SCOTUS makes a good call for once!

solus · Jun 30, 2015

georg jetson said:
I agree with your observations about addictions, but some of the same things can be said about homosexuality.

I didn't espouse my belief as "truth". I specifically used the word "possibility". However, you state that the reverse IS true ...because you say? Your statement is better described as your attitude towards the issue and not actually something grounded in fact. That's fine.

georg, quote: I think we do a great diservice (sic) to those that may have a mental disorder affecting their sexual preference by ignoring the possibility that it is a problem, not something to be encouraged. unquote

did i miss the term possibility in the bold part of your original post?

and yes my statement tis grounded in fact as evidenced in numerous peer and repeatable studies over the last 70 years leading the APA, AAMFT, ACA, ad nauseam, to declare sexual orientation in and of itself is not a mental disorder, much to the chagrin of religious and others who believe different. go to any university's electronic psy peer listed journals and knock your socks off reading them to your little heart's content. please ensure you set you date to say early to mid 50's > to date.

current thoughts within the medical field is sexual orientation, in and of itself is not a treatable medical issue. However, with the recent advances in the neuro sciences, imagining, and equipment, there is evidence certain parts of the brain is reacting differently to visual stimulus. specific and firm conclusions to what this means is still in its infancy.

there are those who believe 'reparative therapy' can cure homosexuality in individuals but, again, repeatable, peer reviewed studies have actually shown the damage to the mental psyche of the individual undergoing this horrific therapy is devastating. i shan't entertain 'pastoral' counseling as a therapy to cure homosexuality!

ipse

nonameisgood · Jun 30, 2015

I missed all the fun. Good.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Dave_pro2a · Jun 30, 2015

solus said:
georg, quote: I think we do a great diservice (sic) to those that may have a mental disorder affecting their sexual preference by ignoring the possibility that it is a problem, not something to be encouraged. unquote

did i miss the term possibility in the bold part of your original post?

and yes my statement tis grounded in fact as evidenced in numerous peer and repeatable studies over the last 70 years leading the APA, AAMFT, ACA, ad nauseam, to declare sexual orientation in and of itself is not a mental disorder, much to the chagrin of religious and others who believe different. go to any university's electronic psy peer listed journals and knock your socks off reading them to your little heart's content. please ensure you set you date to say early to mid 50's > to date.

current thoughts within the medical field is sexual orientation, in and of itself is not a treatable medical issue. However, with the recent advances in the neuro sciences, imagining, and equipment, there is evidence certain parts of the brain is reacting differently to visual stimulus. specific and firm conclusions to what this means is still in its infancy.

there are those who believe 'reparative therapy' can cure homosexuality in individuals but, again, repeatable, peer reviewed studies have actually shown the damage to the mental psyche of the individual undergoing this horrific therapy is devastating. i shan't entertain 'pastoral' counseling as a therapy to cure homosexuality!

ipse

Eventually a lot of the above will be applied to gun owners: mental disorder, reduce the 'potential' risks to society, corrective therapy, etc.

OC for ME · Jul 1, 2015

Originally Posted by twoskinsonemanns ... [No one is directly hurt by gays being gay] and [you know it.]

twoskinsonemanns said:
You want me to provide facts to prove something did not happen... Kinda childish.
This is how people argue their point when it has weak footing.
Prove that no one is harmed by any degree by you OCing.

You made a couple of statements of fact. Both incorrect.

The use of the term "directly" clearly indicates that harm is done, even if incidentally.

As such, harm is done. Yet you state that harm is not done...directly. Degrees of harm.

Like the individual liberty vs. government intervention thread, you seem to have claimed the "right/authority" to determine who is, or is not harmed.

And, you have know idea what I know, or do not know...presumption.

nonameisgood · Jul 1, 2015

OC for ME said:
You made a couple of statements of fact. Both incorrect.

The use of the term "directly" clearly indicates that harm is done, even if incidentally.

As such, harm is done. Yet you state that harm is not done...directly. Degrees of harm.

