It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pride Month: The Slippery Slope Is Real

page: 16
47
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 03:03 PM
link   
To those who feel exposure to The Gay will cause their child to become gay and/or inure them to a gay lifestyle, I have a simple question, but it will take some preamble and background:

In 'conversion therapy', they expose a subject to stimuli and enact an either positive or negative reward/punishment based on the person's physiological response. To thoroughly oversimplify this for those who've only had a high-school level of psychology, let's say they show you a picture of a naked woman and tickle your balls. Then a picture of a naked man, and they punch you in the throat. This is not hyperbole -- from 1920-1990, electroconvulsive therapy, shock therapy, physical violence, and nausea medications were commonly used in the process. Since this is self-regulated and not acknowledged by the APA, patients can be subjected to treatments that would otherwise be deemed cruel and unusual.

A comprehensive study of therapies conducted from 1960-1997 (87 studies total) found no statistical change in the sexual desire outcomes of any subjects when measuring physiological response. One study conducted in 2003 by Dr. Spitzer showed there WAS a statistically significant outcome, however. After publication, the study's author admitted that his study was fatally flawed. Why? He had interviewed those who'd undergone court-mandated conversion therapy, and asked them about their results. That was his entire methodology: Self-reporting by those who were asked if their court-ordered therapy was working for them. These people had a bit of an incentive to say it worked, wouldn't you think? The author certainly thought so, and asked for its retraction by saying, "I believe I owe the gay community an apology for my study making unproven claims of the efficacy of reparative therapy".

That was your one study. It's gone. Every other one conducted in the last 60 years has shown no efficacy over the long-term. What the studies all did show, however, was that there was a highly increased rate of depression and suicide among the subjects.

Now... we've taken people, put them through some pretty intense psychologically-damaging therapy, given them every reason in the world NOT to be who they are... and even then, they can't stop their physiological or emotional response to the same sex.

Here's the question: Do you think your kid seeing a flag at Target is going to turn them gay, when those who've attempted to 'right nature's wrong' through torture couldn't even elicit a change in baked-in biological response? Your child is exposed to about 99% hetero-world (otherwise just known as... the world) 24hrs a day, but seeing a rainbow and hearing people say "love is love" is going to change their programming to flip them to the dark side?

Follow Up: If your child 'chose' to be gay, would you send them to conversion therapy and tell them they are 'wrong' (just using the language used here), or would you tell them that you love them unconditionally and will support them in their life?




posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

1) It's not the merchandise that I take issue with, it's the placement. In the childrens section. Furthermore, your equivocation of media "christian weddings/baptisms," is hilarious. LGBT folks make up a few percent of the population, Christians make up 70%. LGBT's are waaaaaay over represented in media. But I don't really even care about that as long as it's not media that targets children.

2) My post isn't about gay marriage. It's about the targeting of children with sexual LGBT propaganda. The "love has no age" bit is in the first image of the OP. Maybe you didn't read it as carefully as you thought. As for pride day, we don't have any "christian pride" days. Nor do we need any. If you'd like a notable day based on the accomplishments of someone/thing in that community, by all means, but lets not pretend that's what "pride day" is about.

3) "Nobody is shoving anything down your throat. Please show me where you are being forced to be trans or gay. Go ahead. Show me how homosexuality is being forced on you." This is just amazing. So basically unless someone forces me to be gay, I need to sit down, shut up, and have no opinion about it? May I suggest you do the same with christianity? Show me the way lol.

4) It's got nothing to do with my religion. The disease risks alone prove it's a health hazard. Then you get into the physical effects and it becomes quite gruesome. Of course there are no offspring either, which I'm big into family, they bring me a lot of joy. Then you can add in the religious aspects on top of that, but to boil it down to just religion is just your admission that there's no counter to any of the above and you hate religion so you're going to blame that and dismiss it all. Next, I am not suggesting we censor anyone or treat them poorly, you read that into my post all on your own and it only seems to exist in your mind.

