The "Gay Agenda"[W:504]

[Zyphlin]

re: The "Gay Agenda"[W:504]

Their right to not serve you cake seems to be the issue this month. Their right to send their kids to "conversion therapy" seems to be the battle front of the near future.

That can easily be argued that it's not an example of "squashing" someone's rights, but rather an example of protecting people's rights.

Children have rights too. One of the primary purposes of government is to protect those who can't protect themselves. Putting your children into a medical treatment that is not supported by the medical community as legitimate, in order to "cure" something that the medical community does not deem as an illness, in which definable harm can be inflicted upon the child can easily be argued as "abuse". And, as such, the government stepping in and disallowing such a thing is not "squashing" anyone's rights, but rather doing another of it's primary jobs....adjudicating situations where the rights of two individuals come into conflict.

In this case, it's adjudicating the issue of the Parents right to raise their child against the Child's right not to have abuse inflicted upon them. In such situations, the law almost exclusively deems that the individual suffering direct harm from the situation is more apt to have their rights protected instead of the individual who's execution of their rights is causing the harm.

You earlier talk about "apples and oranges" comparisons, and then you throw one out as your own argument. Comparing a businesses ability to not serve a customer to persons ability to mete out physical or mental abuse to another person is absolutely an "apples and oranges" comparison.

 

[Slartibartfast]

re: The "Gay Agenda"[W:504]

1. Yep. most people have no idea how good we have it.

2. Not germane the the conversation re: gay marriage.

#2 is actually as love tends to generate love and cause people to be better people, that love that is generated from romantic love may not be romantic love. In fact, other types of love tend to be far more robust than romantic love anyway.

 

[calamity]

re: The "Gay Agenda"[W:504]

They don't have a right to send their children to some place where people try to harm them by claiming it is to "cure" a mental illness they don't have because it isn't a mental illness.

Says you. I'm sure they totally disagree.

 

[calamity]

re: The "Gay Agenda"[W:504]

#2 is actually as love tends to generate love and cause people to be better people, that love that is generated from romantic love may not be romantic love. In fact, other types of love tend to be far more robust than romantic love anyway.

There probably is a lot of truth to that. Love kind of grows on yo while the lust and romantic attraction thing wears thin after a while.

 

[calamity]

re: The "Gay Agenda"[W:504]

That can easily be argued that it's not an example of "squashing" someone's rights, but rather an example of protecting people's rights.

Children have rights too. One of the primary purposes of government is to protect those who can't protect themselves. Putting your children into a medical treatment that is not supported by the medical community as legitimate, in order to "cure" something that the medical community does not deem as an illness, in which definable harm can be inflicted upon the child can easily be argued as "abuse". And, as such, the government stepping in and disallowing such a thing is not "squashing" anyone's rights, but rather doing another of it's primary jobs....adjudicating situations where the rights of two individuals come into conflict.

In this case, it's adjudicating the issue of the Parents right to raise their child against the Child's right not to have abuse inflicted upon them. In such situations, the law almost exclusively deems that the individual suffering direct harm from the situation is more apt to have their rights protected instead of the individual who's execution of their rights is causing the harm.

You earlier talk about "apples and oranges" comparisons, and then you throw one out as your own argument. Comparing a businesses ability to not serve a customer to persons ability to mete out physical or mental abuse to another person is absolutely an "apples and oranges" comparison.

Not sure I agree with your argument even though I disagree with "conversion therapy." A parent has the right to not want their kid to be gay. Right? In doing so, should they not be given every right to attempt to change it, as long as the "therapies" chosen by them to pursue are legal?

Maybe someday parents will be able to get a doctor to give their kid a shot and voila! Kid is straight as eight.

 

[calamity]

re: The "Gay Agenda"[W:504]

1.) 100% false, gay rights is not about gospel its about equal rights, equal rights ALL ameircans have. One side respects that one side does not
2.) also 100% false the majority of americans support equal rights
3.) another factual lie . . . . only one sides FRC wants to take rights away or keep them away . . . .


wow, in what fantasy world do these lies you speak of exist lol
one thing is very clear you have factually proven that you are severely uneducated about either side and this topic.

1. No. Both sides disrespect it. The gay side tries to shut the other side up by deeming everything they say "hate speech." Face it, gays have a problem dealing with Christians opposing their lifestyle.
2. Yeah, to both sides equally. They tolerate them but most do not want to be like them. That's what I meant by my statement.
3. False. Gays would shut up the anti-gay religious right if they could.

