• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure[W:208]

Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

another win on equal rights i missed this, happened like a week ago this is awesome


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/30/u...ze-all-gay-marriages-regardless-of-state.html

WASHINGTON — All same-sex couples who are legally married will be recognized as such for federal tax purposes, even if the state where they live does not recognize their union, the Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service said Thursday.

Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign, spoke outside the Supreme Court after the June ruling.
It is the broadest federal rule change to come out of the landmark Supreme Court decision in June that struck down the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, and a sign of how quickly the government is moving to treat gay couples in the same way that it does straight couples.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

It doesn't

Homosexual Sex doesn't create new taxpayers

So? What the hell does that have to do with anything? Do you honestly think marriage is about creating new taxpayers? Well, let's put it this way. If your marriage is about creating new little tax payers, that's your business. Someone else's marriage may be about something else. That's not your business. If the government is going to grant legal protections to heterosexual marriages, then it also has to provide th same protections for homosexual marriage. Most marriages aren't entered into by a couple hoping above hope to donate new taxpayers to the government. In fact, I'd bet most would think that's a pretty twisted reason to get married.

Biology isn't in the state's interest? Yet all of our personal information is fair game right?

No. The government goes way too far spying on people. That's completely irrelevant to this conversation, though.

There is no gay gene. Studies of identical twins have proven this. There are multiple threads about it here where I freely gave my opinion on the subject. You can start there.

[ . . . ]

I don't want Government involved in marriage. If it isn't going to support the science and purpose behind a man and woman's union, on this planet and instead make it about people's feelings and taxes, then Government should just get out.

[ . . . ]

We've been over this many times. Feel free to provide the story that a gay gene was found if you don't believe me.

US researchers find evidence that homosexuality linked to genetics | World news | theguardian.com

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...finally-unlocked-puzzle-of-why-people-are-gay

New Insight into the (Epi)Genetic Roots of Homosexuality | TIME.com

Biology and sexual orientation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Okay, so now that we're done with that argument . . .

I don't want Government involved in marriage. If it isn't going to support the science and purpose behind a man and woman's union, on this planet and instead make it about people's feelings and taxes, then Government should just get out.

The purpose behind the union is about property rights. That's what marriage is about. The purpose of the sex is to get off, most of the time, and to have kids some of the time. Your idea that all marriages must be about creating new taxpayers is . . . well, I don't even know what it is. I'm sure that's nto what most men are thinking when they propose to their girl. I'm sure that most brides, on their wedding day, aren't trying to calculate how much in taxes their union will generate for the government if they procreate. I'd bet that very, very few people get married because they think we need more tax payers. In fact, it may very well just be you.

Go back and read about the 1974 vote when it was removed. There was no scientific breakthrough that suddenly homosexuality was normal. The campaign, like every other leftist campaign, started with gays protesting in San Francisco. It was political pressure that led to the removal of homosexuality from the DSM criteria.

The American Psychological Association says you're full of it. The myth buster

But let me guess. You know more about the APA's decisions than the APA does, right?
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

That's not an "atheist government". I'd love to hear how you think that's an "atheist government".

What God does Obama believe in? Don't tell me what he pretends to in front of the cameras. Democrats removed God from their platform. What God(s) does Obama worship and what is the moral foundation of his beliefs?

I almost forgot to address this gem. I have no idea what god the President believes in, and I couldn't care any less. His spying, his persecution of whistle blowers, murders with drones and war mongering are no less that Dubya's. I also don't knwo what god that President believed in. I would guess, though, that they both believe in the same god . . . money and power.

Further, even if these scumbags like Obama and Bush do worship money and power, but not any magical beings, that still doesn't make the government atheist. It just makes certain people who hold office in the government atheist. Also, not putting gods into the party platform doesn't make it an atheist party. It makes it a political party rather than a religious institution. People who think that politics must be run under the domain of religion are called "theocrats", which I believe you've argued that you are not.

The government wasn't founded as an "atheist" government, it was founded as a "secular" government. Do you know the difference in meaning of those two words?
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

Not a cop out. Historical fact. Facts are facts.
The "facts" you mentioned are irrelevant.