5) Unhealthy is a fact, see my prior point. Look up the AIDS and STD rates in the gay community vs the rest of sexually active adults. Look up the medical complications of homosexual intercourse over a long period of time.

6) I never said no one discriminates against them. Nice straw man.

7) Point me to the anti-lgbt shows of the 90's aimed at children. Hip-hop has been terrible music since it's inception, you've got a point there.

8) Are your children involved in this post?
edit on 4-6-2019 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 03:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Dfairlite

Since gay is something you're born with it is probably logical that children who are gay not be subjected to the confusion of generations past where the girls were given baby dolls and the boys were given trucks. Best to allow for every instance and every possiblilty so that kids dont feel like freaks.
Acceptance and support can go a long way.
If a child is not gay they are not going to be turned gay.



There is no evidence that indicates a child is born gay. Sex identification begins around the age of 7 months.

At that age, a child can get confused or mis-identify. IMO, it is especially important to parent in a common sense way, especially at that time always gently explaining that "you are a boy" or "you are a girl". "Daddy is a boy like you", or "mommy is a girl like you".



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: CooBoo

I'd have to start with pointing out that your question is fatally flawed, just like the study you cited. You're comparing a therapy based on negative feedback to the normalization of something through positive feedback. You simply can't compare the two.

However, to still answer the question, no I don't think it would turn them gay. I'm of the belief that our sexuality is a spectrum and that we can definitely adjust what we find sexually attractive. This is evidenced by the changing body types we've found attractive as a society, throughout history. From curvy to sticks to now muscular. There was a scientist who explained sexuality on a scale of 1-7, one was fully straight 7 was fully gay. The 1's will never be attracted to the same sex. The 7's will never be attracted to the opposite. The 4's are your bisexuals who don't really have much preference. So a 2 or 3, without influence would likely never try out homosexual acts. However, a 4, 5, or 6 would be far more likely to lead a straight life because the example set by society and the dire for acceptance.

Answering the follow up, I will always love my kids. I would never force them to go to conversion therapy. but let me flip the script on you here. If you could choose (via gene editing) your childs sexuality before or at birth, what would you choose? Why?



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 03:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: Bloodworth

That statement honestly makes me feel incredible sorry for everybody you ever had sex with.
Do you really not know what else to do to give your partner pleasure besides £ick in ÷ussy or do you just not care enough?

I have said that over and over, sex is most importantly a way to bond, a shared rush that deepens the appreciation you share for eachother. All your comments just show you are clueless and possibly emotionally handicapped.
Which would be no surprise since you are obviously one of the homophobes who struggle with their urges. To you sex is like using the toilet, right?


Eww that post tells a lot about you.....

Is that what young men do to bond these days.


Ha ha ha ha ha



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 03:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Bloodworth

If they choose to do so, there would be nothing wrong with it. That's after all the only way you can be sure if you like it or not.
To try it



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 04:10 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Can you point me to the section where marriage is to be defined by the federal government? If not, see your way to the 10th amendment.



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: JustJohnny

I've clarified this so many times now. I'm not saying we are worse today than we were 500 years ago. I'm saying we are on a downward slope now. Just because prior lows, were lower, doesn't mean we should do nothing about our current trajectory.



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 04:21 PM
link   
a reply to: JustJohnny

I get you - the leftist boogeyman is mostly made up. But self-identified leftists do exist, and I'm unapologetically one of them. Weirdly enough, the fears of reactionaries are either right on the money or the complete opposite. So yeah, I'm a cosmopolitan, and I do believe that there are toxic brands of masculinity, but I'm also not completely anti-gun. Some leftists that I know personally are even more pro-gun than the NRA, though.

To get back on topic, though, I understand why reactionaries fear the LGBT community so much. The perpetuity of the status quo is incumbent on sexual repression and rigidly defined roles for individuals. Corporations might play the good guy for a quick scheme and champion the cause of whichever vulnerable community is getting the most airtime, but they care even less. That's why events like Pride Month are so important... it's just a shame that they all end up getting commodified.



