PDA

View Full Version : Next!!



Barry Morris
09-05-2015, 04:23 PM
"The Nation article, “What’s Next for the LGBT Movement?”, quotes four high-profile LGBT activists who reveal that “gay marriage” was never their final goal."

https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/kim-davis-jailing-only-beginning-of-what-is-in-store-for-america-as-reveale

No surprise there.

RWGR
09-06-2015, 09:22 AM
The slope, it's slippery.

dancingqueen
09-06-2015, 03:51 PM
I don't see what's wrong with poly marriages.... yet, it seems unlikely you guys looked into the article being sited on this opinion piece....

Barry Morris
09-06-2015, 05:06 PM
I don't see what's wrong with poly marriages.... yet, it seems unlikely you guys looked into the article being sited on this opinion piece....

Thin edga of the wedge. Lets discuss some of the issues.

“Dis-establish marriage.”
Pass strong LGBT “non-discrimination” laws across the US.
Ban all “religious liberty” laws.
Demonize pro-family conservatives and silence all dissent.

"Group marriages" "incestuous marriages", "marriages to minors".

Are all these OK with you?? If not, why not??

Barry Morris
09-06-2015, 05:32 PM
That was fast.

"Using the same tactics used by “gay” rights activists, pedophiles have begun to seek similar status arguing their desire for children is a sexual orientation no different than heterosexual or homosexuals.

Critics of the homosexual lifestyle have long claimed that once it became acceptable to identify homosexuality as simply an “alternative lifestyle” or sexual orientation, logically nothing would be off limits.

“Gay” advocates have taken offense at such a position insisting this would never happen. However, psychiatrists are now beginning to advocate redefining pedophilia in the same way homosexuality was redefined several years ago.

In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality from its list of mental disorders. A group of psychiatrists with B4U-Act recently held a symposium proposing a new definition of pedophilia in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Health Disorders of the APA."

http://allenbwest.com/2015/06/that-was-fast-yesterday-it-was-gay-marriage-now-look-who-wants-equal-rights/

RWGR
09-06-2015, 07:24 PM
I don't see what's wrong with poly marriages.... yet, it seems unlikely you guys looked into the article being sited on this opinion piece....

"cited"

dancingqueen
09-07-2015, 01:21 AM
Dis-establish marriage.
Marriage is an out dated concept that has no real purpose in today's society, if your religion requires such a thing fine, but the integration of law into it ought to be dissolved.

Pass strong LGBT “non-discrimination” laws across the US. Do I really need to touch on this? Discrimination is bad, anti discrimination is good, ask God what he thinks on this matter...

Ban all “religious liberty” laws. Religious liberty is to far, believe what you want to believe, but the momment it has ANY impact on me no matter how slight, it has gone too far. Yes, your religion offends me, and so do many other religions.

Demonize pro-family conservatives and silence all dissent. If this was even an accurate representation of the "gay agenda" (Which I doubt) I, personally have no love for these people that act like they are the victimized ones when they are, in fact, the majority.


"Group marriages" "incestuous marriages", "marriages to minors". again, another warped perception of the "Gay agenda" but poly marriages are something I can get behind. Incestuous marriages just have an "ick" factor associated with it due to the nature of genealogy, our society once was quite okay with sex between relatives, and some states still allow this. as for marriage with minors, that is absolutely not on the alleged "gay agenda" and is simple twisted logic used by the religious groups to try and undermine what the GLBT have been fighting for.

dancingqueen
09-07-2015, 01:21 AM
"cited"

I was on my cell phone I think, waddya want?

dancingqueen
09-07-2015, 01:24 AM
That was fast.

"Using the same tactics used by “gay” rights activists, pedophiles have begun to seek similar status arguing their desire for children is a sexual orientation no different than heterosexual or homosexuals.

Critics of the homosexual lifestyle have long claimed that once it became acceptable to identify homosexuality as simply an “alternative lifestyle” or sexual orientation, logically nothing would be off limits.

“Gay” advocates have taken offense at such a position insisting this would never happen. However, psychiatrists are now beginning to advocate redefining pedophilia in the same way homosexuality was redefined several years ago.