Where was the first Planned Parenthood built? What were Margaret Sanger's views on race?
What does this have to do with gay marriage.
You keep dodging those questions and bringing up Fox News like that's somehow going to help you.
I was mocking you for bringing up Jay Z.

My argument is strictly biological. You're the one bringing morality into the discussion. If homosexuality was biological than how come humans haven't adapted to the behavior through evolution?
No it's not. You mentioned morality four times. If homosexuality isn't biological then why does it occur in nature? Or if you're religious, why does god make minorities of animals and people homosexual?


Freud didn't know what he was talking about?
No? Do jokes exist?


I don't approve of homosexual sex and gay marriage is pointless pretend marriage.
It doesn't Homosexual Sex doesn't create new taxpayers Biology isn't in the state's interest? Yet all of our personal information is fair game right?
What about straight couples who get married and don't have kids? Are their marriage's also pretend marriage's?


Tell that to the photographers being targeted for their beliefs.
Boo hoo a business owner being discriminated against for discriminating against other people.


Kick to the curb? Nice hyperbole. As was stated previously, there is no biological reason why a child should be gay. You can stomp and throw a temper tantrum all you want. The studies have been done on Identical twins which = identical DNA. No gay gene.
Actually no one has confirmed the lack of a gay gene in humans, although the existence of a gay gene in female mice has been found. So apparently homosexuality does occur in nature.


You're all for discrimination if the people being targeted are those that have a different view than you. You've admitted it in this very thread.
Actually, I'm for discrimination against people who abuse or discriminate against other people.
You can step down from your phony moral high ground. There is nothing noble about defending sodomy and irrational behavior.
It's not about defending sodomy, it's about not caring what other Americans do in the privacy of their own home. You're view is about judging people who do not meet your moral standards. Sodomy is very common in the US. You're gonna have to get over it, because it's not going anywhere. Sodomy laws have already been struck down by the courts. Your views on this issue are outdated.
 
Last edited:
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

What issue would that be?

The gay marriage issue.

What exactly are you trying to dispute?

Your knowledge of this issue, especially of what Sodomy means. What don't you thrill us with your definition.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

Theocrat?

I'm just talking basic biology here. Gay Marriage serves no social or economic purpose.

Gay marriage serves the social purpose of rearing of children. We know that gays raise children as well as straights. We also know that married couples are more likely to buy homes and are more stable financially... showing a positive economic purpose.

This is how you are uneducated on this issue.

You can toss out every (you're a religious nut) strawmen out there all you want. If homosexuality was biological than evolution over time would have found a way to adapt.

There is no biological purpose for certain evolutionary differences, which is all homosexuality is. Therefore adaptation is unnecessary.

This is how you are uneducated on this issue.


If homosexuality is a mental issue however, (as it was known before they changed the DSM criteria because of political reasons) then society shouldn't be made to conform to such obviously irrational behavior (sodomy/homosexual sex being normalized/put on a pedestal).

We know that homosexuality was declassified in the DSM because activists finally convinced the APA to look at research that demonstrated that homosexuality was not a mental illness. I have shown you the facts around this before. Your unwillingness to accept those facts does not alter that they are facts.

This is how you are uneducated on this issue.

See? You asked of which issue you were uneducated. This is the one and these are some of the reasons. Glad I could help.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

There is no gay gene. Nothing. Zip. Nada.

Yet. Your comment above has been proven inaccurate repeatedly. Repeating this inaccuracy just makes you look more uneducated on this issue.

Homosexuality was never removed from the DSM Criteria for scientific reasons. Purely political ones. Money buys morality in US Politics.

It was removed for scientific reasons as I have shown repeatedly. All you are doing is believing the uneducated propaganda of the anti-gay agenda. Release yourself from the ignorance surrounding the anti-gay agenda, Bronson.


Not accepting homosexuality as normal doesn't mean I hate gay people. This is why people like you are really the bigots. You paint people as villains when they don't go along with the politically correct narrative. It's not against the law yet to have an opinion in this country. It's still my right to determine my own morality. This the real problem with homosexuality being normalized and gay marriage. The State is now becoming a religion. You must accept sodomy as normal and support homosexual marriage or you will be a moral outcast.

