• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure[W:208]

Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

It's my right as American citizen to disagree and stand against your perverted "morality"

First Amendment >

And it's my right as American citizen to disagree and stand against your perverted "morality"

First Amendment >
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

1.)Your defending rules and laws which violate a persons FUNDEMENTAL rights to freedom of association and further, supporting and encouraging forced servitude. The laws force people to make a choice between pursuing happiness in their chosen work as business people in profession of their choice, and preserving their inalienable right to associate with whomever they choose. The difference between private practice and public accommodation is so small as to be negligible simply a membership card or paper paid or not. For example Costco could be said to be a private practice because you must have a membership to shop there. This means they could theoretically discriminate against ANYONE, and do so legally. Walmart on the other hand is legally prohibited from discrimination because they DONT have a membership requirement. Back to my Taco stand example. If I don't have a membership I can be sued. If I do have a membership requirement I am home free. I trust you begin to see the inanity in the law I do. Its so obvious even Ray Charles could see it, and he's dead. So why have these laws in the first place? All they are is gotcha paperwork violations. Require a membership and poof no more law problems. That's just insane.

nope nobody forced you to go into those businesses or break the law that would be your choice
i like my government protecting my rights and the rights of my fellow americans

its cool you want to empower bigots and discrimination. you have the right to feel that way but luckily laws protect me and my fellow americans

yeah rapists are forced to go to jail because they arent allowed to persue sex with who they want then forced to associate with criminals too
 
Last edited:
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

Dude your entire spcheal is about degenerating and treating gay people as second class citizens.

That pretty much sums it all up
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

Dude your entire spcheal is about degenerating and treating gay people as second class citizens.

So you're only retort is to lie and call me a bigot

Like I said. You can't debate the issue.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

nope nobody forced you to go into those businesses or break the law that would be your choice
i like my government protecting my rights and the rights of my fellow americans

its cool you want to empower bigots and discrimination. you have the right to feel that way but luckily laws protect me and my fellow americans

yeah rapists are forced to go to jail because they arent allowed to persue sex with who they want then forced to associate with criminals too

If I tell a white guy he is not welcome at my taco stand just because I feel like being a jerk, what rights of the white guy have I violated? Same taco stand black comes up I know to be a douche bag and trouble maker, I tell him he is not welcome, did I violate his rights? If so which?

How exactly is the government protecting your rights, if all I have to do is require a membership? You do realize most business that are considered public accommodation have memberships of one sort or another?

By the way I cant resist hoisting you on your own petard. You made up, I want to empower bigots and discrimination.

Last I checked rape is involuntary and forcible intercourse and DIRECT physical violations against the protestations of an intended victim in most cases. How pray tell, is rape and freedom of association, or discrimination for that matter, remotely the same?
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

So you're only retort is to lie and call me a bigot

Like I said. You can't debate the issue.
It's fine by me if you run a business and purposefully discriminate against gays. (it seems from your previous posts that you're upset by businesses being told they can't discriminate like the photographer. Forgive me if you don't support discrimination.) Just don't expect your business to last all that long.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

It's fine by me if you run a business and purposefully discriminate against gays. (it seems from your previous posts that you're upset by businesses being told they can't discriminate like the photographer. Forgive me if you don't support discrimination.) Just don't expect your business to last all that long.

There are people in this thread who have called for children to be taken away from families who teach their children that homosexual sex/sodomy is deviant behavior

People should have the right to morally object against homosexual sex/sodomy/deviant behavior free from targeting and harassment. It's not enough for gays that they can go someplace else. The people who own these businesses are being targeted by activists. They've even received death threats from the "tolerant" homosexual community.

You don't think gays hate Christians? Think again
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

There are people in this thread who have called for children to be taken away from families who teach their children that homosexual sex/sodomy is deviant behavior

People should have the right to morally object against homosexual sex/sodomy/deviant behavior free from targeting and harassment. It's not enough for gays that they can go someplace else. The people who own these businesses are being targeted by activists. They've even received death threats from the "tolerant" homosexual community.

