LGBT bill to ban therapy for youth on sexual orientation issues is stalled in Mass.

Feel free to try to prove that my message is a lie.

Your post demonstrates the validity of my post very well.

 

It is a lie posting that I have an "anti-gay agenda."

 

Are you "for" or "against" LGBT having equal rights and protections under the law?

 

I've often posted quite clear that I support equal rights (which inherently means equal protection) for LGBTs and that have numerous personal reasons to do so. This includes but is definitely not limited to having a legally married SSM daughter. The other connections are personal matters I don't care to post on this forum, and have stated we used to hold gay-rights gathering in our home for specific goals that we met - though there were serious clashes with new-era gay men and a few transvestite males who only wanted to argue over words and slogans, plus bad tactics for here.

This does NOT mean that I blindly agree with any new slogan that comes down the pike, and in my opinion topics concerning gays and BIs are not the same as for Trans. That does not equate to being anti-Trans.

I have a much higher perspective of personal rights in relation to sexuality, sexual orientation, gender identity and gender-relationships. That is that no excuses are needed. That the excuse of "I can't help it, I was born like this!" is both unnecessary and demeaning - plus I believe it is false for most people. In my own opinion, MOST people are born asexual - and then almost an infinite set of interactions and circumstances continuously influence this.

Certainly some birth-traits can affect this, but I believe this influence also is socially and environmentally connected. For example, a male who is effeminate is more likely to be rejected heterosexually and more likely acceptable as gay - with this in almost infinite subtle ways. Additionally, due to EXTREME gender stereotyping such as in how a person dresses may also take a person in that direction. Yet, in fact, wearing a sundress no more defines being the female gender than society declares it does. In short, the PERCEPTION of what constitutes being FEMALE is a social definition on its face.

Yet as you see on this forum, my view that a person needs NO justification to other people whatsoever for their sexual orientation, sexual practices, relationship choices, what they wear or anything else absolutely outrages many gays and gay-activists on this forum. The notion of the fundamental right to be whatever the hell you are and do whatever you do - for whatever reasons or no reason at all - contradicts CURRENT sayings and declared truisms that then I am declared to be anti-gay and a homophobic bigot.

Why? Because I believe people are free, including free to be gay, bi, trans or whatever the hell they are and do. And they can't stand that contradiction to their declaration. Its a loyalty to the team thing, like loyalty to the doctrine of a religion or declarations of a political party.

An analogy would be someone who claims to be a Christian and practices that faith all the time - but says "I don't actually think it is literally the blood and flesh of Jesus we are consuming in communion" in some churches would then have people of the religion raging the person is a heathen heretic going to hell. In short, its not about being a "Christian," but about total submission to whatever the particular ideological declarer says.

Understand, and literally, for some if a lesbian married to another woman says "I'm a lesbian because that's what I elect to be with her because I love and want her," there are gay-activists who will as the argument escalates will be raging at her that she's a liar and literally an anti-gay homophobic bigot against LGTB rights. Literally at a married lesbian of years who has children with the other woman. I've personally observed this. And it becoming violent when that lesbian refused to agree with a non-SRS tranny that s/he is "woman" and instead called him/her a "she-male."

SO, then why do I oppose some slogans/claims of popular gay-rights and trans-rights claims? 1.) I believe they are false. 2.) I believe they are harmful in many ways both to individuals and socially. Slogan-sayings are easy and may sound good, but people are not that universally generic. People of all races should have the same rights and protections too. Why? Fundamental human and civil rights to be yourself - not because it is unfortunate they were born that way and therefore deserve fairness out of compassion. My stance is a stance of fundamental personal power of everyone.

 

I'm intrigued to hear what some of these slogans you object to are. I've had a similar reaction to some, especially those that go on about the CIS gendered, a concept I've always felt rather strange anyway.

 

For the most part it is "born gay" slogans. That everyone who is gay was born gay. That everyone who was hetero, even married with kids and then leaves for a gay relationship REALLY was always gay because he was born gay. I see the claim that everyone who is gay was born gay as both false and very demeaning. However, I've explained that so much it is just becoming redundant.

That now also has become "born trans." That is quite a bit about trans-activism I don't agree with in terms of the rights of genetic men who still have all their male genitals being treated including in terms of law and competitions (such as athletics) as females on the claim that physical sex (gender) is ONLY a matter of measuring testosterone levels. Nor do I think what sex a person is only is a matter of what a person claims and mental psychology. It also is a physical trait and a dna trait. "Trans-issues" also are HIGHLY wrapped up in that society defines as feminine, rather than what is genetic feminine. Genetics has nothing to do with wearing makeup and skirts, does it? That is all socially created definitions and, accordingly, is inherently psychological rather than organic.

I also am sympathetic to female feminists who are highly offended by the notion that a man can declare himself a female and suddenly have full female status. They will cite everything from the centuries and centuries it took women to gain much of any rights - to topics such as menstruation and childbearing - and growing up as a girl rather than a boy - and even "raped by a man as a teenage girl and he wasn't as a teenage boy nor did he have to endure what teenage girls do from guys - as real differences between genetic females and trans-females, even if the former "man" has had SRS surgery. In their view, while he is not a man to himself and no longer has external male organs, s/he really isn't a female either.

I see their point, though if a man is SO committed that he has his genitals removed I'm willing to give that a lot of consideration. But otther than that, her/his anatomy is still male, not female. That particularly applies to athletics. It also means s/he did not grow up facing the obstacles that a genetic female faced growing up as a girl and other female issues.

 

Johnny-c asked him a simple question and he puked for nine paragraphs.

It's a yes or no answer.

And the slogan nonsense is just how he tries to dismiss arguments he doesn't want to address.