See? This is your problem. Your morality does not equal facts. Your morality is irrelevant when discussing facts. In fact, it has already been shown that your morality is devoid of facts. There is nothing that can or will stop you from having your morality... no matter how uneducated on this issue it is. Keep it. It's yours.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

It doesn't

Homosexual Sex doesn't create new taxpayers

Biology isn't in the state's interest? Yet all of our personal information is fair game right?

Poor Bronson. Doesn't know the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior.

There is no gay gene. Studies of identical twins have proven this. There are multiple threads about it here where I freely gave my opinion on the subject. You can start there.

Yes. And your opinion was destroyed and humiliated in those threads. Your logic was shredded around the "there is no gay gene" comment as it was shown that just because something has not been discovered now, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And your comments about twins was destroyed when it was shown to you that identical twins are not completely identical, as there are differences in epimarks that cause them to develop slightly differently.

So yes, those threads where your opinion was debunked.


Go back and read about the 1974 vote when it was removed. There was no scientific breakthrough that suddenly homosexuality was normal. The campaign, like every other leftist campaign, started with gays protesting in San Francisco. It was political pressure that led to the removal of homosexuality from the DSM criteria.

And I've provided all the information on this issue, including a book written by the people who were actually there. All you are doing is spewing the same old extreme conservative dishonesty... which is typical of that species. The science was finally presented... science that had been prevented from being presented for quite some time. Of course you wouldn't know that, though... you've been spoon-fed the anti-gay extreme conservative dishonest propaganda... and you have swallowed it quite well.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

The captain doesn't know what he is talking about, he thinks he can redefine words to suit his needs. You had it right in your posting.

You've never known what you are talking about on this issue. I've proven that time and time again. Betcha YOU don't know what sodomy means.
 
Last edited:
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

Freud himself viewed homosexuality and paranoia as being inseparable.

Hey... let's ask Freud himself what he thought about homosexuality. Here is a famous response letter he wrote to a woman who asked him to treat her son's homosexuality. He wrote it in 1935. I highlighted the important parts:

I gather from your letter that your son is a homosexual. I am most impressed by the fact that you do not mention this term yourself in your information about him. May I question you why you avoid it? Homosexuality is assuredly no advantage, but it is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation; it cannot be classified as an illness; we consider it to be a variation of the sexual function, produced by a certain arrest of sexual development. Many highly respectable individuals of ancient and modern times have been homosexuals, several of the greatest men among them. (Plato, Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, etc). It is a great injustice to persecute homosexuality as a crime –and a cruelty, too. If you do not believe me, read the books of Havelock Ellis.

By asking me if I can help [your son], you mean, I suppose, if I can abolish homosexuality and make normal heterosexuality take its place. The answer is, in a general way we cannot promise to achieve it. In a certain number of cases we succeed in developing the blighted germs of heterosexual tendencies, which are present in every homosexual; in the majority of cases it is no more possible. It is a question of the quality and the age of the individual. The result of treatment cannot be predicted.
What analysis can do for your son runs in a different line. If he is unhappy, neurotic, torn by conflicts, inhibited in his social life, analysis may bring him harmony, peace of mind, full efficiency, whether he remains homosexual or gets changed

See Bronson? I TOLD you to educate yourself on these things. Now, if you had followed my advice, you wouldn't look so silly right now.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

Poor Bronson. Doesn't know the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior.

5 different replies? :lol:

Yes. And your opinion was destroyed and humiliated in those threads. Your logic was shredded around the "there is no gay gene" comment as it was shown that just because something has not been discovered now, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And your comments about twins was destroyed when it was shown to you that identical twins are not completely identical, as there are differences in epimarks that cause them to develop slightly differently.

There is no gay gene

A flying pig hasn't been discovered yet either. Doesn't mean they exist.

So yes, those threads where your opinion was debunked.

No gay gene has been found. That's not an opinion. That's fact.