You don't think gays hate Christians? Think again
Sounds like poetic justice except children being taken from their parents. Ironically, disproving parents have disowned their own children because they're deviants. By objecting to deviant behavior, as you call it, you're the activist. You're harassing gay people. That's why, in return, they harass you. You think Dan savage hasn't received death threats for having the opinions he has? Gay people have been killed and beaten simply because of who they are. Gays don't hate most Christians as most Christians don't hate gays. Some Christians do hate the LGBT community, and rightly so LGBT's dislike them. In some cases, Christians are the loudest in voicing their support for equality. It's so funny that you're complaining about being marginalized.
 
Last edited:
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

There are people in this thread who have called for children to be taken away from families who teach their children that homosexual sex/sodomy is deviant behavior

Quote them, please

People should have the right to morally object against homosexual sex/sodomy/deviant behavior free from targeting and harassment. It's not enough for gays that they can go someplace else. The people who own these businesses are being targeted by activists. They've even received death threats from the "tolerant" homosexual community.

Cry me a river

You don't think gays hate Christians? Think again


No I don't as a matter of fact I know many gay Christians that accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and savior. And they are still gay in love
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

Sounds like poetic justice except children being taken from their parents. Ironically, disproving parents have disowned their own children because they're deviants. By objecting to deviant behavior, as you call it, you're the activist. You're harassing gay people. That's why, in return, they harass you. You think Dan savage hasn't received death threats for having the opinions he has? Gay people have been killed and beaten simply because of who they are. Gays don't hate most Christians as most Christians don't hate gays. Some Christians do hate the LGBT community, and rightly so LGBT's dislike them. In some cases, Christians are the loudest in voicing their support for equality. It's so funny that you're complaining about being marginalized.

How am I harassing someone by not agreeing with sodomy/homosexual sex

This thread is quickly becoming boring. It's degenerating into the usual "you hate gays", "you're a bigot", "you're harassing people" because you find sodomy/homosexual sex filthy and disgusting. It makes humans little more than irrational animals IMO. Now Hollywood and the MSM don't portray it that way. In your public indoctrination systems, you're taught to think differently. I get that.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

How am I harassing someone by not agreeing with sodomy/homosexual sex

This thread is quickly becoming boring. It's degenerating into the usual "you hate gays", "you're a bigot", "you're harassing people" because you find sodomy/homosexual sex filthy and disgusting. It makes humans little more than irrational animals IMO. Now Hollywood and the MSM don't portray it that way. In your public indoctrination systems, you're taught to think differently. I get that.

Public indoctrination systems = PIS. lol You're harassing gay people when you're saying they shouldn't have equal rights. You fail to see that because you don't empathize with people you don't like. A few years ago, you could say I was thinking differently, but now you're thinking differently as a majority of Americans support equality under the law for the LGBT community. Thinking people who disagree with you are indoctrinated makes you feel better. I get that.
 
Last edited:
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

1.)If I tell a white guy he is not welcome at my taco stand just because I feel like being a jerk, what rights of the white guy have I violated? Same taco stand black comes up I know to be a douche bag and trouble maker, I tell him he is not welcome, did I violate his rights? If so which?

2.) How exactly is the government protecting your rights, if all I have to do is require a membership? You do realize most business that are considered public accommodation have memberships of one sort or another?

By the way I cant resist hoisting you on your own petard. You made up, I want to empower bigots and discrimination.

Last I checked rape is involuntary and forcible intercourse and DIRECT physical violations against the protestations of an intended victim in most cases. How pray tell, is rape and freedom of association, or discrimination for that matter, remotely the same?

1.) there you go making stuff up again? can you qoute me where i said that? nope you cant because i never did. Please stay on topic.

2.) you just answered your own question, they do protect my rights if it not privite

3.) no i didnt make it up that is what you want to empower, notice i didnt say you support it, i said you want to empower it and thats a fact.

