Quantcast

Rave this if you think Gay People Should Have Equal Rights!

Foxhound BN0 2012/01/27 22:57:44
Related Topics: Rights, Equal Rights, Gay
If you think gay people should have equal rights, rave this post and make it number one!
You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Jedmun Hermes 2012/03/14 17:45:18 (edited)
    Jedmun
    ever heard of K.I.S.S. =Keep It Short Stupid???

    there is absolutely nothing you have brought up I was not already aware of,, read through and either found a flaw in or found the twisted PR to make it sound like something it is not,,,,,,

    The fact you would even bringup the Fruitfly example show how blinded you are by your own selfish motives, when you try to say Genetic Manipulation to produce a behavior somehow settles it, your born Gay, you have stepped right off any solid ground you have left,((most of your own argument style discredited you long ago)) The Munipulation of Genes of the Fruitfly example has got to be the most desperate of all arguments, if anything it proves yet another example that Homosexuality is nothing more then Man Munipulation

    lets have a little look at your little Ram propaganda piece shall we? And this whole article is frought with manipulative and leading statements, designed to generate a false rumor that would if true support your born Gay, it appearantly fooled your friend, but just like all your posts, this article actually says nothing at all, its just a propaganda piece, useing all the tricks I used when I was designing 5 minute Impact marketing stradigies

    1)First thing I see is this sentence that tries to >'Mislead the Reader'<
    ~Actuall...
    ><><><

    ><><

    >><

    ><


    ><

    ><








    ><















    ever heard of K.I.S.S. =Keep It Short Stupid???

    there is absolutely nothing you have brought up I was not already aware of,, read through and either found a flaw in or found the twisted PR to make it sound like something it is not,,,,,,

    The fact you would even bringup the Fruitfly example show how blinded you are by your own selfish motives, when you try to say Genetic Manipulation to produce a behavior somehow settles it, your born Gay, you have stepped right off any solid ground you have left,((most of your own argument style discredited you long ago)) The Munipulation of Genes of the Fruitfly example has got to be the most desperate of all arguments, if anything it proves yet another example that Homosexuality is nothing more then Man Munipulation

    lets have a little look at your little Ram propaganda piece shall we? And this whole article is frought with manipulative and leading statements, designed to generate a false rumor that would if true support your born Gay, it appearantly fooled your friend, but just like all your posts, this article actually says nothing at all, its just a propaganda piece, useing all the tricks I used when I was designing 5 minute Impact marketing stradigies

    1)First thing I see is this sentence that tries to >'Mislead the Reader'<
    ~Actually, the same behavior has been observed in wild rams~
    Now is that sentence actually in the article? Or did you just throw that in? Becuase nothing else in that article supports that single sentence,if its all alone, its there to >"Misdirect the Reader'<. And I have already pointed out, in order of manipulating the thinking, these Pro-Gay Marketers have successfully gotten any and all same sex observation labeled as >'Homosexual'<, discarding and and all other possible identifying words, such as whats really being observed->'Bi-Sexual'<

    2) This sentence is also an attempt to '>Lead the Reader'< to a '>Pre-Determined Conclusion'<
    ~working on a blood test and a genetics assay that may allow farmers to determine which Rams will be homosexual in advance~
    >these types of sentences are always tossed in to >'Lead the Reader'< to conclude there actually is a test, but yet somehow no one seems able to ever come up with one, and they NEVER Will ~laughs~ becuase you are not Born Gay,

    3) And here is the small print and legal disclaimer that gets them off the hook for certian lawsuits about the '>Mythical Test'< that doesn't exist ~chuckles~
    ~Whether they succeed or not remains to be seen -- ~

    4)Now comes the >'Old bait and Switcharoo'<
    ~ it is clear that the sexually dimorphic nucleus is smaller in homosexual Rams than in Heterosexual Rams -- something that is also observed in Homosexual male humans as compared to Heterosexual male humans.~
    They are now citing a study that has holes it in itself and leaving out the small print,>'Legal-Disclaimer'< that study has within it
    ~ Hamer cautions that the gay men's different brain activity could be either a cause of their sexual orientation or an effect of it.~
    Which in legaleze means this study means NOTHING!~laughs!~

    5)~LMAO!~ and just look at this catch22!
    ~ In Rams that is believed to be a predictive characteristic, although determining its presence directly in the womb is presently impossible without killing the fetus,~
    OoooOOOOoooooh NooooOOOOOOooo It is Impossible to prove its in the womb, becuase that terminates the fetus! and the only way we can know for sure its actually provible is if that same Fetus were allowed to live and then prove its InBorn by going on to become a Gay Ram!
    ~laughs!~

    6) Now to really put a subconciouse scare into the Pro-Gay sheeple they have added 2 >'Leading Sentences'<
    to keep them from ever really wanting to find a test, and to just blindly accept evidence((Non existant))

    ~- thus allowing said farmers to avoid resource allocations that are counter productive (such as keeping future gay rams alive and on their farms).~

    WoOOOooooooo scarey, sounds a bit Eugenic like to me, what if that were done to Homosexual People
    too???? Best we just blindly accept the evidence now before this goes too far!~

    and this sentence
    ~although determining its presence directly in the womb is presently impossible without killing the fetus,~
    Now you have to 'Kill The Fetus' and thats going way way too far!

    Are you sure your really in the science field?? and just what do you do there?? Department of PR and Propaganda perhaps? ~laughs!~

    Becuse everysingle socalled Pro-Gay Study I have ever seen has been nothing more then Propaganda load of crap on a study that proves yet again, You are Not Born Gay spun to suggest it still might be

    And as a final note to this, this is just a onceover on this article, as I went over it a second time I saw loads more misdirection and misleading sentences, this article is 100% crap!
    (more)
  • Hermes Jedmun 2012/03/14 18:09:35
    Hermes
    Kiss? Keep it Simple Stupid? Yes. It works well in American politics? It does not work well in European politics or any form of science, not if you are serious about the topic.

