gay agenda
"But if the public schools "teach [your] children positions that [you] disagree with on matters that [you feel] don't belong in the public school to start with (like discussions on homosexuality)" then you need to find yourself a school that teaches just exactly what you want taught"
why should she?
her views represent the mainstream and the public schools are funded by the mainstream
"The class that has discussions on homosexuality is sex ed, which is optional"
why don't they have breakout classes for the kids whose parents are clamoring that they be indoctrinated with the gay agenda?
it's a trick question
there aren't enough such parents to fill up a break-out section
"This is America! We know that all of us - LGBT, straight, male, female, black, white - are created equal with equal rights"
don't blacks have the right to not be insulted by comparing their racial identity to sexual deviance
lunatic fringers want to infringe on the liberty of others and receive special protection
"Liberty and justice are for all of us"
that's true
why do homosexual advocates want more than that at the expense of others
"Your uptight heteroelitism is revolting"
heterosexuality should be favored by a healthy society
I didn't start this, Priya did.
Please then explain what Priya meant :
"Your liberty ends when it infringes on the liberty of LGBTs"
in regards to a typical catholic family.
nasty Priya is a porcelain doll
unless there are special laws making crimes against her more serious than those against others, she believes her liberty is infringed
but the poor dear is not really thinking of herself but, instead, the homosexuals who insist that everyone else's definition of marriage be changed to their preferences
they are deprived of their liberty to steal everyone else's language
just emailed Jim my tax rates table.
this Thursday night.
would make a great weekend debate jim, over the truth behind the presidents monologue on tax rates and the "rich not paying their fair share"....
and quite timely, considering the president's obession with this subject.
if you are up for it.
You are going to lose if you post the facts.
are you honest ?
will you debate the facts ?
see, I think you wlll.
they are true numbers.
run them yourself if you don't believe me.
I quadruple dare you to post them.
the President is desperately trying to start a class warfare in hopes of getting re-elected
unfortunately for him, we've never been that kind of country
we want more rich people, not less
Democrats, who are not suicidal, are not planning to pass his jobs-through-taxes bill:
"On Tuesday, President Barack Obama tried to keep the pressure on Congress to consider his nearly $450 billion jobs bill, saying it had been two weeks since he sent the bill to Capitol Hill "and now I want it back."
"I want it back, passed, so I can sign this bill and start putting people back to work," Obama said Tuesday.
So why have Democrats delayed action in the U.S. Senate on President Obama’s latest stimulus bill?
Senator Dick Durbin, the number two Democrat in the Senate says:
“There are some senators who are up for election who say I’m never gonna vote for a tax increase while I’m up for election. So, we’re not gonna have 100% Democratic senators. That’s why it needs to be bi-partisan and I hope we can find some Republicans who will join us to make it happen.”
But so far, Durbin concedes Democrats don’t have the votes in the senate to pass it, “I don’t think we do but, uh, we can work on it.”
When someone sneezes, it's common for a person in the vicinity to respond, "bless you."
But for making that remark, students in Steven Cuckovich's health class in Vacaville, Calif. lost 25 points off a test. The next day, someone used the phrase again when a student sneezed, and Will C. Wood High School student Erica Fagan told KXTV that Cuckovich docked points off everyone's grades.
"The blessing doesn't really make sense anymore," Cuckovich told KTXL. "When you sneezed in the old days, they thought you were dispelling evil spirits out of your body. So they were saying 'God bless you' for getting rid of evil spirits. But today, what you're doing really doesn't make sense."
Parents aren't pleased, and the school's principal agrees that the punishment doesn't fit the offense. But Cuckovich says students will still face consequences for the act, just in a less severe way, The Christian Post reports.
Students also told KXTV that the sneezing-response rule isn't in the syllabus for the class -- a one-semester course required for graduation.
The Vacaville Unified School District issued a statement Thursday saying that it's investigating "this reported classroom disruption," KGO-TV reports.
A federal appeals court in California ruled this month, in favor of a school's decision, that a math teacher for Poway Unified School District cannot display banners proclaiming "In God We Trust," "One Nation Under God," "God Bless America" and "God Shed His Grace On Thee."
PRINCETON, NJ -- In thinking about the 2012 presidential election, only 45% of Democrats and independents who lean Democratic say they are more enthusiastic about voting than usual, while nearly as many, 44%, are less enthusiastic. This is in sharp contrast to 2008 and, to a lesser extent, 2004, when 79% of Democrats expressed heightened enthusiasm about voting.
"Please then explain what Priya meant :
"Your liberty ends when it infringes on the liberty of LGBTs"
in regards to a typical catholic family."
I can't speak as to what Priya meant, but her claim is equally true stated this way:
"LGBT's liberty ends when it infringes on your liberty"
Each of us in America has the right to live free. And we recognize that we are not all the same, and that's OK. We respect our differences and melt into the melting pot. Blacks don't hate whites, Jews don't hate Catholics, gays don't hate straights, Catholics don't hate gays (right, Theresa?).
Your Catholic family and my non-Catholic family are equally free to say whatever they want. Everybody should know that some courts have found some speech about crimes committed can turn those crimes into hate crimes.