And I've provided all the information on this issue, including a book written by the people who were actually there. All you are doing is spewing the same old extreme conservative dishonesty... which is typical of that species. The science was finally presented... science that had been prevented from being presented for quite some time. Of course you wouldn't know that, though... you've been spoon-fed the anti-gay extreme conservative dishonest propaganda... and you have swallowed it quite well.

Yes anything that doesn't glorify homosexuality as wonderful and normal and morally right is "extreme conservative dishonesty".

If homosexuality is biological than how come there hasn't been any adaptation through Evolution to make gay sex useful?

Anyways this is obviously a very emotional issue for you. All you're really doing is engaging in personal attacks now, which is boring.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

5 different replies? :lol:

Five different posts of inaccuracy that needed correction.
There is no gay gene

Yet.

A flying pig hasn't been discovered yet either. Doesn't mean they exist.

And doesn't mean they won't.

No gay gene has been found. That's not an opinion. That's fact.

Yet. That too is a fact.

Yes anything that doesn't glorify homosexuality as wonderful and normal and morally right is "extreme conservative dishonesty".

If you want to present your opinion with stupid partisan hack comments, I will mock your hack statements with equally stupid partisan hack comments. Suggestion. When discussing issues with me, leave the hackery outside. I can out-sarcasm you with one brain tied behind my back.

If homosexuality is biological than how come there hasn't been any adaptation through Evolution to make gay sex useful?

What is the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior?

Anyways this is obviously a very emotional issue for you. All you're really doing is engaging in personal attacks now, which is boring.

Ah. Trying to exit because you've been beaten so badly. The issue is not emotional. I just get annoyed when I see someone post a ton of inaccuracy like you do.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

5 different replies? :lol:



There is no gay gene

A flying pig hasn't been discovered yet either. Doesn't mean they exist.



No gay gene has been found. That's not an opinion. That's fact.



Yes anything that doesn't glorify homosexuality as wonderful and normal and morally right is "extreme conservative dishonesty".

If homosexuality is biological than how come there hasn't been any adaptation through Evolution to make gay sex useful?

Anyways this is obviously a very emotional issue for you. All you're really doing is engaging in personal attacks now, which is boring.

Actually, the fact is a gay gene has been discovered. I will not be surprised if despite me pointing this out to you, you continue to spew this inaccuracy.
Have Scientists Found the 'Gay Gene'? | Fox News
 
Last edited:
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

I don't think to discriminate because of race religion sex sexual orientation is a right. Ater all we are all equal under the law.

I have the right to discriminate against whoever I wish. You cant stop me from doing it either. If you think you can prevent me or anyone else for that matter from doing so good luck. Aint gona happen. Actually I can and do discriminate on a routine and ongoing basis all sorts of people, as do EVERYONE else on this forum. If you say otherwise you are a liar and I will prove it. We all discriminate in all sorts of ways, a lot of which are unconscious. I will not do business with ANYONE I don't like and if they are of protected class well I am smart enough to make sure they don't have a legal case. The people who say discrimination should be outlawed for private individuals in a private individuals business are hypocrites plain and simple. They practice the very thing they hate, intolerance. We have a sovereign right not to associate with those we don't want to and those we do if they wish to be associated with us. You cannot in a free country force people to associate with people they don't wish to and still call the country free. Freedom is about choice. Who I serve in my business is MY choice and none of yours. I have sovereign right to associate with whom I please and it don't matter WHAT laws or court rulings the twits put out I will not follow them. I have a couple real simple tactic in my business to get rid of people I don't like, either say I am booked up, or jack the price so high they look elsewhere. If they bite on price I just say unfortunately one of my preferred customers just booked up my capacity, sorry I cant help you now. Polite expensive and unavailable. There are those people in this world who if they had all the money in it, I would NEVER serve as is my right. I am NOT your slave.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

correct and the laws are their to protect us from discrimination and protect our rights

ill say the same thing i have been saying in similar threads

there are laws, rights and rules that we ALL must play by not just some of us

if Im to bigoted or to uncivil to run a public access business and not break the law why do i open one? i shouldnt and if i do and break the law that MY fault

if i have such an uncivil discourse for whites, blacks, asians, latinos, women, men, gays, bi-sexuals, chrsitians, jews, muslims, and or the handicap why do i open a public access business? if i do im an idiot and that my fault if i break the law.

people like that are short sighted and stupid, they know there are rules and laws that we ALL must follow. Not SOME of us, ALL of us.

if you cant play by the rules above
1.) dont go into public access business
2.) do a business that doesnt relate to things that offend you
3.)do a private practice.

