Research on sexual orientation and homophobia

[nehalem256]

But significantly more important is the reality that you are empowered to act and believe as you choose so long as it does not interfere with an other's right to do the same. Your rights do not extend into the mind or bedroom of your neighbor.

Why do you seek to do so by your vote and other actions?

I dont care if gay people have sex in their bedrooms.

Demanding that I extend marriage to them though is asking me to care is it not?

 

[LunarRay]

Except for the fact that is the liberals in this thread mocking the conservatives and saying they have brain defects.

It seems to be the liberals are the ones showing contempt.

It appears the Liberals are reflecting the contempt back... IOW, a conscious attempt toward a rational analysis of a viewed behavior.

It is instructive, I think, to see which came first... the Chicken or the Egg... From that one can deduce IF the contempt from a subconsiously controlled conscious mindset produced a contemptious event and then IF the response was to that or IF both are filled with contempt... Both are not filled with compassion for sure... For compassion will produce compassion... (love begets love and hate begets hate ... love cannot beget hate) (lesser definition of 'beget') in my opinion.

 

[sandorski]

Looks like I need to take the day to update my Block list.

 

[alzan]

Just because Conservatives agree with each other does not make them alts.

And it is laughable to accuse me of thinking that liberals have a mental disorder when one of your liberal friends is literally accusing conservatives of being mentally defective in this very thread.

Oh, I wasn't talking about Conservatives, I was referring to you and and another incorruptible poster, as well as the poster who considers himself a ****sage.

I don't know of whom you speak on a personal level, but would be honored if he considered me his friend.

alzan

 

[LunarRay]

I dont care if gay people have sex in their bedrooms.

Demanding that I extend marriage to them though is asking me to care is it not?

I don't ask you to care or not care... I simply ask you to afford to others the same right you claim for your self....

YOU are but one person... Your mate, should you have one, is but one person... both have rights... so too do all the other individuals in society... each has the right to be married... Each has that right... who they choose must have some compelling State Interest at the level of Strict Scrutiny to preclude... there is none, ergo, I maintain who I or you marry is for us... as individuals to decide.

 

[nehalem256]

Can't speak for Moonbeam or others; I haven't mocked conservatives or said they have brain defects. So "liberals" (a group that I count myself part of), at least in regards to this thread, don't mock conservatives or say that they have brain defects. Some posters have mocked you (or one of your ALTs), but I don't know them well enough to wager a guess as to their political ideology. In case you're keeping score, that's a third hole in another of your theories.

Moonbeams OP was not an attack on conservatives, just an observation about an interesting study. That you choose to view it as an attack speaks volumes.

alzan

P.S. Sorry to have hijacked your thread, Moonbeam

Why would I insult somebody with a brain defect. I provide all this information to you on the slight chance that it can save you from yourself. I don't have ego like you do. I don't need for you to be worthless for me to be OK. You don't want to look at yourself but I had no choice. I just couldn't stuff my pain under. I had to suffer the loss of belief in everything I held dear and instead of it killing me it set me free. Free people what others to be free. Good luck to you. You are disturbed and driven by obsession and all it does to me is make me sad. I know that nothing can help you until you see the need. And you're punch drunk at the moment so it won't happen soon, I fear.

Not to mention that pretty much at least every other post moonbeam makes is calling Conservatives mentally defective are saying they are mentally ill.

And it seems like most of the other posters are mocking conservatives for holding position A, or complaining that when I assume that liberals hold the Not A position that I am attacking a strawman. Sorry for assuming that liberals dont hold the positions they mock :/

 

[nehalem256]

I don't ask you to care or not care... I simply ask you to afford to others the same right you claim for your self....

YOU are but one person... Your mate, should you have one, is but one person... both have rights... so too do all the other individuals in society... each has the right to be married... Each has that right... who they choose must have some compelling State Interest at the level of Strict Scrutiny to preclude... there is none, ergo, I maintain who I or you marry is for us... as individuals to decide.

I am not precluding gays from getting married any more then I am precluding them from getting a license to kill. I am simply not creating such a contract in the first place.

It seem like the real point of disagreement is that liberals see no difference between gay marriage and straight marriage, whereas conservatives view them as different things.

 

[alzan]

I dont care if gay people have sex in their bedrooms.

Demanding that I extend marriage to them though is asking me to care is it not?

Not at all. Who is allowed to be married is not a decision extended to you, me or any single individual in this country. The government issues licenses; governments, even though they are made up of individuals, are not allowed to say who can receive those licenses as long as fees have been paid. They do have to issue them without discriminating against particular individuals or groups.

No one is demanding that you extend the right of marriage to couples, same-sex or different sex; simply because it's not your decision to make. And it is certainly not asking you to care. If you do care, then perhaps you should seek counseling. If you object to same-sex marriage, the solution is quite simple: don't marry someone of the same sex.

If your objection is religious-based; perhaps you should let your deity(s) be the ones to mete out judgment or approval/disapproval. If he/they are all powerful, then it's well within their purview to do so.

alzan

 

[alzan]

I am not precluding gays from getting married any more then I am precluding them from getting a license to kill. I am simply not creating such a contract in the first place.

