So gay!!!

[Hopper]

I really don't need some San Francisco judge, or even some hotshot psychiatrist, to tell me what I've seen, firsthand, in my own life, eh? More than once (just for an example) I have seen adult women, who had never before expressed the least bit of interest in homosexual relationships, declare, after a series of disappointing relationships with males, that they were "through with men." They explain that they have decided to experiment with lesbian activity and thereafter confine themselves to such relationships. And that's just exactly what they go on ahead and do, at least for a spell, ya know?

Similarly, I have known adult men who had, all their prior life, spoken, acted, and walked normally, suddenly decide that they were gunna be "gay" and almost immediately start swishin around, wrists done gone completely limp, lispin at every opportunity, wearin flamboyant costumes, etc. Ya tryin to tell me there aint no "choice" about this? Heh.

 

[One Brow]

I think you have your universals and existensials confused. Your acting like the jugde stated "any individual" or "Credible evidence supports a finding that no individual". However, the credible evidence is that, for most individuals, such a change is impossible.

Of course that's what he means.

As I noted, you are confusing a universal with an existential. As long as it is impossible for any reasonably sized sub-group of gay men to change, the civil rights argument still holds. It is not necessary that it be impossible for every gay man to change. My guess is that's why the judge used an existential instead of a universal.

What does "most" have to do with the judge's factual finding? "Most" don't have the motivation to change that Spitzer said was there in the cases he studied. IMPOSSIBLE, you say? Very glib of you. I'm sure you can prove that, eh?

Most of the men they contacted experienced no change even after years of conversion therapy. For those men Spitzer contacted, some 700 or so IIRC, change proved impossible. I don't need to re-prove what Spitzer al;ready says happened.

Since when has "uncommon" meant IMPOSSIBLE, I wonder? Other than for you and the gay San Francisco judge, I mean?

Since it means it was not possible for the men that didn't achieve the change.

Nor is it the least bit surprising that the "rainbow" coalition COMPLETELY MISREPRESENTS this position as "a position statement opposing reparative therapy."

Since reparative therapy is often presented as 1) treating homosexuality as a mental disease which 2) should always be cured, the position you quoted does indeed oppose it.

Spitzer repeatedly acknowledged, even emphasized, that his study had been heavily criticized by virtually every homo alive. If you and Eric wanna start postin millions of such "criticisms," help yourselves, eh?

I don't recall posting a single third-party criticism of the study in this thread. Still, I guess it keeps things simpler if you assume everyone you disagree with is making the same arguments.

I really don't need some San Francisco judge, or even some hotshot psychiatrist, to tell me what I've seen, firsthand, in my own life, eh? More than once (just for an example) I have seen adult women, who had never before expressed the least bit of interest in homosexual relationships, declare, after a series of disappointing relationships with males, that they were "through with men." They explain that they have decided to experiment with lesbian activity and thereafter confine themselves to such relationships. And that's just exactly what they go on ahead and do, at least for a spell, ya know?

You sound like you never heard of a bisexual.

Similarly, I have known adult men who had, all their prior life, spoken, acted, and walked normally, suddenly decide that they were gunna be "gay" and almost immediately start swishin around, wrists done gone completely limp, lispin at every opportunity, wearin flamboyant costumes, etc. Ya tryin to tell me there aint no "choice" about this? Heh.

I've known plenty of gay men who I never saw behaving as you describe. For that matter, I am perfectly capable of walking around limp-wristed and swishy. It won't make me gay, though.

How about you, Hopper? You attracted to men? Could you be attracted to men, if you wanted? You got some gay in you? I don't. But that means I understand why a gay man could say he's not attracted to women at all, the same way I'm not attracted to men. You don't seem to understand that.

 

[Hopper]

People can choose their behavior, sure. I don't HAVE to try and hustle every Babe I see, I just choose to, that's all.

The whole point is ultimately irrelevant anyway. For that judge in San Francisco, or anyone else. Can a child molestor "choose" not to molest chillinz? Can a Jeff Dalhmer "choose" not to homosexually rape, kill, and cannibalize young boys? Can some Kintucky redneck "choose" to leave his sheeps be?

For those who believe there are no choices, no. For those, like the queer theorists, who believe that you can choose whatever you want, yes.

