Federal Appeals Court Holds Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Are you so sure?

 

The art of the gay agenda is to put a seed of doubt in the mind of the opposition: thereby asking them to question their own orientation. Once that orienation is questioned, then the invitations [in the case of naturally-curious children] come out to join "bi-curious" dances and so forth. Sex-tied-with-fun-n-games. This just happens to be one of the main tactics in the grooming process pedophiles use to entice children into sex acts. Harvey Milk, gay hero/pedophile is the man chosen by the gay community to head up their ambassadorship to children in CA schools..

..now where was I, oh yes.. the topic of whether or not I am "sure" I'm heterosexual. Yes, I'm attracted to the opposite gender and have procreated. I'm too set in my ways to be turned. That's why gays are appealing to children in California [later, elsewhere] to emulate "gay" through their pedophile/ambassador Harvey Milk. Young minds are much more impressionable.

BTW, I borrowed the phrase "to turn" from gay linguistics. In that culture it means to take an untouched, usually minor/impressionable child and "turn" him gay by inappropriate sexual contact/reinforcing episodes. Just to clarify, that term came from a GAY website and not a pedophile one.. There are more terms in "lavender language" for inappropriate sex with minors & children than a dog has fleas. Thousands of studies have been done on and documented this fact.

 

Who said anything about being wounded?

The topic doesn't make me uncomfortable at all. It's your continued misconception of the material in the links that you provide that bothers me.
You don't understand your own information. You make up an interpretation that goes against what you linked says. You assume to much and twist the information to fit your current concept of reality. You know nothing about being gay and have zero information from gays that would support your position.
So why are you so interested in finding out what makes a person gay. Are you thinking it will help you understand why you're depressed living in the closet?

 

The heterosexual agenda is deception. They try and tell gay people how they happen to be gay.
You yourself might consider why you're so concerned about gays and look into your own background and examine your own feelings for the same sex. You may well be hiding behind this rouse of attack.

 

Ah the old "if you shine the light of introspection on the lavender crowd, we'll accuse you of being closeted yourself".

It's one of many favorites that include:

1. Being called a bigot for simply questioning what's going on with gays and their social movement.

2. Being called a "hater" for wanting to know why for instance, gays have chosen a pedophile to head up their ambassadorship to children in CA schools..

3. Being called a "homophobe" for daring to debate any topic in the "con" position with regards to the unstoppable "zapping" forward of the gay agenda.

4. Being called a "closet homosexual". This one is usually reserved as a last-ditch tactic to shut a conversation down that is going in a direction that is really making the Agenda uncomfortable.

So I'll accept your inadvertent compliment: that I'm making sense and getting through...lol..

 

ok. so you're saying nothing "happened" to you to make you heterosexual. the same goes for the vast majority of HOMOSEXUALS. NOTHING happened to them either. They are simply attracted to the same sex. Glad we can move past this.

 

Great.

Now we can finally put an end to the gay marriage controversy just like we did for abortion.

 

Not so fast Muchacho.

It seems that the CDC's choice of the word "epidemic"..among gay men would indicate that SOMETHING did HAPPEN to the majority of them as boys. Otherwise the prestigious CDC would not have chosen the word "pervasive" also to describe the phenomenon.

When something is "pervasive" it means it is intrinsic to the very fabric of something.

 

Not an accusation at all. Someone so interested and paranoid of gays and lesbians many times does so to draw attention away from their own sexual struggle with identity. You happen to hit that profile.

The agenda which you have done well to misrepresent is not in the least bit uncomfortable.

Their are gays and lesbians who were abused at the hands of some family member. No question about it. The fact they were abused did not make them gay or lesbian if that were the case every child that has been sexually abused would be and we would outnumber the heterosexual population.
Your findings are what they are and you have extrapolated them to suit your own sexual struggle. No problem here. I'm lesbian and very happy to be who I am.
I don't sit and ponder heterosexuality and how they act. I don't really care what they do. I don't concern myself with someones private sexual activity as you do. That seems rather voyeuristic and a another sign of someone struggling with their sexuality. You appear to have all of the trappings of a closeted individual working for you.

You may harbor deep feelings for a same sex partner I don't know and it's not my business. If you are I suggest you do what is natural to you rather then keeping up some false front. You would be far happier.

 

So I am getting closer to your denial core. The topic must be reaching a "red-zone" of uncomfortable for you.