    Being aware of something or thinking that you have found a flaw in it does not invalidate it - and if you believe that it does I would beg you to talk to a few practicing scientists. The PREPONDERANCE of evidence. Not, oh look I can come up with a way this might not be true maybe.

    My own selfish motives? How does using any study considered to be a watershed in the relevant scientific field make me selfish? That's what discussion is. If you wish to bring up a study that shows that homosexuality in fruit flies is NOT genetic, then do so. I am stunned that you cannot or will not follow basic logic. Can homosexuality be caused genetically in lower animals? Answer: Yes. Might therefore homosexuality in humans be genetic? Answer: yes. Does that prove that homosexuality in humans is genetic? Answer: no. Hello. It's pretty clear and direct. If homosexuality could not be genetic, guess what, they would not be able to cause it genetically. However, the fact that it can be caused genetically, in the larger debate, only proves that it COULD be genetic, it does not prove that it is.

    This goes back...






    Kiss? Keep it Simple Stupid? Yes. It works well in American politics? It does not work well in European politics or any form of science, not if you are serious about the topic.

    Being aware of something or thinking that you have found a flaw in it does not invalidate it - and if you believe that it does I would beg you to talk to a few practicing scientists. The PREPONDERANCE of evidence. Not, oh look I can come up with a way this might not be true maybe.

    My own selfish motives? How does using any study considered to be a watershed in the relevant scientific field make me selfish? That's what discussion is. If you wish to bring up a study that shows that homosexuality in fruit flies is NOT genetic, then do so. I am stunned that you cannot or will not follow basic logic. Can homosexuality be caused genetically in lower animals? Answer: Yes. Might therefore homosexuality in humans be genetic? Answer: yes. Does that prove that homosexuality in humans is genetic? Answer: no. Hello. It's pretty clear and direct. If homosexuality could not be genetic, guess what, they would not be able to cause it genetically. However, the fact that it can be caused genetically, in the larger debate, only proves that it COULD be genetic, it does not prove that it is.

    This goes back to the -- stone cold facts are in front of you -- you either ignore them, try to twist them (as you did the Rams), or you come up with strange unrelated arguments -- like the idea that I'm selfish for using a clear logical argument. I don't know your motives, but I certainly have learned your methods as demonstrated.

    Be well,

    Reyn
    http://www.rebuff.org

    Be
    (more)
  • Jedmun Hermes 2012/03/14 23:49:22 (edited)
    Jedmun
    The The PREPONDERANCE of Evidence is: Your Not Born Gay ~LMAO!~

    However?

    The PREPONDERANCEof Evidence shows you are desperate for even a Lie to fool folks into thinking you are

    The studies were Boolsheet , They FAIL, and if your honest you wouldn't deny that fact

    Did you or did you not add that first sentence? I am thinking yes, and it is a lie as well ~laughs~

    Wow! I wonder how much tantrum pitching you would be doing had i taken that bogus article apart sentence by sentence, becuase the whole this is one giant deception
    and you are a desperate little sheeple

    So? lets have a little look at your responce shall we?

    The first thing I see in your responce is to puffup and make >'Statements Of Correction'< on things just not in dispute, or challenge for example:
    1)~Being aware of something or thinking that you have found a flaw in it does not invalidate it~
    2)~The entire bodies of your 1st, 3rd, and 4th paragraphs~
    That is all Fluff and Puff aimed at you trying((but failing)) to feel empowered and authoritative when faced with obviouse defeat, you seem a tad inlove with the sound of your own voice, and love to fill the air with a load of well worded CRAP!~LMAO!~

    I very soundly dismanteled your arguement, if I didn't go back and pick it apart piece by peice, correct the record on it so to speak,,, this cowardly namecalling and Peacocking you do makes a fool of you ~laughs!~
  • Hermes Jedmun 2012/03/15 02:58:40
    Hermes
    I'm afraid that I'm not the one "desperate" for anything -- if I were "desperate" for anything - you already know that it would be that I was desperate that you were right, as I said before. My wanting you to be right however won't make you right.

    What is the ~laughs~ thing, if one might ask??? -- its disconcertingly like the social media conventions used by people who are doing considerably different things from serious discussion -- just to put that out there.

    And now we are back to you asserting that you know more about what I think and what I'm doing than I do. You say in one of your return posts from the last volley that you aren't saying that I think I'm lying, but now you are right back to accusing me of lying. What DO you mean to say, which of those contradictory statements?

    I'm afraid I am being honest lad. It goes back to that discussion before. Hundreds of thousands of people whose livelihood and lives' work comes from medicine, psychology, psychiatry, sociology, anthropology and other related sciences, nearly all with doctorates, say that the preponderance of evidence is moving in the direction that I say it is -- clear statements from the ACA, APA, AMA, etc. back that assertion on my part - and have been shared previously. you respond by calling it all "bools...
























    I'm afraid that I'm not the one "desperate" for anything -- if I were "desperate" for anything - you already know that it would be that I was desperate that you were right, as I said before. My wanting you to be right however won't make you right.

    What is the ~laughs~ thing, if one might ask??? -- its disconcertingly like the social media conventions used by people who are doing considerably different things from serious discussion -- just to put that out there.

    And now we are back to you asserting that you know more about what I think and what I'm doing than I do. You say in one of your return posts from the last volley that you aren't saying that I think I'm lying, but now you are right back to accusing me of lying. What DO you mean to say, which of those contradictory statements?

    I'm afraid I am being honest lad. It goes back to that discussion before. Hundreds of thousands of people whose livelihood and lives' work comes from medicine, psychology, psychiatry, sociology, anthropology and other related sciences, nearly all with doctorates, say that the preponderance of evidence is moving in the direction that I say it is -- clear statements from the ACA, APA, AMA, etc. back that assertion on my part - and have been shared previously. you respond by calling it all "boolsheet" and coming up with strange almost unrelated and clearly bogus claims (like that the AMA doesn't matter because it protects its members) -- which begs again the question of exactly what authority you are calling on? The few hundred (and that is certainly generous) professionals, mostly highly religious, that disagree with the consensus? Your own ability to look for flaws, real or imagined? The way the experts write their studies, like all other experts in all fields except maybe theology write theirs? Mostly the last two apparently, because the only people you have cited as experts in any depth aren't, they are theologians.

