Damning a gay person to hell should be against the law

this is ur belief, forcing it as a general rule without any objective justification reference to is the random nonsense u keep doing

people that enjoy posting their own ideas about smthg are by definition not interested to know what others ideas are
and that is why the interest in others opinions gives a sense of life to the forum, the interaction on interests would b on the base of positive sameness surprisingly

u obviously dont have the least idea of forums value

when u mean to join a community then u should stop calling it forum

public forums value, is the independance of contributions from each others, which gives a sense of true space expressions reality

that is how the major base of words expressions is simply freedom, n how words are free especially when they are true

the fact that u dont appreciate the value of my posts wether on the superficial level or in substance of their points, dont give u any right to dare saying it to me when i didnt give u the right to listen to ur opinion about my contribution value

and of course where i join or dont is not ur business when clearly the trouble u mean is urs hypocrite, but that is ur problem not mine

understanding is about urself not others, and oneself to know is out of realizing the whole else existence

obviously u type randomly on ur keyboard for fun, and lack the least respect to the words u use

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You don't seem to know what "definition" means either.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

u must b the definition of stupid

of course it is by definition retarded head, what u got u cant see it else

u keep speculating about everything bc u dont care nor that u have any free opinion on anything

that is how existence is through individuality justified, it cant b otherwise, the relations to others means or identities are never direct, it is through objective realisations which exist while individuals stay free out

while u r such cheap opportunist kind, that walk yelling calling another to show u what he got with all the insolence to everything and all principles of existence sources u clearly dont care about

by definition being u make the impossibility of being another for a second

when u buy urself it must b different since u keep preaching life through that way, it is like u r exclusively from possessing anything in ur head, this is where u move, but this also prove how it is impossible for u to recognize that others exist too since u can get what they have so wat they are

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sorry pal I am not complaining , Fine so I am discriminated no big deal , I don't need any special privilege.. What I am trying to say Homosexual should stop crying and stop asking for special laws to protect them.

 

They do have a special set of 'values' promoting their persecution. It is sufficient that individuals have equal protection under the law; I don't know what special laws are in place to protect them.

 

I look at it this way, if one can argue that being homosexual is innate, and not subject to control, then it is also possible that people who don't like homosexuals behavior, is also based on innate behavior. The liberals even came up with a term, called homophobia. Like any phobia, this behavior is not subject to full self control but can lead to over reaction if over stimulated.

If someone is afraid of the water (aqua-phobia), you can't expect them to dive into the deep end of the pool. You would not blame them for struggling and getting mad, if you tried to thrown them in. There is cause and effect. The more you expose them to what they fear, the more freaked out they will get.

With homosexuals, especially the gays and the media constantly throwing (water) at the phobics, you would have to be brain dead not to expect a strong defensive reaction. The best way to deal with a phobic person is to limit their exposure, so the phobics don't constantly have to engage their fight/flight mechanism.

The way you cure any phobia is you need to start with weak stimulus. I liked don't ask and don't tell, because it reduced the stimulus and but allowed options. But the democratic leadership needs to stoke the fire of division, since they can't do anything useful. They need negative emotions to help consolidate their bases, since good rational ideas are lacking. If I throw water at a aqua-phobic I can get him to yell hateful things at me, and then I blame him for hate speech. Liberals can't reason but only use emotions.

Say you were afraid of dogs. This can it difficult to go for walks, out of fear of meeting a dog. If one wanted to take control, but can't get rid of their phobia of dogs, they may take a large stick. A sweet little dog might approach and get clobbered, not because he is a real threat but because the phobia exaggerates the nature of the threat. If this person lived in a place where all the neighbors let their dogs run free, constantly in his face and he decides to take control, the underlying stress changes how he reacts.

To cure him, we would need to start with a weak stimulus, such as one sweet and kind dog who does not approach him, but sits over there and patiently waits for the phobic to approach him. After the first handshake healing begins then you can scale up. It is time for the homosexuals to blend in and not flash their uniqueness like a pack of dogs, off the leash, roaming the streets. This makes the homophobic stressed and if they club you you need to accept some of the responsibility for bad therapy.

 

Should you be allowed to get married? Should you be allowed to serve in the Armed Forces? Should you be allowed to visit your wife in the hospital?

 

Pfft. Troll.

1. That law where they don't get hit for being gay.

2. That law where they don't get fired for being gay.

3. That law where they're allowed to breathe if gay.

What a bunch of bastards.

