Well that is certainly not what I believe.

But I do believe that anti-discrimation laws are absolutely necessary to protect minorities.

And, yes, I believe that there are "bad-guy" oppressors. They are seldom all bad and they seldom see themselves as bad. That is part of the problem.


.

Why?

You know why I feel the way I do. No point going over that again now.

How freaking insulting. Telling millions of law-abiding tax-paying citizens that they and their families don't deserve the same protections under the law until somebody can definitely state what causes homosexuality. You call people hypersensitive because they're offended by that?!

Yes, I do call people who can't seem to see that they have a "condition" that is simply not right. You know that I am not against giving the rights, I am strictly against calling it "marriage". I simply don't think the homosexual couple's union should be called that.

I believe you always find that when you ask insulting and offensive questions of people, it very well may go "in a wicked direction." As I said in a previous post - if it happens EVERYWHERE YOU GO, why don't you consider that it's YOU that are offensive and not EVERYBODY ELSE that is hypersensitive? You know - where there's smoke, there just may be fire.

Yeah maybe. But right now, I don't want to discuss "marriage". Can't we all just get along without the conversation get stupid? We've had enough of that around here.


Have no idea what that is supposed to mean.

It's supposed to mean I just want to talk and try to have a rational conversation. That just seems to be an impossibility no matter how hard you try. If you can't muster it to have a regular chat, kindly place me back on ignore.

what is all this 'we' garbage?

garysher is not an American citizen - he cannot vote - and, other than monopolizing message boards, has nothing to say that anybody cares about pertaining to anything in the U.S.

You just want to have a rational conversation with people about their 'disorder?'

You've been told REPEATEDLY - no matter what your own uninformed opinion is - that there is no legitimate major accredited medical association in the United States that agrees that homosexuality is a disorder - or a disease or an illness or a sickness.

How does one have a 'rational' conversation when the basis of this so-called rational conversation is based on a premise that is false?

I have no problem putting you back on ignore. Your condescending and facetious attitude is duly noted and dismissed.

I would like to have a rational conversation about why you refuse to acknowledge that your opinion is at odds with every (every!) legitimate major accredited medical association in the United States. I would like to have a rational conversation about why such an irrational opinion should be taken seriously.

Yeah.
And if fxashun repeats it, he'll just have all the flaws of his argument pointed out all over again.
Then he'll have to ignore the people who ask him this and point out that...
And EVERYBODY will see him doing that. AGAIN.
And he REALLY doesn't want that...


What do you call people who have no scientific or medical training, yet insist that they can diagnose a "condition" despite the fact that the scientific and medical experts unilaterally acknowledge it is not a condition?
I call them delusional.
Do you have another name for your condition?


You insinuate that homosexuals are like pedophiles, and then you complain about the conversation getting stupid?
You're the prime reason it gets stupid.

It ends with the 14th amendment and "legitimate state interest".
I think the really bizarre portion is that you thinking that just because OTHER questions may be raised, that THESE questions should not be raised.
That's just stupid.

By that logic, we shouldn't have questioned black equality issues because somewhere down the line gays could get gay marriage.


Gays don't get any "additional protection under the law".
Tell me you're not on that stupid "hate crime legislation" rant again.
YOUR OWN QUOTED SOURCE PROVED what we were saying and disproved your claim.

Do the handicapped parking spaces at Costco still piss you off?

I can't speak about US law, but certainly in the UK if someone who was short and wore glasses was suddenly fired from their job because the new boss announced he didn't like short people with glasses, they'd have a damned good chance at winning an industrial tribunal case.

Until recently, someone fired for being gay wouldn't.

So yes, if there was a law that said short people shouldn't be allowed to have sex until they were 21, that their company's pension only paid out to their partner on death if they were over 5'8", that they could be fired without any legal comeback and if the police were turning a blind eye to violent attacks against short people, then yes I'd say that the law would need to address these anomalies.

However, that hasn't been the situation for short people in the UK (I know this, because I'm 5'4"). Until relatively recently, it was the situation for gay people.

You just want to have a rational conversation with people about their 'disorder?

Yup...

You've been told REPEATEDLY - no matter what your own uninformed opinion is - that there is no legitimate major accredited medical association in the United States that agrees that homosexuality is a disorder - or a disease or an illness or a sickness.

I disagree, all they have said is that "it doesn't harm the person nor the public". That doesn't mean they aren't freaks. If you want to get stupid, we can all go there. I just want to have a conversation without getting goofy, but it seems that's not possible. So back to usual.

How does one have a 'rational' conversation when the basis of this so-called rational conversation is based on a premise that is false?

The premise isn't false. In case you didn't know, bestiality is also no longer called a "disorder" and just another plain old "variation" just like homosexuality. So you can be free to screw Fido in about 20 states.

I have no problem putting you back on ignore. Your condescending and facetious attitude is duly noted and dismissed.

Thank you.

I would like to have a rational conversation about why you refuse to acknowledge that your opinion is at odds with every (every!) legitimate major accredited medical association in the United States. I would like to have a rational conversation about why such an irrational opinion should be taken seriously.

No my opinion is not at odds. All the literature I have read says pretty much the same thing. "There are numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual orientation. Most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors."
Or in other words "we don't freaking know". So how am I supposed to buy that as proof that homosexual people AREN'T just some big hormonal mistake? Especially when they are sooo friggin delusional that they can't see when you are making an effort to show them you DON'T hate them and just want to get along civilly.
APA Help Center - Health & Emotional Wellness - "Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality"

DAMN