Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Civil Rights > Gay and Lesbian Rights

Gay and Lesbian Rights Gay and Lesbian Political Rights Forum - For topics and discussions about LGBT


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old August 23rd, 2010, 04:54 AM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3
Pseudoscience is Redefining society & it's Moral Foundation

First off, I am in no way aligned with the radical homosexual or religious agendas. I want to discuss the question: how far are we willing accept the science of psychology, with any group, to redefine society's moral foundation?



The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had to grant an indefinite stay in the Prop 8 case because Judge Walker chose to ignore precedence and through judicial supremacy ruled same sex options to be more important than traditional ones, by ruling same sex relationships deserve the same rights and responsibilities as traditional marriages. That last part of the statement sounds fair until one starts digging deeper into this ruling. It took 136 pages for Walker, with the help of a few hand picked intellectuals, to arrogantly portray the majority and their representatives in this country as too ignorant to have any part in defining marriage. Homosexuals claim there is no reliable evidence that same-sex marriage is harmful to children, or that it is a threat to social stability, and due to that claim, they are demanding protection from the courts, due to their suffering. Here I explain the blatant and reliable evidence of “the harm” and “the threat“ that the homosexual activists agenda will cause, and is already causing. Marriage is only phase 1 of the gay agenda, and the agenda is in itself, irrational, immoral and unconstitutionally discriminatory to heterosexuals. I will also explain why the word "marriage" is so important to the far-reaching purpose of the homosexual agenda, and how redefining that word is the doorway into the most far-reaching aspects of the agenda, and most importantly how it would cause harm to/in society.



There is only one valid argument acceptable argument by the heterosexual majority in this country, and that is to allow gays to get economic benefits from the government traditionally granted to married couples,…by the government. Now there are no other “acceptable” benefits afforded homosexuals by redefining traditional marriage, morality and societies moral foundation.



Judge Walker and gay activists want to plant in my mind gay marriage is equal to things like the abolition of slavery, or women overcoming patriarchy! Well that just gives the gay side a false sense of credibility by exploiting those past struggles. Furthermore, I am insulted by the racist attitude of Judge Walker that claims I don’t know any better. Gay activists are showing there true colors to label my concerns as irrational! They claim anyone who opposes their view is a bigot or homophobe! They think that helps justify their actions, but it's clearly not reality. What is Judge Walkers 136 page reasoning? Logic would dictate Judge walker now believes it’s gays right because some carefully selected PhD’s conclude evolutionary psychology, due to existence of homosexuality, is a better alternative to a Constitution? One activist, who is also a judge, knows better about all things moral and political! Well if that is the case Mr. Walker you are truly in the best position possible for a gay activist, but are also so wrong and totally demented as a judge. How dare you marginalize all opponents to your point of view? Its blatantly obvious you are a gay activist, and your actions as a judge show homosexual ideas of what should be redefined are of utmost importance to you.



It’s obvious the hired professionals/intellectuals for the religious or gay side behave in a way that shows they only care about factors recognized by the cause they are working for, and the resulting intellectual ideology established, dismissing any factors not controllable and recognized by the extremist agendas. That leads me to the fact these people, due to conflicts of interest, are not acting intelligently, they are acting stupid, selfish, or narrow minded, making them just salespeople of the most far-reaching aspects of, especially the homosexual agenda. Now that is what exposes the close mindedness and racist attitude of that agenda.



The big issue revolves around the fact that societies moral guidelines have already been compromised/pushed to a questionable limit, and it was a minority that has pushed that agenda on everyone else. its happening again, using lots of money…using a good law firm…using an activist judge who has "lost sight" of the ethical limitations of the court. For the government to take full responsibility and embrace every right the homosexual agenda demands, it would have to take into consideration the reality of each individual homosexuals feelings by addressing the enormity of the extent to which today’s society erodes their capacity to feel normal/accepted. Given that reality, it explains the following: During these debates I have had with gay activist online, I have been told, on more than one occasion, “that based on this writing, it is obvious Jeff, you are blatantly homophobic! And that is associated with homosexual arousal that you are denying“. And its been proven! Well my first reaction was, HAHa! This explains why I cannot have a rational conversational with homosexual active extremists! It seems they want everyone to believe everyone can be gay and either does not know it or is in denial. The study concludes “Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies“ Google: Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal? Its on the NIH website.

This explains the twisted justification they actually believe in regards to forcing this onto us, and even more disturbingly onto our children!



No one thinking rationally can think unlimited redefining of societies moral guidelines, so the homosexuals feel better about their life, is the best solution to this! Follow the logic….where would it end?