    But, it is again this constant "you're lying" "If you were honest" -- you aren't attempting to debate, you are asserting that you have truth and others don't and you are constantly suggesting that you even understand the revealed truth about what others are doing and saying and they do not.

    That is and has been the "boolsheet" in this discussion -- not that you have opinions different from mine -- this is America -- not that you are having a discussion -- not even that you don't really have a good grasp of what the various scientific terms mean or that you reject what scientific consensus is suggesting -- but that you insist, over and over and over and over that everyone else is lying to you and that we are ourselves deceived and have no idea what we feel or have experienced and only think we do -- but YOU, who have not lived our lives or experienced a single thing that we have, KNOW our innermost thoughts and understand our condition. If that isn't enough, you throw in insults "sheeple" -- "sheeple" for someone you do not know at all - and whose politics you CERTAINLY don't know -- nor what he has been involved with, yeah right - that was reasoned out as something calculated to do something other than upset, I'm sure.

    Regardless

    1. I certainly do not agree that those studies are boolsheet -- nor the consensus and conclusions of nearly the entire professional world. I think they are credible - in fact, I think that they are 100% true. So we have clear disagreement there - and I think it is very clear that I stand with the various major first world professional associations (already partially listed, but also including the British Royal Society, the Canadian Psychological Association and so on and on) and that you do not - by your own declaration. Despite your insistence you cannot somehow magically create a secret belief in me that you are right -- no less than 3 statements in your latest seem to be aimed in that direction -- but they are all false. I honestly DON'T think any of the studies and consensus you denigrate are wrong, I think they are absolutely right.

    2. I have NO idea what sentence you are talking about. List the sentence and I'll tell you -- however, if its a sentence I included in quotation marks from any piece of research - then no, I didn't add it. If it wasn't in quotations, then y es, it was mine.

    3. No tantrum pitching here -- you haven't even ruffled me yet, made me feel sorry for you - and mildly offended me by constantly slandering me (as you have again in this post) but upset me enough to come close to a tantrum? Hardly.

    4. Lad, I don't care about feeling whatever the f*cked up sh*t was that you said I was trying to feel, I'm not going back up to quote it exactly. I've told you the EXACT AND SOLE reason that I engage in these things. I understand that it isn't the same reasoning as you have and that you can't accept it or probably understand it, but its why I engage you - and the only reason.

    5. It's your turn to be honest. You have shown a different opinion, you have utterly failed to "dismantle" anything. If you doubt me ask 50 people who are genuine experts (at least Masters degrees) in any fields related. Pick conservatives, I don't care. No group of experts is going to salve your ego by telling you that you have dismantled me, or proven anything at all.

    And again, asserting won't change reality. You assert that you know what we are thinking -- you don't. You assert that I am lying -- I'm not. You assert that you have dismantled my arguments. You haven't. Further, despite how unreasonable you are - I just keep going, and I remain honest - and that has to get you something fierce I would rather imagine. That's not my intent, but your projection that I must be having tantrums proves how you yourself react better than anything how badly this has affected you.

    See you in a week or so when I have some more free time.

    Cheers,

    Reyn
    http://www.rebuff.org.
    (more)
  • Jedmun Hermes 2012/03/15 07:21:32
    Jedmun
    Your the one making the assertions, not I, I simply shed off Bias and analyze the facts or so-called facts and report on what I see

    You are highly Motivated to see this only One Way

    If your wrong, you don't want to know it, oh I read your whole 'I wish You were Right' Pitch up there, but your actions say otherwise, and actions always speak louder then words,and your reaction is always to place your fingers in your ears and proceed to go 'Lalalalalalalala I'm not listening, I'm not listening' when the real challenge appears, you then proceed to fill a post way past the point of reasonible attention span with 90% filler words that mean nothing, its very Saul Alynski of you

    I dismantled that Ram Study, and I can and have dismatled them all, your just saying I haven't doesn't mean I haven't, it just means you are Dishonest
  • Hermes Jedmun 2012/03/21 01:05:18 (edited)
    Hermes
    No lad -- and if you believe that, I seriously think you need a therapist. I have quoted, cited, repeated, explained what scientific consensus was and how scientists wrote -- you have constantly asserted that they were all wrong, that I was wrong, that things happened that never did (like Peer Review proving that all studies on homosexuality failed -- when in fact that is on the face false, and when pushed, you provided me a link to an unrelated theology site - and when that was pushed you started saying they used weasel words -- which led to the description of how scientists wrote) -- which reminds me, just checked today -- there are three scientific laws that are recognized as absolutes -- the three laws of Thermodynamics. Biology obeys those laws, and has no others, as I previously said. Therefore there are some things in biology that are clearly proven (evolution for example) but not to the point of being scientific laws. ALL writing in biology should therefore be at least marginally conditional, as you have seen it is.

    The record is there -- that's the issue with the net and the reason I prefer to discuss here -- its there, its archived, you can't get rid of it. Anyone who wants to can go back and easily determine which of us is telling the truth. I invite anyone to do so. It's remarkably clear.

    Regards,

    Reyn
  • Jedmun Hermes 2012/03/21 02:15:56 (edited)
    Jedmun
    I haven't asserted that your wrong, I have infact asserted the studies don't actually make any substantial claims, except they have made a study, and that, that study means nothing in so far as Proof goes, every study you have shown me, has right in it, a weasel clause that not just slips it out of any liability, but actually says((if you have a legal eye for it, and I do)) that the study supports nothing

    And I will stand my ground, with the anatomical proof we are designed for Heterosexual Sex,((NOT Same Sex)) and the complete lact of evidence you are born any other way, you have only one answer left,
    Its all imagination acted apon, and nothing else
  • Hermes Jedmun 2012/03/23 01:45:24
    Hermes
    There would be no liability regardless. As I said, the careful parsed wording that you are calling "weasel words" and "weasel clauses" are standard scientific lingo for the reasons that I have listed.