 

[AGENT J]

re: The "Gay Agenda"[W:504]

1. No. Both sides disrespect it. The gay side tries to shut the other side up by deeming everything they say "hate speech." Face it, gays have a problem dealing with Christians opposing their lifestyle.
2. Yeah, to both sides equally. They tolerate them but most do not want to be like them. That's what I meant by my statement.
3. False. Gays would shut up the anti-gay religious right if they could.

1.)sorry facts and reality prove you wrong, this is a double lie, =please educated yourself on this topic
most gays support freedom of speech, most Christian support equal rights
in fact many gays are Christian and there are a number of christian churches now that marry gays and many support equal rights
facts prove your claims wrong again
2.) what you mean and what you said were two different things and can you provide us with prove that most americans do not like gay people
3.) you can repeat that lie as many times as you want but nobody honest educate and objective will buy it, the majority of gays support equal rights
your post fails and facts win again

 

[calamity]

re: The "Gay Agenda"[W:504]

1.)sorry facts and reality prove you wrong, this is a double lie, =please educated yourself on this topic
most gays support freedom of speech, most Christian support equal rights
in fact many gays are Christian and there are a number of christian churches now that marry gays and many support equal rights
facts prove your claims wrong again
2.) what you mean and what you said were two different things and can you provide us with prove that most americans do not like gay people
3.) you can repeat that lie as many times as you want but nobody honest educate and objective will buy it, the majority of gays support equal rights
your post fails and facts win again

nonsense. religious extremists and gay radicals are identical in their operations, albeit seeking totally different goals.

BTW, learn to read. I didn;t say most people do not like gays. I said they do not want to be like them, nor do they want to be like right wing christians.

 

[AGENT J]

re: The "Gay Agenda"[W:504]

nonsense. religious extremists and gay radicals are identical in their operations, albeit seeking totally different goals.

HAHAHAHAHAHA
now you are trying to MOVE the goal post and back pedal . . are you claiming now you are only talking about extremists and radicals?
its a good move back pedaling and trying to change your claim since they were proven wrong and you couldn't support them but nobody is fooled and it doesnt change the fact your other claims were wrong. I accept your concession.

now since you are changing your statements lets be clear.
your NEW claim basically is is extremists are bad and extremists exist on both sides? we yes we all agree with that LMAO

 

[Zyphlin]

re: The "Gay Agenda"[W:504]

A parent has the right to not want their kid to be gay. Right?

Yes, they have that right

In doing so, should they not be given every right to attempt to change it, as long as the "therapies" chosen by them to pursue are legal?

Of course. However, you're kind of building in a problematic caveat there.

The method in which parents would be disallowed to utilize "conversion therapy" to make their child "not gay" would be to deem such style of therapy "illegal".

So long as it's considered a legitimate medical "therapy" or legal action, then yes...parents shouldn't be disallowed to do it. However, if there's convincing enough evidence of such "therapy" causing mental or physical harm to children, while having no tangible medical benefit what so ever (as homosexuality is not viewed as a medical disorder), then it's well within the governments powers and purpose to declare that such "therapy" is an illegal act that constitutes abuse.

Not feeding your child for a night is not "illegal" and is not abuse. However, if you deny your child food until they're "not gay", that would be considered abuse even though the individual act (denying your child a food) is not inherently illegal.

It's absolutely fine for a parent to not want their kid to be gay. It's even fine for them to take actions to try and "make" their child not gay. However, at the point in which said actions reach the level of abuse by causing demonstratable physical or mental harm to the child, then it is no longer "okay" and it is not longer their "right" as a parent to do that.

IE...if a parent doesn't want their kid to be "gay" and so decides to "butch them up" by making them play football, that's perfectly okay. If the kid then suffered bruised ribs or a broken collar bone and the parent CONTINUED to FORCE them to go to practice and play in games, then that would move to the point of abuse.

If a parent doesn't want their kid to be "gay" and so decides to tell them that gay people are sinners and such feelings are evil, that's okay. I may not like it, but I think that's within a parent's right. However, if they're utilizing force or drugs to cause their child to vomit repeatedly at homosexual images, or are using shock treatment on them, as a means of attempting to modify their responses, that is reasonable to argue verges on abuse.