Like the individual liberty vs. government intervention thread, you seem to have claimed the "right/authority" to determine who is, or is not harmed.

And, you have know idea what I know, or do not know...presumption.

Let me see if I get what you are saying. You feel that someone, anyone, is harmed by an individual being gay, is that right?

Now, if that were true, it would be provable. However, proving that this premise is not true is essentially impossible, given the very large of number of potential victims which would need to be examined to identify the postulated harm.
I contend that anyone can say anything and ask for proof to the contrary, and disproving such a sweeping falsehood is often far more difficult (approaching impossibility) than proving the premise itself. In science, we prefer to prove things directly rather than needing to test the contrary.

Early on in the thread, I stated that no one is harmed by allowing same sex couple to get married. I state this based on two casual observations. First, I cannot postulate a reasonable theorem about how anyone could be harmed by this action. Second, I have never heard of any such harm occurring. To accept that harm is occurring, one would need to suspend disbelief long enough to imagine a fantasy land.

Therefore, as with all things in this forum, I think you need to support your assertion that people are harmed by other people being gay, or more specifically, by the issuance of marriage licenses to homosexuals.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

WalkingWolf · Jul 1, 2015

nonameisgood said:
Let me see if I get what you are saying. You feel that someone, anyone, is harmed by an individual being gay, is that right?

Now, if that were true, it would be provable. However, proving that this premise is not true is essentially impossible, given the very large of number of potential victims which would need to be examined to identify the postulated harm.
I contend that anyone can say anything and ask for proof to the contrary, and disproving such a sweeping falsehood is often far more difficult (approaching impossibility) than proving the premise itself. In science, we prefer to prove things directly rather than needing to test the contrary.

Early on in the thread, I stated that no one is harmed by allowing same sex couple to get married. I state this based on two casual observations. First, I cannot postulate a reasonable theorem about how anyone could be harmed by this action. Second, I have never heard of any such harm occurring. To accept that harm is occurring, one would need to suspend disbelief long enough to imagine a fantasy land.

Therefore, as with all things in this forum, I think you need to support your assertion that people are harmed by other people being gay, or more specifically, by the issuance of marriage licenses to homosexuals.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You are not taking butt hurt feelings into account. As far as proving a negative, we already know that is near impossible. The onus would be on the person making the claim of harm by a lifestyle.

OC for ME · Jul 1, 2015

nonameisgood said:
Let me see if I get what you are saying. You feel that someone, anyone, is harmed by an individual being gay, is that right?

Now, if that were true, it would be provable. However, proving that this premise is not true is essentially impossible, given the very large of number of potential victims which would need to be examined to identify the postulated harm.
I contend that anyone can say anything and ask for proof to the contrary, and disproving such a sweeping falsehood is often far more difficult (approaching impossibility) than proving the premise itself. In science, we prefer to prove things directly rather than needing to test the contrary.

Early on in the thread, I stated that no one is harmed by allowing same sex couple to get married. I state this based on two casual observations. First, I cannot postulate a reasonable theorem about how anyone could be harmed by this action. Second, I have never heard of any such harm occurring. To accept that harm is occurring, one would need to suspend disbelief long enough to imagine a fantasy land.

Therefore, as with all things in this forum, I think you need to support your assertion that people are harmed by other people being gay, or more specifically, by the issuance of marriage licenses to homosexuals.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

http://www.gaydadproject.org/who-we-are/

Nope, just being gay harms no one.

No one is harmed by two citizens getting married. True, but that is not what you stated, that I have quoted several times.

You continue to claim to determine who is, or is not, harmed. Next you may be determining whether or not another citizen's rights, that you agree with, are violated, based on your criteria of what a violation is and what the definition of harm is.

Butt hurt...

Some folks should know better.

WalkingWolf · Jul 1, 2015

OC for ME said:
http://www.gaydadproject.org/who-we-are/

Nope, just being gay harms no one.