Really where will it end? That trend, enshrined as a rights issue, has led us to the present far-reaching part of the homosexual agenda which is subversive not only of morality, but of social order. It is now blatantly obvious homosexual activists are not simply consenting adults doing no harm behind closed doors, but intent on enshrining their practices as rights above everyone else in society.



Combining homosexual life styles to redefine societal norms, to redefine the important values regarding men and woman in child-rearing, to redefine what is harmful regarding the majorities moral guidelines, and to redefine the value of traditional marriage is in no way within the judiciaries subject matter jurisdiction, that’s why we had such a one sided 136 page trial, and the public deserves better, and will get it from the supreme court! 99% of all debates I have had with gays on websites refuse to acknowledge the far-reaching agenda I am so concerned with. No matter how well informed my questions and examples are, no matter how complex an understanding they were based on, In the end the most popular names I have been called are; bigot, homophobe, religious, nazi, moron, racist, and clever hater. No matter how loud their rhetoric gets, I will not shut up and accept redefining marriage and morality. I will not put my morals and culture aside and openly accept the stage set for an anything goes society and not see the legal, cultural, and political consequences to follow this precedent. After marriage is conquered, the activists would not shut up, because redefining marriage is just the doorway into the far-reaching agenda to redefine.



To communicate or debate, one has to decide what their issue is with prop 8, gay marriage or judicial activism to redefine social norms?.



According to judge walker the current "credible" motivation for banning gays and lesbians from marrying is a desire to mark them as second-class citizens. No Judge Walker, the “credible” motivation is to stop the activists far-reaching agenda!



I wish the country could be up in arms working together over something sooooo much more important then redefining societal values to conform to a gay agenda? Like decades of sloppy capitalism, and all its trickle down effects that has our country in such a terrible economic mess? We need to wake up collectively and look what’s happening to our country?...look where we are at? Shouldn’t there be hundreds of other more relevant issues to get this country collectively up in arms? Perhaps this issue will open eyes? Yeah, I know I am changing the subject…Hello!



Now if the issue for you is solely gay marriage, weather for or against it, then you are talking about your own life/emotions, and regardless if this decision is in your favor or not, that blinds you.



There is an issue here bigger than, beliefs, religion, homophobia, sin, or gay marriage, all of that is just the stage!! My interest here is what is going on behind this gay smokescreen? What’s that? It’s the constitution being manipulated to fit a judicial agenda to change society for people in the populous like themselves! Well, constitutional interpretation or reconstructing the constitution for gays certainly will not be left to unrestricted judicial activism.



The majority in this country have shown they have had enough and will not sit back and concur with Judicial inability to recognize its limitations as a political entity, arrogantly undermining democratic favor.



Society cannot separate due to physical traits. It does separate based on things that society deems immoral or dangerous. If this is discrimination, which side or who defines morality?, defines what is harmful?, defines an individuals moral guidelines? defines homophobia? Each side has different definitions! As I stated above, I have been repeatedly referred to by gay activists as a homophobe, only on the basis for expressing the issues raised here. Why is that? They claim their options are facts rooted in science, and everything I say is fear mongering. And I say there facts are rooted in distorted science evolutionary psychology. So who decides which sides options are fact? So, as a result of this, many on both sides of the issues are condescending and belittling the other, what a waste of time. To communicate or debate our words need to have the same meaning or were not speaking the same language and we get nowhere, for example look at the abortion debate.



How far do gay activists think the supreme court will break down the majority of citizens conventional ideas of societal norms and morality? Certainly not as far as gay activists envision! We will find an acceptable limit that does not discriminate against society, by allowing benefits. Will the Supreme court decide for society the definition of correct and moral behavior for all mindsets? No way, because we are still a constitutional representative democracy. Gay activists want the supreme court to rule we as a society are ready to "evolve" into something more radical then we already have, meaning we are beyond those old outdated parameters.



I have read we are currently living through two battles? One between the Constitution and the judges?, the other, supreme law and the judiciary? We shall see! Activist judges know they have judicial immunity!



Judge Walker says: "the ruling struck down Proposition 8 as a violation of federal constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process"



So if it’s unconstitutional to prohibit same sex marriage…. Using that same ideology is it even more unconstitutional to force this on all of society? Now, if “moral disapproval” violates constitutional rights as Judge walker stated, then he is contradicting himself? Constitutional politics is known to, and accepted to use, persuasion to initiate change. This Judge has just used political coercion to change the moral guidelines for all.. He has personally, through the court, used the morality of rights from a minority, to displace the morality of consent with all of California.



I would say every time judicial supremacy replaces constitutional supremacy It goes against our best ideals constitutionally, that is regarding the intended understanding of the values outlined in our founding documents, and we alter the constitution without public acceptance and or awareness. This supremacy is a slippery slope, and will lead to more problems that are significant, to the point where someday we may end up a dictatorship. California has already voted twice that marriage is the union of a man and a woman and approved Prop 8. 30 states have voted the same, over 60 million Americans. I accept the current benchmark of our citizens individual voting preferences to prevent homosexuality from redefining society, do you?



If the supreme court forces this down society's throat, with all the societal changes…..for example, heterosexual children being taught that homosexuality, through the science of psychology, forced through the judiciary, with there tax dollars, will redefine their child's moral guidelines, and teach them homosexuality is healthy life choice! What would be the result? That kind of tactic (and it has already started) would prove disastrous for the gay agenda. The current modern acceptance that has taken years to evolve for accepting homosexuality, by the heterosexual majority in this country, would now be forced backwards due to the homosexuals extremist agenda!



Google the phrases below and read the disturbing reality already happening where gay marriage has been legalized. proving the far reaching agenda already underway to redefine social norms & morality.



“homosexual activists bagly mass resistance children flyer”

"Massachusetts News bagly Pedophilia"



Homosexual activists refuse to acknowledge they cannot & will not force change of moral guidelines no matter how many PhD's create homosexual facts with pseudo science.





As anyone can see it is blatantly obvious this far-reaching agenda, with the goal of redefining societies moral guidelines, will cause “harm” to heterosexuals and proves the proponents of prop 8 have standing.



There has long been a private world protected by:

- the image of mystical thinking (religion)

- superior intelligence (science)

- civil rights, that activists abuse use to justify extremist agendas.



It is time to evole into more of a thinking society, rather than a society driven by a religious belief system, or radical activists.



Acknowledging the issues raised here on a societal level would certainly expose the homosexuals activist agenda. And that could lead to a constitutional amendment that would eliminate same-sex marriage in all states. In the end, regardless of political pressure applied from homosexual or religious bias, the decision handed down by the highest court in the land will reflect a common sense decision, and that decision will not unilaterally overturn the will of the people for a homosexual or religious cause. Furthermore, that decision may be to avoid making a decision at all, and leave it to states!
3rd side is offline  
Old August 23rd, 2010, 05:02 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Catus Felidae's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,665
Paranoid much?
Catus Felidae is offline  
Old August 23rd, 2010, 05:15 AM   #3
Your Own Moderator
 
pensacola_niceman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Pensacola, FL
Posts: 31,397
Know that long-ass cut-and-paste posts get read by very few.
pensacola_niceman is offline  
Old August 23rd, 2010, 06:08 AM   #4
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3
regardless, all my reading and debates on the subject encouraged me write it out, which helped me evolve and fully understand the issues
3rd side is offline  
Old August 23rd, 2010, 06:18 AM   #5
Your Own Moderator
 
pensacola_niceman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Pensacola, FL
Posts: 31,397
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3rd side
regardless, all my reading and debates on the subject encouraged me writ it out, which helped me evolve and fully understand the issues
Are you a blue-footed booby?
pensacola_niceman is offline  
Old August 23rd, 2010, 06:49 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Catus Felidae's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,665
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3rd side
regardless, all my reading and debates on the subject encouraged me writ it out, which helped me evolve and fully understand the issues


"writ it out"? ok



"fully understand the issues? Not even close.

Catus Felidae is offline  
Old August 23rd, 2010, 07:19 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 6,742
Could have just said "do we want head shrinkers determining our legal and social policies?"
leighredf is offline  
Old August 23rd, 2010, 07:34 AM   #8
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3
I like that!!!
3rd side is offline  
Old August 23rd, 2010, 07:49 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
Catus Felidae's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,665
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3rd side
I like that!!!


So you would have no objection to limited rights for yourself if the shrinks say there is nothing wrong with you?
Catus Felidae is offline  
Old August 23rd, 2010, 08:56 AM   #10
Eyes Wide Open
 
waitingtables's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 44,991
Did you seriously think that you presented a 3rd side of the argument? It is absolutely the same aregument as those against SSM use. Nice try.
waitingtables is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Civil Rights > Gay and Lesbian Rights

Tags
foundation, moral, psudoscience, redefining, society



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Fox Goes After Sesame Street’S Supposed “Assault” On America’S “Moral Foundation” Ray Kaye Gay and Lesbian Rights 3 June 3rd, 2011 02:13 AM
Fisher House Foundation RidinHighSpeeds Warfare 0 December 9th, 2010 06:34 AM
Birth Control Fears Addressed - HHS Chief Says Draft Rule Is Not Redefining Abortion Tirya Abortion 87 August 15th, 2008 09:04 AM
Redefining Marriage? WTF? tristanrobin Gay and Lesbian Rights 11 July 9th, 2008 11:32 AM
Freedom From Religion Foundation hevusa Religion 21 July 27th, 2005 04:23 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.