 

[calamity]

re: The "Gay Agenda"[W:504]

HAHAHAHAHAHA
now you are trying to MOVE the goal post and back pedal . . are you claiming now you are only talking about extremists and radicals?
its a good move back pedaling and trying to change your claim since they were proven wrong and you couldn't support them but nobody is fooled and it doesnt change the fact your other claims were wrong. I accept your concession.

now since you are changing your statements lets be clear.
your NEW claim basically is is extremists are bad and extremists exist on both sides? we yes we all agree with that LMAO

The whole argument, re this issue, is about FRC being no different than those pushing the Gay Agenda. Both are radicals. Yes.

 

[AGENT J]

re: The "Gay Agenda"[W:504]

The whole argument, re this issue, is about FRC being no different than those pushing the Gay Agenda. Both are radicals. Yes.

what is the gay agenda LMAO?

FRC is a hate group, thats just a fact

now youll have to use facts to tell us what the gay agenda is. .. this is gonna be awesome LMAO

 

[Slartibartfast]

re: The "Gay Agenda"[W:504]

while the lust and romantic attraction thing wears thin after a while.

only if you aren't doing it right :lol:

Its quite possible to have it all in a relationship. to **** like bunnies and still be best friends and partners.

 

[calamity]

re: The "Gay Agenda"[W:504]

Yes, they have that right



Of course. However, you're kind of building in a problematic caveat there.

The method in which parents would be disallowed to utilize "conversion therapy" to make their child "not gay" would be to deem such style of therapy "illegal".

So long as it's considered a legitimate medical "therapy" or legal action, then yes...parents shouldn't be disallowed to do it. However, if there's convincing enough evidence of such "therapy" causing mental or physical harm to children, while having no tangible medical benefit what so ever (as homosexuality is not viewed as a medical disorder), then it's well within the governments powers and purpose to declare that such "therapy" is an illegal act that constitutes abuse.

Not feeding your child for a night is not "illegal" and is not abuse. However, if you deny your child food until they're "not gay", that would be considered abuse even though the individual act (denying your child a food) is not inherently illegal.

It's absolutely fine for a parent to not want their kid to be gay. It's even fine for them to take actions to try and "make" their child not gay. However, at the point in which said actions reach the level of abuse by causing demonstratable physical or mental harm to the child, then it is no longer "okay" and it is not longer their "right" as a parent to do that.

IE...if a parent doesn't want their kid to be "gay" and so decides to "butch them up" by making them play football, that's perfectly okay. If the kid then suffered bruised ribs or a broken collar bone and the parent CONTINUED to FORCE them to go to practice and play in games, then that would move to the point of abuse.

If a parent doesn't want their kid to be "gay" and so decides to tell them that gay people are sinners and such feelings are evil, that's okay. I may not like it, but I think that's within a parent's right. However, if they're utilizing force or drugs to cause their child to vomit repeatedly at homosexual images, or are using shock treatment on them, as a means of attempting to modify their responses, that is reasonable to argue verges on abuse.

We're pretty much in agreement here. I think.

A parent has every right to try to pray their child's gay away--as crazy as that sounds. They also have a right to send them to camps where such "prayer therapies" are the approach. Again, I doubt this sort of thing works, and I squirm at the notion that someone would do this to their kids, but they do have this right. Part of the gay agenda, if I read it correctly, is to not only blackball this practice and shame parents who dare try it, but to sell parents on the idea that having a gay kid is OK.

 

[Zyphlin]

re: The "Gay Agenda"[W:504]

Part of the gay agenda, if I read it correctly, is to not only blackball this practice and shame parents who dare try it, but to sell parents on the idea that having a gay kid is OK.

Yes, I believe part of the "agenda" would be to sell parents on the idea that their gay kid is "Okay" and to convince society that such practices as this should be viewed as abnormal, immoral, harmful, or bad. And I've got no issue with them doing that in the least. However, I don't really see it likely that there will be a significant, or more importantly perhaps, successful attempt to actively make such things illegal so long as there's no concrete and discernable physical or mental harm being meted out to the child.

It crashes into other constitutional rights too much for it likely to be successful from a legal stand point. Which makes going after it from a societal/cultural stand point an extremely logical and reasonable action on their part. I understand why those on the other side of that would be upset by that and would wish to fight back against it. But there's absolutely nothing wrong, nor anything relating to removing peoples rights, in attempting to push a cultural/societal change in such a way that such camps are viewed with disdain and scorn.

