Romney Signs on to Anti-Gay Group's Campaign Pledge

Cheyenne277 wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes I can. Here it is. Read the cover to see the 12 organizations who endorsed it:
http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/just-the...

"The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Counseling Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics all say homosexuality is a normal."

World Health Organization, not on the list.
American Medical Association, not on the list.
After scanning the document, I found nothing that says homosexuality is normal, no surprise there. They encourage people to be understanding and to not discriminate, I knew that. There was also mention of lawsuits, not surprised. Now, can you show me any text from one of these organizations, APA excluded, that says homosexuality is normal?

Cheyenne277 wrote:

<quoted text>
So no marriage is preferable? What a joke. You could easily argue that straight marriage gives the false impression that straight sex is safe.

Hahaha, straight sex is necessary, it preserves mankind. What does gay sex do for mankind? What does gay marriage do for America?

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
Gay couples are part of America.

What does gay marriage do for America?
HIV is part of America too.

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
Do you have such a big ego to try an compensate for some "shortcomings"? Why do you think anybody cares if you think they are normal or not?

Ummm...because they keep insisting they are. Because they will stoop as low as to brainwash elementary school kids into believing they are.

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
Please take notes this time...
1. Gay people are part of America, and marriage will help them if they want to marry.
2. Gay marriage brings America closer to the ideal of equal rights for all of her citizens.
Both of those things help America.
Any questions?

1. That's America doing for them, what do they do for America?
2. All citizens have equal rights.

Cheyenne277 wrote:

<quoted text>
That's one case. Here are over 5 thousand:
http://stopbaptistpredators.org/index.htm
http://www.mormonabuse.com/
http://www.bishopaccountability.org/
http://www.republicansexoffenders.com/
All you have to do if you want to see the percentage of gays who mo1est is go to a $ex offender registry like the one for the State of Texas that lists the age and gender of each mo1ester's victim(s). You can enter even a gay-friendly zip code and pull a random sample and you'll see that well over 90% are men mo1esting little girls ONLY. 2 to 3% are women molesters. 2 to 3% are men who molested both genders. 2 to 3% are men who molested males only.
Nice try, but lies don't work when there are real world examples that ANYONE can go look at.

this was in response to a cliam that gays never do these and only straights do, my poin twas that gays do this stuff NO MORE NO LESS...
and you respond by claiming straights do it more...

to which I now respond:

"Nice try, but lies don't work when there are real world examples that ANYONE can go look at."

Homosexuals make up less than 4% of the population .

"The rate of homosexual versus heterosexual child sexual abuse is staggering," "Abel’s data of 150.2 boys abused per male homosexual offender finds no equal (yet) in heterosexual violations of 19.8 girls."

Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, counters that federal crime data refute claims that homosexuals molest children at higher rates than heterosexuals.

"According to data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), this claim is false,".
In terms of numbers of children abused per offender, homosexuals abuse with far greater frequency; and boys, research shows, are the much-preferred target.

Authorities say evidence examined disproves the assertion that child molestation is more prevalent among heterosexuals.
http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/crimestats

Brenda Lee Johnson wrote:

(post plagiarized from: http://www.wnd.com/2002/04/13722/ )

See, this is what happens when you rely on sources like the "World Nut Daily" for your "information", you educate yourself into complete ignorance. Steve Baldwin is an unqualified right wing political hack with zero research credentials in this or any other field, so it would probably be best too fact check his claims. They fail miserably. Abel's study does indicate that men who molest boys are far more "successful" before being caught than those who molest only girls, but this has absolutely NOTHING to do with the sexual orientation of the perpetrator, at least not in the way you and Baldwin fantasize. Abel's study, just like EVERY OTHER STUDY ON THE SUBJECT, found that the vast majority of men who sexually abuse boys identify and live as and are seen by others who know them as completely heterosexual. Hate mongers like Baldwin and yourself keep screaming about some Gay child molesting boogieman, but you don't warn people about the REAL problem, straight men who molest boys. Hell, you even deny that they can even possibly exist. People like you make me sick, you are more than happy to tell lies that endanger the lives and well-being of children in furtherance of your hate-filled agenda. You have no shame.

Keeping marriage between husband and wife saves homosexuals from the curse of divorce, from intrusive government regulation of marriage and wasteful spending on entitlements for same sex dependent beneficiaries. Gender segregation marriage cases backlash and scapegoating, putting homosexuals and others at physical risk from violence.

For the good of everyone, for civil order; keep marriage between man and woman.

Rick in Kansas wrote:

<quoted text>See, this is what happens when you rely on sources like the "World Nut Daily" for your "information",

Your side relies on the GayPA.
"Spiegel is quick to clarify that this group and others like it by no means constituted a “homosexual cabal,” but “several of the key players were gay,” and the young turks were able to use their influential positions as members of the Committee for Concerned Psychiatry to propose candidates for office. Despite all the visible and colorful protests of the APA by gay activists, Spiegel maintains that if it weren’t for the internal changes set into motion by these psychiatrists, the DSM diagnosis would have gone untouched."
http://www.mindofmodernity.com/not-sick-the-1...