Whether or not one "chooses" to be a murderer really says nuthin about whether murder should be endorsed, affirmed, legalized, and approved of, does it?

 

[billyshelby]

I really don't need some San Francisco judge, or even some hotshot psychiatrist, to tell me what I've seen, firsthand, in my own life, eh? More than once (just for an example) I have seen adult women, who had never before expressed the least bit of interest in homosexual relationships, declare, after a series of disappointing relationships with males, that they were "through with men." They explain that they have decided to experiment with lesbian activity and thereafter confine themselves to such relationships. And that's just exactly what they go on ahead and do, at least for a spell, ya know?

Similarly, I have known adult men who had, all their prior life, spoken, acted, and walked normally, suddenly decide that they were gunna be "gay" and almost immediately start swishin around, wrists done gone completely limp, lispin at every opportunity, wearin flamboyant costumes, etc. Ya tryin to tell me there aint no "choice" about this? Heh.

All due respect, aint, it doesn't sound like you've had a lot of positive experiences with gays. It also sounds like you haven't had any as friends. As a consequence, I'm sure everything gay people do confirms your natural suspicion that there is something wrong with them. I don't have any advice for you except to say that you should keep an open mind that there are possibilities you won't admit as to the complexity of human beings. From the anecdotal files, I have gay friends, work in an industry that has a huge gay footprint, and they're all fine with their lives. Which is to say, confusion about sexual identity is the least of their concerns. Doesn't mean some aren't having problems with their sexual identity, only that the overwhelming majority are way past that--they're just regular people having the same problems only their problems are same sex, not with opposite sex.

 

[billyshelby]

People can choose their behavior, sure. I don't HAVE to try and hustle every Babe I see, I just choose to, that's all.

The whole point is ultimately irrelevant anyway. For that judge in San Francisco, or anyone else. Can a child molestor "choose" not to molest chillinz? Can a Jeff Dalhmer "choose" not to homosexually rape, kill, and cannibalize young boys? Can some Kintucky redneck "choose" to leave his sheeps be?

For those who believe there are no choices, no. For those, like the queer theorists, who believe that you can choose whatever you want, yes.

Whether or not one "chooses" to be a murderer really says nuthin about whether murder should be endorsed, affirmed, legalized, and approved of, does it?

Honestly, aint. Child molesters can choose not to molest children. And I have no idea why you're bringing Dahmer or sheep molesters into this unless you're trying to associate the gay community with those people. Or why murderers come into the picture. Except to indicate what your opinion of gays is. Your logic is to associate homosexuality with abhorrent criminal behavior when in reality there is no association except in your moral universe.

 

[Hopper]

I think almost everyone would acknowledge that the sexual "drive" is a very powerful "natural" force. Likewise, I think we all know that, in some cases, this drive can lead to what is considered to be perverted (i.e., twisted) behavior. The list of sexual perversions is almost endless, and some of them are so disgusting to the average person that they don't really even want to seriously think about them, let alone, discuss, observe, or teach their children about them. Homosexuality may or may not be such a perversion, that aint even the point.

How about people who get sexual gratification from eating crap, for example? By the load. Often and repeatedly? Is that a "mental illness?" Mebbe, mebbe not. I dunno, I don't pretend to be no shrink.

But I can tell you this: I don't want to even see it. I don't want the practice shown on TV, or luridly described in newspapers and magazines. And I don't want to teach my children that, since such perversions occur, they are perfectly normal and acceptable. Just me, mebbe, but, still....

 

[Hopper]

If I start advocating the legitimacy of coprophagia, I would expect a variety of responses. "Fools" like Beantown might try to argue that it is "unnatural," claim that it is evolutionarily suspect to think that ingesting foul waste serves a positive purpose, and object on that ground. They might even go so far as to say it should be prohibited. Others, consisting of more liberal types, might argue that such perverted practices are "harmless" and should not be illegal or punished. Even more licentious types might argue that it would be wrong to try to "discourage" such practices. But there are probably few who would argue that the practice should be fully legitimatized and promoted as "normal."

Why? Well, if for no other reason, just the reason that they personally find it disgusting, mebbe, eh? Of course, devoted practitioners would NOT find it disgusting, and would have no such objections. They would find it very attractive and desirable, and hence would have an entirely different "perspective," I spoze.