 

Actually we CAN expect people to overcome their own phobias thru exposure therapy. This has been proven to work time and time again with all sorts of phobias. So it should work with homophobia as well.

"Exposure therapy is a technique in behavior therapy intended to treat anxiety disorders. It involves the exposure of the patient to the feared object or context without any danger, in order to overcome their anxiety. Procedurally it is similar to the fear extinction paradigm in rodent work. Numerous studies have demonstrated its effectiveness in the treatment of anxiety disorders such as PTSD and specific phobias.

Exposure-based therapy may be effective in preventing the progression from acute stress disorder to post-traumatic stress disorder, according to a report in the June 2008 issue of Archives of General Psychiatry.

It is also very closely related to exposure and response prevention, a method widely used for the treatment of obsessive–compulsive disorder."----http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposure_therapy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

When "Equality" Requires Supremacy

Can you point to a single piece of effective law in the United States that empowers a person's aquaphobia to discriminate against people who aren't afraid of water?

And, in truth, most aquaphobics aren't aquaphobic because they hate themselves for liking water.

Maybe bigots shouldn't have invited this fight into the public arena.

No, really. In my corner of the world, my generation includes many who were born after Stonewall. Gay rights was a concept virtually unheard of in my upbringing. That all changed in 1990 when Christians in Oregon won a local ballot measure discriminating against homosexuals according to Christian mores. In 1992, they took their argument statewide.

Part of the reason we've come so far, so quickly, on gay rights is that the homophobes bigots ego dystonic homosexuals of the conservative "family values" movement went out of their way to ask people to consider the question.

I'm not certain what they're going to try next, but if bestial or polygamous marriage become legal in the next fifty years, it will be because moralists asked everyone else to consider the question. As long as it's the dogfuckers and cultist child molesters making the argument, nobody takes it seriously. But I am, indeed, curious, where these Christian supremacists are going to take their ill-fated Inquisition next.

And the facts that—

(1) DADT was diminishing our fighting force's capacity to do its job, and ...

(2) ... DADT was only the policy on paper, as suspected gays were still being investigated and drummed out of the service; indeed, one could be outed by another person and dismissed under DADT despite the fact that someone else asked and the punished homosexual never told​

—are irrelevant to your outlook?

Perhaps the most ironic statement so far in this thread, given the entirely emotional, even anti-intellectual nature of your ranting post.

But it's true: People under the influence of psychiatric dysfunction must first want to address their dysfunction in a corrective manner. Cynophobes and aquaphobes, however, haven't a religiously-derived market behind them trying to use the law to punish other people for swimming or keeping the social company of a dog.

I'm aware that certain things like practical effect and functionality are irrelevant to many of my heterosupremacist neighbors, and I suppose I should thank you for making that point so clearly.

 

Stand your ground wellwisher!

You have a point here, don't let those pesky liberals deter you. Just find some reputable sources to back up your claims...


Gay-Pride Parade Sets Mainstream Acceptance Of Gays Back 50 Years

WEST HOLLYWOOD, CA–The mainstream acceptance of gays and lesbians, a hard-won civil-rights victory gained through decades of struggle against prejudice and discrimination, was set back at least 50 years Saturday in the wake of the annual Los Angeles Gay Pride Parade.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Participants in Saturday's Los Angeles Gay Pride Parade, which helped change straight people's tolerant attitudes toward gays.

"I'd always thought gays were regular people, just like you and me, and that the stereotype of homosexuals as hedonistic, sex-crazed deviants was just a destructive myth," said mother of four Hannah Jarrett, 41, mortified at the sight of 17 tanned and oiled boys cavorting in jock straps to a throbbing techno beat on a float shaped like an enormous phallus. "Boy, oh, boy, was I wrong."

The parade, organized by the Los Angeles Gay And Lesbian And Bisexual And Transvestite And Transgender Alliance (LAGALABATATA), was intended to "promote acceptance, tolerance, and equality for the city's gay community." Just the opposite, however, was accomplished, as the event confirmed the worst fears of thousands of non-gay spectators, cementing in their minds a debauched and distorted image of gay life straight out of the most virulent right-wing hate literature.

Among the parade sights and sounds that did inestimable harm to the gay-rights cause: a group of obese women in leather biker outfits passing out clitoris-shaped lollipops to horrified onlookers; a man in military uniform leading a submissive masochist, clad in diapers and a baby bonnet, around on a dog leash; several Hispanic dancers in rainbow wigs and miniskirts performing "humping" motions on a mannequin dressed as the Pope; and a dozen gyrating drag queens in see-through dresses holding penis-shaped beer bottles that appeared to spurt ejaculation-like foam when shaken and poured onto passersby.