    Take a look at health studies, you'll find the same type of careful wording, even when the results of those studies are changes in treatments that often benefit thousands.

    Anatomical proof? This is the first time you've claimed this with me -- you may well have claimed it with others. We are "designed" for heterosexual activity physically, sure. That's the nature of evolution. That does not in any way indicate that other forms of sexual intercourse aren't also natural and normal variations. Let me refer you back to the prior reference to antagonistic genetics. Further, no matter how evolution "designed" us -- the very existence of something establishes its existence. Despite your continuous wiggling, exclusive homosexuality exists in humans, and in quite a few animals. You love claiming that it doesn't, but you do that on air. I refer you again to the work of Dr. Bruce Bagemihl in his seminal work, Biological Exuberance from St. Martin's Press. You've already tried to ignore homosexual rams by claiming that it was the fault of human interference -- although the evidenc...






    There would be no liability regardless. As I said, the careful parsed wording that you are calling "weasel words" and "weasel clauses" are standard scientific lingo for the reasons that I have listed.

    Take a look at health studies, you'll find the same type of careful wording, even when the results of those studies are changes in treatments that often benefit thousands.

    Anatomical proof? This is the first time you've claimed this with me -- you may well have claimed it with others. We are "designed" for heterosexual activity physically, sure. That's the nature of evolution. That does not in any way indicate that other forms of sexual intercourse aren't also natural and normal variations. Let me refer you back to the prior reference to antagonistic genetics. Further, no matter how evolution "designed" us -- the very existence of something establishes its existence. Despite your continuous wiggling, exclusive homosexuality exists in humans, and in quite a few animals. You love claiming that it doesn't, but you do that on air. I refer you again to the work of Dr. Bruce Bagemihl in his seminal work, Biological Exuberance from St. Martin's Press. You've already tried to ignore homosexual rams by claiming that it was the fault of human interference -- although the evidence is clear among wild rams as well -- I'm sure you can come up with some wiggle, or perhaps the phrase I should use is "weasel clause" to claim that Bagemihl's life work is also flawed, as are the work of all the biologists that have found homosexual animals. I will just stick to the findings.

    As for your attempting to assert yet again that you know and I don't what happened in my own past, and that all the people who felt their homosexuality develop in the same way in parallel to your heterosexuality and therefore feel it is inborn as is your own preference; assertion will never cut it alone --- do it over and over -- it will still be an obvious overreach.

    Regards,

    Reyn
    http://www.rebuff.org
    (more)
  • Jedmun Hermes 2012/03/23 02:34:14
    Jedmun
    There is no evidence you are born Gay, none, that much has been established,

    I know, I know, you have made one excuse after another about the wording, and I understand that, but the studies you cite are anything but Biased, True Science reports what it finds without all the leading Opinions. The studies you cite were all handed to a Slick Marketing Pitchman or Book Doctor to be Rewriten to suggest an outcome,,,I know becuase thats the sortov work I used to do and can spot it miles away

    we are all designed for sex with the opposite sex thats what all the facts and evidence reveal,,,,,,,,,,after that the imagination makes it all up, including Born Gay, thats all just an idea,
  • Hermes Jedmun 2012/03/23 03:13:12
    Hermes
    I have made no excuse - and assertions won't save you there either. I have made very clear statements and given very clear evidence. That is one thing that worries me sometimes - you seem unable to either understand or acknowledge what others say - I'm not sure which one.

    Again, I invite any and all readers to go over our discussion -- it crosses this particular topic in several threads. Make your own decisions as to which of us has been rational and constantly presented facts and which one hasn't.

    The rest of what you write is essentially meaningless.

    Regards,

    Reyn
    http://www.rebuff.org
  • Jedmun Hermes 2012/03/23 05:13:18
    Jedmun
    again, the facts are exactly as I have stated them, There is absolutely NO proof anyone is Born Gay, None what so ever

    There is plenty of Proof ie;anotomically we are designed for sex with the Opposite sex only, and the rest is all madeup in the imagination

    There is also Plenty of Motive for your Denial about the facts as they present themselves, You are completely invested in the Gay Lifestyle, The last thing you want to know is your wrong, thus the constant longwinded diversions on your part
  • Hermes Jedmun 2012/03/23 11:52:28
    Hermes
    There are no facts you've stated yet -- you've stated a lot of opinions.

    Again, I invite any and all readers to go over our discussion -- it crosses this particular topic in several threads. Make your own decisions as to which of us has been rational and constantly presented facts and which one hasn't.

    Regards,

    Reyn
    http://www.rebuff.org
  • Jedmun Hermes 2012/03/23 13:14:59
    Jedmun
    Fact: No Proof you are Born Gay, None, notta, zip!

    Fact: You are anatomically Heterosexual, go ahead have a look see, there it is

    Fact: The only place you can actually be Gay is in your Imagination and your Imagination only
  • Hermes Jedmun 2012/03/23 14:18:54
    Hermes
    Fact: Proof however that it is NOT A CHOICE.

    Fact: What you mean is the pieces fit in your opinion.

    Fact: Huh? That doesn't even make sense.

    Please define what you think gay means.

    BTW - I notice you haven't responded to my substantive post re: "brainwashing."

