Are people born to dislike and fear homosexuals?

I'd like your citation of the specific case.

And what goal would that be?

Strawman. I didn't claim that orientation was inborn. I likewise didn't claim that repulsion cannot be inborn.

So what if it is?

None coming from you, anyway.

Yes, I am 'hardcore' against the kind of nonsense that you spout in your efforts to deceive people. I think we've established that.

So far, I'm having trouble finding anything here worthy of a discussion. Whether or not something is inborn doesn't determine morality. You seem to be trying to use a false equivalency to argue that acting on repulsion/fear/hate/bigotry is a moral good based on it being an inborn trait. I find that pretty darned repugnant.

 

Copout. You made the claim. Support it. Or don't - but don't think no one has noticed that you apparently can't.

 

To what purpose? It's not a contest to decide who has suffered more.

 

You're not even going to pretend to be truthful or have any integrity in your arguments, just your typical ranting at anyone you don't agree with.

Search "racism is genetic" and you will find a long list of experts who claim it is within people's dna. FAR more than claim people are gay because they were born to be gay. But any so-called science you like dare not be challenged either factually or ethically, while you will rant against any so-called science you don't like. I've seen enough of your messages to understand you do not discuss anything. You make declarations and sling insults at anyone of any different opinion.

You make absurd claims. In FACT... Gay men do not like sex with women, contrary to your absurd claim. Gay men dislike having a marriage or sexually intimate relationship with women - contrary to your absurd claim.

I didn't start this thread: http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...ilo-yiannopoulos-greatest-gay-man-planet.html - a thread you deny even exists and try to put his words into my mouth, when I think he's an arrogant, sexist pig.

But go ahead and throw your insult tantrum like you do on every thread. You prove the point of my prior message to this one.

 

The claim was essentially being made that gays have suffered more than Christians who oppose homosexual sex as sinful have thus suggesting gays have more reasons to be militant and defensive. I didn't start the who has suffered MORE topic. I don't even see it as relevant to this topic either way.

 

Try reading the Supreme Court's decision and the Amici Curiae briefs the Supreme Court cited in its decision. But that's too much work for you, isn't it?

 

No its taught and learned behavior.

 

Please show evidance when anyone has stated homosexuals have been treated worse than Christians. The claim is that Christians have treated homosexuals worse than homosexuals have treated Christians, which is unequivocally fact and not up for debate.

You absolutely started the "who suffered more" topic, since you didn't answer the question the first time, "[should] homosexuals accept discrimination because other groups have been treated worse?

 

You made the assertion, that you think anyone is going to read a 500 page document because you are to lazy to substantiate your own claims... I was genuinely interested but your reaction tells me you were just parroting talking points.

 

OK, the answer is "no." BUT I did not start the "who suffered more" topic. But going on about this just becomes an attempt to derail the topic itself.

 

No, I cited my source. The Supreme Court decision, majority opinion, and the briefs cited therein are all online. Can't make you read it because it is too much work for you. You not reading does not mean I didn't substantiate my claim.

Plus this becomes an absurd argument anyway given how many messages there by gay members and self declared gay rights supporters on these threads arguing it is scientific fact and/or personal knowledge that they were born innately gay. However, if you are claiming those members are wrong? Well, I agree with you but, more importantly, I think it is irrelevant and an unethical claim anyway.

It is often argued on behalf of gay rights in courts and even more to legislative bodies in terms of legislation that being gay is both innate and immutable. From that claim then it is argued since this is the fundamental innate and immutable nature of gays therefore inherently they must have equal rights in terms of existence, equality and rights. As a contrast (as example I pick), while a person may truly desire to steal, it would be argued that stealing is not an innate and immutable nature of the person, though may have a psychological disturbance cause the thefts. IF a person is BORN a certain way, society must make room for that person and adjust accordingly. Society does not have to adjust for psychologically disturbed persons.