Timothy Orosco, 51, a local Walgreens manager whose store is on the parade route, changed his attitude toward gays as a result of the event.

"They kept chanting things like, 'We're here, we're queer, get used to it!' and 'Hey, hey, we're gay, we're not going to go away!'" Orosco said. "All I can say is, I was used to it, but now, although I'd never felt this way before, I wish they would go away."

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Members of the Laguna Beach Leatherdaddy Association make their final pre-march preparations.

Allison Weber, 43, an El Segundo marketing consultant, also had her perceptions and assumptions about gays challenged by the parade.

"My understanding was that gay people are just like everybody else–decent, hard-working people who care about their communities and have loving, committed relationships," Weber said. "But, after this terrifying spectacle, I don't want them teaching my kids or living in my neighborhood."

The parade's influence extended beyond L.A.'s borders, altering the attitudes of straight people across America. Footage of the event was featured on telecasts of The 700 Club as "proof of the sin-steeped world of homosexuality." A photo spread in Monday's USA Today chronicled many of the event's vulgar displays–understood by gays to be tongue-in-cheek "high camp"–which horrified previously tolerant people from coast to coast.

Dr. Henry Thorne, a New York University history professor who has written several books about the gay-rights movement, explained the misunderstanding.

"After centuries of oppression as an 'invisible' segment of society, gays, emboldened by the 1969 Stonewall uprising, took to the streets in the early '70s with an 'in-your-face' attitude. Confronting the worst prejudices of a world that didn't accept them, they fought back against these prejudices with exaggeration and parody, reclaiming their enemies' worst stereotypes about them and turning them into symbols of gay pride," Thorne said. "Thirty years later, gays have won far greater acceptance in the world at large, but they keep doing this stuff anyway."

"Mostly, I think, because it's really fun," Thorne added.

The Los Angeles Gay Pride Parade, Thorne noted, is part of a decades-old gay-rights tradition. But, for mainstream heterosexuals unfamiliar with irony and the reclamation of stereotypes for the purpose of exploding them, the parade resembled an invasion of grotesque outer-space mutants, bent on the destruction of the human race.

"I have a cousin who's a gay, and he seemed like a decent enough guy to me," said Iowa City, IA, resident Russ Linder, in Los Angeles for a weekend sales seminar. "Now, thanks to this parade, I realize what a freak he's been all along. Gays are all sick, immoral perverts."

Parade organizers vowed to make changes in the wake of the negative reaction among heterosexuals.

"I knew it. I said we needed 100 dancers on the 'Show Us Your Ass' float, but everybody insisted that 50 would be enough," said Lady Labia, spokesperson for LAGALABATATA. "Next year, we're really going to give those breeders something to look at."​

 

Psychiatric Impairment: Do Bigots Qualify Under the ADA?

Did you ever notice, though, how often that particular argument comes up? That if someone is uncomfortable treating another person equally, the only acceptable result is to empower that one treat the other unequally?

And, yes, we can certainly chuckle at the irony of bigots now openly appealing for protected legal status under the Americans With Disabilities Act.

I love that sort of thinking: We must as a society empower psychiatric dysfunction in order to arbitrarily suppress the civil rights of various designated groups. This is the only fair thing to do.

As far as I'm concerned, Wellwisher is perfectly welcome to continue arguinig that homophobia is a psychiatric impairment.

I mean, by his logic, since aquaphobes exist, the only we fair to them is to make swimming illegal.

So ... yeah, I can certainly believe his claim of psychiatric impairment.

 

Same gender marriage is on of them , right now is 10.45 my mind is half a sleep

 

I suppose fatigue would explain it, except ....

Ah, the classic argument that to be free of gender discrimination is somehow a special right.

In over twenty years of hearing bigots spout that particular excrement, not a single one has been able to explain what it means to any outcome other than it is a violation of a supreamacist's rights if he or she cannot strip the civil rights of other human beings according to personal aesthetics. Without effective supremacy under the law, they feel they are discriminated against.

Equality, under this argument, is only present in circumstances of observable inequality.

Nor is anyone ever surprised that it is the supremacists who say this. Neo-Nazis, Christian Nationalists, heterosupremacists ... hell, there are some people still arguing that men are discriminated against, and their rights violated, if women are humans and equal under the law.