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 04:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: tanstaafl

the percentage is 100.

Really? 100% of children are gay? Interesting...


I didnt say that. I was saying allow them the freedom of choosing. I don't think playing with dolls will make a boy gay.

Thats what it sounded like you were saying. You should choose your words more carefully.



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 04:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
", and the real harm is done when parents allow their children to engage in behaviors that you can't come back from or undo - "

What behaviors are you referring to?

Being encouraged to dance in drag at bars, attend gay pride parades where adult men and women are engaging in blatant homosexual acts in public, and worse...


PS Almost every child is filled with stories about Santa and Christmas and the Easter bunny and fairies and it is so darling when they believe those things. They believe with all their little hearts that if they are good, or if they are quiet , or if they put a tooth under their pillow, or what ever action or belief we have subjected them to. They believe it.
But every one of them grow up and out of it. So no no one is turning gay because of anything they see and hear. They grow up and make their own decisions.

The difference is, Santa etc are fictitious... gay sex isn't.



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 04:49 PM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl

You didn't hear about the kid who got aids because he believed in santa too long???



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 05:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
If not, see your way to the 10th amendment.


And then to the Fourteenth?

For someone who claims to be more for the Constitution than I am you seem to not like the fact that the Supreme Court weighed in on this case as per it's mandate by that same document.

But hey, knock yourself out rehashing settled law ad nauseum.






edit on 4-6-2019 by AugustusMasonicus because: I ♥ cheese pizza



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 05:31 PM
link   
Oh man.....no no no ........

Humans are way past the point of trial and error..

You keep doing what you do though......

That mentality adheres to very few around the world....

Very telling



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 05:31 PM
link   
Oh man.....no no no ........

Humans are way past the point of trial and error..

You keep doing what you do though......

That mentality adheres to very few around the world....

Very telling



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 05:38 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus



And then to the Fourteenth?


Equal protection just requires that all citizens meet the same standard in the same contract. I can't open a corporation then demand it actually be treated as an LLC. I have to meet certain criteria to qualify, it's the same criteria for everyone. So if a state is defining marriage as a contract between a man and a woman, all men and all women (of legal age or consent) must be able to enter into the contract. There was equal protection.

Instead the supreme court decided it would redefine the terms of the contract (which it does not have the power to do, it is not granted in the constitution or any amendment, and is therefore prohibited it, by the 10th) and force those terms on every state. The burden is on you to prove the federal government has the ability to dictate what qualifies for a contract to each and every state. Should be easy, the supreme court (if they had followed the directive given to them in the constitution) should have provided that authority in the decision. They did not because they do not have it.



But hey, knock yourself out rehashing settled law ad nauseum.


Is that like settled science? I guess the LGBT folks should have stopped too, I mean it was already settled law right?



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 05:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Bloodworth

It's not a one fits all situation. Get that in your head.



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 06:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
Instead the supreme court decided it would redefine the terms of the contract...


It did? Sounds like more sour grapes.

Maybe one day you'll get over it.



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 06:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: CooBoo

I'd have to start with pointing out that your question is fatally flawed, just like the study you cited. You're comparing a therapy based on negative feedback to the normalization of something through positive feedback. You simply can't compare the two.

However, to still answer the question, no I don't think it would turn them gay. I'm of the belief that our sexuality is a spectrum and that we can definitely adjust what we find sexually attractive. This is evidenced by the changing body types we've found attractive as a society, throughout history. From curvy to sticks to now muscular. There was a scientist who explained sexuality on a scale of 1-7, one was fully straight 7 was fully gay. The 1's will never be attracted to the same sex. The 7's will never be attracted to the opposite. The 4's are your bisexuals who don't really have much preference. So a 2 or 3, without influence would likely never try out homosexual acts. However, a 4, 5, or 6 would be far more likely to lead a straight life because the example set by society and the dire for acceptance.