Very simple solution. Blows my mind some people dont get and just think they are allowed to break the law and violate rights.

First I am going to say I am completely opposite you in my opinion. Second I can discriminate against you and be lawful and there aint a thing you can do about it. You can whine moan and stomp your feet. But there is NO law that can stop discrimination. I do it everyday in practice. The words "I am sorry we are currently over booked", or whatever other excuse you care to use at the time works fine. My favorite though is " I am sorry but have to have enough capacity to serve a major customer of mines needs and I am currently under that capacity. You could try so and so I sure they will be able to serve you." Works for any business. I don't have to serve anyone I don't wish no matter what the law says because its, as Darth Vader says "All to easy." to go right around it. Since most any business that wants to stay in business will at least have an attorney they use or have one on retainer better still, the attorney will make it air tight. I really detest people who think they can tell me how to run my business even though its not their blood sweat and tears, not to begin to even mention, treasure and time invested into it. I got into business so I didn't have to deal with people I detest. You seem to think I have to accommodate every shmuck that comes though my door or makes a call to me. WRONG. I don't. I wont. I don't care how much it cost me long term or short term, because its mine to run as I see fit. I became the boss so I could make my own rules and play by them. I have told several very wealthy people and companies who could have made me some serious money to go pound sand because I wasn't interested in serving them due to one thing or another. (Mostly because they were jackasses and thieves.) We live in a free country based on sovereign individual rights. One of those sovereign rights is that of association which you so love to trample freely on. Its one thing to say the government cannot discriminate based on whatever. Fine I get that and agree for the most part with that. But when you start applying that metric to me private individual in private business, I have two words for you. "Piss off." If I aint stealing from you or breaking your leg you have NO say in my business affairs that includes who I may or may not wish to deal with.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

You've never known what you are talking about on this issue. I've proven that time and time again. Betcha YOU don't know what sodomy means.

Yes, I do know. You are attempting to assign a modern definition to sodomy that was unknown in biblical times. You do this to take away the shame and disgust rightly assigned to this lifestyle.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

1.)First I am going to say I am completely opposite you in my opinion.
2.) Second I can discriminate against you and be lawful and there aint a thing you can do about it.
3.) You can whine moan and stomp your feet.
4.) But there is NO law that can stop discrimination.
5.) I do it everyday in practice. The words "I am sorry we are currently over booked", or whatever other excuse you care to use at the time works fine. My favorite though is " I am sorry but have to have enough capacity to serve a major customer of mines needs and I am currently under that capacity. You could try so and so I sure they will be able to serve you." Works for any business. I don't have to serve anyone I don't wish no matter what the law says because its, as Darth Vader says "All to easy." to go right around it.
6.)Since most any business that wants to stay in business will at least have an attorney they use or have one on retainer better still, the attorney will make it air tight. I really detest people who think they can tell me how to run my business even though its not their blood sweat and tears, not to begin to even mention, treasure and time invested into it.
7.) I got into business so I didn't have to deal with people I detest.
8.) You seem to think I have to accommodate every shmuck that comes though my door or makes a call to me. WRONG. I don't. I wont.
9,) I don't care how much it cost me long term or short term, because its mine to run as I see fit.
10.) I became the boss so I could make my own rules and play by them. I have told several very wealthy people and companies who could have made me some serious money to go pound sand because I wasn't interested in serving them due to one thing or another. (Mostly because they were jackasses and thieves.)
11.)We live in a free country based on sovereign individual rights. One of those sovereign rights is that of association which you so love to trample freely on. Its one thing to say the government cannot discriminate based on whatever. Fine I get that and agree for the most part with that. But when you start applying that metric to me private individual in private business, I have two words for you. "Piss off." If I aint stealing from you or breaking your leg you have NO say in my business affairs that includes who I may or may not wish to deal with.