    Regards,

    Reyn
  • Jedmun Hermes 2012/03/23 18:17:36 (edited)
    Jedmun
    Fact: In the complete absence of any Physical Proof you are Born Gay, the only place left to discover it is in the imagination, and thats exactly where it is, Imagination acted apon, nothing more

    Fact: In the complete absence of an evidence or proof you born Gay, and in the presence of 100% proof your are anatomically Heterosexual, your designed to have sex with the opposite Sex NOT the same sex, leaves the Fact you are heterosexual by birth, by genetics, biological, and in every other tested theory that has in fact FAILED to prove otherwise in this overwhelming Reality, Only the Human mind can override these facts and conduct themselves otherwise, comparing yourself to the very Bi-Sexual 'NOT GAY' behavior sometimes observed in the Animal Kingdom only supports Bi-Sexual and proven temporary conditions

    Gay by definition is one Punked into believing a Hoax they are born Gay and Stuck Gay therefore surrendering all free will and free choice over to said hoax.

    sorta kidding on that last bit, The Handlers of this hoax has it all scripted out for you I am sure, so I'll hear your definition
  • Hermes Jedmun 2012/03/23 20:24:09
    Hermes
    What do you THINK HOMOSEXUALITY IS???? -- statements like "in the imagination" and "overwhelming Reality" mean literally nothing. "Punked" - I presumed that it meant brainwashed, you seemed to indicate that yourself, and certainly did not deny it -- but now I'm not certain that it meant anything at all. "In the imagination" is a meaningless statement -- afterall ALL sexuality is COMPLETELY in the mind. Further, there is a legitimate argument that nothing exists outside the mind, period. Everything you experience is filtered from outer senses to the mind - and is perceived in the mind.

    Regardless of your arguments on born - which are formulated by denying the basic idea of scientific consensus -- denying that it is not a choice does run directly into something considered a fact by all relevant professional societies. It isn't just a consensus -- no serious psychologist denies the natural development of homosexuality, or the lack of choice for homosexuals (as opposed to bisexuals). On the other hand, I'm not certain that you are denying it. You have left the world of reasonable discourse to use bizarre word combinations that don't mean anything in the terms of this discussion. You have refused to answer dozens of direct questions through the course of our exchange, eith...


















    What do you THINK HOMOSEXUALITY IS???? -- statements like "in the imagination" and "overwhelming Reality" mean literally nothing. "Punked" - I presumed that it meant brainwashed, you seemed to indicate that yourself, and certainly did not deny it -- but now I'm not certain that it meant anything at all. "In the imagination" is a meaningless statement -- afterall ALL sexuality is COMPLETELY in the mind. Further, there is a legitimate argument that nothing exists outside the mind, period. Everything you experience is filtered from outer senses to the mind - and is perceived in the mind.

    Regardless of your arguments on born - which are formulated by denying the basic idea of scientific consensus -- denying that it is not a choice does run directly into something considered a fact by all relevant professional societies. It isn't just a consensus -- no serious psychologist denies the natural development of homosexuality, or the lack of choice for homosexuals (as opposed to bisexuals). On the other hand, I'm not certain that you are denying it. You have left the world of reasonable discourse to use bizarre word combinations that don't mean anything in the terms of this discussion. You have refused to answer dozens of direct questions through the course of our exchange, either completely or primarily, and have repeatedly simply asserted that you are right, knowledgeable etc. and claimed that I was the one being unreasonable. When pushed to give answers, you either ignore the repeated questions, or you give partial answers that lead to dead-ends.

    You may or may not realize it, but I have been 100% honest throughout this discussion. I will continue to be. But to hold a real discussion, you must be equally honest - otherwise you are just trying to hold some type of controlled dialogue - possibly to feed ego, possibly for other reasons -- but you are not holding a discussion.

    Let me recap very briefly three of the very basic questions. Please answer them fully -- not with trite phrases or assertions of unseen and unknowable knowledge, not with bizarre word combinations that may mean a lot to you but don't to anyone else and not with partial answers that lead to dead-ends -- with the truth. If you can't do that, and feel no choice but to repeat your assertions yet again, or refuse to answer - then ask yourself if you really want to have a discussion with anyone, or if you talk to hear your self talk and to see if you can't drive people to abandon talking to you so you can pretend you've won debates that others might see differently.

    Questions:

    1. What do you define homosexual as? If you have a different meaning for gay than you do for homosexual, what do you define gay as? A real definition, not some repetition of your various made-up attack phrases

    2. What do you believe causes people to become homosexual? - for the depth of that question go to my response to your last post in the long complex discussion of selective abortion of gay babies. You had offered to explain, but then when I was clear that I wanted to know, but had no interest in the ex-gay idea, just wanted to know how you thought I was brainwashed, you tellingly did not respond. What do you believe brainwashed me? How? Why? Where? I've given my background, the questions should be easy to answer. Or is it, indeed, a recombination of the psycho-therapeutic babble of past days? Again, no gobble-de-gook. Plain speaking, clear language defining the process by which you think we are brainwashed. No made up phrases like "punked" - just the facts as you see them.

    3. Are you or are you not a member or an active participant in ANY fundamentalist or evangelical group - either protestant or catholic - or of any different faith group? If you are, does your religion dictate similar views on homosexuality to your own? Again, no bandy words please -- just the truth. You have gone out of your way to claim that you were just interested in facts, and that your beliefs were not mandated by a religion - but you have never said whether or not you were in one that might agree with your apparent views.

    Let's see if you are actually holding a discussion - or if this is an elaborate dialog that is not actually a discussion at all.

    Regards,

    Reyn
    http://www.rebuff.org
    (more)
  • Jedmun Hermes 2012/03/24 01:21:05 (edited)
    Jedmun
    dude,,,your just filabustering,

    I have no Motive outside of the facts and where they lead me, nothing more and nothing less

    a pack of Liberals with an agenda don't impress me with anything more then what facts they present, and I have vetted it all out, once all the Propaganda and misdirected and missleading 'addons' were removed , all those studies revealed exactly what I have been saying. They don't prove a thing except you are not Born Gay

    You are the only one with an actuall motive, and your desperate attempts to label me underline that point well

    As soon as all the muck and mire is removed and we stare only the facts as they are without the propaganda you desperately start shoveling the dirt back over it all busier then cat in a cat box

    You have simply failed to prove your point, but in another act of desperation you simply go into denial

    sad really, I feel sorry for you
  • Hermes Jedmun 2012/03/24 02:53:25
    Hermes
    No actually, I am not filibustering (do you really know what THAT word means either? I doubt it, it has a very specific meaning), and you are quietly and steadily losing any semblance of being able to claim to anyone, even on your own side that you had or wanted a discussion.

