How the Gay Agenda is Helping the GOP Get Votes in 2012: a poll

Okay, as long as you don't think that being "homosexual" is defined as a "behavior".

 

There is no "being" homosexual. There is "doing" homosexual. And this is part of the homophilia etiology BTW. It is creating an identity out of a sexual behavior.

Which is completely screwed up. And teaching this practice to kids is against the guidelines of the APA BTW. And it's a stage of pedophilia called "grooming". And that is illegal.

It also won't pass the test of "class" or "race" because lady justice has blinders on remember? She can't or won't distinguish between one set of behaviors [GLBTQ??] and any other sets of behaviors as qualifying for "class" or "race". That is because lady justice knows that she lives by the rule of precedents. If she allows one set of loosely-clustered behaviors to erroneously declare themselves as a "race" or "class", then the barn door must be opened for all loosely-clustered behavioral groups to do the same. Otherwise favoritism and discrimination can be claimed. She she has to be very rigorous in examining the potential outfall of her suddenly declaring sexual behaviors as "class" or "race".

The only binder between "GLBTQ" seems to be the stubborn refusal to engage in reproductive sexual behavior. It's motto could be "we treat sex as a limitless recreation, not a biological function!"

And that's fine. Free country. Just don't ask us to call what you DO a "class" or "race" and then use those labels to manipulate the court system as to "civil rights"..

Voters know what a behavior is. And they know manipulation when they see it. They may not always be public about their disapproval; and may even lie to keep from being battered like they see others receiving at the hands of gay militants. In their private mental space they will vote what they see, no matter what kind of mask it's trying to wear to deceive..

 

That's 'ridiculous'. Please, STOP making things up.

 

I get pissed off when schools try to teach religious preference.. I get pissed off when teachers try to influence kids into being rightwing or leftwing....I get pissed off when schools teach little kids the "nuts and bolts" about homosexuality.

Sex education in schools is about teaching kids about STD's and how getting pregnant happens. I dont want the school to go into the kama Sutra and start teaching sex positions or start teaching about golden showers or ... sexual orientatation. At most homosexualism should be acknowledged and unstigmatized. Indoctorinating kids into accepting sexual preferences is stupid... just as stupid as bringing sexual preference into politics.

I feel the same way about this gay (*)(*)(*)(*) being an issue in politics. Once I hear a politician start making antigay/progay crap part of his/her running ticket.. I stop taking that candidate seriously.

When asked about gay issues, all I want to hear from a candidate is... I believe in equal rights for everybody.. if you are a law abiding human being.. I will defend your rights as an equal... THATS IT.

We as americans should recognize that polarizing issues that strike primitive bone in our psyches..are used to divide us.. just like religion.. and labels..abortion. Once these issues are brought to the forefront of a campaign they obliterate all other issues from the limelight and politicians get a free ride on the (*)(*)(*)(*) we SHOULD be paying attention too.

The house is on fire people.. lets put itout first and foremost.. repair the damage.. then we can start paying attention to who is (*)(*)(*)(*)ing who if we are still collectively stupid enough to worry about it.

 

I agree 100% on your take there. Especially the part about politicians supporting the gay subculture takeover. The second I hear those words "I support gay..." coming from their mouth, I switch the channel and vow to never vote for them. I'm a democrat. Hardcore and lifelong. And I'm sick of my party that usually stands for human decency, standing for a mental illness masquerading as a "cool new trend".

And it's illegal. It's a stage of pedophilia called "grooming". One and the same. California lawmakers and the governor who passed SB 48 are guilty of accessory to child molesting.

 

I am not threatened by homosexuality. I took responsibility and educated my kids about it as I saw necessary. Like guns and drugs.. I took the mystery and taboo out of the picture as soon as possible without cutting short thier innocence and childhood.

I dont consider homosexuality a mental illness. It does seem to be a biological abberation... simply on the fact that homosexuality is self destructive in an evolutionary aspect.. there is no place for it on the evolutionary scale.. no room for improvement.

Acceptance of homosexuality is a moot point... there should be no laws supporting it... or persecuting it. It should not be a topic in a country that protects the rights of ALL its citizens.. there should be no clauses.

 

It isn't biological. It's behavioral. We have evidence to that. We have ag scientists training artificial orientations in pubescent mammals for centuries now. It isn't biological for instance for a bull to become sexually aroused at the sight of a halter or steer he's been trained to mount and reinforced via classical conditioning thereafter to lust after. And yet he lusts. Conclusion: taught and behavioral.

Moreover, humans learn & then fixate behaviors socially more than any other mammals. Plug that into this equation: "make gay normal, "heroic" even to kids [SB 48 in CA]". Now predict.. = pedophilic-grooming. = illegal.

 

SEXUAL ORIENTATION IS NOT A CHOICE. No reputable scientist says such a thing. That is the problem here. Sexual behavior is only a choice in that one can choose to remain celibate and not act on desires, but aside from that there is no choice. I never chose to be attracted to women, but I am. Gay people will tell you they never made a conscious choice to be attracted to men or women. Why would they, when our society in many places still scorns them so much? It would be irrational to choose such a thing for yourself.