It seem like the real point of disagreement is that liberals see no difference between gay marriage and straight marriage, whereas conservatives view them as different things.

1) That's good, because it's not your place to create said contract.

2a) Wow, good to know you figured that one out, there is no difference; they're both marriages.

2b) How unfortunate for conservatives; but surely you must know that not all conservatives agree with you. Or maybe you know but just won't admit it. How sad.

 

[LunarRay]

I am not precluding gays from getting married any more then I am precluding them from getting a license to kill. I am simply not creating such a contract in the first place.

It seem like the real point of disagreement is that liberals see no difference between gay marriage and straight marriage, whereas conservatives view them as different things.

It is in the basis of what is marriage that the difference sits. Soon our SCOTUS will decide if California's Prop 8 and the court's below got it right. In that both the left and right must or should agree.

I find that marriage is a fundamental right afforded to the individual and it can't be denied to an individual unless their is a compelling State Interest to do so.. Who the individual marries is irrelevant.

Our difference is that you'd advocate that the fundamental right of marriage is afforded to certain kinds of couples. I can think of no right provided by our Constitution to be enjoyed only by couples.

 

[nehalem256]

Not at all. Who is allowed to be married is not a decision extended to you, me or any single individual in this country. The government issues licenses; governments, even though they are made up of individuals, are not allowed to say who can receive those licenses as long as fees have been paid. They do have to issue them without discriminating against particular individuals or groups.

alzan

This is nonsense. If society cannot define marriage then it cannot grant marriage contracts to anyone.

Not to mention that if the government really cannot discriminate against particular groups then someone should be allowed to marry his 6 year old sister. Or, all his sisters.

 

[nehalem256]

Our difference is that you'd advocate that the fundamental right of marriage is afforded to certain kinds of couples. I can think of no right provided by our Constitution to be enjoyed only by couples.

Honestly I do not really view marriage as a right. And right seems to have become an overly used and abused word. Not every is or should be considered a right.

 

[Incorruptible]

I dont have a problem with gays but I do have a big problem with dumb liberals who use gays to further their agenda and the gays that hate conservatives

 

[Moonbeam]

Can't speak for Moonbeam or others; I haven't mocked conservatives or said they have brain defects. So "liberals" (a group that I count myself part of), at least in regards to this thread, don't mock conservatives or say that they have brain defects. Some posters have mocked you (or one of your ALTs), but I don't know them well enough to wager a guess as to their political ideology. In case you're keeping score, that's a third hole in another of your theories.

Moonbeams OP was not an attack on conservatives, just an observation about an interesting study. That you choose to view it as an attack speaks volumes.

alzan

P.S. Sorry to have hijacked your thread, Moonbeam

Not at all. Very nice stuff you post in my opinion. And it can't hurt when different folk point out the same errors in thinking. Conservatives are uncomfortable, as I see it, in holding minority opinions. It will help to convert them to a less impaired state of reasoning when they know they will have lots of new friends. We liberals are a large herd collective of rational thinkers.

😉

 

[Moonbeam]

I dont have a problem with gays but I do have a big problem with dumb liberals who use gays to further their agenda and the gays that hate conservatives

OK, you don't have one problem but you have a lot of others. Why not just fix a few more, though?

 

[Incorruptible]

OK, you don't have one problem but you have a lot of others. Why not just fix a few more, though?

Liberals are using gays to further their agenda and demonize conservatives which is what I have a problem with

 

[alzan]

This is nonsense. If society cannot define marriage then it cannot grant marriage contracts to anyone.

Not to mention that if the government really cannot discriminate against particular groups then someone should be allowed to marry his 6 year old sister. Or, all his sisters.

1) Oh sorry, I'll try to be more accurate: currently various courts around the country are trying to decide if government can discriminate as far as who can get a marriage license, not the definition of marriage. I realize technicalities are not something you're used to in your black/white, on/off world; but do try to keep up.

2) Another illogical and fallacious point: we're not talking about why a person cannot marry their underage sibling, but if you or one of your ALTs would like to start a thread on that, or on the subject of polygamy, by all means do so. Suffice it to say that there is a legal concept known as Informed Consent; minors under a particular state's Age of Consent are not allowed to enter into marriage and most if not all, legal contracts.

You're really quite uninformed, aren't you?

alzan

 

[blankslate]

Demanding that I extend marriage to them though is asking me to care is it not?

Nope it's not asking you to care.... It is not as if there is a marriage stock market and more marriages will somehow cause an oversupply and devalue yours.

Simple solution in my opinion....

Give Civil unions all (I mean ALL) of the benefits of marriage (federal taxes and state, visitiation rights, etc.) then allow Churches to codify the those civil unions as marriages... or not.

 

[Bowfinger]

If you refuse to answer what I say I, but instead engage in mocking and insults, I reserve to the right to assume the reason you refuse to answer is because your beliefs are as hideous as my "strawman".