 

[AlyssaD]

re: The "Gay Agenda"[W:504]

Their right to not serve you cake seems to be the issue this month. Their right to send their kids to "conversion therapy" seems to be the battle front of the near future.

This is not about cake. I do think I have the right to be served by anyone who enters interstate commerce. Conversion therapy has been an issue for sometime and will be just one of a a wide variety of issues in the future.

 

[Hicup]

re: The "Gay Agenda"[W:504]

That's because orientation dictates preference, not impossibilities. We are able to reproduce. In fact, it's possible without even bumping uglies with the opposite sex. The obvious fact remains too that many, many heterosexuals opt to not reproduce, for as overwhelming an instinct as you make it out to be.

I don't know what you mean by acting effeminate solely to attract each other. It's due to the hormones while in the womb, which also in all likelihood is tied to orientation. Lots of homosexuals show signs from an early age, long before old enough to seek out partners.

All of this is pure speculation on your part.. Nothing more.

Tim-

 

[calamity]

re: The "Gay Agenda"[W:504]

only if you aren't doing it right :lol:

Its quite possible to have it all in a relationship. to **** like bunnies and still be best friends and partners.

I'm over 50. I'd rather eat a nice meal with someone and fall asleep like spoons than **** like a bunny these days. Not that a good romp isn't appreciated...just not as much as the good conversation and friendship.

 

[calamity]

re: The "Gay Agenda"[W:504]

This is not about cake. I do think I have the right to be served by anyone who enters interstate commerce. Conversion therapy has been an issue for sometime and will be just one of a a wide variety of issues in the future.

I do not disagree with you, but the cake-baker may not agree.

 

[AGENT J]

re: The "Gay Agenda"[W:504]

I do not disagree with you, but the cake-baker may not agree.

WHats the feelings (or agreement on this topic) of the cake baker matter when it comes to rights and law
(hint) they dont

 

[calamity]

re: The "Gay Agenda"[W:504]

WHats the feelings (or agreement on this topic) of the cake baker matter when it comes to rights and law
(hint) they dont

The current law supports the baker's right to refuse service to gays. Whether said decision is based on religion or not is irrelevant. So, you are incorrect.

The federal law does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, so gays are not a protected group under the federal law. However, about 20 states, including New York and California, have enacted laws that prohibit discrimination in public accommodations based on sexual orientation. In California, you also can’t discriminate based on someone’s unconventional dress. In some states, like Arizona, there’s no state law banning discrimination against gays, but there are local laws in some cities that prohibit sexual orientation discrimination.
https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/...fuse-service-to-someone-because-of-appearance

 

[Zinthaniel]

re: The "Gay Agenda"[W:504]

Yes, the homosexual agenda is a recent social construct and rather different from that of astronomy, which is a science.
All the great philosophical thinkers of western civilisation and the total knowledge of the classical theorists combined were unable to produce one gay march parade between them.
It’s a wonder civilisation ever managed without it.

'Oh - Here I was thinking you actually knew what you were talking about. Homosexuality is a varient in sexual psychology. It is very much apart of the many studied sciences of life and it is not in any way shape or form a "recent concept" considering the fact that it has been noted in the hman species for over milleniums and clearly documented in over a thousand other species.

 

[AGENT J]

re: The "Gay Agenda"[W:504]

The current law supports the baker's right to refuse service to gays. Whether said decision is based on religion or not is irrelevant. So, you are incorrect.

thats what I just said LMAO wow . .
also your statment is fals as written, court cases already prove it to be wrong . . in some places sexual orientation is not protected and in some it is but like i said in NETHER do feelings matter to the law some my statement was 100% correct, try again
your post fails and facts win aaian LMAO

 

[Slartibartfast]

re: The "Gay Agenda"[W:504]

I'm over 50. I'd rather eat a nice meal with someone and fall asleep like spoons than **** like a bunny these days. Not that a good romp isn't appreciated...just not as much as the good conversation and friendship.

Having a good romp or being in a situation where good romps happen all the time does not impact the quality of conversation or friendship one bit, unless one has insufficient perspective and self control. There is no inherent conflict between those two things.

 

[roguenuke]

re: The "Gay Agenda"[W:504]

Says you. I'm sure they totally disagree.

And I'm pretty sure that there are at least some people who kill others who feel they have a right to do so as well. They likely very much disagree with laws that prevent them from killing who they really want to, for whatever their reason may be.