LGBTQ

[newfie]

You choose to argue semantics because you know there is no science to support your argument. You realize you don’t have to agree with everything Ben Shapiro says, right?

the science is the dick between the legs of the person claiming to be a woman.

 

[floridays]

Yes I’m sure trans people are going to great lengths to hide their biological sex from their doctors. Asinine argument. There’s no issue with people identifying as a gender that is not their biological sex. There is no science that proves that identity is incorrect. We have no firm understanding of how the brain operates in that regard. There is a difference between biological sex and gender identity. You chose to conflate the two to make up absurdities to argue against. This is another of those false framings that Shapiro is so known for.

Can two guys have a child, yes or no?
Can two women have a child,, yes or no?
Drop your pseudo intellectualism, it's

 

[El Correcto]

 

[Box Ox]

Can two guys have a child, yes or no?

Had a wife at the time, buttttt.....,,

 

[BrownFlush]

Had a wife at the time, buttttt.....,,

View attachment 307268

I've seen some beer bellies but I've never seen a woman cradle one like that before.

 

[floridays]

SEETHING

Probably not, might just wonder why a guy chooses tube steak?
You too @MAKAVELI , why?

 

[floridays]

You are attracted to women, you find the one you like and the sex organs just kind of come along with it.
Same with me but with men.

Do what you like, no problem with me, the problem comes when people with unnatural affections try to dictate policy and have laws carved out for them.

When I started and finished college the DSM reflected homosexuality as deviant behavior. Statistical analysis, science.

Not one damn thing has changed since I took abnormal psychology in college.
Statistical analysis, defining deviant behavior changed against science and numbers that dictate the science by societal pressure.
Nothing more, nothing less.

Deviants should not dictate policy or be granted rights as a group.
I've argued this for years, rights were granted to individuals, the Supreme Court has granted group rights that were not provided for in the Constitution.

Bottom line, suck or screw whomever you like, just expect no special treatment, or blanket discrimination, beyond what the Court extends after every session.

Not withstanding what the Court has held, every human with a spark of light understands natural and unnatural affections.

 

[floridays]

I see the funny you awarded me @Wrong, you aren't short on words, do you care to offer a counter?

Your funny was awarded within a minute of the post, I expect more from you, you are the smart guy.

 

[El Correcto]

Do what you like, no problem with me, the problem comes when people with unnatural affections try to dictate policy and have laws carved out for them.

When I started and finished college the DSM reflected homosexuality as deviant behavior. Statistical analysis, science.

Not one damn thing has changed since I took abnormal psychology in college.
Statistical analysis, defining deviant behavior changed against science and numbers that dictate the science by societal pressure.
Nothing more, nothing less.

Deviants should not dictate policy or be granted rights as a group.
I've argued this for years, rights were granted to individuals, the Supreme Court has granted group rights that were not provided for in the Constitution.

Bottom line, suck or screw whomever you like, just expect no special treatment, or blanket discrimination, beyond what the Court extends after every session.

Not withstanding what the Court has held, every human with a spark of light understands natural and unnatural.

I can accept that point of view, about the constitution. I’ve argued it but better than you because your version is stupid and based on your delusions of god. Mine was based on a libertarian perspective of freedom of association.
The only right you have against gays is your freedom of association, which got over ruled during the civil rights act with interstate commerce clause dictating state businesses(you must not be pro civil rights acts) and your freedom of religion, which is on shaky ground when it doesn’t involve your church as seen with the newest court ruling tying sexuality to the “sex” with the civil rights act.

You can keep seething though boomer, I really see nothing to gain by even discussing this with you and I don’t feel like derailing this thread because you hate homos.

If you want to have a late night homo session go to the lgbt thread, where this conversation belongs.

 

[Box Ox]

When I started and finished college the DSM reflected homosexuality as deviant behavior. Statistical analysis, science.

You probably graduated around the time the “deviant” Alan Turing was prosecuted in Britain for homosexual acts and accepted chemical castration as an alternative to prison.

Society evolves. So does the scientific understanding of homosexuality. Don’t get so hung up on your ancient texts.

 

[floridays]

I can accept that point of view, about the constitution. I’ve argued it but better than you because your version is stupid and based on your delusions of god. Mine was based on a libertarian perspective of freedom of association.
The only right you have against gays is your freedom of association, which got over ruled during the civil rights act with interstate commerce clause dictating state businesses(you must not be pro civil rights acts) and your freedom of religion, which is on shaky ground when it doesn’t involve your church as seen with the newest court ruling tying sexuality to the “sex” with the civil rights act.

You can keep seething though boomer, I really see nothing to gain by even discussing this with you and I don’t feel like derailing this thread because you hate homos.

