Forget being called husband and wife, gay rights group wants 'parties to marriage' in bill to lega

reply to post by kaylaluv


Hiding who you are and promoting the lifestyle by teaching classes in it in grade school are quite different things. Unfortunately, some individuals feel it is their right or their duty to obsessively put this imagery in front of grade school children to make themselves feel better about their lifestyle.
I once encountered a young gay man in one of those programs where people share all their stories and talk about their issues in an open manner, and this young man shared his experience and every one accepted him, myself included and everyone hugged and all that sort of thing.
But what he told us is that he had been raped by an uncle as a young child. It was a terrible painful experience for him, full of sadness, and his face was always sad in those classes. This experience turned him to being gay because it was the only way he could cope with it.
So, when you insist that it isn't a choice, well you would be half right and half wrong. This is the case with many both male and female who were forced as young children, and it wasn't a choice initially, but it became a conscious choice for them later on to cope. This young man was still very sad when the class was over even though he had been accepted.
I think there is an element of untruth in how people get to be this way, and being born that way isn't always the case, if it ever was.
The activists know exactly what they are doing when they expose this stuff to young, impressionable children.

Originally posted by kaylaluv



Let me use your analogy to explain how things REALLY are:

Because people like you hate rap music so much, you demand that all rap music be taken off the air. You don't want to have to accidentally hear any rap music if it happens to be playing when you turn on the radio, so you and others like you demand that the radio stations just take that music off the air entirely. You don't care if people listen to someone playing rap music CDs in their home, but you don't want it on the public airways, because it offends you.

The people who like rap music don't think it's fair that they don't get to listen to rap music on the radio, so they object. It's not fair that the only time they can hear rap music is on CDs. They want to hear rap music on the radio, just like you get to hear your music on the radio. They don't want to take your music off the airways, they just want their music included.

Why can't you leave the rock station alone? Like I said, some are simply unable to comprehend the metaphor I used; and you are indeed one of those people. Because you are still trying to force something people don't want on them.

It is like the Gay Agenda, after Gay Marriage was legalized the first time by Judges(before the voters of California outlawed it via a democratic vote), Gay Rights activist's tipped their hand with plans to go after the Churches. They wanted to force the Churches to: a) have to marry gay's like they do heterosexual's; b) outlaw/remove the teachings in the Churches that gay's disagree with(the part where homosexuality is described as an "abomination" etc).

+ I know what goes on in states where the gay agenda has progressed further. Like in Sweden which only has books about single mom's and homosexual parents in pre-school classes.

Homosexuals are trying to domesticate heterosexuals.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

Hiding who you are and promoting the lifestyle by teaching classes in it in grade school are quite different things. Unfortunately, some individuals feel it is their right or their duty to obsessively put this imagery in front of grade school children to make themselves feel better about their lifestyle.
I once encountered a young gay man in one of those programs where people share all their stories and talk about their issues in an open manner, and this young man shared his experience and every one accepted him, myself included and everyone hugged and all that sort of thing.
But what he told us is that he had been raped by an uncle as a young child. It was a terrible painful experience for him, full of sadness, and his face was always sad in those classes. This experience turned him to being gay because it was the only way he could cope with it.
So, when you insist that it isn't a choice, well you would be half right and half wrong. This is the case with many both male and female who were forced as young children, and it wasn't a choice initially, but it became a conscious choice for them later on to cope. This young man was still very sad when the class was over even though he had been accepted.
I think there is an element of untruth in how people get to be this way, and being born that way isn't always the case, if it ever was.
The activists know exactly what they are doing when they expose this stuff to young, impressionable children.

edit on 19-2-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

You are now trying to perpetuate a myth that was started by religious extremists in an attempt to paint homosexuality as a mental/emotional disorder. The American Psychiatric Association would disagree with you.

Sexual abuse does not appear to be more prevalent in children who grow up to identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, than in children who identify as heterosexual.

healthyminds.org...

There are many, many other psychologists/psychiatrists/researchers who are finding more and more evidence of biological, not environmental, causes of homosexuality.

I really don't understand this claim that evil people are trying to change all our children into gays. I know this is a conspiracy website, but this is pretty far-fetched. I would be more understanding if people simply said that accepting homosexuality is against their religion, so they don't want their children encouraged to be tolerant of it. I would still think it's really sad and narrow-minded, but at least I could understand it. But this claim that there is some sadistic purpose in attempting to teach tolerance, is really misguided, and frankly, extremely paranoid. The people in the "teach tolerance" camp have all the best intentions to make this world a happier, more peaceful place - where everyone can live happy fulfilled lives with equality and respect.

Forgive my ignorance on issues homosexual (and not to get crude) but surely one is the giver and one the receiver? Therefore, surely one is the wife and one is the husband whatever?