Wondering wrote:

Your side relies on the GayPA.
"Spiegel is quick to clarify that this group and others like it by no means constituted a “homosexual cabal,” but “several of the key players were gay,” and the young turks were able to use their influential positions as members of the Committee for Concerned Psychiatry to propose candidates for office. Despite all the visible and colorful protests of the APA by gay activists, Spiegel maintains that if it weren’t for the internal changes set into motion by these psychiatrists, the DSM diagnosis would have gone untouched."
http://www.mindofmodernity.com/not-sick-the-1...

It would have gone untouched at that time, but if you are somehow deluding from this, that it would have remained untouched to this day, no dear. There is NO scientific evidence that homosexuality is and of itself a mental disorder and there never was, just the heterosexual assumption that it had to be. The empirical evidence is that it is not a disorder and never was. The APA might have gotten away with denying that reality back in the early 1970's, today, no.

Yes, members of the "Gay PA" were instrumental in bringing the issue to the fore and outside activists prodded it along, but what you forget to say is that the science was on their side. You might have had something if what they did was to fight for passage of something that wasn't true, but they didn't. Complain about them if you want, but they were arguing for what was right. Makes you look foolish, as if you needed the help.

Brian, you truly redefine idiocy.

Brian_G wrote:

Keeping marriage between husband and wife saves homosexuals from the curse of divorce, from intrusive government regulation of marriage and wasteful spending on entitlements for same sex dependent beneficiaries.

This is an excellent argument, if one means to argue against any legal protection of marriage. It is not a valid argument to deny only homosexuals equal protection of the law as mandated by the US Constitution.

Brian_G wrote:

Gender segregation marriage cases backlash and scapegoating, putting homosexuals and others at physical risk from violence.

Yeah, I'm sure the same could have been said of interracial marriages, however this argument doesn't rise to the level of having a rational basis.

Brian_G wrote:

For the good of everyone, for civil order; keep marriage between man and woman.

For the good of everyone we should follow the mandates of the federal constitution, and provide all persons equal protection of the laws.

Never have you made a valid argument to the contrary. Although you have provided any number of amusing rationalizations which seem to indicate that you are not terribly intelligent.

Rick in Kansas wrote:

<quoted text>
1. It would have gone untouched at that time, but if you are somehow deluding from this, that it would have remained untouched to this day.
2. There is NO scientific evidence that homosexuality is and of itself a mental disorder and there never was, just the heterosexual assumption that it had to be.

1. We'll never know that, will we.
2. There was as much 'scientific proof' prior to 1973 as the is 'scientific proof' to the contrary after 1973. There is no heterosexual assumption, seeing two men together as a couple is just plain screwed up. If that's what turns you on then to each their own. Be happy, enjoy your partner, do whatever you like, just don't go around getting teachers to tell little kids that it's normal.

lides wrote:

Brian, you truly redefine idiocy.

Never have you made a valid argument to the contrary. Although you have provided any number of amusing rationalizations which seem to indicate that you are not terribly intelligent.

lides insists every single person that responds to him is not as capable as he is, rather than accepting the truth that lides is just a silly and incapable child.

lides wrote:

This is an excellent argument, if one means to argue against any legal protection of marriage.

What is the legal protection of marriage?
Does a couple get greater protection than an individual?
Does a couple with children get greater protection than a couple with no children?
Is a couple with 2 children a family of 4?
Is a man with 3 wives a family of 4?

Reality wrote:

<quoted text>
lides insists every single person that responds to him is not as capable as he is, rather than accepting the truth that lides is just a silly and incapable child.

Lides is.......Justice Dumbass!

Wondering wrote:

<quoted text>
Lides is.......Justice Dumbass!

can you offer a rational defense of his title, I do not think you are capable of doing so...
Lides does not need to be a justice to be a dumbass...

Reality wrote:

lides insists every single person that responds to him is not as capable as he is, rather than accepting the truth that lides is just a silly and incapable child.

Thus far, you seem to lack the capacity to present even so much as a rational defense of your position.

There simply is no valid reason to deny same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry. Feel free to prove otherwise.

lides wrote:

<quoted text>
Thus far, you seem to lack the capacity to present even so much as a rational defense of your position.
There simply is no valid reason to deny same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry. Feel free to prove otherwise.

Justice Dumbass:
What is the legal protection of marriage?
Does a couple get greater protection than an individual?
Does a couple with children get greater protection than a couple with no children?
Is a couple with 2 children a family of 4?
Is a man with 3 wives a family of 4?

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>Gender segregation marriage is bad; gender diverse marriage is good. The facts aren't anti-gay, they are pro-marriage.

Your ex-wife didn't think so! She segregated herself from you!

Brian_G wrote:

.
<quoted text>The problem is; who will buy it? Who pays for a same sex couple's benefit of infertility treatment? Who pays for a same sex couple's benefit for adoption? Also, show me the money; we're dealing with unprecedented government debt. Writing bad checks is in nobody's best interest.

Has nothing to do with gay marriage.

Brian_G wrote:

Most of the few nations that have recognized same sex marriage have massive government debt; foremost Spain and Portugal. Many have declining population and low GDP growth; same sex marriage isn't for America.

You're in favor of civil unions, why wouldn't they do the same things?

And stupid, populations are declining because people invented simple effective birth control. People don't have to decide between abstinence and parenthood.