Answering the follow up, I will always love my kids. I would never force them to go to conversion therapy. but let me flip the script on you here. If you could choose (via gene editing) your childs sexuality before or at birth, what would you choose? Why?


Thank you for the thoughtful response.

To quickly address your first paragraph - While I understand there are different reward/incentive/disincentive mechanisms between the two behavioral therapy options, the premise was floated partially to take that into account. For clarity - If CBT with highly negative stimuli is not able to induce a change in sexual behavior, my question is why someone would think that exposure therapy would be any more efficacious. Negative reinforcement therapy has been shown time and again to be far better at affecting change, and positive reinforcement far less so. With positive reinforcement, people drift away when the reward is withheld (there's one exception here in operant conditioning, but it's not applicable in this context). With negative reinforcement, the pain and memory stays. If negative can't do it, why would we think positive/exposure could (and what's the reward in this scenario?). It's not as if we're actually giving pleasurable rewards to children for any specific behavior other than... not being little a*sholes to other people. We're saying "This is okay for them, and you don't need to hate on these people". I have yet to see an ad that says "If you go gay, we'll give you cupcakes!". I'm assuming this isn't a recruitment drive. Leave that to the Catholic church and the Boy Scouts.

Answering your follow-up -- If I could choose, I wouldn't. If I had to, I'd choose 3-4 on the Kinsey scale (much like myself).

To elucidate a bit on why I actually care about this topic... I've had positive and affirming relationships with both women and men, and am attracted to both. More than abject plumbing, I am extremely attracted to intellect, personality, passions, etc. more than anything else. I become attracted to the 'person' behind the dressings. I don't in any way expect anyone to understand it; even within the LGBTQLMNOP+ community, with which I do not identify, there's little-to-no understanding. I'm perfectly fine with that, as the judgment of one group/individual just doesn't matter to my perception of my self-worth. It took a LONG time to get to a healthy mindset where I can value myself like that, and a lot of why it took so long was people around me calling anything outside of the norm an 'aberration'. That's not an environment I wanted to be honest in.

I liken it to being a free-thinking individual in a room full of Hillary or Trump devotees in mid-2016. You hear a lot of stupid, hateful, often flat-out wrong things being flung back and forth, meanwhile you're in the corner reading the actual policy and being brave enough to realize the proper road lies down the middle. You want to escape the room to get away from the din of echoing uselessness and ignorance, but you can't, because the room is literally the entire world. Both sides say you are 'wrong', so where does 'right' lie?

Nobody wants to be different deep down, we just want acceptance. This is like Maslow level 3, but you've got to get past it if you want to be self-actualized. I now accept that there are some people who, through no fault of their own -- call it their culture, call it their upbringing, call it ignorance -- will never be able to accept that aspect of my life. I don't need their understanding, but I'd be remiss if I didn't at least try to enlighten their ignorance. Having a sexual arousal response to both women and men wasn't a choice, but accepting myself was. I don't hate on anyone for their proclivities behind closed doors (unless we're talking kids, that's no-go-I'll-kill-you territory), and I honestly don't know why anyone cares.

This isn't directed to you, Dfairlite, but to those who say anything other than a 0 on the Kinsey Scale is 'wrong' (there have been SEVERAL in this thread): As far as I'm concerned, I'm a loving uncle, a guy who's managed to retire in his 30s after working his way through an Ivy league school and building several businesses, I'll always be the first person there for my friends, and I will love unconditionally those who I let into my heart. I busted my keister and truly feel I've got the world by the tail. Plus, when I walk into a bar I've got more romantic options than anyone else!

And I somehow accomplished all of this while managing to be a sad, 'wrong' human who you should keep your children away from. Heavens to Betsy, we don't want mentors like me! Well, my two mentees do, but they don't count. I'm content, happy, loving, giving, and don't judge people for things they can't change. Shouldn't, like, THAT be the goal of religion or something?



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 06:35 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Yes, it did. Here directly from the decision:



The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State.



new topics

top topics



 
47
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join