A Nightmare Scenario for Homosexuals

[Mystech]

Unfortuantely less than a third of them will be able to fully transform to heterosexual. That leaves two thirds that must struggle with SSA with no outlet for their sexuality. I think that is sad.

Do you mean to say that you believe that over a third of homosexuals in general are involved in some sort of cultish anti-gay therapy sort of program, and that nearly a third of the homosexual population will be converted to heterosexuality? Again you seem to have an amazing way with numbers, could I ask you for any sort of source that might make you think that such programs are so wide-spread or that any of them even have any real measurable success rate that they record and report honestly?

 

[Woody]

Way to pull this estimate out of your ass, by the way, superb research. If you're ever in Phoenix I could take you out to a few of the evangelical churches in my area, or Log Cabin Republicans meetings in my area. It'd be fun to watch your head spin as you suddenly realize that not all homosexuals are just victims of a radical liberal ideology and decided to kiss members of the same-sex just to piss you off.

Please don't pigeon hole people like this, it's not particularly fair minded, and does nothing but show of how limited your personal experience with and understanding of this issue really is.

ok, that's fair enough. The majority of all americans are pro-abortion aren't they? Are gay people more conservative on this issue?

 

[Woody]

Clearly, in this scenario, homosexual foetuses will be protected by law, since homosexuality isn't a defect.

Therefore, the situation just won't arise.

End of discussion.

How do you justify protecting one form of humanity over another with a selective anti-abortion law? What's to stop someone from getting the DNA test and then running off to Canada to get the abortion?

 

[Mystech]

Clearly, in this scenario, homosexual foetuses will be protected by law, since homosexuality isn't a defect.

Therefore, the situation just won't arise.

End of discussion.

Just to clarify, is this statement based on the premise that U.K. law (of which I and many Americans have very limited knowledge when it comes to specifics) allows abortion only when some serious defect is found in the child?

In the US there doesn't really need to be any reasoning behind an abortion, most states have laws which guarantee a woman's right without need to justify her decision to anyone, so abortion based on just about any reason would work.

 

[Mystech]

ok, that's fair enough. The majority of all americans are pro-abortion aren't they? Are gay people more conservative on this issue?

I'm not necessarily certain of the idea that most Americans are pro-abortion, I haven't seen any recent polls to that effect, nor does public opinion carry that much sway on the issue in the US. Also I do not particularly feel that "pro-abortion" is a label which accurately describes those who do not feel abortion should be made illegal. No one celebrates abortions, it seems to me that most who take the pro-choice stance are simply against "big government" stepping in to regulate a woman's reproductive decisions.

 

[Woody]

Do you mean to say that you believe that over a third of homosexuals in general are involved in some sort of cultish anti-gay therapy sort of program, and that nearly a third of the homosexual population will be converted to heterosexuality? Again you seem to have an amazing way with numbers, could I ask you for any sort of source that might make you think that such programs are so wide-spread or that any of them even have any real measurable success rate that they record and report honestly?

It's a case of the State of Hawaii vs. Mystech. Here, read my thread on the subject. I've done a lot more research than you have:

Chater 5 P2

Check out items 4 and 5 for a better understanding. The scientific references and studies should keep you busy for a while. BTW, Hawaii is quite liberal in their views, if you don't know already.

PS, be sure to read the footnotes to the statements made. They are well researched.

 

[Mystech]

It's a case of the State of Hawaii vs. Mystech. Here, read my thread on the subject. I've done a lot more research than you have:

Chater 5 P2

Check out items 4 and 5 for a better understanding. The scientific references and studies should keep you busy for a while. BTW, Hawaii is quite liberal in their views, if you don't know already.

PS, be sure to read the footnotes to the statements made. They are well researched.

Um okay, so one person on this comission (legislator, judge? who's to say, but I'm guessing it wasn't the case of Hawaii vs. Mystech, as I've never yet been there to be prosecuted by the state) disagreed with some others and went on a tyrade full of misinformation and bad research data typical of right-wing fundies. . . and? I'm not exactly sure how you take this to be particularly profound or credible, he cites political organizations like NARTH rather than actual medical associations and this wasn't even the commissions official opinion - this is the stuff they rejected as chaff. That's some astounding research there, Sherlock.

What's more is that this doesn't even act as an affirmative answer to the questions I asked you - I wondered if you thought fully a third of the homosexual population at large was involved in such programs, but apparently we're just talking about a third of homosexuals who are so self-loathing that they'd seek out these obscure religious programs and enroll in them, and even among those individuals they report less than a 1/3rd success rate. Not particularly encouraging numbers even if we're to assume that they're completely honest which, when such organizations are involved, they rarely seed to be.

I ask for hard numbers, and you throw me more political rhetoric.

 

[redarmy11]

Clearly, in this scenario, homosexual foetuses will be protected by law, since homosexuality isn't a defect.

How do you justify protecting one form of humanity over another with a selective anti-abortion law? What's to stop someone from getting the DNA test and then running off to Canada to get the abortion?

