Bigotry nonsense

Duh. Being gay is not an action. You really do need to get an education. You are speaking out against gay people. To think you're not is of the utmost ignorance.

What actions specifically offend you.

You need to get an education before you can expand your horizon. Or at least keep an open mind when you expand. Then it won't seem like you slept through school.

 

If something doesn't work despite having been tried a gazzilion times and has been proved to be more harmful than helpful, of course you can ban it's practice by licensed professionals. Conversion therapy has been disavowed by every major medical and social scientific body in the developed world. Gay people are always going to exist, why not just leave them alone to live their lives and offer them the same legal protections as everybody else?

Agreement is not the same thing as informed legal consent. I'm sure there are many 17 year olds that would agree with you selling them a pack of cigarettes or letting them place a few bets in Vegas or mixing them up a nice vodka Martini. At that age, I would have been three for three but the law didn't allow the seller to enter into that contract with me because it was attempting to save me from myself. Much as I didn't like it, it was probably right.

We have a strange dichotomy with humans whereby our physical maturity is not in sync with our age of consent laws. It used to be when we lived much shorter lives but the fact is most kids are capable of reproduction by age 12 or 13. That being the case I think birth control is a far more pragmatic response.

I have an idea, why don't all those social conservative men instead of focusing on women's reproduction advocate for some kind of medicine that renders boy's sperm infertile until they reach the age of 18? Let's see how popular that solution is with the religious right?

Yes they signed a contract giving informed legal consent to be pets. That's what happened.

There's a difference between basic comprehension and understanding which you are demonstrating quite poignantly.

I explained it very clearly in my earlier post. That's the problem with bloviating right-wingers they think court cases are won by pointing fingers and saying "see, see, see". No that's not what it's all about. It's about treating similar things similarly with respect to the application of the contract. I pointed out that you would need a completely different contract for a group than for a couple. You didn't even acknowledge that you had read that let alone understood it. This is why you keep losing, time and time again. This isn't the playground, this is real life, case precedent and established contract law. At least try to understand that if you're going to attempt to argue it effectively.

Their problem is that their rights aren't abridged. They can marry or have sex with any child they like as long as they wait until the child reaches the age of consent and agrees to it. The child's rights are held in abeyance until they reach the age society and the law has agreed they can exercise them effectively and with complete comprehension of the consequences.

Good, at least we agree on something

 

The APA has already argued that pedophilia is a sexual orientation.

 

So? That has nothing to do with what I said.

 

Sex change therapy can turn a homosexual man into a heterosexual woman. So the APA claims.

 

And if readers will follow the links back about two steps they can see that you deleted part of my quote. It must have hit a nerve.

You had posted: "No it's not the same as homosexuality is an action that you can change while being black is genetic and can't be changed. "

And my FULL response was:

Crime is a choice, and the bigoted white majority wanted to condemn all blacks based on the behavior of that small percentage who engaged in it.
Use (or failure to use) a condom is a choice, and certain bigots want to condemn all homosexuals based on the behavior of that small percentage (0.34% confirmed) who engage in unprotected sex in a given year.
Looks the same to me.

So... Can you see now why people might think you are behaving like a bigot?

 

Pedophiles have an "orientation toward sex" with children just as homosexuals have an "orientation toward sex" with people of the same sex.

 

You of course, are a liar. The forum has a quote function, USE IT. You placing quotation marks around some random comment, and attributing it to me is meaningless other than to demonstrate the void that is your character.

 

Oxford disagrees. Attraction is not an act.

homosexual /ˌhōməˈsekSH(o͞o)əl/
adjective

sexually attracted to people of one’s own sex
​

 

Orientation toward a sex is not the same thing as orientation toward an age.

Sexual orientation has to do with which sex you are oriented toward.

At least that is how it's defined in the dictionary.

 

Being anything is an action. Being is an action. Be, is, am are verbs describing existence.

 

Odd. In my opinion, that's a post only a homosexual would make.

Are you a homosexual?

 

The fact that her clients are willing to attempt therapy to override that SSA just proves that they have been coerced by society and their church into pretending to be heterosexual. Maybe that will work for them for a while.