Speaking of crime,it's a crime that wages are taxed so much higher rates than investment income is. The rich investor class has turned the US tax code to their benefit. Why should wages of us working stiffs be taxed at such high rates while those with enough capital to invest are taxed at lower rates on the profits their investments bring home? To create jobs? What jobs have all those tax breaks at the top created since Bush enacted them? My longterm unemployed friend is dying to know.
Here's what those tax cuts for the rich have enabled rather than jobs:
"Gap between US rich and poor quadruples since 1979"
http://uwire.com/2011/03/01/gap-between-us-rich-and-poor-quadruples-since-1979/
It's about time the protests on Wall Street are starting to get picked up by the MSM. The blatant police brutality used against the peaceful Wall Street protestors exercising their right to free speech has made the protests more difficult for the MSM to ignore. Both ends of the spectrum are reporting about them now.
"Pepper Spray and a Police Dept. Whose Power Grows Unchecked"
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/30/nyregion/a-harsh-view-of-police-power-in-pepper-spray-episode.html?_r=1&ref=nyregion
"Occupy Wall Street protest sparks nationwide movement"
http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/omkara/2011/sep/29/occupy-wall-street-protest-sparks-nationwide-movem/
"Each of us in America has the right to live free"
and our society is one where homosexuals have been free to do whatever they want behind closed doors
but they want more than freedom
they want us to favor them with harsher penalties for perpetrators of crimes against them
they want to force others to engage in economic tranasctions with them
after they force these economic transactions, they want the other party forced to not say anything that implies their sexual preferences are not normal
they want schools to teach that their sexual preferences are normal
et al
you get the point
freedom was only the first step in the agenda
"And we recognize that we are not all the same, and that's OK"
that's an opinion and not in the realm of government
"We respect our differences and melt into the melting pot. Blacks don't hate whites, Jews don't hate Catholics, gays don't hate straights, Catholics don't hate gays (right, Theresa?)"
behavior and desire are components of character and fair game for evaluating people, unlike race
btw, the homosexual agenda considers "hate" to be any negative opinion that has no empirical basis
so people of different religious viewpoints may have negative views of each other based on matters that are not empirically determinable
if that's what you mean by "hate", there is a constitutional guarantee to it
it might be wise, actually, to consider homosexuality like we do religion
at least then, the schools won't be allowed to promote it
"Your Catholic family and my non-Catholic family are equally free to say whatever they want"
becoming less true every day
if a kid went to school and stated his belief that homosexuality is immoral, he can be accused of "bullying" and contributing to "hatred" and "bias"
same with employers or landlords
"Everybody should know that some courts have found some speech about crimes committed can turn those crimes into hate crimes"
oh, we know
this means you have to be more closely scrutinized by the law if you don't view homosexuality positively
yet another infringement of our liberty
"Speaking of crime,it's a crime that wages are taxed so much higher rates than investment income is"
actually, dividends are taxed twice and the net is that investors pay more taxes than those trade labor for cash
"The rich investor class has turned the US tax code to their benefit"
not only untrue but the philanthropy of this class is a major driver of the quality of life we enjoy in our modern paradise
"Why should wages of us working stiffs be taxed at such high rates while those with enough capital to invest are taxed at lower rates on the profits their investments bring home?"
your wages aren't taxed at higher rates, you idiot
"To create jobs? What jobs have all those tax breaks at the top created since Bush enacted them? My longterm unemployed friend is dying to know"
tell him the economy was at full employment for most of the Bush term
the rates of unemployment we have seen since Obama was sworn in has been a commonplace fact in Western Europe for decades
if we continue to emulate their socialist model, as Obama is trying to do, unemployment will remain where it is indefinitely
let your long-term buddy in on who to vote for if he wants a job
"Here's what those tax cuts for the rich have enabled rather than jobs"
liberals were whining about this long before Bush
the American people haven't ever considered it to be a major issue
"It's about time the protests on Wall Street"
could you answer a question?
what the #*!*!* are they protesting about?
"they want us to favor them with harsher penalties for perpetrators of crimes against them"
Just like members of religious and racial groups, the elderly and the disabled and other groups protected by law from discrimination get for crimes perpetrated against them based on hate for their group.
"they want to force others to engage in economic tranasctions with them"
Their money is just as green as everyone else's.
"after they force these economic transactions, they want the other party forced to not say anything that implies their sexual preferences are not normal"
Same with Christians who cry don't dis our religious views and have anti-discrimination laws to back them up.
"they want schools to teach that their sexual preferences are normal"
Gays love members of the same sex just like straights love members of the opposite sex. It is normal to be sexually attracted to someone based on your sexual orientation. Only homophobes try to stop a class of people from marrying who they love, promoting promiscuity rather than monogamy for some.
We had a battle over the sex ed curriculum here in MoCo and the majority opinion won out even after all the publicity put out and lawsuits brought by the homophobes at CRC. If you object to your student learning that some people are gay, opt them out of sex ed classes or out of the system. The choice is yours. But the majority has spoken and been upheld in the courts on every level the CRG used to try to stop them.
"what the #*!*!* are they protesting about?"
I put up a URL to a New York Times article and a Washington Times article so everyone can figure out what they are protesting about from reading press coverage of their protest.