Just to clarify, is this statement based on the premise that U.K. law allows abortion only when some serious defect is found in the child?

Hmm.. I clearly haven't thought this through yet, have I? Woody, you're a bigot but a cunning one (Mystech: UK law follows the same premise as US laws on this). Maybe I'll read the thread. One thing first though: no-one, but no-one, but no-one, but no-one... is pro-abortion. Can we just clear that up?

 

[Mystech]

(Mystech: UK law follows the same premise as US laws on this).

Oh, in that case I really don't see legal protection of "homosexual fetuses" (I find the phrase funny - as such beings aren't sexual, hell some don't have gender depending on stage of development) from abortion as being very likely. US laws simply aren't set up to allow an exclusion like that very easily, nor should they be, really. Tragic, ultimately, but then abortion isn't ever a very pretty topic to begin with.

no-one... is pro-abortion. Can we just clear that up?

Right on, a very valid point, I think. Like I said, no one is out there celebrating when these unfortunate things happen, but there are those who oppose the government's right to make these decisions for individual women, and that is certainly fair grounds for objection.

 

[Woody]

Mystech said:

Um okay, so one person on this comission (legislator, judge? who's to say, but I'm guessing it wasn't the case of Hawaii vs. Mystech, as I've never yet been there to be prosecuted by the state) disagreed with some others and went on a tyrade full of misinformation and bad research data typical of right-wing fundies. . . and? I'm not exactly sure how you take this to be particularly profound or credible, he cites political organizations like NARTH rather than actual medical associations and this wasn't even the commissions official opinion - this is the stuff they rejected as chaff. That's some astounding research there, Sherlock.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong. That's some astounding willful ignorance on your part Sherlock.

You need to look at the footnotes. A lot of their information came from studies prior to politicizing the gay movement. There were no gay activists nor was there a NARTH. There is no way you could have researchedt the scientific evidence provided, no way in hell.

In the commission 5 were pro-gay marriage and 2 were opposed. Science was not the basis for the final, expected decision. That was explained. Science was in the minority, and it is the chaff as you say. It was ignored just like you are doing with it. I suppose science just isn't your bag.

Here's an interesting tidbit for you from the Zur Institute:

“ One telling example is the declassification of homosexuality as a mental disorder. Homosexuality was listed as a mental disorder in the DSM until 1974, when gay activists demonstrated in front of the American Psychiatric Association Convention. The APA's 1974 vote showed 5,854 members supporting and 3,810 opposing the disorder's removal from the manual. At that time, the American Psychiatric Association made headlines by announcing that it had decided homosexuality was no longer a mental illness. Voting on what constitutes mental illness is truly bizarre and, needless to say, is political and unscientific ”

The minority opinion here was chaff as you say. I guess what 3,810 pratictioners had to say is just irrelevant, as you say.

So tell me Mystech, what do you think about therapy by coup d'etat? It has your vote, doesn't it?

 

[redarmy11]

http://www.hawaii.gov/lrb/rpts95/sol/cpt5b.html
Marriage has long been favored because it is the most favorable setting in which to bring children into the world and to raise them... conventional male-female marriage provides the best environment for the nurture, care, training, education and responsible socialization of children. It is equally clear that children suffer most from the creative "alternative" relationships that adults sometimes pursue for their own adult self-interest.

No mention of domestic violence, child abuse, the 2 women a week murdered by their partners. I'd argue that children are better reared in a stable 'alternative' relationship than in an unstable male-female one. The latter are far more common than the painters of this rosy picture are prepared to admit.

 

[the preacher]

With a name like preacher, I could assume you have a problem with your own religious identity,

you could assume, however I have no religious anything.

Nope, I'm not gay if that's what you mean. I don't have same sex fantasies and I've been married now going on 15 years.

you could have fooled me and the population, this is the forth thread I believe you've posted on the subject.
anyhow many homosexuals in the past more so, than now got married to hide the homosexuality, being married and having kids is irrelevent, go on admit it your gay, come on out of the closet.

It's rare that I would consider responding to you, but the issue as I see it is as follows: First of all I have great sympathy for my brothers and sisters in christ that are struggling with same sex attraction. I do not hate them because they are gay.

bite your tongue, lier!, you hate them with a vengence, because you are the same way, and you hate that above all.( methinks he doth protest to much).

Unfortuantely less than a third of them will be able to fully transform to heterosexual.

and why would they want too.

That leaves two thirds that must struggle with SSA with no outlet for their sexuality. I think that is sad.

no it's you thats sad as you wont admit your real feelings, now that is sad, with a capital S.

 

[SnakeLord]

You still at it Woody?

Abortion is one of those issues. I personally understand both sides of the argument. The one I generally find I argue from a position of bias is the anti-abortion stance. Having lost a child, I really did find myself angry at those that would willingly terminate - but this is my bias, and not really how we should debate, indeed it's even harder to given that you and I are not women, and are not in a position where, for whatever reason, a child isn't right for us.