In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality from its list of mental disorders. A group of psychiatrists with B4U-Act recently held a symposium proposing a new definition of pedophilia in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Health Disorders of the APA."

http://allenbwest.com/2015/06/that-was-fast-yesterday-it-was-gay-marriage-now-look-who-wants-equal-rights/

Pedophiles have it wrong.... One is a legal matter between consenting adults, the other is not...
I mean extremists say all kinds of off base things, should I consider the Westborough baptist church as an example of Christianity just because they say they are?
I mean, they use the same tactic to spread their message of hate...

dancingqueen
09-07-2015, 01:28 AM
In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality from its list of mental disorders. A group of psychiatrists with B4U-Act recently held a symposium proposing a new definition of pedophilia in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Health Disorders of the APA."

http://allenbwest.com/2015/06/that-was-fast-yesterday-it-was-gay-marriage-now-look-who-wants-equal-rights/

The DSM, by the way is intended to classify and categorize mental illnesses, not as a means to change laws or treat conditions....
So proposing a new definition is not meaningful in any way except for the purpose of research and diagnosis.

BFLPE
09-07-2015, 01:31 AM
Marriage is an out dated concept that has no real purpose in today's society, if your religion requires such a thing fine, but the integration of law into it ought to be dissolved...um, what? I'm sure I must be misinterpreting your post. Gays fought for the right to be included in the Marriage thing. A legally recognized civil union wasn't enough. Instead we had to redefine a word that had such a specific meaning to many and you now say that. To me that basically reads as, we didn't really care about being married, just legally recognized the same way, but it was just so much more satisfying to cause pain and anguish to many who held the institution of Marriage in such high regard.

What am I missing?

dancingqueen
09-07-2015, 07:59 AM
A Civil union did not carry with it the same benefits and privileges as a marriage carried. ie being taxed (apparently is beneficial as a married couple) medical coverage hospital visitation etc... A "Civil union" was something that could be easily ignored, now that it is a marriage and now a legal matter things have changed.

dancingqueen
09-07-2015, 08:01 AM
Though personally, watching the pain and anguish brings me a certain level of pleasure.

Barry Morris
09-07-2015, 10:34 AM
Though personally, watching the pain and anguish brings me a certain level of pleasure.

No surprise there. Though you are mistaken about the emotions.

But, naturally, you didn't answer stupified's question.

BFLPE
09-07-2015, 10:39 AM
Actually, I believe the question was answered.

Now I will reword the question.

DQ, why not fight for a civil union that did carry the same benefits vs. fight for Marriage?

Barry Morris
09-07-2015, 11:23 AM
Actually, I believe the question was answered.

Now I will reword the question.

DQ, why not fight for a civil union that did carry the same benefits vs. fight for Marriage?

Really bizarre, when you consider they'd rather abolish it!!

Who is missing from this conversation??

dancingqueen
09-07-2015, 11:30 AM
Actually, I believe the question was answered.

Now I will reword the question.

DQ, why not fight for a civil union that did carry the same benefits vs. fight for Marriage?

Honestly, I don't know, I feel it would have been more inclusive and easier to do than to fight the religious right over this. The closest I can suggest is because Christian gay people do exist and believed marriage needed to be redefined to match with their beliefs.

The Chronic Liar
09-07-2015, 11:39 AM
Wasn't it just simply about equality? They wanted the same rights as heterosexual couples and marriage is the most symbolic way to show that. I know different people had different reasons but that was the overall theme.

Barry Morris
09-07-2015, 12:32 PM
Wasn't it just simply about equality? They wanted the same rights as heterosexual couples and marriage is the most symbolic way to show that. I know different people had different reasons but that was the overall theme.

I have to wonder how many gays are actually taking advantage of this.

You "married", DQ???

The Chronic Liar
09-07-2015, 12:56 PM
I have to wonder how many gays are actually taking advantage of this.

You "married", DQ???

I think the point is that he can if he wanted to.

dancingqueen
09-07-2015, 02:05 PM
I have to wonder how many gays are actually taking advantage of this.

You "married", DQ???

Religiously, no. I do, however, share my taxes and medical coverage with my partner. I have no interest in marriage.
Of course if you bothered reading my responses instead of what you wish them to be you could already deduce to that.