 

I see your point but this is the price we all pay for wanting rigid definitions.Sexuality, from my experience, is far more fluid than most imagine. However, having said that I can attest I was a male attracted to only males from a very early age.So early I didn't even know what homosexuality was. A very brief love affair with a female in my mid teens taught me that wasn't for me. OK, I could 'do it' as they say but it always felt wrong and I found myself totally allergic to the emotional games women play in order to get men to 'behave themselves'. OK, I know this last is asking for an argument but let's put it down to transient misogyny of my misguided youth. There are however a number of reasons I understand why women have to resort to emotional blackmail in order to get straight men to behave.

I not sure about that one and don't think we have sufficient empirical evidence to know for sure either. It's complicated to by the rigid separation of male/female appearance our age has imposed. Go back 500 years and you'll see European and Oriental man covered with so much bling they'd be bashed if they appeared on the street today.

I'm not sure what my view of this is but one change I got to know very well was feminine in every way until she was with any group of women. She'd talk over them just as any male chauvinist would. Curious, isn't it. I also knew from early childhood a very feminine 'boy' who later had a change. When 'she' was a 'he' there was nothing to indicate maleness I could observe. He also has such a small penis it was the but of extremely cruel jokes and harassment in sports day changing room scenes.

Ah yes, but there are genitals and then there are genitals. See above.
But hey, I'd still like to hear what some of those slogans are.

 

Okay. I support LGBT as well.

 

what you define as "rights" varies though.... I don't believe you were ever denied the right to marry, as you could marry someone with the same restrictions that I did....

the only way gays could say they were denied the right to marry is if they were marrying the opposite sex, but was denied "because you are really gay, and this is a sham wedding"

and that didn't ever happen.

Hetero's were equal with homos.... I couldn't marry my cousin, multiple partners or same gender either.


I do support your right to work or live wherever you can afford or are qualified for, with no regard to your gender, age, orientation, color, religion....

 

So, you have never had a BJ or used a condom? (Or anything else that frustrates procreation?)

 

I said:

I'm not going to frack-around with this, playing word games or trying to align people's basic rights with YOUR (or anyone else's) 'beliefs'.

It's time to stop riding the backs of LGBT with these prejudices, and get on making society as a whole, better.

 

I don't agree with your assertion of what makes America Better though.

 

The more we can increase 'liberty', the better off we'll be.

 

it's not liberty if I'm forced to associate with people I don't want to associate with under the threat of losing my livlihood. True liberty is allowing people who don't agree with you to freely voice their opinion without being called a homophobic bigot because I don't see things like you do.

 

Obviously he is a Popist Catholic who wished to return to when contraceptives were illegal in the United States.

 

Well, we shouldn't mandate by law that bigotry (or closed mindedness) be enforced. What good is that kind of law?

 

If you are not gay, why should it bother you, and who is forcing you to associate with gay people ? or is the work place association ?

How are you in threat of losing your employment ? unless you crave attention and make silly anti gay statements.

 

Explain what you mean by "associate." I don't think anyone forces someone to associate with gay people, unless you include being forced to see that gay people exist. In that we have media representation in tv shows and movies or walk hand-in-hand with our partners in public. Some people would call those things associate, and I would say they can just look the other way if it bothers them. I'm curious about what the word associate means to you though.

 

Truth is many of you are often 'associating' without even knowing it.

 

I really don't see what all the fuss is about.

Who cares what Gay People do.....I certainly don't.

People are people no matter what.

This is coming from one of the most Alpha Type Males on Planet Earth.

AA

 

Stop it , you're turning me on ! !

 

the issue with your example is a perfect example. We have a first friday event downtown during the summers. Lots of people.


it's becoming a gay center to flaunt gayness. Making out (not just pecks on the cheek), and if you dare say anything like you would to a hetero couple groping each other in public (which also happens), you are immediately met with "you're a bigotted homophobe"


So the moral of the story is, if you're walking with your kids at what was originally sold as a family friendly environment.... and you see a couple dry-humping each other, you are only allowed to be offended by it or ask them to stop with the inappropriate behavior in public if the couple is hetero.... because if you are offended by the gays doing it..... you are a homophobe and a scene will be made by the couple who feel entitled to be gay whenever, whereever they please.

 

I'm not in threat of losing current employment, but when gays get one more layer of protection from being fired.... (because you can't fire a gay for just being a bad employee, you have to prove you aren't homophobic first, before firing a gay for being a bad employee, ie - Michael Sam in the NFL), then when I'm looking for a job, that is occupied by a person that should have been fired a month ago, but he's gay, so extra documentation for termination is needed.... then it affects me.

Michael sam got a second chance at the NFL and got a practice squad position.... which straight football player, didn't get that practice squad position because it was occupied by a guy who refused to accept that he was cut because he wasn't good enough, not because he was gay, and made a huge national issue out of it in an attempt to get a position he wasn't qualified for.

 

I agree that "dry humping" at a pubic event isn't appropriate no matter what type of couple it is. Maybe if you ask them to stop you just need to be sure to include that it isn't their sexuality you're uncomfortable with, but rather that they're on 2nd base at a public event. I would also challenge you to be more observant of straight couples and be sure to call them on the same behavior. Maybe even test it out on straight couples first. Can I ask what city you're in? Does it have a large gay population? One idea would be to go to an event with a gay or lesbian friend. If this is something that happens that often at these types of events, a gay person could more easily call them on their crap. If it were me I would tell them to cool it and get a room because they're making us look bad. Being able to identify with them eliminates the possibility of homophobia, which most gay people are paranoid about to some degree... with good reason. Going to the earlier part of an event like that is a good idea too because alcohol isn't flowing at full force yet.

I do agree with you that more than affectionate kisses belong at the bar or in private, no matter what type of couple it is.