If you want to have a late night homo session go to the lgbt thread, where this conversation belongs.

I see, you discard exactly the truth I said about the DSM.
I did not mention God or religion or anything close.
I mentioned the Constitution, and the rights of an individual and how later Court's have bastardized it to grant group rights.

I don't hate homos, they do not concern me until they try to disrupt the fabric of our country.

I assume you will drop away, your former response did not deal with the points I made. I assume you will fade away because you cannot address the points I made here.

 

[El Correcto]

I see, you discard exactly the truth I said about the DSM.
I did not mention God or religion or anything close.
I mentioned the Constitution, and the rights of an individual and how later Court's have bastardized it to grant group rights.

I don't hate homos, they do not concern me until they try to disrupt the fabric of our country.

I assume you will drop away, your former response did not deal with the points I made. I assume you will fade away because you cannot address the points I made here.

You are like the zealots that persecuted Galileo.
WHAT YOU CANT JUST CHANGE THE SCIENCE WE ONCE KNEW TO BE TRUE!!!
lol keep coping with your hatefulness old man.

 

[floridays]

You probably graduated around the time the “deviant” Alan Turing was prosecuted in Britain for homosexual acts and accepted chemical castration as an alternative to prison.

Society evolves. So does the scientific understanding of homosexuality. Don’t get so hung up on your ancient texts.

Like I said, societal norms, not statistical analysis or science.
Even with todays numbers it is deviant behavior.
Science, numbers, statistics.
Deviant, abnormal.
Make your case.

You'll lose this one, go ahead make your case.

 

[Box Ox]

Like I said, societal norms, not statistical analysis or science.
Even with todays numbers it is deviant behavior.
Science, numbers, statistics.
Deviant, abnormal.
Make your case.

You'll lose this one, go ahead make your case.

We’ve come a long way since homosexuality was completely dropped from the DSM in 1987, eh?

 

[floridays]

You are like the zealots that persecuted Galileo.
WHAT YOU CANT JUST CHANGE THE SCIENCE WE ONCE KNEW TO BE TRUE!!!
lol keep coping with your hatefulness old man.

No hate here buddy, do as you like.
Don't force people to bow to your "rights"
in plain terms don't put a baker out of business.

 

[El Correcto]

Like I said, societal norms, not statistical analysis or science.
Even with todays numbers it is deviant behavior.
Science, numbers, statistics.
Deviant, abnormal.
Make your case.

You'll lose this one, go ahead make your case.

Here is where you are messing up.
That is your moral opinion on the statistics, numbers and science based on your religious standards.

 

[floridays]

We’ve come a long way since homosexuality was completely dropped from the DSM in 1987, eh?

We have when you disregard exactly what the DSM is.
It is a diagnostic statistical manual of mental disorders.

By definition, a statistical analysis, statistics define the norm.
They expose deviancy.

 

[floridays]

Here is where you are messing up.
That is your moral opinion on the statistics, numbers and science based on your religious standards.
View attachment 307794

View attachment 307795

No, not at all. I am speaking strictly numbers, no morals, no religion nothing, strictly numbers.
Your type tries to throw in variables that never existed before the change.
You cannot win this, it is numbers that define normalcy, not politics.

 

[El Correcto]

No hate here buddy, do as you like.
Don't force people to bow to your "rights"
in plain terms don't put a baker out of business.

First off, I never plan to get married or to have any kind of marriage ceremony. That’s your stupid religious crap making oaths to god or whatever. I don’t believe in any of that non sense. I believe government should be out of marriage, that should be a religious practice done in your churches. Not a brand to put on the rest of society and force them into compliance with Christian traditions. Government unions should be given to people with children including homos and their adopted kids. No need for any religious bull in there to begin with, that’s you forcing your on me.

You should have the right to decline gay unions in your church or gay people. I don’t want to be somewhere with people worshiping a sky god that hates me anyways and telling the Jews I deserve to die. You should be protected under the constitution to not have to deal with homos, just like businesses should have that right on a federal level.

It should go state by state, with states adopting their own constitutions. If enough states are on board with it, it should then be amended into the federal constitution with broad acceptance by all areas of this country, an agreement we can all live under. If not than keep it on a state by state basis.

 

[El Correcto]

No, not at all. I am speaking strictly numbers, no morals, no religion nothing, strictly numbers.
Your type tries to throw in variables that never existed before the change.
You cannot win this, it is numbers that define normalcy, not politics.

Your interpretation of the numbers is based on your religious morals. That’s why you use words like deviant. That is a moral description of the data.

Now go ahead and post your 1950’s scientific studies and numbers. I’ll wait for you to gather your scientific facts and we can address those as well.