Barry Morris
09-07-2015, 02:23 PM
...Of course if you bothered reading my responses instead of what you wish them to be you could already deduce to that.

My dear DQ, I rarely ask a question I don't already know the answer to. :) :) :)

Nihilistic Heathen
09-07-2015, 02:31 PM
That was fast.

"Using the same tactics used by “gay” rights activists, pedophiles have begun to seek similar status arguing their desire for children is a sexual orientation no different than heterosexual or homosexuals.

Critics of the homosexual lifestyle have long claimed that once it became acceptable to identify homosexuality as simply an “alternative lifestyle” or sexual orientation, logically nothing would be off limits.

“Gay” advocates have taken offense at such a position insisting this would never happen. However, psychiatrists are now beginning to advocate redefining pedophilia in the same way homosexuality was redefined several years ago.

In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality from its list of mental disorders. A group of psychiatrists with B4U-Act recently held a symposium proposing a new definition of pedophilia in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Health Disorders of the APA."

http://allenbwest.com/2015/06/that-was-fast-yesterday-it-was-gay-marriage-now-look-who-wants-equal-rights/

That article is very misleading.....

Dr. Quinsey and Dr Van Gijseghem were testifying at a standing committee about Bill C-54 An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sexual offences against children).


My argumentation before the Committee was exactly the opposite
What I said, in sum, is the following: Real pedophiles (about 15 to 20 percent of all child sexual abusers) would better be incarcerated rather than referred to some therapy program as an alternative. The reason: they are untreatable. Why are they untreatable? Because a sexual orientation (an exclusive attraction to prepubescent children is a sexual orientation) is irreversible.
Unlike the way Lilley’s quote was interpreted, I affirm that pedophilia is definitely a pathologic attraction and acting out this attraction is a very serious crime.

Dr Hubert Van Gijseghem, Ph.D.
Forensic Psychologist
Université de Montréal

Then there's this from that article "In July, 2010 Harvard health Publications said, “Pedophilia is a sexual orientation and unlikely to change. Treatment aims to enable someone to resist acting on his sexual urges.”"

A look at the Harvard publication reveals something different....


Pessimism about pedophilia

Harvard Mental Health Letter

There is no cure, so the focus is on protecting children.

Pedophilia, the sexual attraction to children who have not yet reached puberty, remains a vexing challenge for clinicians and public officials. Classified as a paraphilia, an abnormal sexual behavior, researchers have found no effective treatment. Like other sexual orientations, pedophilia is unlikely to change. The goal of treatment, therefore, is to prevent someone from acting on pedophile urges — either by decreasing sexual arousal around children or increasing the ability to manage that arousal. But neither is as effective for reducing harm as preventing access to children, or providing close supervision.

...

The draft version of DSM-V, now undergoing review, proposes several changes to the diagnosis of pedophilia. One is to expand the definition of this disorder to include hebephilia, an attraction to children who are going through puberty. The hybrid category, pedohebephilia, would consist of the pedophilic type (attracted to prepubescent children, generally younger than 11), the hebephilic type (attracted to pubescent children, usually ages 11 through 14), and the pedohebephilic type (attracted to both). In another significant change, the draft suggests that the use of pornography depicting prepubescent or pubescent children for six months or longer should be considered a symptom of pedohebephilia.

So a publication titled "Pessimism about pedophilia" with the first sentence stating "There is no cure, so the focus is on protecting children." is advocating for equal rights of pedophiles? Barry claims Immanuel Kant's work is bull****, what the heck is this.

RWGR
09-07-2015, 03:07 PM
My dear DQ, I rarely ask a question I don't already know the answer to. :) :) :)

That's a great way to be close-minded all your life.

The Chronic Liar
09-07-2015, 03:40 PM
My dear DQ, I rarely ask a question I don't already know the answer to. :) :) :)

Not usually a source of pride with most people.

Barry Morris
09-07-2015, 03:46 PM
Not usually a source of pride with most people.

Not hard to figure out, after all these years.

The Chronic Liar
09-07-2015, 03:48 PM
Not hard to figure out, after all these years.

Most have stopped trying.

Barry Morris
09-07-2015, 03:51 PM
Most have stopped trying.

