You ARE wrong. Why are you even asking me the question I've flat out denied to you already?! :freak: How could I have explained my position any more clearly than already set out?
I did this a couple of posts ago. If that didn't confirm my position then I'm at a loss as to what else I could have added. In conclusion, you're totally wrong and you did indeed make an erroneous assumption. Are you going to get around to acknowledging that?
Okay. Chill. Sheesh.
It was an erroneous assumption on my part, I admit. I assumed since you jumped to argue that point that you disagreed with it. And with your
apparent reluctance to state clearly otherwise I failed to recognize the correction.
If it's really driving you that far up the wall, then I do sincerely apologize. Not that I mind driving you up the wall over something stupid that you believe, but since this isn't necessarily one of those things, then please accept my full and complete retraction.
So what? It's the first time someone's levelled such a silly accusation with no foundation to it. I could care less whether you're 'hardly comfortable' about my claim. You have no basis for accusing me of it in the first place. If you persist further you're just being blindly ignorant or stubbornly refusing yo acknowledge your error. I suspect the latter...
Okay...aren't you the one always whining about me supposedly getting all emotional and ranting all the time? :squint:
Well then, if you are advocating it and not just 'musing' on it, then you and everyone else who actually seriously desires a change in current law would do something about changing it.
I am. I'm advocating for it right here on this forum. And I do so in person out here in the real world when I discuss this topic with other people. That's not enough for you? Well...guess what? I don't have to care. :idunno:
It's just getting a handle on how serious you actually are on the matter. And the answer is: not very when you get down to it.
I think you're just getting a handle of the fact that this topic makes you hysterical and paranoid. Like believing anyone who'd advocate for this must be hunkering down in a bunker somewhere planning to overthrow the government.
So you think there's a chance that democracy would actually pass such a change in the law then, but fine, whatever.
You're actually having trouble with even that concept? There's a chance of
any law you can imagine being passed in a democracy. All that's required is enough people wanting it to be. Or enough people just not caring if it is or not.
And you missed the other half of that sentence, where I again reminded you that it's not relevant to my decision to advocate for it here.
Below 100? Considering how vocal you are on the subject I'm surprised it's so far down the list.
Dude. Internet debate forum.
Most of what I do in real life wouldn't garner much debate. I delivered groceries to old people today out of the back of a pickup truck. How'd that go over, do you think? Reckon many folks would want to argue about that? Not to mention most of what I do that
might make for good debate, I'm just not willing to share with people like you in the room.
If your attitude reflects the general apathy of those who 'advocate' such changes then you've definitely got no chance of them being passed, democracy or not...:chuckle:
Shrug.
Brainwashed PC masses? :rotfl: Uh huh Mary. All of us who don't buy into your view haven't actually decided anything on our own and are just blindly following the crowd.
Seriously Mary, that is beyond lame.
Stop being such a bigot.
The brainwashed PC masses are people like you, who are incapable of comprehending a wide variety of points long enough to even argue them accurately. Most folks who disagree with me are able to keep the concepts we're debating in mind enough to actually argue them. You're in the minority, doofus.
Frankly I'm wondering where you get this notion that homosexuals themselves are 'confusing the issue'. What is that even supposed to mean? This is just a load of meaningless rhetoric.
:blabla: So which is it? Are you wondering what it means or have you determined it's just a bunch of meaningless rhetoric?
Some examples of "confusing the issue" for you to fail to comprehend:
* Convincing idiots like you that homosexuals are "born that way", to the degree that you're forced to accept heterosexuals are "born that way" just to avoid the obvious contradiction.
* Convincing idiots like you that all the self-destructive behaviors associated with homosexuality are the result of how very sad it is that some people don't accept homosexuality.
* Convincing idiots like you that a homosexual who displays a heterosexual attraction was never a homosexual in the first place. Despite the fact that the vast majority of homosexuals have had, are having or will sooner or later have, heterosexual relationships and attractions.
I could go on but that's probably enough to make your head explode right there.
One can only presume that the objective 'recovering homos' are the ones that would actually go along with you...
:blabla:
...and you're hardly an advertisement for objectivity on this subject yourself.
Show me where I'm not objective. I can show you where
you aren't...
Which translated means 'everyone seeing homosexuality the same as you do'.
For example.
You're in cuckoo land if you think that's going to happen.
It's already happening. The APA has pulled back from teetering on the brink of accepting homosexuals are born with a fixed sexual orientation
and has actually backed off the position that sexual orientation is even immutable as well. It's becoming more widely recognized by the public that homosexuals can and do change orientation or at least are capable of healthy heterosexual relationships, where that was unthinkable even a few years ago. Violence in lesbian relationships is beginning to garner serious research, whereas even recognize such has been taboo up until now.
I could go on and on. Just about every hard line position has wavered and collapsed in the last ten or so years, allowing serious research and reassessment in many areas where there was no such before. Because homosexuals who've come out of the lifestyle have stood strong and pushed through the scorn and denial that's been heaped on them during all that time. Enough that everyone who isn't a brainwashed sheeple has blinked and started taking a serious look at them and what they represent. Enough that even homosexuals have given up denying these things, leaving folks like you stuck on old talking points that aren't relevant anymore.
I'll go ahead and predict that in about five years...maybe less...if you're still around...you'll probably be here pretending you never believed any of that stuff. Because there won't be anyone telling you to believe it.
People already see it as none of the government's business. The private consenting lives of adults is nobody else's affair.
That'll change when how destructive it is becomes apparent to a few more people.
Our 'civilized' nations once endorsed slavery as acceptable practice once over and I'd have zero wish for such draconian times to reappear thanks.
Yawn.
It's an orientation, not a 'condition'. If there are those who are so unhappy with being gay and could get treatment to somehow overcome it then good for them. I can't say I've seen much success in that area though as most admit they still retain the ingrained attraction that defined them as homosexual.
Then you have an odd standard of "success", don't you?
Other than that I see the gay community in general leading lives free from intrusion by the state. And a good thing too.
Why? If it's as destructive as I've been saying it is, then that's
not a good thing. A relatively large portion of the populace (7.7% to 13.95% for men and 4% to 7.5% for women with the averages being 9.37% for men and 4.87% for women) exhibiting drastically higher morbidity rates overall, drastically higher risk behavior for disease (and not just AIDS, doofus, so spare me), mental disorders of all sorts, suicide, alcohol/drug abuse, criminal behavior, promiscuity, domestic violence, etc, etc, etc.
No government intervention. And you say that's a good thing. I'd say that's debatable. When I look at the numbers there I
would wonder why in the world the government
isn't intervening there, if I didn't already know it's because of people like you.