 

[moevillini]

https://mynw.com/resources/play.php?a=19842

 

[Hopper]

According the the Christian Science Monitor: "US District Judge Vaughn Walker, who invalidated Proposition 8, doubts the proponents of California's gay marriage ban have any standing to appeal his ruling...Walker said they needed the state government’s support, which they don’t have."

https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justi...riage-ruling-may-not-head-to-US-Supreme-Court

Seems like the judge himself sees a "cases and controversies" standing issue here, eh, Goat (you still around?)? If they don't have standing to appeal the case, how could they have had standing to "defend," it, I wonder?

“As it appears at least doubtful that proponents will be able to proceed with their appeal without a state defendant, it remains unclear whether the court of appeals will be able to reach the merits of proponents’ appeal,” Walker wrote in his ruling Thursday that lifted the stay on his earlier decision."

He's overreaching, I figure. By trying to make his ruling unappealable via claiming the state (who refused to defend) must join in, he's simply saying there was no "actual controversy" to begin with, aint he?

The very reason he is using to say that his ruling "can't" be appealed could be used by the appellate court to refuse to hear, and throw out, his ruling too, I figure.

 

[Hopper]

https://mynw.com/resources/play.php?a=19842

Mo, that little sound bite (or is it "byte?") ends with the observation that so far opposition to gay marriage "has not stood up in court."

1. In this case "so far" aint very far.

2. "Rulings against gay marriage" have apparently stood up in court in the past.

"Brown says Walker's personal bias will be evident to the Ninth Circuit when it considers the appeal of Protect Marriage. Particularly egregious, he says, is that Walker ignored the most obvious precedent, Baker v. Nelson, a Minnesota Supreme Court case dismissed by the US Supreme Court in 1972.

In that case, the high court dismissed the appeal of a same-sex couple who argued that by forbidding them to marry, the state's laws violated their constitutional rights to privacy, due process, and equal protection clauses. That dismissal is seen by some as a decision on the merits of the case because it came through mandatory appellate review, and thus an endorsement of marriage as between one man and one woman.

"The district court did not confront the Supreme Court’s holding in Baker, binding authority from this Court, or any of the well established lines of authority opposed to its conclusions. It did not distinguish them. It did not explain why it believed they were wrongly decided. It did not even acknowledge their existence. It simply ignored them." (same cite as above).

 

[Hopper]

Seems like at least one law school professor agrees with what I've said all along, eh?:


Professor Marc Spindelman of the Ohio State University law school extols Walker's decision as a two-pronged "constitutional knockout," but nevertheless tells TIME that a victory at the trial level hardly determines its ultimate outcome. "On appeal, not all facts are equal," he says. "Fundamentally, [the ruling] turns on questions of law...[The facts produced at trial] don't decide which legal questions will finally govern the disposition of the case."

Read more: https://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,2009335,00.html#ixzz0wgatIUgO

 

[One Brow]

People can choose their behavior, sure. I don't HAVE to try and hustle every Babe I see, I just choose to, that's all.

Don't change the subject. Can you choose to be attracted to those babes? Can you choose to be atrracted to guys?

Whether or not one "chooses" to be a murderer really says nuthin about whether murder should be endorsed, affirmed, legalized, and approved of, does it?

So, should every behavior be be discouraged unless you can find a positive reason to endores, affirm, legalize, and approve of it? Or, should the paradigm be that behaviors are acceptable unless you have a reason to oppose them?

Homosexuality may or may not be such a perversion, that aint even the point.

The point would be that if most of society doesn't like something, it needs to be hidden? So, 100 years ago most Americans thought interracial relationships were perverted, now most think they are acceptable. So, 100 years ago it was wrong to date inerrracially, but now it's OK. That it?

But I can tell you this: I don't want to even see it.

Then don't look.

I don't want the practice shown on TV,

Change the channel.

or luridly described in newspapers and magazines.

Turn the page, or refuse to buy them.

And I don't want to teach my children that, since such perversions occur, they are perfectly normal and acceptable. Just me, mebbe, but, still....

With behaviors that pose a health risk, like coprophagia, I think there is little chance of that.