    I congratulate you -- you actually had me fooled.

    You answered yet again none of the questions I asked. That's because you can't. You also have not answered questions in the past for the same reason. If the question is outside of your scripted "reality" - you either don't answer or you try an answer that is premade and attempt to force the question to fit it. That is why some of what we have discussed has seemed so bizarre - I just didn't realize it. I thought I hadn't been clear enough, so I would try to be clearer. The reality is, I was clear enough. You couldn't depart from preset beliefs enough to even consider other possibilities. You have to pound every square peg into a round hole you drill while claiming that they are just too stupid to know they belong there to start with. You tell people to just show you facts -- but you don't mean it. You wouldn't change your view no matter what fact was presented. Would the brain scan of 10,000 people, performed directly in front of you -- showing ...














    No actually, I am not filibustering (do you really know what THAT word means either? I doubt it, it has a very specific meaning), and you are quietly and steadily losing any semblance of being able to claim to anyone, even on your own side that you had or wanted a discussion.

    I congratulate you -- you actually had me fooled.

    You answered yet again none of the questions I asked. That's because you can't. You also have not answered questions in the past for the same reason. If the question is outside of your scripted "reality" - you either don't answer or you try an answer that is premade and attempt to force the question to fit it. That is why some of what we have discussed has seemed so bizarre - I just didn't realize it. I thought I hadn't been clear enough, so I would try to be clearer. The reality is, I was clear enough. You couldn't depart from preset beliefs enough to even consider other possibilities. You have to pound every square peg into a round hole you drill while claiming that they are just too stupid to know they belong there to start with. You tell people to just show you facts -- but you don't mean it. You wouldn't change your view no matter what fact was presented. Would the brain scan of 10,000 people, performed directly in front of you -- showing incontrovertible difference between gay and straight brains from birth to death change your mind? You'll say that it will never happen, but the reality is that the answer is simpler, its no.

    i don't like to speak for others, but the time is now for me to acknowledge, this is is some elaborate dialog that has nothing to do with discussion, or a difference of opinion or anything else that viewers (and I) thought was going on. I can't tell from here if it is megalomania or extreme religion, or strong scripting, or some other issue -- but it isn't discussion - and you don't intend it to be. You "know" you are right. You "know" that what you think is the "only way" it could be. That of course is irrational when it flies in the face of the reality that others experience and the research (like it or not) of nearly all scientists in the field.. Does this feed ego-need? what is the actual payoff you get from having people who know themselves tell you that you are wrong and thinking you are defeating them by asserting that you have special knowledge? It has to be some sort of mental payoff.

    Is it religious? I still don't know because you didn't answer the question and you know I won't be fobbed off by a misleading answer again. I suspect it is - but that might be incidental or even non-existent. If it isn't religious its rooted in a mental subset of beliefs as powerful as religion.

    And don't kid yourself, you have a motive. It most likely is the feeding of ego-need -- but even if its something else, it exists. I am actually the one without a motive. I've won the battle here as far as the audience is concerned, weeks ago. I remain out of interest, it only takes me a few minutes to hammer out a reply, and I thought that an interesting conversation might be possible. It isn't. I have no desire to be straight, I wasn't kidding nor was I being melodramatic that I'd blow my own head off before I'd become straight. I'm happy the way I am, and content. I think all people should be -- but I'm one of the lucky ones that already is. You can scream and say I'm not -- and assert some more special knowledge -- but that knowledge is a lie. I have no motive at all - and you know it in your heart..

    So, you want a discussion, or not? There are three questions outstanding, you can answer them, or you can frantically declare bull again and claim whatever the f*ck you want to.

    Anybody out there still think he has anything to offer in fact?

    Regards,

    Reyn
    http://www.rebuff.org
    (more)
  • Jedmun Hermes 2012/03/24 03:41:43 (edited)
    Jedmun
    This superiority act of yours is very indictitive of a type of Narcissism you realize? You are completely disconnected, but then again the identity crisis your are fighting off is HUGE, and it kinda forces you to respond in a very vacant manner, your eyes glaze over and your ears start to hum as you shut out the Truth you cannot refute

    Look at you twisting and writhing to find something, just anything you can blame what has got to be a nightmare in your very unrealistic EchoChamber,,,you have surrounded yourself with sheeple that would not dare question the hoax you call a lifestyle

    very sad,,,for you
  • Hermes Jedmun 2012/03/24 23:44:20 (edited)
    Hermes
    And so, as I said at the close of the last post " or you can frantically declare bull again and claim whatever the f*ck you want to." -- and now, that is what you have done. You have no interest in conversation or discussion -- and now, in the end game you tacitly admit that by your actions and your posts.

    Don't bother attempting to diagnose me lad, you don't know psychology any more than you know any of what you try to claim you know. It took me months to figure that out -- it took the last volleys and the inability to answer direct questions - but you are convincing no one that you are rational anymore - not in this conversation.

    And you know, I'm not going to apologize for being educated, your problem with people being actually educated was evident once before -- and I tried to soothe it -- not again. I worked very hard and paid with time and treasure for many years for my education. It took a significant part of my life, and it was a sacrifice in many ways. I'm not ashamed of it. I'm not ashamed to understand the scientific method. I'm not ashamed to know how to do research that isn't targeted. I'm not ashamed to know what peer review actually is. I'm not ashamed to have an earned terminal degree. I'm not ashamed that hard work and persistence paid off for me. I ...























    And so, as I said at the close of the last post " or you can frantically declare bull again and claim whatever the f*ck you want to." -- and now, that is what you have done. You have no interest in conversation or discussion -- and now, in the end game you tacitly admit that by your actions and your posts.