Not getting into the whole gay thing - each to their own says i. This does seem entirely pointless though.

reply to post by kaylaluv


NO! I was not. I was relaying an actual interaction in the early 90's and an observation of the pain that an individual had based on his having been raped by a family member and the obvious pain that would not go away even after he was accepted by others and the obvious point that he was not gay till he was raped and just succombed to it, and I am certain that is the case with many individuals. This is a real case, one that I personally knew of, and it needs to be noted that not all gays were just born that way and want to be that way because of some genetic tendency.
What you are doing is the same thing the Kinsey report did, was to say look all these anomalies are really just another normal aspect of sexual expression. The Kinsey Report was by the way funded by the globalist Rockefellers.

If you thnk you genuinely care about people, why would you want to ignore obvious emotional pain from real people? What kind of person continues to insist that everything is just ok without acknowledging indviduals real pain and suffering?

And all to be an apologist for an agenda.

In terms of genetics, from a metaphysical viewpoint, we carry our karma and our past interactions with us, and all these things do carry over through the genetic material. In other words, being gay or straight is not just a random thing nature gives us. We have karma with our family members.People who deal with this stuff in their families have family karma to deal with. And I view pretty much everything from a karmic standpoint. Therefore someone who is in pain deserves my compassion, but I do not need to advocate when people are promoting something the way it is being promoted today.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

NO! I was not. I was relaying an actual interaction in the early 90's and an observation of the pain that an individual had based on his having been raped by a family member and the obvious pain that would not go away even after he was accepted by others and the obvious point that he was not gay till he was raped and just succombed to it, and I am certain that is the case with many individuals. This is a real case, one that I personally knew of, and it needs to be noted that not all gays were just born that way and want to be that way because of some genetic tendency.

And how are you so certain when you know of only one case? Could it be because of false information being spread by the religious right, such as this?

Jerry Newcombe of Truth in Action Ministries, formerly Coral Ridge Ministries, appeared on Truth That Transforms last week and told hosts Carmen Pate and John Rabe that “about 75 percent of those who struggle with homosexual or lesbian feelings were molested as children.” Such claims are nothing new from the Religious Right, but the statistic they use seems to keep going up: last month Jeff Myers and Ryan Dobson asserted that “60 percent” of gay males were “abused as children.”

link

I personally know of 6 homosexual men who were never sexually abused as children, compared to your one case. So, just out of our little sample size, that's 86% of homosexuals that WERE NOT sexually abused.

What you are doing is the same thing the Kinsey report did, was to say look all these anomalies are really just another normal aspect of sexual expression. The Kinsey Report was by the way funded by the globalist Rockefellers.

So, the Rockefellers are all gay, and they want to turn everyone gay? Is that their agenda, 'cause I'm really not sure what you're saying there.

If you don't like Kinsey, how about some others?

Anthony Bogaert, PhD, Associate Professor at Brock University: "I demonstrate that the number of biological older brothers, including those not reared with the participant (but not the number of nonbiological older brothers), increases the probability of homosexuality in men. These results provide evidence that a prenatal mechanism(s), and not social and/or rearing factors, affects men's sexual orientation development."

borngay.procon.org...

Kenneth M. Cohen, PhD, Lecturer in Human Development at Cornell University: "Recent scans of the human genome reveal that some gay males share a genetic marker for homosexuality on the X chromosome. One avenue through which genes regulate homoeroticism is by instructing the brain to develop in a sex-atypical manner."

borngay.procon.org...

Vernon L. Quinsey, PhD, Professor of Psychology, Biology, and Psychiatry and Head of the Department of Psychology at Queen's University: "The determinants of sexual interest, in the sense of preferences for the same or opposite sex... appear to be caused by the neural organizational effects of the intrauterine hormonal events."

borngay.procon.org...

And all to be an apologist for an agenda.

Remind me again what that "agenda" is?

instead of calling it gay marriage, why not just a gay union or something, that way they can create their own institution of whatever marriage is.

Originally posted by Flavian
Forgive my ignorance on issues homosexual (and not to get crude) but surely one is the giver and one the receiver? Therefore, surely one is the wife and one is the husband whatever?

Not getting into the whole gay thing - each to their own says i. This does seem entirely pointless though.

Not everyone is one or the other, there are many who are versatile in their.. situations, so one partner can be the

Giver of presents.. *cough*
and the receiver of presents.. *coughcough*

Depending on the individuals personal preference of the day.


You're right though, there are many who are primarily one or the other, but with couples who are primarily versatile in nature, that could be an issue.

Originally posted by yourmaker
instead of calling it gay marriage, why not just a gay union or something, that way they can create their own institution of whatever marriage is.

If I'm understanding your comment properly, my response is that if we made a "gay union", that's still separate and we aren't given the equal rights we deserve. Separate but equal.

It's like allowing white's to marry, and telling all African American's that they should form a "black union" if they want something like "marriage", though because they're black they aren't entitled to the same rights as a white person.