It is impossible in your mind, undoubtedly, that any parent could be concerned for the sake of children in general, evidened by the recent and blatant semen-feeding bondage arrest of a pedophile in LA that children taught to emuate a gay-hero/pedophile like Harvey Milk might be being inadvertently or purposefully? exposed to danger to themselves on behalf of the gay agenda.

So thanks for the compliments. Keep them coming. I'm happy to know I'm near your "red-zone". It means we're getting somewhere finally.

 

As what I'd call a "perfectly normal" gay guy, whom you would probably not even identify as gay after evaluating my personal and professional life except that it happens to have another man in it, I'm somewhat offended at the generalizations.

Can we agree that there are some bad and over-the-top people in the "gay" class, just as there are in all classes of people, and that it need not be used as a method to characterize everyone in that class?

 

I think that's going to be an uphill struggle!

 

I find your avoidance very telling. You say I'm reaching a red zone that is beyond silly. I only need to glance at your attacks and denial and I seem to have your number. Certainly parents have a concern about their children in ever aspect of their lives. You though display this well beyond the norm what it comes to homosexuality.
You have far overstepped what most parents would do in protecting their children from the possibility of a pedophile attack. I think your research is an excuse to examine your own sexual nature. You would have a difficult time convincing me otherwise at this point.
Your heterosexual agenda is in tact your hidden side though hangs out all over in this debate. You may hide well in your life or to others but you are fooling no one. You only hide your nature from yourself.

 

Do you mean my or the CDC's "generalizations" done here:

 

He probably didn't know what the word meant. Dumbing down the population is part of the leftist-socialist-liberal agenda.

 

This is little more than demonization that strays far from the actual topic of the thread.

That was a study of 3000 gay men in San Francisco, six years ago. Always fun (read as "ridiculous") when someone tries to extrapolate from a small slice of a population to the whole in order to hatemonger.

It comes from something called "Clinical Psychiatry News". Never heard of them before. Apparently an "independent" (read as 'not affiliated with any professionally qualified organization') paper/blog. It's apparently part of an increasingly shady publishing company called Elsevier:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsevier

This is basically a source that makes it's money through publishing, not one that speaks for the CDC.

It allegedly quotes someone from the CDC, but does not provide any context for the alleged statement. By the way, Stall doesn't work for the CDC anymore.

The article is by someone named Sharon Worcester. Who is that? Apparently now a freelance writer, she used to be the "Southeast Bureau Chief" for Elsevier.

 

No I mean you.

I don't dispute a problem, but I do dispute the solution. I don't think being gay is any more directly the cause of the behaviors mentioned than being black is the cause of having a lack of education and receiving food stamps. I take myself and pretty much every gay individual I know as evidence that we're really not that bad... I know of only one person in my life that uses drugs (and he's straight). All my gay acquaintances (again, except for one that comes to mind) are stable, productive, educated, drug free members of society. Mind you, I don't go out of my way to associate myself with people otherwise, so again, I'm not denying the problem.

Correlation != causation.

 

All research is done that way. 3,000 gay men is a HUGE cross-section of the population considering how small they are within the ranks of the general population also. Usually extrapolating polls are only included a few hundred participants at best. 3,000 is IMPRESSIVE! Hats off to those researchers combing through all those surveys *phew!*.

Then why hasn't the CDC sued or pled for withdrawel of their name from the publication? Until they do, it is implied that they consider it a legitimate citation of themselves.

It doesn't allegedly quote, it quotes. This last statement from you destroys your credibility as a debator here. You have said two diametrically opposed statements in one. Implying there's no legitimate quote and then going on to state the name of the man from the CDC that headed up the study that it was quoted from!

Whether or not that man still works for the CDC is irrelevant. The study stands on its own. If it didn't, the CDC would ask for it to be withdrawn. I doubt it would though just to please a political agenda. There are too many ramifications of others studies published by the CDC to ignore the signficance of the data found in this impressive [3,000!] survey.

Here's just one of them. The CDC takes their protection of public health and all the possible-known vectors to that very seriously. You should too:

This one is from late 2010. Recent enough for you?

Taken next to the impressive survey results done in 2005 [they must have dropped a small fortune on that study..]:

Finding a specific etiology for the spread of HIV, the genesis, the beginning, the base-root would be of paramount importance to the CDC. Therefore, don't look for them to be dismissing the 2005 study anytime soon..even for the sake of often extreme political pressures the gay lobby is capable of dispensing.