    Don't bother attempting to diagnose me lad, you don't know psychology any more than you know any of what you try to claim you know. It took me months to figure that out -- it took the last volleys and the inability to answer direct questions - but you are convincing no one that you are rational anymore - not in this conversation.

    And you know, I'm not going to apologize for being educated, your problem with people being actually educated was evident once before -- and I tried to soothe it -- not again. I worked very hard and paid with time and treasure for many years for my education. It took a significant part of my life, and it was a sacrifice in many ways. I'm not ashamed of it. I'm not ashamed to understand the scientific method. I'm not ashamed to know how to do research that isn't targeted. I'm not ashamed to know what peer review actually is. I'm not ashamed to have an earned terminal degree. I'm not ashamed that hard work and persistence paid off for me. I actually think that's the way its supposed to work in America and I'm not going to be ashamed because it makes you look bad. If you want to interpret education as being whatever psychological disorder you wish it to be - then go for it. No one cares.

    No one buys any of your air-based rhetoric. You can't answer three simple questions. You just can't. Anymore than you ever have answered anything that makes you uncomfortable in our exchange. You can't even define what you actually mean when you use the word homosexual to describe someone -- you can't even figure out whether or not you are religious -- and yet you think that you are out-thinking anyone?

    Today I printed out large scale posters, and we went, all of us, to the local edition of the Million Hoodie March for Justice for Trayvon Martin. The march was 2 hours long. Put together in the last 24 hours, it was certainly more than a thousand and less than two thousands. Some of the older folk had to call it quits along the way. The march was lovely. All races were represented, and all sexualities. There were many teenagers and many children and many grandparents. It was a beautiful response to a terrible murder in which the known killer isn't even being charged. I carried our three year old on my shoulders most of the march, but we switched off from time to time, so sometimes she rode Papa and sometimes she rode Daddie. She wore her little grey hoodie, and she carried "Monkey" - her favorite stuffed animal -- in his tinier hoodie.

    We can't bring that poor harmless little teenage boy, murdered in the rain, alone, terrified, screaming for help, back -- but trying to bring his killer to justice, that means something. It matters, beyond the self.

    What you are doing, hammering out pat answers and waiting for people to give up? That doesn't.

    But, I won't disappear. I'll be busy with work for the coming days -- but in a week give or take, I'll be back for your comments.

    Regards,

    Reyn




    http://www.facebook.com/Justi...


    Justice for Trayvon Martin! Remember him!

    http://images.sodahead.com/pr...
    (more)
  • Jedmun Hermes 2012/03/27 00:20:22 (edited)
    Jedmun
    Just your usual Narcissistic rant,,typical of a Narcissist to in denial of reality and then insert himself into the limelight in a very high profile tradigy,,,,,,,how many Posters have you made for the countless other victims of who didn't give you the opportunity to parade yourself???hmmmmm?

    None, Zero, thats how many

    I feel sorry for you, there is little or no help for Narcissists
  • Hermes Jedmun 2012/04/01 04:53:33
    Hermes
    Buddy, you've lost. You can feel as sorry for me as you want, you can call me all the names you want -- whatever -- that doesn't make anything you say real and everyone knows it.

    Regards,

    Reyn
  • Jedmun Hermes 2012/04/05 23:55:40
    Jedmun
    ~laughs~ Thank You for that Oh So Perfect and for the Umpteenth time you have shown complete and utter Narcissistic Disonnection hahahahahahahaha!
  • Cierra Jedmun 2012/04/12 05:34:56
    Cierra
    +2
    And who's to say that gay marriage is a "special right"? Who said this? Because last I checked that is just an opinion that someone has twisted into something that people believe is fact, but in all actuality, it is JUST an opinion. Nothing more. The public is brought up to think that heterosexual marriage is the only ture way to be happy, to be in love, the live "happily ever after" but what if the opposing sex doesn't attract you? what if you can't find love in a heterosexual relationship? what if you fall in love with someone of the same sex? You can't change who you love. I do know that. And who would want to? Love is rare! You should embrace gays, lesbians, and bi-sexuals. They deserve the right to love, just as you are given that right. It shouldn't be restricted to straight people's guidelines. Because if you want to start the whole Christian rant then talk to a Christian.. I've been one my whole life. I believe God is forgiving, that He loves us no matter our sexual orientation, the color of our skin. If you truly believed in Him and we one of his followers then you would also know that God sent His one and only son Jesus Christ to die for our sins. We are re-born and cleansed with His sacrifice. Seriously, get a clue before going on a rant and bashing the LGBT community. You're only making a fool out of yourself.
  • Jedmun Cierra 2012/04/13 14:06:09
    Jedmun
    ~laughs~ Well lets just have a little look at your completely stupid responce shall we???

    1)And who's to say that gay marriage is a "special right"? Who said this? Because last I checked that is just an opinion that someone has twisted into something that people believe is fact, but in all actuality, it is JUST an opinion. Nothing more.~

    ~LMAO!~ checked??" Based on your entire responce, You have never checked a single bit of any details on this subject! None What So Ever!
    Where did ya check? hmmmm? Here is a little History for ya, Marriage was Created by Man and Woman For Man and Woman! Gays have never had a single thing to do with it, NOTHING!