I hope that didn't make me sound like I was calling you a racist, it was just an example to further explain my point. Good question!

reply to post by kaylaluv


I never said all gays had this issue. Why do you have to become hysterical about it? Why can't you just acknowledge this issue?

The Kinsey Report was also known to be fatally flawed. I would not be surprised to find more contemporary people with just as flawed reports though.
If you want to be fair, include reports on the other side.

Thanks to the latest advances in neuroscience, we now know that emotionally arousing images imprint and alter the brain, triggering an instant, involuntary, but lasting, biochemical memory trail.
Pornography triggers a myriad of endogenous, internal, natural drugs that mimic the "high" from street drugs. Addiction to pornography is addiction to what I dub erototoxins — mind-altering drugs produced by the viewer's own brain.

The brain experiences a confusing neurochemical "high" that the mind mislabels as sexual arousal. But this is not just sexual. If pornography triggered mere sexual arousal, it would have little or no addictive properties. You'd be similarly aroused to your beloved spouse.

What's the effect on children in our schools?
Now children are exposed to this in the classroom because all pornography is pornography, whether it's called sex education or not. Children have little or no cognitive capacity even to begin to grasp the stimuli. So they are overwhelmed and captured, seduced into addiction, very quickly.

www.ewtn.com...

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

I never said all gays had this issue. Why do you have to become hysterical about it? Why can't you just acknowledge this issue?

The Kinsey Report was also known to be fatally flawed. I would not be surprised to find more contemporary people with just as flawed reports though.

How about you agreeing that most gays don't have this issue?

I'm hysterical?? You are the one raging about some imaginary "globalist agenda" to ruin all our children.

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

I never said all gays had this issue. Why do you have to become hysterical about it? Why can't you just acknowledge this issue?

The Kinsey Report was also known to be fatally flawed. I would not be surprised to find more contemporary people with just as flawed reports though.

How about you agreeing that most gays don't have this issue?

I'm hysterical?? You are the one raging about some imaginary "globalist agenda" to ruin all our children.

edit on 20-2-2012 by kaylaluv because: (no reason given)

The Globalist agenda goes far far beyond just the gay agenda. And yes some are out to ruin the children. This is something that some people have difficulty accepting. Who was it that said the conspiracy was so monstrous the average person cannot believe it to be possible...oh yes it was J Edgar Hoover

"The individual is handicapped by coming face-to-face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists." J. Edgar Hoover

www.henrymakow.com...

reply to post by kaylaluv


Didn't I say that I have a metaphysical view that we carry our past in our genetic makeup?

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

The Globalist agenda goes far far beyond just the gay agenda. And yes some are out to ruin the children. This is something that some people have difficulty accepting. Who was it that said the conspiracy was so monstrous the average person cannot believe it to be possible...oh yes it was J Edgar Hoover

"The individual is handicapped by coming face-to-face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists." J. Edgar Hoover

www.henrymakow.com...

Ok, you are a conspiracy theorist - this website is perfect for you. In order to avoid any hurt feelings, that's all I'm going to say about that.

I have gay friends who are good, decent, kind people. They are law-abiding, tax-paying citizens who deserve to be treated with equality and respect. They have no affiliation with the Rockefellers, and they don't want to ruin our children. They don't want to hide in the shadows as if they have done something hideous and wrong. They would like the next generation to be more tolerant than previous generations. I want that too.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

I never said all gays had this issue. Why do you have to become hysterical about it? Why can't you just acknowledge this issue?

The Kinsey Report was also known to be fatally flawed. I would not be surprised to find more contemporary people with just as flawed reports though.

How about you agreeing that most gays don't have this issue?

I'm hysterical?? You are the one raging about some imaginary "globalist agenda" to ruin all our children.

edit on 20-2-2012 by kaylaluv because: (no reason given)

The Globalist agenda goes far far beyond just the gay agenda. And yes some are out to ruin the children. This is something that some people have difficulty accepting. Who was it that said the conspiracy was so monstrous the average person cannot believe it to be possible...oh yes it was J Edgar Hoover

"The individual is handicapped by coming face-to-face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists." J. Edgar Hoover

www.henrymakow.com...

edit on 20-2-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

So you define some as being all? That's great logic. There are plenty of straights that intend to hurt our children, should I say that all straights have an agenda?

Good lord, get a grip.

Originally posted by theBigToe

Originally posted by deepankarm
.

On the contrary, the majority has NO right to eliminate the rights of minorities.

You're spot on BigToe... SCOTUS - 1996 - 1st, 5th and 14th amendment

reply to post by kaylaluv


And isn't this a conspiracy website? Perhaps you revel in being the debunker here.

reply to post by kaylaluv

reply to post by ofNight


I never said some is all. You did that. Really, in the scheme of things, the Globalists have evil intent whether they are gay or straight or something undefined.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

And isn't this a conspiracy website? Perhaps you revel in being the debunker here.

Nothing wrong with bringing a little common sense and critical thinking into the mix, so yes, you can call me the debunker in this case.