It's a stupid argument. It's always been a stupid argument. And, frankly, it has been a stupid argument for so long that people do wonder about those who are willing to attempt it.

And while it's true that being tired might contribute to regurgitation of such a pathetic argument, I also don't see how this is much different from the rest of your bigoted tripe. Are you chronically lacking sleep?

 

They Need to Get Over Themselves and Get Fabulous

Well, technically, yes, some laws were written specifically to cover same-sex unions, but in the U.S. your point still holds because those laws undid specific exclusions.

Washington, for instance, had a longstanding heteros only law. The death knell for heterosupremacist marriage was not Lawrence v. Texas itself, but the sudden rush of states in its wake to pass new exclusionary laws. Our law was as safe as could be until the federal constitutional equality landed on the states. Of course, our law was also undone at the ballot box. We'll be out of the way when all that wreckage comes crashing down.

Oregon's exclusionary law was passed in the wake of Lawrence in order to patch the rhetoric that failed to specifically outlaw same-sex marriage. That's an escalatory coefficient in American civil rights jurisprudence. And as more and more states kept trying to make same-sex marriage triple-dog-super-fantastic-illegal, the point was made more and more clearly.

Look what happened in Minnesota. For whatever reason, a state with a statutory prohibition against same-sex marriage decided to escalate to a constitutional prohibition. And for whatever reasons, this time the voters said no. Crash, bang, boom, seven months later the statutory exclusion is removed through the legislative process. Same-sex marriage would still be illegal in Minnesota if they hadn't tried to escalate to constitutional prohibition.

In the end, when this fight is finished, we will all raise a glass to our homophobic bigoted ego dystonic homosexual, heterosupremacist neighbors and thank them for making this all possible.

Couldn't have done it without them.

Of course ... er ... ah ... right.

Y'know?

 

It keeps seeming like they've played their last trump card. The last Civil Rights era was supposedly their death knell. Unfortunately even the amendments to the Civil Rights Act were painfully hindered by a few aces still lingering under the sleeve. In the 1964 version, the first vote demonstrated Southern reaction, with 93% of their Democrats and 100% of their Republicans voting "nay"--also illustrating the century of resistance to the principle of "consent of the governed".

I have never understood the rationale for opposing gay marriage--to the extent that hetero marriage is somehow undermined by it. It's completely ludicrous, if not just dishonest. I can understand the rationale WASP supremacists had against suffrage and in support of the poll tax, in defense of their stranglehold on power. But what difference does it make who else gets married? What if everyone suddenly stopped entering into marriage altogether? What possible effect could this have on any couple that chose to define themselves in this way? I have never understood this claim, and never will.

Supremacy is probably the best word I've heard yet to characterize this soaring illogic. It brings to mind Elie Wiesel's remark that the word "Holocaust" was coined in reaction to the absence of a word that conveys the gravity of Nazi atrocities. In a perfect world "homophobia" would suffice. Ironically, the people who would be educated enough to decipher the meaning of a word from its Greek roots are more likely to be educated enough to realize the stupidity of discrimination. And obviously homophobia is rife among far too many better-educated folks. But it does make me think that we may see a new word coined for this, probably in the next generation of folks whose parents were stridently homophobic, as a way to speak of an attitude long dead. Something on the order of "funda-fobe", without the ambiguity, would seem likely.

One thing is for sure, folks in the future will look back at us as living in an era of tremendous contradiction.

As for legislation, I think we need to overhaul the Civil Rights Act anyway, and that may be a good place to insert clarification that marriage may not exclude any person on the basis of gender. Along with that, I would like to see the scope of the law extended to all private entities and persons acting in their individual capacities, and lowering the burden of proof, so that the main current barriers to civil rights enforcement would be lowered. I would also like to see minor infringements become a misdemeanor, to encourage compliance during this period in which religion is still growing out of its terrible twos. (Or reverting to it in its senility.)

How hard it must be for them to accept the contradiction that God made homosexuals, and then condemned them. That's why they fight so hard to convince themselves that homosexuality is the work of the Devil. All of that contradiction and bargaining must wear them out. Even with the "winding up on Sunday" they get to keep the lobbyists at a froth, at some point they would seem to break down and give it a rest. Someday anyway . . . it can't last forever.

 

Thanks for telling this smart a.. s woman, in such a way I would not be able to point it out to her .

 

You think of yourself so smart by mixing up " consent of two adults " this is just a camouflage, and there are many more of the pervert attitude which are camouflaged . Why don't you guy become human instead degrading social values.