4.) last i check going into business is an voluntary act by the business owner and if you break the law and rules you are in DIRECT violations of the rights of your customer

see how easy, read it agains slowly with withoug biased and with honesty and youll get it
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

FFDFight.jpg

Best pic of the week.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

Your defending rules and laws which violate a persons FUNDEMENTAL rights to freedom of association

Public accommodations are not persons and have no right to refuse service to people on the basis of race, gender, etc
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

CC –
Apparently, Tim, you don't pay attention to modern research. This does not surprise me, especially when that modern research negatively affects your position. This is known as "confirmation bias" a logical fallacy of which you often suffer.

Here you go, Tim:

Identical Twins' DNA Varies | LiveScience

You are debunked. How many times does this now make it that I have done so with you? 100?

Ah again you are way too far ahead of yourself, and you talk to me about confirmation bias.. The study on twins is precisely why you should not be so quick to make false statements. The differences are so tiny and localized that in studying twins one gay the other not gay researchers should have found that mythical gay gene easily by now. But alas, not to be seen anywhere. It is certainly promising research, research by the way that I was well aware of before you brought it up, but gene expression is a relatively new science and understanding the mechanics is not well understood. That said, I truly believe that there are genes that set up the sexual mechanism in both men and women, but I fear that going beyond the hardware, science is lost as to how to explain it. You MUST agree with this, or you’re dishonest, or you’re simply not well informed.

Actually, quite easy. You shouldn't have stuck your nose in here. You just got on the standard "CC humiliates his opponents" train.

I see why you and AGENTJ are such good buddies. You’re practically identical twins yourselves. I wonder where the narcissist genes are in you two and how they expressed themselves over time. Would make for an interesting research path.. Ah, but that would be neuropsychology not the soft kind you seem to adhere to. ;)

See, Tim, this just shows that you don't even understand the study at all. I have thoroughly debunked you each and every time we have discussed this issue. Easy, too. Between demonstrating both the rationale and the validity of Hooker's study and quoting people who were at the 1973 meeting where the science of sexual orientation was presented, you have always proven to have nothing to refute me.

Always good to see you on the train.

Umm, but I linked to a PBS documentary series that shows that you are indeed wrong, -or- giving you the benefit of doubt, at the very least providing your opinion of how the events unfolded. Clearly listening to that PBS interview series one could conclude that Hookers self-selected study of 25 or so homosexuals that were perfectly fine with their homosexuality wasn’t science, it was an agenda with the goal of reaching a desired outcome. The research up until that point was clearly about homosexuals that did not feel all hunky dory with their homophobia, or why else would they seek psychological assistance? I know, I know, I used homophobia in the correct context and historically correct definition, not the rhetorical one re-defined by the gay movement.

And for anyone truly interested in knowing how and why homosexuality was removed as a disorder, you can read my treatment of the issue, supplied with links and references. If I were you, I would ignore the fiction that is in the link that Tim provided. Most of the participants are people who's integrity on this issue have been thoroughly debunked. I mean really, Tim... Bieber? His study was completely debunked and is worthless. Socarides? Virtulant anti-gay bigot. Sure... no bias there. I always enjoy your links, Tim. They should be placed in the fantasy section of the internet.

Here are links to my treatment of the declassifying of homosexuality. It is filled with history and describes what actually happened from the people there:

Baloney.. The PBS documentary was conducted by the granddaughter of the then closet gay president of the APA.. It doesn’t get any more unbiased than that. And as far as Bieber is concerned, he is only debunked by the very organization that he was once the renowned expert on homosexuality. He continues to this day to believe that homosexuals suffering from homophobia do need help. A position that I also share, even if at the time homosexuals come seeking that help, their brains have already wired their sexuality in, and undoing it would be extremely difficult. If you think my link was hogwash then why don’t you point out exactly what was inaccurate about it?

Suggestion, Bronson. NEVER use any of Tim's links to support your position. I regularly make a mockery of what he posts and of every link he provides. Unless you want me to do the same thing to you, avoid them at all costs.