Or thinking.

Barry Morris
09-07-2015, 03:52 PM
That article is very misleading...

Thanks for the clarification, NH.

BFLPE
09-07-2015, 04:15 PM
Barry's still young enough to know it all.

The Voice
09-07-2015, 04:41 PM
I remember when DQ Railed against the 1%'ers.


Funny that he is a 2%er and he wants to impose his morals on the Majority.


Gay couples should be and ARE afforded all the rights that Common Law marriage affords them.


But the Privileged 2%ers feel that they have a right to affront the Sanctity of marriage as defined by our western Christian/Judeo society.

The Voice
09-07-2015, 04:44 PM
My dear DQ, I rarely ask a question I don't already know the answer to. :) :) :)


That would seem to be an impossibility as you seem to be an expert on all subjects or have a close friend or relative who has privileged inside info.

RWGR
09-07-2015, 05:23 PM
I remember when DQ Railed against the 1%'ers.


Funny that he is a 2%er and he wants to impose his morals on the Majority.


Gay couples should be and ARE afforded all the rights that Common Law marriage affords them.


But the Privileged 2%ers feel that they have a right to affront the Sanctity of marriage as defined by our western Christian/Judeo society.

ouch!!

dancingqueen
09-07-2015, 06:46 PM
I remember when DQ Railed against the 1%'ers.


Funny that he is a 2%er and he wants to impose his morals on the Majority.


Gay couples should be and ARE afforded all the rights that Common Law marriage affords them.


But the Privileged 2%ers feel that they have a right to affront the Sanctity of marriage as defined by our western Christian/Judeo society.

Funny. Last time I Checked being gay does not mean I agree with all gays. I do not wish to impose my morals on others, I want reason and facts to be observed over opinions.
Do I think your religion is dumb, yes, I have seen more logic come from a used diaper. But practice what you believe in, I have no malice towards dumb people, I just don't want it affecting me in any way.
Because it's dumb.

RWGR
09-07-2015, 07:13 PM
Yeah, well you're a blah blah nanny boo boo stinky dumb face!!!

The Voice
09-08-2015, 06:08 AM
Do I think your religion is dumb, yes, I have seen more logic come from a used diaper. But practice what you believe in, I have no malice towards dumb people, I just don't want it affecting me in any way.
Because it's dumb.


What was it you accused SB of? Not paying attention to your posts?


I am not a Christian. But I do LIVE in a Christian Country where the Vast Majority are Christian or come from a Christian background.


I will ask you again. To what end do the LBQT need to get married?


I will answer that question for you. To NO END other than to put their LBQT ism out there in every ones face.


The LGQT community represents LESS THAN 2% of the population yet somehow the whole community has to celebrate their diversity?

The Berean
09-08-2015, 11:56 AM
That would seem to be an impossibility as you seem to be an expert on all subjects or have a close friend or relative who has privileged inside info.

I'm old enough to know people all over the place!!!

I guess I have all kinds of sources!!!

Or did you think of that??

BFLPE
09-08-2015, 12:02 PM
..........Hey, Barry's daughter returns. WB.

The Berean
09-08-2015, 12:05 PM
Hey, Barry's daughter returns. WB.

Nope, It's Barry. You enjoy yourself.

The Berean
09-08-2015, 12:07 PM
ouch!!

Interesting. An anti-gay response. One of very, very few.

Of course there IS a reason for that.

RWGR
09-08-2015, 01:53 PM
Because I'm not a bigot?

dancingqueen
09-09-2015, 12:29 PM
I will ask you again. To what end do the LBQT need to get married?

And I will answer again, I don't know. I do not speak for all LGBTQ, personally I think it was a pointless fight I see no harm, nor benefit in this fight.

That being said,

The LGQT community represents LESS THAN 2% of the population yet somehow the whole community has to celebrate their diversity?
Nobody HAS to celebrate anyone's diversity, but is it so much to ask for that diversity to be accepted? In Canada it is, and personally I don't feel there needs to be much of a fight here, but in many other parts of the world it does, and like it or not, How USA handles things and what they do has a huge impact on how the rest of the world handles things. The message is important, as for how it was sent.... I don't care.