I would say that it all depends on stage of development. Are we talking human life after 1 week? Certainly not. I had my appendix out when I didn't really need to, and that was far more than any 100 cell blastocyst is - and yet I don't see anyone whining that I'm being unfair to my appendix.

At 5 weeks the fetus looks like a prawn and is just over 2mm long. Is it ok for a women to end it there? Personally I would say yes, and I have yet to hear a really good argument against it.

I would also condone, or at least understand, why some people would terminate a fetus that they knew was going to end up mentally handicapped, etc. When talking about what's fair and what isn't, I don't consider it fair to force, what is at this moment just a fetus, an eventual life of no life.

As for homosexuals - I have never seen anyone get so upset about what another man does with his willy. And it's simply laughable given that your only justification is because it says so on an old bit of papyrus.

 

[Woody]

you could assume, however I have no religious anything. you could have fooled me and the population, this is the forth thread I believe you've posted on the subject.
anyhow many homosexuals in the past more so, than now got married to hide the homosexuality, being married and having kids is irrelevent, go on admit it your gay, come on out of the closet. bite your tongue, lier!, you hate them with a vengence, because you are the same way, and you hate that above all.( methinks he doth protest to much). and why would they want too. no it's you thats sad as you wont admit your real feelings, now that is sad, with a capital S.

What is this gibberish you're spouting out? There is no appropriate response for a sock-puppet troll like you, therefore I put you onthe ignore list. goodybye forever.

 

[Genji]

As a homo myself I had to check the 1st choice. Otherwise it restricts abortion which should not happen.

 

[Woody]

You still at it Woody?

Abortion is one of those issues. I personally understand both sides of the argument. The one I generally find I argue from a position of bias is the anti-abortion stance. Having lost a child, I really did find myself angry at those that would willingly terminate - but this is my bias, and not really how we should debate, indeed it's even harder to given that you and I are not women, and are not in a position where, for whatever reason, a child isn't right for us.

I would say that it all depends on stage of development. Are we talking human life after 1 week? Certainly not. I had my appendix out when I didn't really need to, and that was far more than any 100 cell blastocyst is - and yet I don't see anyone whining that I'm being unfair to my appendix.

At 5 weeks the fetus looks like a prawn and is just over 2mm long. Is it ok for a women to end it there? Personally I would say yes, and I have yet to hear a really good argument against it.

I would also condone, or at least understand, why some people would terminate a fetus that they knew was going to end up mentally handicapped, etc. When talking about what's fair and what isn't, I don't consider it fair to force, what is at this moment just a fetus, an eventual life of no life.

As for homosexuals - I have never seen anyone get so upset about what another man does with his willy. And it's simply laughable given that your only justification is because it says so on an old bit of papyrus.

I'm sorry you and yours lost your child. My wife and I had the same struggle, and that was a trying time in our marriage.

As for the papyrus I believe in, it says I'm not supposed to abort a child -- period. As I said before in the opener, I don't think the God I serve will give me anymore than I can handle. Hence, I take what I get and learn to live with it.

 

[SnakeLord]

As for the papyrus I believe in, it says I'm not supposed to abort a child -- period.

Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't.. I'm still at a loss as to the relevance or worth of an old papyrus.

Please, provide a decent argument, (or any argument because your last response certainly wasn't one), as to why women should not be allowed to have abortions.

 

[spidergoat]

Why did God tell people to kill babies in the bible?

 

[DeeCee]

Forget about Woody.

This is not an abortion issue.
I suspect that anybody so opposed to having a gay child will opt for IVF and the embryos will be screened prior to implantation. No abortion required. There are clinics who offer such prescreening for a variety of conditions and it has already been used to select for gender.
It's the rich who push this technology forward as ever.
Dee Cee

 

[Woody]

Why did God tell people to kill babies in the bible?

Because their parents the Cainnanites worshipped Moloch and sacrificed their own children to this pagan god. It seems as it were they cooked them in the fire. But that's way way back in the OT.

Jer 32:25

And they built the high places of the Ba‘al, which are in the valley of Ben-hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire lmlk; which I did not command them, nor did it come into my mind that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.

Lev 18:21

And you shall not let any of your seed pass through lmlk, neither shall you profane the name of your God: I am Yahweh.

2 Kings 23:10

And he defiled the Tophet, which is in the valley of Ben-hinnom, that no man might make his son or his daughter pass through the fire lmlk.

S/G you're right, they shouldn't have killed any of those cainanites or their babies, because they were already doing a pretty good job of it themselves. Yeah, Yahweh was wrong -- the party pooper. Think about it: It would give baby-back ribs a new meaning on the barbecue menu. How do ya like your babies? How about cainanite-cut? Slurp Slurp? YUM YUM get your young and tenders at Moloch's barbecue.

Just look for the Bull with the fire down under:

How about those oven doors -- pretty nifty. Better than a pot belly stove! SG, you're right -- How much better off we would be if the Israelites disobeyed Yahweh! Just look at what we're missing!

Ya know SG, I really love shellfish and barbecue pork, but I think I'll pass on barbecue babies.