1.) that fine but be clear theres very little OPINION i actually stated in my post, most of it is fact
2.) well this is false, it depends on whether the discrimination you practice is legal or illegal and if theres evidence proving it.
3.) i wouldnt do any of this if your actually broke the law and i knew it id simply press charges
4.) theres no law that can stop anything so thats just obvious
5.) i agree this is what the SMART business owner does, and i have no problem with it just dont get caught.
6.) doesnt really matter what you hate its just like everything else, as long as you dont get caught breaking the law then you are find, If you break the law i dont care about your blood sweat and tears, you pay the price of breaking the law.
7.) seems you have social issue
8.) nope not at all what i think is you cant get caught breaking the law, thats what i think. See i knew right away one you started talking about opinions that you assumed alot in your head that was never said
9.) i dont care either and as long as you dont get caught you are good if you do you might not have anything to run and that wont bother me one bit, in fact id find it entertaining
10.) nope you are still playing by the rules everybody plys by. If you want to think your not and that makes you feel better fine but the fact is you are not playing buy your rules. You already admitted that. You admit that you lie and make up excuses not to serve or do business with people you dont want, which is fine but thats playing by the rules. You make those excuses to follow the rules, you do it to pay by the rules,not your own sorry to burst your bubble..
11.) well sorry but facts court cases , rights, laws and ordinances all disagree with you and prove you wrong.

im glad you got your rant out, hopefully you dindt punch the keyboard to many times, BUT it changed nothing i said and im happy to clear up your mistakes.

Im fine with you doing what you are doing because you are playing by the rules, hopefully for you if you are doing illegal discrimination you dont get caught or you'll see and you'll learn who the real boss is, it aint you. Good luck.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

Poor Bronson. Doesn't know the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior.



Yes. And your opinion was destroyed and humiliated in those threads. Your logic was shredded around the "there is no gay gene" comment as it was shown that just because something has not been discovered now, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And your comments about twins was destroyed when it was shown to you that identical twins are not completely identical, as there are differences in epimarks that cause them to develop slightly differently.


Hehe, CC, poor CC... Are you serious with this argument? Differences in epimarks... LOL Boy reach much, and to top it off you're reaching in the completely wrong direction. There are no biological differences in identical twins, and any generational or inter-generational expressions are widely speculative. even so, let's assume you're on to something specific to twin studies, epimarks cannot explain nor can they be identified or verified as having occurred at all. Basically what you have is a purely speculative attempt to convey significance in epimark gene expression and associate it with a controversial issue that the gay lobby cannot explain away, and that is that twins show that there is a very low chance that homosexuality is genetic in any meaningful way other than providing the hardware we all seem to also share. try again.. My God even in your own article there was no conclusions, nor was there any affirmative language, the article was filled with words like "may", "appears", "could", "possibly", and this is what you post to say that it is proven? Where's your buddy AGENTJ to tell you that you haven't proven anything? ;)



So yes, those threads where your opinion was debunked.


Apparently not so fast eh?




And I've provided all the information on this issue, including a book written by the people who were actually there. All you are doing is spewing the same old extreme conservative dishonesty... which is typical of that species. The science was finally presented... science that had been prevented from being presented for quite some time. Of course you wouldn't know that, though... you've been spoon-fed the anti-gay extreme conservative dishonest propaganda... and you have swallowed it quite well.


Yes, and I've provided an interview with the very people that were involved with the change in the DSM several times and you always seem to move on from the thread at that point. The science used to remove the DSM was not science at all and consisted of a whole 25 subjects who were completely comfortable with their homosexuality if memory serves, that answered a standardized mental health questionnaire and the researchers took those questionnaire to other psychologists and asked them if they could pick out the gay ones. Add in some inkblot tests and that's the totality of the science involved in removing the classification, and although it was removed it wasn't completely removed until later on as you know.