And here's how Fox News is starting to cover it now:
"Unions Joining Wall St Protest"
http://nation.foxnews.com/occupy-wall-street/2011/09/29/unions-joining-wall-st-protest
and here's Megyn Kelly discussing it with her panel of experts for you
"Excessive Force Used at Wall Street Protest?"
http://video.foxnews.com/v/1183550850001/excessive-force-used-at-wall-street-protest/
and you can compare Megyn's panel discussion to the account of an actual eye-witness who was in the video being discussed by Megyn's panel
"Eye-witness to police brutality
Jeanne Mansfield, a witnessed the entire mace incident at the Occupy Wall Street protests, describes her experience on The Last Word."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/44725263#44725263
LOL, I see bad anonymous is still afraid to address any of the problems and dishonesty in the Jones and Yarhouse study - no surprise there, he can't dispute anything I posted. All he's got is a childish "Is too!" in response to the overwhelming facts and figures I posted.
Jones and Yarhouse excluded 37 failures from their calculation of their "success" rate. Then they Then they included 43 people who had no change in attractions whatsoever as "successes". Of the remaining 6 "successes" all were based on unconfirmed self reports from highly religious people with a strong incentive to lie because it would be a sin to give people the impression they can't come to jesus by changing their orienation.
The Jones and Yarhouse study is a joke. It proves it is impossible for even the most highly motivated of gays to change orientation.
And of course bad anonymous still has no examples of what liberties of his he thinks gays are infringing upon...because that's just another one of his dishonest talking points.
I said "Your liberty ends when it infringes on the liberty of LGBTs"
Theresa said "Wow Priya. Just wow. Disagree entirely.
I have a right to teach my son whatever I want, including that homosexual behavior is unnatural.".
I never said you didn't. As good anonymous said it is equally true that LGBT's liberty ends when it infringes upon your liberty. Or perhaps you've heard it phrased this way - "Your right to swing your fist ends when it contacts my nose.". You think that gays liberties should be limited but not yours, that it shouldn't work both ways. Justice demands that it does.
The point is that no one has absolute freedom to do whatever they want to others, there are limits to a person's freedom when it comes into conflict with someone else's freedom. For example the right of a gay man to live trumps your right to kill him because your religion said to.
That's the problem with religious bigots like you Theresa, you think your freedoms should be absolute, that you should have the right to do anything you want to gays and they should have no right to be free from your attacks. Those days are gone Theresa, demanding they come back is only going to see you marginalized as the wild-eyed frothing at the mouth bigot you are.
Theo said "I’d like to suggest, as I have in the past, that BTB do one of its in-depth pieces on the motive behind the big emphasis on mutability. The motives of the conflicted homosexuals who want to resolve that conflict by becoming heterosexual are clear enough. But why are all the anti-gay groups so heavily focused on this issue, even when it becomes clear that actual orientation change – assuming it is ever possible – is an uncommon occurrence and would not eliminate or even substantially reduce the number of homosexuals in the populace?
The answer is that these groups believe or pretend to believe that civil rights protections only extend to groups defined by immutable characteristics and religion (which they claim gets included because it is mentioned in the Constitution). This is simply a lie. It has no bearing in reality. Mutability is not a prerequisite for civil rights protection. Civil rights are creations of statute and can be bestowed upon whatever group a legislature wants to protect. For example, federal law protects against discrimination based on the mutable condition of pregnancy – which include both being pregnant and not being pregnant. Colorado protects workers from being discriminated against based on their recreational activities. California forbids discrimination against workers who speak out on matters of public policy. And there are many, many examples.
Mutability is one non-decisive factor in one component of judicial analysis of an Equal Protection Clause claim. But even in that context, groups defined by mutable characteristics may receive greater judicial protection while other groups with immutable characteristics may receive the minimum.
The whole argument is a deception and the Christian Right gets away with it b/c they know that Americans are ignorant about their legal system and are not going to parse the issue.
The main issue is not whether a small number of homosexuals somewhere in the world have truly converted after 7 years of religiously motivated effort. The issue is whether homosexual orientation is a fundamental part of a person’s identity and is not something that can be altered as a matter of convenience. So I think that we should turn these results around. Rather than let the other side turn this into a game of “gotcha” in which even 1 genuine conversion proves that homosexuality is mutable, I think we should argue that, even assuming the study is legitimate and the results accurate, such a low success rate following such a long treatment period for a highly motivated group proves that homosexuality is not mutable for the vast majority of gays. Consider: if it were suddenly possible for 1 in 1,000 African Americans to “turn white” if only they would alter their self-identity, change their religion, and listen to Pat Boone music 3X/week for 7 years, would that justify striking African Americans from civil rights laws or recognizing them as a discrete group in society?".
Amen and amen, Priya Lynn!! The "Family Values" ogres who have attempted to pirate this site need a little come-uppance about their bigotry, hypocracy, and ignorance.
This little game they have gotten into playing recently: "Oh, woe is me...everybody is attacking me because of my religious beliefs" is such a fraud - the obvious defense of a small group of malcontents who want to assume the "victim" role in order to get the sympathy of people who are not convinced by their "reasoning" (and that is definitely a "sic") and inability to convince people to their point of view by intelligent discource.