    I just skipped over all the rest of your rediculas rant, becuase it does not pertain to a single thing I have ever said, I use science and fact to form my opinions, it just so happens the Bible and God have come to the same conclusion as I have

    In the complete absence of any proof whatsoever you are born Gay, the only place left for it to reside is the Imagination, and therefore it is not valid
  • ComeOnNow 2012/02/22 01:21:05
    ComeOnNow
    +8
    Everyone should have equal rights. Men should be able to have equal access to children and property in a divorce. Married people should be able to file single and not have their deductions cut in half. Two people applying for the same job or same university should have an equal chance based on their accomplishments regardless of skin color. People should be taxed the same rate regardless of how much or how little they make. We should all be treated 100% equally by the government.
  • bjamnjm 2012/02/21 23:17:20
    bjamnjm
    Equal rights... equal to whom?
  • MBSVirginia BN-2 2012/02/21 23:13:29
    MBSVirginia BN-2
    +3
    We should all have equal rights regardless of our color, sex, sexual orientation, or religion.
  • FairLady 2012/02/21 22:00:49
    FairLady
    +5
    Well, they already have equal rights. In some states they are given too much freedom.
    I personaly am against gay marriage.
  • Jerry FairLady 2012/02/22 04:05:23
    Jerry
    +3
    Hot damn lol, you're correct
  • Muonna 2012/02/21 20:25:05
    Muonna
    +3
    Yes, no one should be denied equal rights!
  • earl Muonna 2012/02/21 21:30:12
  • Muonna earl 2012/02/21 23:54:16
    Muonna
    +2
    So women had to 'Prove' themselves to be granted the same work rights as men?
    Just as Blacks had to 'Prove' themselves to be allowed the same basic rights as other human beings?

    I can't agree with you that rights are earned not granted.

    There are certain inalienable rights that should be given to any human that walks this earth, no matter gender, race, or sexual orientation they may be.
  • earl Muonna 2012/02/22 17:28:08
    earl
    I couldnt agree with you more, My point is that they are not trying to get the rights they desirve, they are trying to change the rules an the back of there adversity.
    Noone would have a problem with this if they tried to explain it rather then stuffing it down peoples throats.
  • IslamSucks 2012/02/21 18:48:35
    IslamSucks
    +3
    Marriage is a legal contract between a couple and the state in which it was executed. It afforded rights and protections to the couple, including but not limited to, the right to visit in a hospital and inherit property and end-of-life decisions.

    Heterosexual couples have to weigh many facts when deciding to marry including the former marriage tax penalty. A lot of couples are past childbearing age and are not religious as myself, so the only concern is the legal consequences between the state and myself/couple.

    Proposition 8 (California), which bans same-sex marriage is about control and power. It is about hatemongers who pick a paragraph out of the Bible and use it to gain control while ignoring paragraphs inconvenient to their goal.

    If couples want a religious wedding ceremony with all its beliefs and implications, marry in such manner (or church) that gives you that feeling. But do not condemn gays for wanting the same basic human right. It is simply a legal contract.

    With so many marriages ending in divorce between heterosexual couples, we cannot say we are doing all that good of a job upholding our marriage commitments.

    What would Jesus do? He would side with Love.

    Brittany Spears had 55 hours marriage.

    Kelsey Grammer ended his 15 years marriage over phone.

    Jess...





    Marriage is a legal contract between a couple and the state in which it was executed. It afforded rights and protections to the couple, including but not limited to, the right to visit in a hospital and inherit property and end-of-life decisions.

    Heterosexual couples have to weigh many facts when deciding to marry including the former marriage tax penalty. A lot of couples are past childbearing age and are not religious as myself, so the only concern is the legal consequences between the state and myself/couple.

    Proposition 8 (California), which bans same-sex marriage is about control and power. It is about hatemongers who pick a paragraph out of the Bible and use it to gain control while ignoring paragraphs inconvenient to their goal.

    If couples want a religious wedding ceremony with all its beliefs and implications, marry in such manner (or church) that gives you that feeling. But do not condemn gays for wanting the same basic human right. It is simply a legal contract.

    With so many marriages ending in divorce between heterosexual couples, we cannot say we are doing all that good of a job upholding our marriage commitments.

    What would Jesus do? He would side with Love.

    Brittany Spears had 55 hours marriage.

    Kelsey Grammer ended his 15 years marriage over phone.

    Jesse James and Tiger Woods (whilst married) were having sex with EVERYONE.

    Larry King is on his divorce number 9.

    Charlie Sheen can make a "Porn Family".

    REALLY?
    (more)
  • abby IslamSucks 2012/02/22 05:00:58 (edited)
    abby
    thats your only reasoning to describe people who love god as haters,hatemongers and homophobes. please its getting old and lame. more and more people basically( non-religious) such as yourself would like to keep on with their sin by justifying it. one way is to take away religion totally and hence make it illegal. so that the abomination on this earth may continue to pollute the minds and indoctrinate people away from the goodness of god.

    my dear the ten commandments are more than a paragraph, the bible speaks very clearly about sin since adam and eve and abel and cain,the bible more commonly known as the history of man kind. people have been justifying theirs sins from the beginning but that still does'nt make it right. i think you are the hatemonger,the angry one that is saying we are the evil because we love god? come on now, oh! bye the way, marriage is a commitment and a bond between a man and woman and if two people decide to disrespect their vows to each other and defile and redefine marriage than any one thinking about marriage should do their homework and know the meaning of the word first before saying i do.

    god gives us his permission to wed ( man and woman) to birth children the traditional way and not through test tubes etc.please to all who hate reconsider and relieve all the stress on your hearts and frowns on your faces so that you may live longer and accept others who don't agree with your perception of life.
  • abby 2012/02/21 17:35:54
    abby
    +1
    yes, it is written.

    1 Corinthians 6:9-10 ESV / 6 helpful votes
    Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.


    and everyone of us has something to lose, our god given right to salvation. lead us NOT into temptation but deliver us from evil.
  • IslamSucks abby 2012/02/22 14:01:01
    IslamSucks
    +1
    Thou shall not judge. M'Kay?
  • Hermes abby 2012/02/28 19:39:40
    Hermes
    +1
    Lots ot things are written in the Bible -- its a bronze age book - however sacred it and its offshoots may be to the Abrahamic faith traditions. It is far from the "Word of God" - as are all of its offshoots -- its just a book that tracks some of the development of certain faith traditions.

    Regards,

    Reyn
    http://www.rebuff.org
  • Motherf$cker 2012/02/21 17:06:33
    Motherf$cker
    +1
    YES!All though they're different,it doesn't mean they can't do what non-gay people do.BTW,Im not gay.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/11/23 13:28:57

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals