The LGBT fraud has been exposed, and they’re definitely not happy about it

My theory is to treat people equality - it is vastly superior to your argument.

 

Some people feel they need to sensationalize things and flat out lie about them. It's called fear mongering.

See if you don't agree with [MENTION=6512]sec[/MENTION] cats will be sleeping with dogs, Armageddon will begin the people he disagrees with will come to your house and "get" you.

It's really transparent.

 

Well saying people shouldn't get married because they are two different races is equal to saying they shouldn't hey married because they are the same sex.

The only reasoning for that position you have managed to muster in your years of caterwalling was that your religion is against it, or your bias is against it. Those are both one and the same if you ask me so, if you dint like it don't marry a person the same sex as you. Others may you may pretty to your little gods, you can not like it.

I doubt the law is going anywhere.

 

Nice try.

In the 1860's people who supported equal rights for blacks were progressives and were members of a political organization called the Republican Party.
In the 1860's people who were against equal rights for blacks were conservatives and were members of a political organization called the Democrat Party.
By the 1960's people who supported equal rights for blacks were progressives and were members of a political organization called the Democrat Party.
By the 1960's people who were against equal rights for blacks were conservatives and were members of a political organization called the Republican Party.

The basic ideologies of political parties changes over the years. The basic definition of "progressives" and "conservatives" does not.

Members of the KKK were/are predominately Christian Conservative.

I, and others, are doing quite well by doing just that.

You know that blacks, whites and everyone in between was born that way.
You believe that heterosexuals, homosexuals and everyone in between chose to be that way.
Tens of thousands of heterosexuals, homosexuals and everyone in between know that were born that way.

You're belief is just that, a belief. It's a belief that you must sustain to support your narrow conservative views. It's a belief rooted in your life-long conservative religious beliefs.

 

Um...his views aren't conservative. Conservatives want to conserve the government. Making laws protecting people from the public opinion is not being conservative.

 

Conservatism (or conservativism) is any political philosophy that favours tradition (in the sense of various religious, cultural, or nationally-defined beliefs and customs) in the face of external forces for change, and is critical of proposals for radical social change.
Conservatism - By Branch / Doctrine - The Basics of Philosophy
www.philosophybasics.com/branch_conservatism.html​

 

I'd call that social conservativism. It isn't the same thing. It isn't really a big part of conservatism today.

 

the SCOTUS will soon treat gay-sex for what it is, a chosen sexual act.

 

Of course....an act that is constitutionally protected as well.

 

All consensual sexual acts are chosen.
What do you believe this "new" SCOTUS will do (btw you might get one evangelical justice who strives for a theocracy which will in no way shift the social policy of the court).

No one has standing to bring a case against same sex marriage so I'm not sure how you will get this repealed. Your wish for removal of public accommodation laws on the federal level may happen but I assure you the ultimate outcome will not be what you bigots are cheering on.

 

Who is discussing marriage? If we as a nation wish to grant marriage to a woman and a horse then so be it.

Please remain focused. The thread is about the fraud by those who are pushing a false narrative about deviant sexual behaviors. The problem is that the politics which have been introduced into the courts must cease. No court should mandate that a person be forced to serve at an event which conflicts with their deeply held faith.

If you sincerely believe that the sexual relations of the aforementioned woman and horse is wrong, and are asked to work at said celebration, then that is liberty of yours to refuse.

On the same note, if that horse simply wants some grain, then sell it to the horse. If the woman wants a loaf of bread, then sell it to her. In both cases despite her being a horse-lover you have sold goods to her but refuse to participate in her celebrating her horse loving

Gay sex is no different and the fraud is that the govt has deccided to treat engaging in gay-sex as being equal to how one is born despite there being no medical proof.

 

Proofs are for mathematics and alcohol;science deals in evidence.

 

OK. Let's focus. This thread, which you started, is about the belief of a psychiatrist, Dr. Paul McHugh, that:

the belief that sexual orientation is an innate, biologically fixed human property – that people are “born that way” – is not supported by scientific evidence.​

Lesee...(emphasis mine)

https://thinkprogress.org/about-that-not-born-this-way-study-b3e07d0354f5#.6f8xu68ji

One of its co-authors is Dr. Paul McHugh, the retired Johns Hopkins University professor who is generally the only scientist whom opponents of transgender equality ever cite and who has his own history of overt anti-LGBT bias. The report was published in The New Atlantis, a journal that is affiliated with the anti-LGBT Ethics and Public Policy Center and prides itself on not being peer-reviewed. ​

​

https://thinkprogress.org/about-that-not-born-this-way-study-b3e07d0354f5#.6f8xu68ji

Likewise, Mayer and McHugh show absolutely no evidence that there is any way to manipulate people’s sexual orientation, either as children or adults, openly acknowledging that it’s not a choice and not even mentioning ex-gay therapy. But that doesn’t stop them from insinuating otherwise​

It seems to me that the only fraud being perpetrated is by the authors and by you for parroting their biased conclusions.

 

Sorry in the pubic marketplace you don't get to discriminate absent a compelling interest. How can you not get this yet?

- - - Updated - - -

Well said Sir

 

Marriage is directly related to each of these issues

No court should impose involuntary servitude - as long as anyone is forced to serve someone claiming religious affiliation then I support every group attempting to also be classified as such.

There is no medical proof of religiousness, yet y'all are the most protected group of people in the US. I'm not sure of your point.

 

nobody can force you to cater an event where the published theme would be discussing sexual deviancy of homosexuals. I would support your right to refuse to work that event .

It is no different to demand that a Christian work an event which celebrates sexual deviancy.

That is the issue.

 

Of course they can not force you. But if you are in the public marketplace they can sue you.....and should

 

You support the government forcing by law people to cater to proclaiming religious belief but want to be able to cater to who you feel like. It doesn't work that way. Ultimately it's why you keep losing in court, and why you will continue to do so.