Praxiteles
here's Ahnold Schwarzenegger recalling how he decided to run for governor while en route to the Jay Leno show, and after telling everyone, including his wife, that he was not going to run:
"I just thought, This will freak everyone out. It’ll be so funny. I’ll announce that I’m running. I told Leno I was running. And two months later I was governor. What the fuck is that? All these people are asking me, ‘What’s your plan? Who’s on your staff?’ I didn’t have a plan. I didn’t have a staff. I wasn’t running until I went on Jay Leno.
You have to realize the thing was so much fun! We had a great time! There were times of frustration. There were times of disappointment. But if you want to live rather than just exist, you want the drama. You have to step back and say, ‘I was elected under odd circumstances. And I’m going out in odd circumstances.’ You can’t have it both ways. You can’t be a spoiled brat."
on to TTFer nonsense:
"Just like members of religious and racial groups, the elderly and the disabled and other groups protected by law from discrimination get for crimes perpetrated against them based on hate for their group"
all wrong
a crime is a crime
no one set of people deserves more protection than another
especially not based on sexual deviance
"Their money is just as green as everyone else's."
yes, it is
which is why they have no hardship worthy of governmental intervention
they'll have no trouble finding someone to take their money in our capitalist society
we don't need the government forcing people to deal with them
homosexuals can take the same chances that someone won't like them that the rest of us do
"Same with Christians who cry don't dis our religious views and have anti-discrimination laws to back them up"
actually, Christians rarely complain about their views being dissed
they actually love nothing more than to engage the culture
when the government excludes Christianity, however, that's not an issue of discrimination
it's a matter of constitutional matter of religious liberty
religious discrimination laws are made for other religions not Christianity
"Gays love members of the same sex just like straights love members of the opposite sex. It is normal to be sexually attracted to someone based on your sexual orientation"
well, you're entitled to your opinion
but personal opinions only belong in schools if a counter opinion is allowed
btw, "orientation" is a biased term
"preference" would be more appropriate
"Only homophobes try to stop a class of people from marrying who they love,"
"homophobe" is biased term
"misohomogenity" would be more appropriate
nobody's trying to stop you from doing anything
what you want is recognition by the government that same gender sexual deviance is normal
liberty isn't the issue
"promoting promiscuity rather than monogamy for some"
no, those who oppose redefining marriage would be happy to see homosexuals eschew the random and vast promiscuity that is so common among them
"We had a battle over the sex ed curriculum here in MoCo and the majority opinion won out"
you mean the majority of the school board
the Apple ballot has been so powerful because there has been a perception that MC schools are so singularly excellent
that perception will fade as the reality sinks in that MC schools decline yearly while other counties in Maryland and the DC area move ahead
"If you object to your student learning that some people are gay, opt them out of sex ed classes or out of the system"
what a stupid comment
there are few children that learn of the existence of homosexuality in MC schools
the curriculum instead tells them what their attitude about homosexuality should be
fortunately, most kids can see through it
but why should they be subjected to this propaganda?
"The choice is yours"
the taxpayer haven't been given a choice about whether they want to fund the teaching of fairy tales in schools
one thing homosexual advocates avoid at all costs is a direct vote on their agenda
they never win
so they seek activist judges, play legal games with citizen petitions, and try to intimidate those who seek to place referendums
the fear of public opinion is clear
"But the majority has spoken and been upheld in the courts on every level the CRG used to try to stop them"
see above
"I put up a URL to a New York Times article and a Washington Times article so everyone can figure out what they are protesting about"
can you put it in your own words?
c'mon, we need a laugh
"Priya Lynn said..."
here's that laugh we were looking for
"I see bad anonymous is still afraid to address any of the problems and dishonesty in the Jones and Yarhouse study - no surprise there, he can't dispute anything I posted"
like you, I'm not a scientist
all I know is that a peer-reviewed study found that homosexuals can change preferences and that nasty Priya doesn't like that
"All he's got is a childish "Is too!" in response to the overwhelming facts and figures I posted"
your facts and figures weren't peer-reviewed, nasty
"Jones and Yarhouse excluded 37 failures from their calculation of their "success" rate. Then they Then they included 43 people who had no change in attractions whatsoever as "successes". Of the remaining 6 "successes" all were based on unconfirmed self reports"
all sexuality studies rely on self-reporting
"The Jones and Yarhouse study is a joke. It proves it is impossible for even the most highly motivated of gays to change orientation"
actually, it suggests that most homosexuals are actually bi, meaning they do have a choice
no need to cry for special government protection based on the inability to change
waddup!