It also is FALSELY believed this refutes the FALSE claim that being a homosexual is a proactive choice a person makes. While a person could proactively deny the desire for homosexual sex, that does not change that the person is, in fact, a homosexual. It is thus argued that since a person is by birth innately and immutably a homosexual, there is no "cure" or changing that person from being a homosexual. That is why many gay activists organizations do claim gays are gay from birth. However others, such as myself and others I know well 100% disagree with that as either a fact or a legitimate claim as it is demeaning and an unnecessary excuse as no excuse or rationalization is needed.

 

I just proposed a topic for discussion and see how rapidly the accusations and name-calling escalates! Because I don't go hook-line-and-sinker with either of the two warring camps I get hit from both sides. I guess that keeps it interesting.

 

Who knows what is genetic and what isn't. In terms of rights it doesn't matter in the slightest

 

^ I agree 100%.

 

I guess I just don't understand the narrative.

I don't know if people are born gay or not, science does not know, and I don't know how someone could claim they were born with any preconditions like attraction unless there was medical evidance showing it as fact. I am not going to get upset because someone believes something about themselves though and do not believe law should be made assuming medical hypothesis that have yet to be confirmed either way.

 

^ I agree with all that too.

 

Do you know any gay or lesbians that with such a consistent animus shown towards straight or straight culture that you might label them anti-heterosexual. or who consistently promote stereotypes and negative images of heterosexuality?

 

I honestly can't say I do. I'm not saying they don't exist, but it can't possibly be very common.

 

FACT: I didn't make any claims about this one way or the other.

FACT: What I did say was this: Gay men, as a group, don't "dislike" women. The only thing that gay men have universally in common is their attraction to members of their own sex. Nothing about that requires them to "dislike" women. Their disinterest in women as sexual or romantic partners isn't the same thing as dislike.

Sorry, didn't know that thread existed. I thought you were talking about that stupid "Feminists vs. Trans-activists" thread that you started, where you falsely accused a bunch of people who disagreed with you of wanting to erase women, hating women, wanting to return to previous legal restriction of women's lives, etc.

FYI: I didn't bother to read the thread linked above either - all I had to do was look at who posted it to realize it wouldn't be worthy of my time.

This is where I remind you that gay people are individuals with their own opinions, not members of the Borg collective with 'hive mind'. Yes, there are gay men who say stupid and offensive things. Doesn't mean they represent all gay men. Certainly doesn't make you any sort of authority on what gay men think about feminism or women.

You go right ahead and believe whatever nonsensical BS you want - and it's clear you will. Your perception of me, my opinions, etc. are completely divorced from reality.

 

Which Supreme Court decision? I asked you for the citation, and you failed to provide it. Gee, what a non-surprise. Amici Curiae have no force of law. But thanks for so obviously moving the goalposts.

No credibility whatsoever. Dig that hole deeper.

 

There is clearly a percentage of homophobes, typically male, who are self-hating closeted homosexuals who project their own guilt and self-hatred outwardly, in an obsessive and eternal hatred of other open homosexuals.

A very obvious one on Political Forum....who naturally I cannot mention by name, due to The Rules, but I think many here know who I mean. If you don't....happy to Private Message you the answer.

 

I observe extreme bigoted, ignorant heterophobic hate speech here every time I read posts from foot soldiers of the homosexual agenda pounding, thumping, preaching and proselytizing with their scripted talking points out of their homosexual propaganda bible.

Clearly their extreme, obsessive bashing of heterosexual conservative normal people evidences they are repressing a hidden inner, dark secret desire to become a heterosexual conservative normal person.

 

Fair enough.

 

Who changed the "goal post" was you. I stated it was argued to courts and an Amici Curiae brief is, IN FACT, an argument to the court. When cited in the decision it also means it was a considered argument. The case is Obergefell v. Hodges.

 

The original definition of "homophobia" was not fear or hatred of homosexuals, but rather was a man having homosexual desires and desperately engaging in self and public denial by raging against homosexuality. And yes, I think we all know who you mean.