No one is harmed by two citizens getting married. True, but that is not what you stated, that I have quoted several times.

You continue to claim to determine who is, or is not, harmed. Next you may be determining whether or not another citizen's rights, that you agree with, are violated, based on your criteria of what a violation is and what the definition of harm is.

Butt hurt... Some folks should know better.

Those harms are caused by societal intolerance, NOT sexual choice. This is equal to blaming the gun for societies fears. Please cite where just the gay relationship causes harm all by itself. Intolerance is not the fault of the victim.

You just made it one step easier to disarm the public.

OC for ME · Jul 1, 2015

OC for ME said:
... Responding to twoskinsonemanns - Presumption and unsubstantiated opinion. Or, is it a matter of magnitude. Ask the kid(s) who dad, or mom, comes out and then walks out.

Hurt? You do not get to decide who is, or is not hurt, by the lawful acts of gay/straight folks.

Anyway, this thread is not far removed from the individual rights vs. government intervention thread.

WalkingWolf said:
Those harms are caused by societal intolerance, NOT sexual choice. This is equal to blaming the gun for societies fears. Please cite where just the gay relationship causes harm all by itself. Intolerance is not the fault of the victim.

You just made it one step easier to disarm the public.

Not me claiming harm. Other folks who claim harm. I am neither harmed by folks being gay, nor getting married.

You too dismiss the harm claimed by others, very real harm to them, as nothing but bigotry. A daughter, in the link provided, is now a bigot. As you will. We all make choices and sometimes those choices have consequences.

To nonameisgood, apologies, you did not state that being gay harms no one, twoskinsonemanns did.

nonameisgood · Jul 1, 2015

No, I did say that, waaaaay back in the thread.
I challenge to find any real science or true epidemiology that says there is excess harm to anyone by being gay or being in same sex relationship. I use the phrase "excess harm" because, as you say, choices made do result in consequences. My contention is that any perceived harm is not a result of it being a gay or straight relationship, but rather individual partner selection and other circumstances.
Having done some research on cases of "fear of future harm", one would need to have a reasonable basis for such a claim. And just feeling that something harms you does not make the harm real nor establish causation.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

OC for ME · Jul 1, 2015

nonameisgood said:
No, I did say that, waaaaay back in the thread.
I challenge to find any real science or true epidemiology that says there is excess harm to anyone by being gay or being in same sex relationship. I use the phrase "excess harm" because, as you say, choices made do result in consequences. My contention is that any perceived harm is not a result of it being a gay or straight relationship, but rather individual partner selection and other circumstances.
Having done some research on cases of "fear of future harm", one would need to have a reasonable basis for such a claim. And just feeling that something harms you does not make the harm real nor establish causation.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe you are too focused on the "being gay" part of the equation.

Today my father and I are neither best friends nor mortal enemies. We are somewhere in between. I struggle with labels, the past, and the notion that I was born of a lie. I love my dad, but I hurt for my mom and what happened to our family. I’m glad he can live his truth now, and I yearn for the world to understand homosexuality so that no one has to hide anymore. -

http://www.gaydadproject.org/who-we-are/

I'm not entertaining any notions that a citizen just being gay and walks past another citizen and some physical harm is done. heck, WW is right, for the most part, folks claiming that just being gay harms are in fact bigots.

I suspect that Erin Margolin is neither intolerant, or a anti-gay bigot, contrary to the apparent assertions of some folks.

I challenge the science that states that being gay is not a choice.
Science has found the liberal gene.
Men and women are different, Time magazine figured that out some time ago.
The coelacanth is extinct...uh, was extinct, science knew this too. http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/animals/fish/coelacanth/

next.

WalkingWolf · Jul 1, 2015

OC for ME said:
Maybe you are too focused on the "being gay" part of the equation.

I'm not entertaining any notions that a citizen just being gay and walks past another citizen and some physical harm is done. heck, WW is right, for the most part, folks claiming that just being gay harms are in fact bigots.