Nope, you're still wrong. Your need to re-frame debate into something you can attack is your problem, not ours. Always has been, always will be. You constantly refuse to address directly and accurately what others actually say, instead taking the lazy, intellectually dishonest, and morally bankrupt tactic of misrepresenting their remarks into something you can attack with canned talking points. You then incessantly badger whoever was bored enough to call you on your BS. 'You didn't answer me. You didn't answer me. You didn't answer me..."

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Your mommy may indulge your antisocial behavior, feeding you a pile of lovely green Participant ribbons for your "swell try, darling." We have no such obligation. If you can't back your positions honestly and accurately, maybe you need to take a hard look in a mirror and figure out why they suck so badly. That you dearly want to believe them doesn't make them so.

 

[alzan]

Not at all. Very nice stuff you post in my opinion. And it can't hurt when different folk point out the same errors in thinking. Conservatives are uncomfortable, as I see it, in holding minority opinions. It will help to convert them to a less impaired state of reasoning when they know they will have lots of new friends. We liberals are a large herd collective of rational thinkers.

😉

I've always considered myself part of a/the Universal Consciousness; just wasn't sure of who else, if any, were there 😉

 

[alzan]

Liberals are using gays to further their agenda and demonize conservatives which is what I have a problem with

Pray tell, what is this agenda of which you speak? And do try to be accurate; I'm fairly sure you haven't personally met all liberals in this world, much less in this thread, and so couldn't begin to know of any "agenda" they may have.

Demonize is such an ugly word, shall we say educate?

You have a problem with wanting to learn new ideas or concepts? Sorry to hear that.

alzan

 

[Bowfinger]

[ ... ]
And it seems like most of the other posters are mocking conservatives for holding position A,

Not all conservatives are mocked. Those who can support their positions intelligently with fact and reason create a great opportunity for interesting and even rewarding discussion. The mockery, in my experience, is aimed at those who fail to support their positions intelligently, but instead can only attack their perceived opponents with dishonest arguments and inaccurate assertions. Sadly, P&N has far too many of the latter, and too few of the former.

or complaining that when I assume that liberals hold the Not A position that I am attacking a strawman.

Thank you, an excellent example. Your alleged "Not A" has invariably been something else, a ridiculous caricature of "Not A" that you can attack easily. For example, you might say the sun rises in the west. Someone responds, pointing out your claim is factually untrue. Your purported "Not A" response is something like, "So you think the sun rises in the north," followed by endless badgering of why that "liberal" -- because you call anyone who disagrees with you a liberal -- refuses to respond in support of "his" belief the sun rises in the north. In short, you lie about others' positions, then insist they support the lie you created. Never, never, never, will you go back and support your initial 'A' nonsense about the sun rising in the west, let alone actually acknowledge you were wrong.

Sorry for assuming that liberals dont hold the positions they mock :/

And again and again and again... Why are you (collectively) so pathologically dishonest? Have you tried being truthful and accurate, for the novelty if nothing else?

 

[Incorruptible]

Pray tell, what is this agenda of which you speak? And do try to be accurate; I'm fairly sure you haven't personally met all liberals in this world, much less in this thread, and so couldn't begin to know of any "agenda" they may have.

Demonize is such an ugly word, shall we say educate?

You have a problem with wanting to learn new ideas or concepts? Sorry to hear that.

alzan

Its part of the culture war that they have been engaging in, as well trying to teach about lgbt issues to little kids in school, they are using them to spread hate about conservatives

 

[Bowfinger]

Nope it's not asking you to care.... It is not as if there is a marriage stock market and more marriages will somehow cause an oversupply and devalue yours.

Simple solution in my opinion....

Give Civil unions all (I mean ALL) of the benefits of marriage (federal taxes and state, visitiation rights, etc.) then allow Churches to codify the those civil unions as marriages... or not.

I agree. The government should get out of the "marriage" business entirely. It should recognize civil unions with no considerations whatsoever for gender or sexual preference. "Marriage" will be something a church does, with whatever restrictions they care to impose. A church "marriage" will have no legal standing at all, but certainly could be bundled with the civil union application to make it continue working much as it does today.

 

[nehalem256]

Thank you, an excellent example. Your alleged "Not A" has invariably been something else, a ridiculous caricature of "Not A" that you can attack easily. For example, you might say the sun rises in the west. Someone responds, pointing out your claim is factually untrue. Your purported "Not A" response is something like, "So you think the sun rises in the north," followed by endless badgering of why that "liberal" -- because you call anyone who disagrees with you a liberal -- refuses to respond in support of "his" belief the sun rises in the north. In short, you lie about others' positions, then insist they support the lie you created. Never, never, never, will you go back and support your initial 'A' nonsense about the sun rising in the west, let alone actually acknowledge you were wrong.

Umm, you are the one who lies.

For one, in the cases are discussion, there are only 2 choices.

For example. Yesterday. Should a woman who has abused and neglected 7 children be allowed to continue to pop out children. Yes/No.

There is no third choice to that. I said no. Liberals mocked it, and then when I sad they choose the yes choice, claimed it was a strawman. Sorry, if liberal views are so embarrassing.