For anyone really interested in hearing about how homosexuality was removed by a study that was done by the grand-daughter of the then president of the APA, who also happened to be a closet gay himself, feel free to click this link. It should put to rest the question even being a matter of opinion. It was clearly political.: 81 Words | This American Life

read both act one and act two.. Enjoy!

Bronson I suggest you bookmark this site as CC seems to say you've been debunked many times, when we all know that's not the case. Nice to be able to throw this in his face you'll see how quickly he leaves you alone after that. ;)


Tim-
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

If homosexuality is biological than how come there hasn't been any adaptation through Evolution to make gay sex useful?

There is, population control for one. Just because you choose not to see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Such a limited mind the anti-SSM crowd have.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

1.) dont have the full story but they arent begin forced to go to the wedding like by armed guard, supposedly they got a fine which is more than just for blatant discrimination and that's lucky for them.
2,) the bakers did it right the second time, they learned from their mistake. They arent civil enough to play by public rules and laws so they moved their business to a private practice, that's one of their three common sense options.

it works like this
in the PUBLIC realm we all have to play by the same rules/laws of a public access business

if a person is to bigoted and or uncivil to play by these rules the solutions are very easy and common sense based

A.) you dont go into public access business
B.) you dont do anything that may offend you so easily or its counterparts. IE if you are christian you cant say you wont do gay weddings but then do bar mitzvahs, you option is to do NOTHING religious
C.) open up a private practice like out of your home or online like the bakery did

they were smart and learned from their short sighted mistake, it was stupid to be a bakery and do wedding cakes and think you wouldnt get a wedding you disagreed with. So now they run there company on line so they arent public access and or dont know their customers. Liberty in tact.

3.) well i partially agree there are many chrisitans and GOPers that are also appalled by bigotry and discrimination like this so its unfair to paint them all with the same brush. But having said that no matter who came up with it I am happy in ways that so many states "banned" eqyual rights for gays and gays marriage because when pushed in the courts thats actually going to make it easier to establish equal gay rights which is funny and poetic justice.

4.) i think its pathetic also but its changing and id say 5 years max

I don't know, forcing private companies to behave by public morality, I'm not really sold on it. Private business is private and I think they should be free to refuse service if they want. Intelligent consumerism will sort it all out in the end.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

1.)I don't know, forcing private companies to behave by public morality, I'm not really sold on it.
2.) Private business is private and I think they should be free to refuse service if they want.
3.) Intelligent consumerism will sort it all out in the end.

hey ikari

1.)its not public morality, its protecting rights
2.) i would never support any laws in these areas the empowers bigots, to many risks. Where does it stop? where would your line be. bakeries and florist? hospitals and foster care faclities? hotels? Doctors? first aid clinics emergency care clinics? food markets? malls? mechanics? restaurants? walmart etc etc

I think its best, more liberty based, logical and civil if we all play by the same rules. Dont you? I mean if not how do we decided how facilities are grouped?
Otherwise they can pic the 3 choices i already stated. Oh and lets not kid ourselves, they can always do what a lot of people do, practice discrimination but hide it some how. "we are booked that day"

3.) if only the world always worked like this, it doesnt
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

There is no gay gene

I gave you a stack of articles showing that there is strong evidence of a genetic cause for homosexuality. You completely ignored it and keep insisting that there is no genetic root for it. Why do you believe that your completely uninformed guess work is more reliable that several peer-reviewed research papers?
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

I don't know, forcing private companies to behave by public morality, I'm not really sold on it. Private business is private and I think they should be free to refuse service if they want. Intelligent consumerism will sort it all out in the end.

The last time we had this is was "Whites Only" restaurants in the south. The "intelligent consumerism" that happened was the civil rights movement. Those who opposed equality bombed churches, kindnapped and beat and lynched people, and assassinated civil rights leaders to protect their right to be abusive to minority groups. The movement and it's opposition were extremely costly to the country, and, in the end, we as a society decided not to let that kind of bigotry root itself back into our civilization again. It's just too destructive.
 
Back
Top Bottom