Administration pushing to decriminalize homosexuality worldwide

Jul 2008
18,540
12,269
Virginia Beach, VA
There are areas where your opinion has merit. When discussing complex psychological and physiological issues like transgenderism and homosexuality it isn't. Unless you have studied the issue and have some kind of expertise in the issue your opinion is useless. You might as well walk into the CERN Super Collider and tell them how to start designing their experiments.
 
Likes: foundit66
Dec 2013
33,456
19,263
Beware of watermelons
There are areas where your opinion has merit. When discussing complex psychological and physiological issues like transgenderism and homosexuality it isn't. Unless you have studied the issue and have some kind of expertise in the issue your opinion is useless. You might as well walk into the CERN Super Collider and tell them how to start designing their experiments.
Content sweetie, context

Nope. I find believe that there are only two genders and have been very vocal on this matter. This is not the mantra that the left is pushing these days. As i have also expressed i think this will have negitive repercussions on the gay community as we have finaly gotten the majority of society to accept that the majority of homosexuals are following innate, biological instincts. If everything then suddenly becomes a choice then all of that work must too go out the window. It's fucked IMO.




If everything then suddenly becomes a choice then all of that work must too go out the window. It's fucked IMO.

It is an important part of reading
 
Nov 2005
8,342
2,864
California
People are changing their gender at will. The left wants to pass laws forcing people to use made up pronouns. The brain scan is a red herring for many reasons most importantly one is not required to "change your gender" . If we were to accept brain scan science as it is referred to in this context then we must also accept that there is also a male and a female brain.
Seriously. A HUGE part of your problem is your self-assured behavior of CLAIMING what other people think.
You're not a mind-reader. You seriously do not comprehend what people are actually talking about most of the time. Some of that is based on the fact that you are too damn lazy to read and absorb and part of that being that you just want to spout what aligns with your partisan mentality.

You need to start coming to your own conclusions based on actual facts.
People do not "choose" what gender they are.
People may have SEX change operations in order to make their plumbing match their gender as best as possible, but they didn't "choose" that gender.


Most importantly to my point is thar the male/female dichotomy is a basic part of biology and if we are to erase this than why would sexuality itself be innate? Would that not also be a choice? A social construct? There are some who say that to not want to date a trans person is bigoted.
You and your crappy "there are some that say..." arguments.
You SERIOUSLY need to comprehend the difference between an opinion claimed by some and an actual opinion held by the majority of a group.


Me making the connection between the two is following the logical conclusions.
There is nothing logical about your approach.
You claim "the left" or "progressives" have a position but then you cannot document ANYBODY who actually has that opinion.
Any true use of logic would look at that situation and recognize that your thinking is profoundly flawed.


Just a few years ago when the right to marry was on the front lines a commin trope from the religious right was "if we let them marry what next" and i argued this day and night. I thought it was insane. But seriously reflect. Honestly. Do i honestly think one has anything to do w/ the other? Of course not but that does not change the optics.
"Optics" are essentially irrelevant. They are too often driven by ignorance and stupidity. It basically boils down to somebody not understanding how Neil Armstrong could have set foot on the moon, therefore they claim he did not do that thing.

The argument you just made fails to comprehend the actual prevailing judicial argument on the issue. There are legitimate state interests in preventing various forms of marriage.


All of this craziness is moving us backwards. I swear we have lost much of the ground we made from the 90s-00s in just a few short years.
How???
From what I can see, your arguments essentially rely on perceived or worse claimed with no substantiation public opinion.
Some idiots in Texas tried something, but they got shot down. That's not the same thing as "losing" anything.

The phrase "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." comes to mind. In many ways, repeating history is just plain going to happen because we have too many people ignorant of it.

Blacks fought for integration and equal rights.
In response, bigots tried to fight back by making laws which were doomed to fail. The mindset of "if blacks are allowed in our pool then we will close the pool" still exists in different forms today. The attempt to justify bigotry and discrimination in "religion" is something that was seen with racial equality and today we see it with sexual orientation equality.
It's the same evolution of the fight.
It's not a "losing of ground", but rather the fight shifting in a way which actually matches historical patterns. :rolleyes:


If everything then suddenly becomes a choice then all of that work must too go out the window. It's fucked IMO.

Coming from you, that's a laugh.
People keep telling you that gender is not a choice. But you continue to run around like leftists are claiming it is...
:rolleyes:
Jesus. Stop and THINK for a change...
 
Dec 2013
33,456
19,263
Beware of watermelons
Seriously. A HUGE part of your problem is your self-assured behavior of CLAIMING what other people think.
You're not a mind-reader. You seriously do not comprehend what people are actually talking about most of the time. Some of that is based on the fact that you are too damn lazy to read and absorb and part of that being that you just want to spout what aligns with your partisan mentality.

You need to start coming to your own conclusions based on actual facts.
People do not "choose" what gender they are.
People may have SEX change operations in order to make their plumbing match their gender as best as possible, but they didn't "choose" that gender.



You and your crappy "there are some that say..." arguments.
You SERIOUSLY need to comprehend the difference between an opinion claimed by some and an actual opinion held by the majority of a group.



There is nothing logical about your approach.
You claim "the left" or "progressives" have a position but then you cannot document ANYBODY who actually has that opinion.
Any true use of logic would look at that situation and recognize that your thinking is profoundly flawed.



"Optics" are essentially irrelevant. They are too often driven by ignorance and stupidity. It basically boils down to somebody not understanding how Neil Armstrong could have set foot on the moon, therefore they claim he did not do that thing.

The argument you just made fails to comprehend the actual prevailing judicial argument on the issue. There are legitimate state interests in preventing various forms of marriage.



How???
From what I can see, your arguments essentially rely on perceived or worse claimed with no substantiation public opinion.
Some idiots in Texas tried something, but they got shot down. That's not the same thing as "losing" anything.

The phrase "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." comes to mind. In many ways, repeating history is just plain going to happen because we have too many people ignorant of it.

Blacks fought for integration and equal rights.
In response, bigots tried to fight back by making laws which were doomed to fail. The mindset of "if blacks are allowed in our pool then we will close the pool" still exists in different forms today. The attempt to justify bigotry and discrimination in "religion" is something that was seen with racial equality and today we see it with sexual orientation equality.
It's the same evolution of the fight.
It's not a "losing of ground", but rather the fight shifting in a way which actually matches historical patterns. :rolleyes:



Coming from you, that's a laugh.
People keep telling you that gender is not a choice. But you continue to run around like leftists are claiming it is...
:rolleyes:
Jesus. Stop and THINK for a change...
I am happy to have this conversation w/ you. Could you do me the curdicy of not chopping your responses into those multi quotes. It breaks up the flow, removes context and is wicked annoying to read.

Or i can stop taking the time to write things out and just respond in bullet points.
 
Nov 2005
8,342
2,864
California
I am happy to have this conversation w/ you. Could you do me the curdicy of not chopping your responses into those multi quotes. It breaks up the flow, removes context and is wicked annoying to read.
Or i can stop taking the time to write things out and just respond in bullet points.
TL;DR => Respond in bullet points if you feel like it. It's your choice.


First off, if there is any reply I make which you feel takes something out of context, then point it out.
I reply methodically and logically. If a conclusion is based on points A, B, and C, then I will address A, B, and C separately. That isn't taking anything out of context.

Second, there are some posters who approach things logically and provide a solid basis for their positions.
There are others that fly by the seat of their pants, post things they think are true but then never bother to identify the truth for themselves, and worse when confronted with facts they proclaim "fake news".
I frankly find that the "multi quote" (as you put it) helps to better address that type of circular logic / self-justifying approach because (as I mentioned) it addresses the individual claimed basis for the conclusion. Quite frankly, when you whine about "missing the point" what is really going on is that the claimed basis for your opinion are being dismantled and I think you want people to address your opinion without dealing with the reasons why you claim it is justified. :rolleyes:

Third, since I have "met" you on this forum you have been using one excuse after another for your behavior, for dodging comments, etc.
I personally see the above as yet another excuse on that list from you. :rolleyes:
Whether you want to admit it or not, you've both earned this reputation and it's a reputation that others have openly told you that you have earned for yourself.

Finally, I profoundly disagree with your assessment.
If Jack posts and then Jill responds to Jack, I don't read Jill's post to understand Jack's post. Jill may decide that some of the post isn't worth addressing and not quote it. If the "context" is needed, then people should go to the preceding post.
On the flip side, with the method I use you can see exactly what I'm responding to.
Some people hit "Reply", start talking and it takes some effort to understand what exactly they're responding to because they quoted the entire post but then are only responding to one part of it. Even worse when it's not a "direct" reply and has more of a tangential relevance.
 
Nov 2014
2,818
356
Florida
Really, you can choose what you are attracted to?
If you try hard, can you pop a boner by staring at a corned beef sandwich?
You should able to, just for a little while, be a delisexual. Just once as an experiment.

Voltaire said "Once a philosopher, twice a pervert". As he turned down an invitation to attend what would have been his second orgy.

The point is, people don't choose who they are attracted to, the choice is to have sex with who they are attracted to.
If a man is attracted to women, he will learn how to have sex with women, if he is attracted to men, he will learn how to have sex with men.
That's how it works.
If an individual's nature is to be attracted to the opposite sex, showing that individual gay porn isn't going to effect a "conversion", If an individual's nature is to be attracted to the same sex, no amount of "conversion therapy" is going to change that, that at least has been the result of a whole lot of "conversion therapy". Many have tried but no one has ever really succeeded in "Praying the gay away".
I'm just assuming if you can't flip'em one way, you can't flip'em the other.
Yes they do. That is like saying you did not choose your wife