The stakes are just too high for that..

 

Your generalizations as you have misinterpreted the information which I said many posts ago. You are skewing it with your personal bias. You've distorted it and stated that they made conclusions they did not. Anyone can take a credible source and twist it by omission or misreading as you have and have that document seem to agree.
As i said from your conclusion any person who has ever been abused in a sexual nature would have to become gay or lesbian. That is not the case we are not 70% of the population we are 3% of the population.
If a person is gay they will be gay unless they remain hidden and then they will be a very unhappy heterosexual. If a child is abused sexually and is already destined to be gay that will happen. The larger portion of pedophiles are heterosexual. So obviously your conclusion is not what your links states.
I suggest to reread your own information.

 

I guess I should respond to this one then.

For one, I'd like to distinguish between "willingness to experiment" and "sexuality". I agree, and believe it has been well established that a more acceptance of homosexuality (particularly from the parents) will people to be more willing to experiment. But that the likelihood of being homosexual in the long run does not change.

Which I personally don't find to be surprising or disturbing. But perhaps others do. You have to believe homosexuality is wrong to begin with to really see this as a problem.

Which then leads us to the concern about drugs and other destructive behavior. Am I surprised with this destructive behavior? Only about as surprised as I am that freshmen in college do more than their fair share of deplorable behaviors. When you take away the social structures and role models, leave people to their own devices, bad things will often tend to happen.

Do we need to carefully examine the link between homosexuality and destructive behavior, as your article says? Absolutely. Just like we need to examine the link between race, drug use, poverty and crime. But it does not then follow that being gay is directly the cause of the behavior, no more so than being black is directly the cause of being an impoverished criminal.

My personal opinion: It's the lack of role models, social structure, awareness and acceptance of gays that leads them to be more likely to participate in destructive behavior. And it's a vicious cycle... as one generation of homosexuals lives in this environment, the next only has this environment to learn from and behaves in similar ways. I hope a more visible, stable gay community will serve as good models the next generation of gay individuals.

 

It's not a cross section of the gay population, since it was only gay men in San Francisco, and it was done through phone calls, not health screenings. The methodology matters.

Just because you're impressed, that doesn't mean we all are.

Baloney - they may not even be aware of the citation, considering the source. That you're inferring their approval for the purpose of clobbering gay people with it doesn't mean their failure to sue implies anything.

Allegedly quotes. Since we don't know the context and can't verify it through additional sources, it's questionable. Just because someone says so-and-so said something, that doesn't mean they did, or that they were quoted accurately.

Just a bunch more out-of-context citation aimed at demonizing gay people, and having nothing to do with the topic at hand. If this is the direction you're going to take the discussion, then I'll just go back to ignoring your BS.

 

Now now, maybe Silhouette has a point.

Since apparently injury and destructive behavior are proof that the thing they are associated with are bad, let's consider another example:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-03-15-college-drug-use_N.htm

Obviously, by the same logic as Silhouette presented, we should abolish all colleges and universities across the united states. In conjunction, this high alcohol and drug use is linked with depression and other mental illnesses. We must assume it's the Universities that are the direct cause of the problem and eliminate them.

Correlation != causation.

 

And social conservatism has been "linked" with higher rates of depression and suicide in teens, so maybe we ought to ban that too?

http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2011/04/18/news/bb4suicidekids041711.txt

 

Oh, cool!

This whole idea of finding something I don't like and cherry picking some "linked" statistic that proves it's bad is fun!

I see what I've been missing out on all this time, I think I'm going to call myself a social conservative now.




Although after reviewing this data, i might instead have to refer to myself as a white supremist... or actually a asian supremist, as they beat us out on the drug use statistics.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/2010/061.pdf
Only asians and latinos performed better than whites in illicit drug use in 2009. Native americans and Alaska natives were by far the worst.

Which is why I support the abolishment of all native american rituals, practices and religions. And by god, we need to stop subsidizing the Alaskan natives without giving them a drug test, just like is being proposed for welfare recipients.

Oh and no mixed breeding, mixed races were not far behind the native americans. Now I see why interracial marriage was banned all this time.

The statistics make it all so clear!

 

Has silhouette suggested we should "abolish" homosexuality?