 

Pedophiles say the same thing.
So Pedophiles are much like homosexuals in that they have urges not the norm because of their genetic disposition. Some day perhaps we'll find those genetic markers and abort the fetuses before they are ever born.

 

Pedophilia is not homosexuality. I did not say being natural was the only condition to support same sex marriage. There are other factors as well, such as two consenting adults who do not hurt anyone.

 

Even if they're brother and sister? And if not, why not? If they're consenting and love each other?

No, really, why not?

 

I thought it was also assumed I would not need to specify the criteria of don't practice incest. But I guess if you want me to include then it can be natural, two consenting adults not harming anyone or broader society, and are not related.

 

Why is being related a problem?

 

You keep trying to sell that LIE. It's simply amazing how frequently and consistently you've tried to repeat it, so that others might 'believe' it.

Where does your irrational animus actually originate from? (Not really sure if I want to know the story.)

I hope EVERYONE with some sense of reality, knows to challenge you outright.

 

Of course it isn't; but watch how obsessive and persistent 'Silhouette' and others are in promoting the idea.

Kind of easy to see their 'motive' behind trying to make such an association. Sad stuff indeed.

 

Johnny C is substituting tantrums and hyperbole again for lucid debate. So I'll address you again Sooner. You said:

Why is being related a problem?

 

even talking about a brother screwing his sister makes me want to vomit.

 

Don't mistake the SHOVEL I'm using and what I'm doing with it, for something else. There aren't too many ways to clean up the nonsense that you continually spew here.

You aren't 'debating', you are simply propagating irrational animus toward homosexual people. Please, don't pretend it is anything else but that.

 

The only REAL problem I can see with it aside from it being extremely weird and bizarre is the fact that people who are very closely related genetically like family members are tend to produce children with genetic defects, which would be a harm to others beside themselves. If you know reproducing with someone will highly increase the chances your child will be born with major problems, it would be wise not to do it and it should be illegal.

However, to be consistent I would need to say two consenting adults who are in a loving relationship and not hurting anyone else would be free to do this. BUT reproduction in incest relationships vastly increases the chances of genetic defects. So there would have to be safeguards to ensure the people could not have children. The only way I can see this happening is forced sterilization. And if that were to somehow fail, then forced abortions. It seems like the genetic component of it might be too hard to overcome, so my harm criteria of causing no harm may not in fact be met.

 

Sooner how can we then approve of two people who have genes for congenital blindness or flat feet or dwarfism marry?

Giveusliberty.. If you can suspend your nausea for a moment and look at the bare bones of the legal aspects of gay marraige, there really is no basis to deny a brother and sister the right to marry if they are consenting adults. We can't tell them they can't marry if gays get the privelege of marriage. We can't ban two loving adult consenting heterosexuals from marrying while allowing two men to marry.

And if two brothers want to marry, what then? No children would ever result. What logical basis would we have to deny them if gays can? I've met siblings as adults who love each other very deeply. Why not let them have sex and get married too? Why can't everyone play pretend?

 

Glad I wasn't in the theatre when you first saw Star Wars.

 

Well?

What's your answer?

 

No,it was during the Return Of The Jedi when I was like LUKE!YOU KISSED YOUR SISTER!!EWWWWWWWWW,lmaoo
Hey!,how was I supposed to know Lea was Lukes sister in Star Wars??
But on another note:you notice the Empire had absolutely no women at all?What was up with that??

 

It's odd an argument about gay marriage has caused me to think a little bit. It would apply the same way right? It would actually be irresponsible of two parents if they were carrying genes that had high potential to cause defects in children to even take the chance of reproducing. Adoption would be the better option. They would be taking a huge risk that their child would be messed up if they decided to go through with a pregnancy. So the moral thing to do (if the knowledge was available to do this beforehand) would be to not reproduce, but it's extremely difficult to know beforehand. But I would have to know what was the likely percentage of me and my future wife reproducing and having a kid with something seriously wrong. And if it were solely genetic, or would depend on other factors also. And I don't think flat feet or dwarfism meet the criteria of a serious problem due to a genetic defect. It would have to be something more drastic and something that could not be treated successfully, like a baby being born with half a brain or something like that. Just because people do not go through with all of these tests before hand does not mean they should not do so in the future.

And right you are on the brothers. There is no genetic problem there, so I could not really be against it on legal grounds. But I did point out genetic problems with siblings of the opposite sex, and this has been firmly established in the scientific community. So it would NOT be inconsistent for me to say incestual relationships capable of reproduction should be illegal, however much I disapprove of them privately.

And I also want to point out that sometimes if we don't like something that doesn't necessarily mean it should be illegal. I don't like when people deny the holocaust happened, or when people say racist things about one another. But certain activities are beyond the realm of the law. Two brothers who are consenting adults, are not harming each other or anyone else, should have the right to be together.

 

my answer is short and simple...

BLEGH!