"And of course bad anonymous still has no examples of what liberties of his he thinks gays are infringing upon"
oh, I've noted several examples
go ahead and read all the posts again
don't worry, your top won't get mad at you
"...because that's just another one of his dishonest talking points"
the posts, nasty
read them
"inability to convince people to their point of view by intelligent discource"
the spelling skills of TTFers is always good for a laugh
especially when they start talking about "intelligence"
"I never said you didn't"
sure, as long as he doesn't repeat it
then, he'll be expelled, fired and sued
"it is equally true that LGBT's liberty ends when it infringes upon your liberty"
it already does
"Or perhaps you've heard it phrased this way - "Your right to swing your fist ends when it contacts my nose.""
an inflammatory statement
no one has suggested leaglizing assaults on homosexuals
"You think that gays liberties should be limited but not yours,"
that's a lie you've made without backing it up
"no one has absolute freedom to do whatever they want to others, there are limits to a person's freedom when it comes into conflict with someone else's freedom. For example the right of a gay man to live trumps your right to kill him because your religion said to."
no one has suggested that there is a right to kill a homosexual
homogayables have the same protection of the law that normal people have
they aren't satisfied with that
they want deviance exalted to a protected status
"you think your freedoms should be absolute, that you should have the right to do anything you want to gays and they should have no right to be free from your attacks"
there is no guarantee that anyone will not be a victim of a crime
anyone who is attacked can press charges
"Those days are gone Theresa,demanding they come back is only going to see you marginalized as the wild-eyed frothing at the mouth bigot you are"
to you, the whole whole must seem like drooling zombies
are you delusions the result of history of drug use?
Hey "Just shut up" (and don't we all wish that YOU WOULD):
"this is the problem with tolerating homosexuality...you never hear the end of it"
As if we don't live in a society that NEVER STOPS talking about its supposed heterosexuality superiority, its shameful, lewd, and degrading sexual behaviours, illegal and immoral trysts, slavish display of semi-naked (or naked) women,love of,and salivation over, never-ending sexual scandal exposures of prominent individuals in our society, etc. etc.
However you have answered your own question: "why can't they just shut up and move on?"
"because...they can't...they were born that way"
Funny and ironic that we have to tolerate heterosexuals (of your ilk) who think that Jesus will protect them, even though they were "born that way".
Oh, and by the way, would you be more precise in describing "how they want the government to give them special rights and protections"?
One can only assume that you are a sexual-compulsive elitist who thinks only you have rights and protections in the United States of America.
Maybe if you are contrite enough about your hypocrisy and hatred, your God will forgive you.
Justice Clarence Thomas
"Priya Lynn said..."
more laughs
coming right up
"these groups believe or pretend to believe that civil rights protections only extend to groups defined by immutable characteristics"
that's right
and, even then, only in cases of insurmountable hardships
"and religion (which they claim gets included because it is mentioned in the Constitution)"
reading, nasty
try it
"This is simply a lie. It has no bearing in reality. Mutability is not a prerequisite for civil rights protection. Civil rights are creations of statute and can be bestowed upon whatever group a legislature wants to protect."
please
homosexuals want this immutability claim because they think it solidifies their claim to victimization
"For example, federal law protects against discrimination based on the mutable condition of pregnancy – which include both being pregnant and not being pregnant"
we want to preference life but not sexual deviance
let's just call it "good versus evil"
"Colorado protects workers from being discriminated against based on their recreational activities"
that's their problem
"California forbids discrimination against workers who speak out on matters of public policy"
so what?
"Mutability is one non-decisive factor in one component of judicial analysis of an Equal Protection Clause claim"
you're the ones that want to teach immutability in schools
"But even in that context, groups defined by mutable characteristics may receive greater judicial protection while other groups with immutable characteristics may receive the minimum"
they shouldn't unless it's a quality that we wabt to encourage
"The whole argument is a deception and the Christian Right gets away with it b/c they know that Americans are ignorant about their legal system and are not going to parse the issue"
please
you are the ones who consider the issue so vital
"The main issue is not whether a small number of homosexuals somewhere in the world have truly converted after 7 years of religiously motivated effort. The issue is whether homosexual orientation is a fundamental part of a person’s identity and is not something that can be altered as a matter of convenience"
no, it's a matter of whether it's fair to consider behavior and desire as a component of character
MLK wanted his grandchildren judged on the content of their character
why do you hate MLK?
"So I think that we should turn these results around. Rather than let the other side turn this into a game of “gotcha” in which even 1 genuine conversion proves that homosexuality is mutable, I think we should argue that, even assuming the study is legitimate and the results accurate, such a low success rate following such a long treatment period for a highly motivated group proves that homosexuality is not mutable for the vast majority of gays"
why do you want to do that when immutability is not important to you?
why not just say a peer-reviwed study shows change is possible and leave it at that?
because immutabilty is a key plank in the gay agenda platform
"Consider: if it were suddenly possible for 1 in 1,000 African Americans to “turn white” if only they would alter their self-identity, change their religion, and listen to Pat Boone music 3X/week for 7 years, would that justify striking African Americans from civil rights laws or recognizing them as a discrete group in society?"
doesn't matter
being black would still not be an element of character
behavior and desire would
Bad anonymous said "no one set of people deserves more protection than another".
Heterosexuals are protected in exactly the same way as gays by hate crimes laws based on sexual orientation. No one is getting more protection than anyone else.
especially not based on sexual deviance
Bad anonymous said "actually, Christians rarely complain about their views being dissed".
HahahahahahahahHahahahahHahhha!
Bad anonymous said "they actually love nothing more than to engage the culture".
HahahahahahahahHahahahahHahhha! Right! That's why virtually every anti-gay christian blog refuses to allow gay supportive comments or their arguments to be challenged.