If you claim this proves therapy is effective, it fails as evidence because these clients were ALREADY willing to change before they entered therapy. This therapy just reinforces the coercion they got from society already and teaches them how to play along as a heterosexual.

Can you prove that any of them really changed from SSA to Opposite Sex Attraction?

 

They're still orientated to the same target sex. Seriously though, is this the best you've got now?

 

I deleted the blank lines so you would be less likely to miss them... See Post #694 for the original post.
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=450614&p=1066094777#post1066094777
and your post was #693 (just above mine).

I pointed out:

Crime is a choice, and the bigoted white majority wanted to condemn all blacks based on the behavior of that small percentage who engaged in it.

Use (or failure to use) a condom is a choice, and certain bigots want to condemn all homosexuals based on the behavior of that small percentage (0.34% confirmed) who engage in unprotected sex in a given year.

Looks the same to me.

So instead of pretending that they weren't there, how about responding to the correlation between white bigots who used the black-crime statistics to condemn all blanks, and other bigots who use the homosexual-with-HIV statistics to condemn all homosexuals?

 

October 31, 2013
Statement of the American Psychological Association Regarding Pedophilia and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5)

A news release sent Oct. 30 on behalf of the American Family Association mischaracterized the position of the American Psychological Association with respect to pedophilia. The American Psychological Association does not classify mental disorders or publish the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, as the release incorrectly stated.
The American Psychological Association maintains that pedophilia is a mental disorder; that sex between adults and children is always wrong; and that acting on pedophilic impulses is and should be a criminal act. The American Psychological Association has worked for many years to prevent child sexual abuse and will continue to do so.
http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2013/10/pedophilia-mental.aspx

Have you once in your life told the truth?

 

I see my error and apologize for attributing that quote to you. That prior post was from Maccabee, not you. I responded to that, and when you responded to mine I thought you had made both statements. I did not even notice the problem when I was looking up the post numbers.

 

Fyi, no it didn't.
Read post 741 you're caught in a lie, red handed.

 

Trying this again (using advanced mode)...

This is where I pointed out that you responded to the "condom choice" but deleted the "crime choice" part.

Now... Do you see the parallel?
White bigots used black-crime statistics to condemn all blacks for the bad choices of a few.
Other bigots use homosexual-with-HIV statistics to condemn all homosexuals for the bad choices of a few.

 

Not sure of your point. Nothing there contradicts a thing I have stated.

 

Do you see that you are still a liar? And, all the above is irrelevant to my point. I was disputing your claim that it is .34% of gays engaged in unprotected sex that need to learn to use condoms.

- - - Updated - - -

Nothing there contradicts a thing I have stated so not sure of your point.

 

Nope. Got anything relevant to the topic of discussion?...... I didn't think so.

 

I had assumed (since you deleted the black-crime part of my post) that you were just trying to avoid the point of my post (which was comparing the bigotry of whites using black-crime statistics to the bigotry of gay-bashers using homosexuals-with-HIV statistics). I thought you were trying to avoid the point of my post. If you were NOT trying to avoid the point of my post, then I apologize for accusing you of deliberately deleting part of my post. Perhaps to demonstrate that was not your intention to deflect the argument, you could respond with your thoughts about the similarity between white bigots using crime statistics and other bigots using HIV statistics to condemn all homosexuals.

So to get back to the part that you DID address... The statistics you introduced from the CDC to support the split between 67% homosexual and 33% others for new HIV cases also prove that an estimated 0.34% of homosexuals per year develop HIV. We can be reasonably certain that these individuals did NOT properly use a condom. Unless you have some other data, we do not KNOW how many other homosexuals might need to learn to use a condom. Do you have additional data on that?

 

I haven't used the statistics to condemn all homosexuals. YOU just view ANY revelation of facts that you view to reflect badly on homosexuals, as a condemnation of all homosexuals.

 

You said pedophilia was being discussed as a sexual sexual orientation by the APA.

First children aren't a sex so it can't be a sexual orientation.

Second the APA hasn't.

So you're lying.

Show me where the APA Did this. Why do you never prove any of your stupid claims?

Don't bother answering, I know why, it's because you just pulled them out of your ass.

You lack credibility. You're words are highly suspect. I've caught you in lies several times. You must post a credible link to your claims. An outside source.