Bronson doesn’t need me to tell him about who you are. That is well documented. A lot of puffery as usual, CC, but no actual substance, no debunking except in your mind, and those that know you well know what kind of mind that really is. ;)


Tim-
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

CC –

Ah again you are way too far ahead of yourself, and you talk to me about confirmation bias.. The study on twins is precisely why you should not be so quick to make false statements. The differences are so tiny and localized that in studying twins one gay the other not gay researchers should have found that mythical gay gene easily by now. But alas, not to be seen anywhere. It is certainly promising research, research by the way that I was well aware of before you brought it up, but gene expression is a relatively new science and understanding the mechanics is not well understood. That said, I truly believe that there are genes that set up the sexual mechanism in both men and women, but I fear that going beyond the hardware, science is lost as to how to explain it. You MUST agree with this, or you’re dishonest, or you’re simply not well informed.

No, the research showed that there are certainly differences between twins. Seems to be that these can be caused by environmental factors, genetic factors, or evolutionary factors. Fascinating stuff.

Oh, and we have debated on this issue for a LONG time. I would think that you know by now that I have never claimed that there is a gay gene. I have always stated that there is probably some sort of genetic or biological component that determines sexual orientation.

I see why you and AGENTJ are such good buddies. You’re practically identical twins yourselves. I wonder where the narcissist genes are in you two and how they expressed themselves over time. Would make for an interesting research path.. Ah, but that would be neuropsychology not the soft kind you seem to adhere to. ;)

My arrogance FAR outshines that of AgentJ. But the really cool thing about my arrogance is I can always back it up.

Umm, but I linked to a PBS documentary series that shows that you are indeed wrong, -or- giving you the benefit of doubt, at the very least providing your opinion of how the events unfolded. Clearly listening to that PBS interview series one could conclude that Hookers self-selected study of 25 or so homosexuals that were perfectly fine with their homosexuality wasn’t science, it was an agenda with the goal of reaching a desired outcome. The research up until that point was clearly about homosexuals that did not feel all hunky dory with their homophobia, or why else would they seek psychological assistance? I know, I know, I used homophobia in the correct context and historically correct definition, not the rhetorical one re-defined by the gay movement.

Firstly, please show when I have EVER used the term homophobia. It's a stupid term used incorrectly by pro-gays. I NEVER use it. Next, you still don't understand Hooker's study and how the choice of subjects not only didn't harm it's validity, but HELPED it. People were chosen specifically in order to assess what was to be studied. The outcome proved that there was no difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals. As for the PBS documentary, my links are far more informative, including information from many people who were at the conference.

Baloney.. The PBS documentary was conducted by the granddaughter of the then closet gay president of the APA.. It doesn’t get any more unbiased than that. And as far as Bieber is concerned, he is only debunked by the very organization that he was once the renowned expert on homosexuality. He continues to this day to believe that homosexuals suffering from homophobia do need help. A position that I also share, even if at the time homosexuals come seeking that help, their brains have already wired their sexuality in, and undoing it would be extremely difficult. If you think my link was hogwash then why don’t you point out exactly what was inaccurate about it?

As I said above, the documentary is second hand information. My links include FIRST hand information. That trumps you. And Bieber has been debunked. Not even sure why you bother bringing him up.

Bronson doesn’t need me to tell him about who you are. That is well documented. A lot of puffery as usual, CC, but no actual substance, no debunking except in your mind, and those that know you well know what kind of mind that really is. ;)


Tim-

I've spent quite a bit of the last 5 years debunking you, Tim. Nowadays, it's often re-debunking. It's rare for you to present anything that I haven't already proven incorrect a couple of times at least.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

Gotta find out if this is true, im guessing it is since this is dallas news

for some reason it seems this San Antoni Bill is causing great debate, for some reason some people are offended by equal rights and now even some politicitionas are joing they bigoted fight against it BUT according to this article:
Texas GOP candidates join fray against San Antonio gay rights measure | Dallasnews.com - News for Dallas, Texas - The Dallas Morning News
Virtually identical ordinances have passed in Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston, Austin and El Paso without notice from state officials.

weird, no big fake "hub-bub" over these other ones, have to look for more on this
 
Back
Top Bottom