Bad anonymous said "religious discrimination laws are made for other religions not Christianity".
You're particularly loopy today. All religious discrimination laws refer to religion in general, none single out any specific religions - they apply to all religions.
Good anonymous said "Gays love members of the same sex just like straights love members of the opposite sex. It is normal to be sexually attracted to someone based on your sexual orientation"
Bad anonymous said "well, you're entitled to your opinion but personal opinions only belong in schools if a counter opinion is allowed."
Its a well established fact universally accepted by every mainstream medical and mental health organization. Opinions to the contrary of reality have no place in schools.
Bad anonymous said "btw, "orientation" is a biased term "preference" would be more appropriate".
False! The majority of heterosexuals and gays are exclusively attracted to one sex, there is no "preference". Unless you're suggesting you yourself are same sex attracted - is that what you're telling us?
Good anonymous said "Only homophobes try to stop a class of people from marrying who they love,"
Bad anonymous said ""homophobe" is biased term".
No, its entirely accurate, unless you want to admit you were lying about the whole "gays are destructive to society" thing.
Bad anonymous said "nobody's trying to stop you from doing anything".
Please, stop shovelling the BS, not even you believe the crap you're spewing. You want to deny gays the right to marry, adopt, and you want to criminalize same sex sex.
Bad anonymous said "what you want is recognition by the government that same gender sexual deviance is normal".
False! we don't care about sexual deviance, we care about getting equal treament from the government.
Bad anonymous said "liberty isn't the issue".
This from the bigot who's called for criminal sanctions for same sex sex.
Good anonymous said "promoting promiscuity rather than monogamy for some"
Bad anonymous said "no, those who oppose redefining marriage would be happy to see homosexuals eschew random promiscuity."
Bullshit. If that was true you'd be advocating for marriage for gays just as you advocate it for heterosexuals because you say it encourages monogamy.
Good anonymous said ""If you object to your student learning that some people are gay, opt them out of sex ed classes or out of the system"
Bad anonymous said "what a stupid comment".
What's stupid is that you think you have a right to prevent the teaching of reality - you don't.
"Hey "Just shut up" (and don't we all wish that YOU WOULD)"
I bet you do
"As if we don't live in a society that NEVER STOPS talking about its supposed heterosexuality superiority"
actually, it only comes up because homosexuals force the issue
heterosexuality is the norm
talk of "superiority" implies the legitimacy of homosexuality, even as inferior
it actually has no legitimacy
"Funny and ironic that we have to tolerate heterosexuals"
so, now you're merely tolerating us, uh?
"One can only assume that you are a sexual-compulsive elitist who thinks only you have rights and protections in the United States of America"
oh brother
I think I've addressed this
there is no protection nor rights that hombresexuals don't share with everyone else
Bad anonymous said "the curriculum instead tells them what their attitude about homosexuality should be".
Just as the curriculum tells them they shouldn't assume someone is a bad person just because they are black. That's exactly what schools should be doing.
Bad anonyomous said "fortunately, most kids can see through it".
Its fun to see you still living in your dream world. The majority of americans support full equality rights for gays and the VAST majority of those under 24 do. That percentage increases every year, get used to it bad anonymous.
Bad anonymous said "one thing homosexual advocates avoid at all costs is a direct vote on their agenda".
Minority rights should never be left up the vote of the tyranny of the majority.
Bad anonymous said "so they seek activist judges, play legal games with citizen petitions, and try to intimidate those who seek to place referendums".
We win in the courts and legislatures because arguments against equality aren't sustainable. That's why a the percentage of Americans who support full equality is growing at an ever increasing rate.
Bad anonymous said "all I know is that a peer-reviewed study found that homosexuals can change preferences and that nasty Priya doesn't like that".
LOL, still clinging to your unsupported claim that gays can change in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary from every study ever done, including this one. You obviously know very little while I on the other hand am deeply familiar with the wholesale flaws and dishonesty in this stuy that has been widely debunked.
Jones and Yarhouse excluded 37 failures from their calculation of their "success" rate. Then they Then they included 43 people who had no change in attractions whatsoever as "successes". Of the remaining 6 "successes" all were based on unconfirmed self reports by highly religious people heavily motivated to lie because it would be a sin to give people the impression that they can't come to Jesus by changing their orientation.
Bad anonymous said "all sexuality studies rely on self-reporting".
LOL, right, because all the "exgays" claiming to have changed orientation know that if they had to prove it with an MRI, or penile plethysmographs their lies would be exposed. There's a reason why none of these "successes" will allow independent verification of their claims.
I said "The Jones and Yarhouse study is a joke. It proves it is impossible for even the most highly motivated of gays to change orientation"
Bad anonymous said actually, it suggests that most homosexuals are actually bi, meaning they do have a choice".
The studies that have been done show most gays are exclusively same sex attracted. Regardless bisexuals don't have a choice in who they are attracted to either, we can't stop being attracted to both sexes. You're showing one of the fundamental dishonesties Jones and Yarhouse's claims of "success" are based on. They claim to be studying whether or not people can change same sex attractions into opposite sex attractions and then when people change their behavior (which of course can be done) they falsely portray that as a successful change in sexual orientation when in fact no changes in attractions have occurred at all.
Bad anonymous said "no need to cry for special government protection based on the inability to change".
No one is asking for special protection, what were asking for is the same rights you have. You accuse us of trying to deny you liberty when obviously its the other way arround. And whether or not people can change is irrelevant to the denial of equal rights. It is not justifiable to deny people equal rights just because they can change. Religion is a changeable feature of a person, but we don't hear you arguing that that justifies denying people rights because of it.
And of course bad anonymous still has no examples of what liberties of his he thinks gays are infringing upon because that's just another one of his dishonest talking points.
Hey "Anonymous"
"the spelling skills of TTFers is always good for a laugh...especially when they start talking about "intelligence"
I'm so grateful and thankful that you hold me to spelling error standards that you don't hold for yourself. Another example of your "superiority"?
"could you nail down that timing a little more precisley?" Precisley? Maybe you ought to check your dictionary, if you have one (no, it isn't another name for Bible).
"misohomogenity" You've got to be kidding!! Just one more example of your "intelligence deviancy".
"so, now you're merely tolerating us, uh?"
Oh yes...we are amazingly tolerant and Christian in dealing with those like you who are so in need of acceptance and love.
Bad anonymous said "no one has suggested leaglizing assaults on homosexuals"
I never said anyone did. You however have supported the criminalization of same sex sex.
I said to Theresa"You think that gays liberties should be limited but not yours,"
Bad anonymous said "that's a lie you've made without backing it up".
False! She objected to the idea that her liberty ended when it infringed on the liberty of gays - she stated she thinks her liberties shouldn't be limited.
I said "no one has absolute freedom to do whatever they want to others, there are limits to a person's freedom when it comes into conflict with someone else's freedom. For example the right of a gay man to live trumps your right to kill him because your religion said to."
Bad anonymous said "no one has suggested that there is a right to kill a homosexual".
False! Your bible demands it and many christians agree with it.
Bad anonymous said "homogayables have the same protection of the law that other people have".
False! Gays aren't afforded the same protections of marriage that heterosexuals have. Gays don't have the right not to be fired from their jobs or evicted from their homes for who they are as Christians do.
Bad anonymous said "they aren't satisfied with that".
False! All we ask for is quality under the law.
Bad anonymous said "they want deviance exalted to a protected status".
False! No LGBT has ever asked for that.
I said "you think your freedoms should be absolute, that you should have the right to do anything you want to gays and they should have no right to be free from your attacks"
Bad anonymous said "there is no guarantee that anyone will not be a victim of a crime".
I never said there was.
Bad anonymous said "anyone who is attacked can press charges".
Not if antigay christians like you and Theresa have your way. Then Christians will be allowed to attack LGBTs at will with impunity.
Theo said "these groups believe or pretend to believe that civil rights protections only extend to groups defined by immutable characteristics"
Bad anonymous said "that's right".
LOL, and yet you are obviously wrong.
Theo said "and religion (which they claim gets included because it is mentioned in the Constitution) This is simply a lie. It has no bearing in reality. Mutability is not a prerequisite for civil rights protection. Civil rights are creations of statute and can be bestowed upon whatever group a legislature wants to protect."
Bad anonymous said "homosexuals want this immutability claim because they think it solidifies their claim to victimization".
Nonsense. Our victimization is obvious, persistant and heinous, whether or not gayness is immutable is irrelevant. Many christians however are deathly afraid of the huge volumes of studies tending to show gayness is inborn. If that's true that means their god is a capricious bastard, punishing people for the way he made them. Christians are terrified of admitting what a monster their god would be if he really existed.
Theo said "For example, federal law protects against discrimination based on the mutable condition of pregnancy – which include both being pregnant and not being pregnant"
Bad anonymous said "we want to preference life but not sexual deviance let's just call it "good versus evil"".
It is evil to attack and oppress innocent people - you're all about evil when it comes to LGBTs.
Theo said "Colorado protects workers from being discriminated against based on their recreational activities" California forbids discrimination against workers who speak out on matters of public policy"
Bad anonymous said "so what?".
LOL, I love your willful stupidity. What's "so what?" is that this proves legal protections aren't based solely on immutability as you falsely claimed.
Theo said "Mutability is one non-decisive factor in one component of judicial analysis of an Equal Protection Clause claim"
Bad anonymous said "you're the ones that want to teach immutability in schools".
So what? Dozens and dozens of studies suggest gayness is determined at birth. Anyone of these studies on their own is not conclusive but looked at as a group it is virtually impossible to argue that gayness is a result of upbringing. There's nothing wrong with teaching children the truth.
Theo said "But even in that context, groups defined by mutable characteristics may receive greater judicial protection while other groups with immutable characteristics may receive the minimum"
Bad anonymous said "they shouldn't unless it's a quality that we wabt to encourage".
False. We give greater judicial protection to qualities that are morally neutral, that we don't necessarily want to discourage or encourage, such as skin colour. Its no different with sexual orientation.
Theo said "The whole argument is a deception and the Christian Right gets away with it b/c they know that Americans are ignorant about their legal system and are not going to parse the issue"
Bad anonymous said "you are the ones who consider the issue so vital".
Nonsense. We deserve equal rights regardless, its irrelevant if gayness is a choice. It is anti-gay christians who have hung their hat on the idea that if gayness is a choice gays don't deserve equal rights.
Theo said "The main issue is not whether a small number of homosexuals somewhere in the world have truly converted after 7 years of religiously motivated effort. The issue is whether homosexual orientation is a fundamental part of a person’s identity and is not something that can be altered as a matter of convenience"
Bad anonymous said "no, it's a matter of whether it's fair to consider behavior and desire as a component of character".
Of course behavior is a component of character, but same sex relationships and desire harm no one and are thus morally neutral. It is a grave injustice to use a harmless characteristic as a reason to deny people equal rights.
Bad anonymous said "MLK wanted his grandchildren judged on the content of their character why do you hate MLK?".
We love Martin Luther King, you obviously hate his idea that people shouldn't be judged based on harmless characteristics.
Theo said "So I think that we should turn these results around. Rather than let the other side turn this into a game of “gotcha” in which even 1 genuine conversion proves that homosexuality is mutable, I think we should argue that, even assuming the study is legitimate and the results accurate, such a low success rate following such a long treatment period for a highly motivated group proves that homosexuality is not mutable for the vast majority of gays"
Bad anonymous said "why do you want to do that when immutability is not important to you?"
Because large numbers of anti-gay christians figure mutability justifies discrimination. They are not particularly open to reason so we must approach them where they are and show them their bigotry is not justified even by their own standards.
Bad anonymous said "why not just say a peer-reviwed study shows change is possible and leave it at that?"
Because unlike you we value the truth. Jones and Yarhouse excluded 37 failures from their calculation of their "success" rate. Then they Then they included 43 people who had no change in attractions whatsoever as "successes". Of the remaining 6 "successes" all were based on unconfirmed self reports by highly religious people heavily motivated to lie because it would be a sin to give people the impression that they can't come to Jesus by changing their orientation.
Theo said "Consider: if it were suddenly possible for 1 in 1,000 African Americans to “turn white” if only they would alter their self-identity, change their religion, and listen to Pat Boone music 3X/week for 7 years, would that justify striking African Americans from civil rights laws or recognizing them as a discrete group in society?"
Bad anonymous said "doesn't matter being black would still not be an element of character behavior and desire would".
It does matter, no one should be discriminated against based on harmless characteristics. Being black is no different than being LGBT.
Jim get Anon's IP number and call the firm.
I'm sure Anon's boss will be glad to be alerted to the many times Vigilance blog appears on the company server today from whose work station.
My server log tells me the name of the company that Anon is commenting from, I know his IP number, he is using IE8 in Windows 7 with his screen resolution set to 1536x864. Nobody is really Anonymous over the Internet.
But ... I think that calling somebody's workplace and threatening their livelihood over a political disagreement would be just about the lowest dirty trick you could stoop to, and I will not be part of it. Occasionally people in the comments talk about doing that sort of thing to me, that's fine for rightwing nuts but I hope our side does not act like that.
JimK
more special rights for homosexuals:
"WASHINGTON -- Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) is a proud father of a newborn baby, making him the first openly gay parent in the U.S. Congress.
On Friday, Polis and his partner, Marlon Reis, sent out an announcement about the arrival of their son, Caspian Julius, who is 8 pounds, 12 ounces.
"Baby and parents are doing well, baby has learned to cry already! No gifts please, just nice thoughts for Caspian, humankind, the planet, and the universe!" read the announcement.
Polis and Reis have declined to comment on whether it was a surrogate pregnancy or an adoption.
“We are so thrilled for the congressman and his partner,” said Jennifer Chrisler, executive director of the Family Equality Council, an organization that advocates for LGBT families. “Little Caspian Julius is so lucky to have two wonderful and loving dads. On behalf of America’s growing number of LGBT parents, we want to send the family our warmest wishes.”
Polis is a co-sponsor of the Every Child Deserves A Family Act, which would "ban discrimination in adoption or foster care placement based on the sexual orientation, marital status or gender identity of the potential parent, or the sexual orientation or gender identity of the child," according to a press release from the office of Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.), who introduced the bill."
Once again in bad anonymous's disturbed mind gays getting the same rights as heterosexuals is "special rights for gays". What an a-hole.
Jim said "My server log tells me the name of the company that Anon is commenting from...".
I knew bad anonymous was immoral but even I didn't think he'd stoop to stealing from his employer in order to support his attacks on innocent people - he's a bigger scumbag than I imagined.
Straights can adopt or work with surrogates, so can gays. Both groups have EQUAL RIGHTS.
the focus on the adoption decision is anmd should be on the welfare of the child, not the "rights" of the adopting "couple"
no one in their right mind thinks it's best for kids to be adopted by homosexual partners
Decades of research by the top experts in the field show children of gays and lesbians do just as well, if not better than children of heterosexuals.
The beastly anti-gay religionists would prefer to leave children rot in orphanages or passed from foster home to foster home to foster home rather than see them go to fully qualified loving gay parents. Says a lot about the bigots and none of it good that they would sacrifice the health and well-being of innocent children in service to their attacks on innocent gays and lesbians.
Post a Comment
<< Home