I suspect that Erin Margolin is neither intolerant, or a anti-gay bigot, contrary to the apparent assertions of some folks.

I challenge the science that states that being gay is not a choice.
Science has found the liberal gene.
Men and women are different, Time magazine figured that out some time ago.
The coelacanth is extinct...uh, was extinct, science knew this too. http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/animals/fish/coelacanth/

next.

It is STILL those stereotypes, and fallacies forced on the public, children, people, by the non tolerant that causes the pain. Otherwise it is just like having red hair, over brown hair.

During high school I knew my dad was gay but I was completely terrified to talk about it with anyone then. During college I was able to open up more about having a gay dad but I still worried about the safety of my dad, our family, and what could or would happen if anyone ever found out our family secret.

The people who try to claim the harm, and that it is wrong, are the very same that cause the harm! Intolerance sucks!

Dave_pro2a · Jul 1, 2015

This guy totally gets it:

Faith, family and freedom.

He just doesn't get the right to dictate the first 2 items, if he believes in the 3rd. And thus we have... Santorum!

sudden valley gunner · Jul 1, 2015

Dave_pro2a said:
This guy totally gets it:

Faith, family and freedom.He just doesn't get the right to dictate the first 2 items, if he believes in the 3rd. And thus we have... Santorum!

For some reason Metallica's Sanatorium goes through my head when I hear/see his name.

twoskinsonemanns · Jul 1, 2015

OC for ME said:
No one is harmed by two citizens getting married.

I demand absolute proof of this fact you proclaim.
Also an explanation of how you think you can presume to define who is and who is not harmed.

Dave_pro2a · Jul 1, 2015

sudden valley gunner said:
For some reason Metallica's Sanatorium goes through my head when I hear/see his name.

Yeah I think that slang term his name became, once he tried to enter the national stage as a total bigot.

Dave_pro2a · Jul 1, 2015

twoskinsonemanns said:
I demand absolute proof of this fact you proclaim.
Also an explanation of how you think you can presume to define who is and who is not harmed.

I demand you to define the term presume, citizen, and proof. And "fact." And "harm." Boo ya!

45 Fan · Jul 2, 2015

The Government needs to leave 'Marriage' behind. It is a Religious ceremony and has no place for any government involvement or special treatment.

So, if you want the current gov benefits currently attached to 'Marriage' via the gov system, you should have them change the name and let anyone do it. See, it can all be happy.

OC for ME · Jul 2, 2015

WalkingWolf said:
It is STILL those stereotypes, and fallacies forced on the public, children, people, by the non tolerant that causes the pain. Otherwise it is just like having red hair, over brown hair.

During high school I knew my dad was gay but I was completely terrified to talk about it with anyone then. During college I was able to open up more about having a gay dad but I still worried about the safety of my dad, our family, and what could or would happen if anyone ever found out our family secret.

The people who try to claim the harm, and that it is wrong, are the very same that cause the harm! Intolerance sucks!

You apparently believe that Erin Margolin is a bigot. Given that you focus on, the bold above, her reasonable understanding that bigots exist and could pose a very real threat to her and her family. You focus not on her admissions as to what she believes are the harm(s) done to her and her family by her father's "coming out."

Today my father and I are neither best friends nor mortal enemies. We are somewhere in between. I struggle with labels, the past, and the notion that I was born of a lie. I love my dad, but I hurt for my mom and what happened to our family. I’m glad he can live his truth now, and I yearn for the world to understand homosexuality so that no one has to hide anymore. - Erin Margolin

But, you are, naturally, free to focus on that which interests you.

sudden valley gunner · Jul 2, 2015

45 Fan said:
The Government needs to leave 'Marriage' behind. It is a Religious ceremony and has no place for any government involvement or special treatment.So, if you want the current gov benefits currently attached to 'Marriage' via the gov system, you should have them change the name and let anyone do it. See, it can all be happy.

I don't t think its solely a religious ceremony.Government does need to stay out of it.

SCOTUS makes a good call for once!

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member