Or, are you saying that if some skinhead sees you making a play for a woman of a different race, his being offended means he should somehow be able to stop that legally?

 

[Hopper]

With behaviors that pose a health risk, like coprophagia, I think there is little chance of that.

Ever hear of AIDS, Eric? Seems Foucalt, just for one of many, did, eh?

It's the whole "polymorphous perversity" thang that done started AIDS to begin with, from what I hear-tell. Some guy done a monkey, then done his "boyfriend," and now ya gotta whole new disease that wasn't never seen or heard of before.

 

[Hopper]

Can you choose to be atrracted to guys?

Some impressionable kid could probably be manipulated into "choosing" about anything, eh? Them behavioralists done a little "experiment" with a little child once. Every time they fed him, they gave him a little teddy to hold, or put it in plain view. That little child just LOVED that teddy bear! Well, for a while, anyway, but then....

After a spell, they would never let him see the teddy bear when he was eatin no more. Every time they brought it in the room, instead of bringin food too, they would cause sudden, loud, shrill noises to disturb and frighten the poor chile. Before long he HATED that teddy bear. He would scream and cry, and push the teddy bear away whenever he seen it, ya know?

 

[One Brow]

Ever hear of AIDS, Eric? Seems Foucalt, just for one of many, did, eh?

Last I heard, they had these things called "condoms".

It's the whole "polymorphous perversity" thang that done started AIDS to begin with, from what I hear-tell. Some guy done a monkey, then done his "boyfriend," and now ya gotta whole new disease that wasn't never seen or heard of before.

I thought you were opposed to just-so stories. I guess you like them OK when you can use them to support your own viewpoint.

Some impressionable kid could probably be manipulated into "choosing" about anything, eh?

Are you an impressionalbe kid? If not, how is this answer to the question of whether you could choose to be atrrected to men?

 

[Hopper]

...if most of society doesn't like something, it needs to be hidden? So, 100 years ago most Americans thought interracial relationships were perverted, now most think they are acceptable. So, 100 years ago it was wrong to date inerrracially, but now it's OK. That it?

1. I wasn't making any judgment on whether any particular sexual activity is "right or wrong." That said, you bet the parties involved kept their inter-racial sex "hidden" back then.

 

[Hopper]

Anything you choose to do, you do for a reason, I figure. If I decided to go gay, I guess I would be "attracted" to it, sure.

Beyond that, it's a good thang mere "attraction" doesn't dictate choices and behavior. If it did there would be about 30 times as many 400+ lbs Babes waddlin the streets, on account of eatin the chocolate cake they're so attacted to 24/7, ya know?

 

[One Brow]

1. I wasn't making any judgment on whether any particular sexual activity is "right or wrong." That said, you bet the parties involved kept their inter-racial sex "hidden" back then.

I'm fairly sure lightly skinned men had little to fear from having sex with darkly-skinned women, at least in many parts of the country. But still, to keep your eyes from having to see it, they should be forced underground, that it?

Anything you choose to do, you do for a reason, I figure. If I decided to go gay, I guess I would be "attracted" to it, sure.

Again, you do not answer the questions of whether you could choose to have that attraction.

Beyond that, it's a good thang mere "attraction" doesn't dictate choices and behavior. If it did there would be about 30 times as many 400+ lbs Babes waddlin the streets, on account of eatin the chocolate cake they're so attacted to 24/7, ya know?

So, you have no objection to saying other people can't get married, or date publically, because you don't like how they look together?

 

[Hopper]

In theory I could "choose" about anything, Eric. Don't mean I'm gunna. But my whole point was that "choice" is irrelevant to begin with.

A bigshot pyschiatrist (Adler, mebbe, I don't recall, exactly) was once asked if there was any act or behavior so inherently immoral and disgusting that the average guy would refuse to do it.

He said, no, in my opinion there isn't, so long as one's peers approve of it. I see no reason why a "highly motivated" heterosexual couldn't go gay, just like gays can go straight.

 

[Hopper]

There was a story in the local newspaper a while back about a guy who was in the habit of entering women's restrooms at airports and other public venues. One woman told him to get the hell out. When he ignored her and tried to enter a stall with his highly poished shoes on (so he could "look up" into the adjoining stall) she slapped him and went to get the authorites.

He sued her. His position was that human beings have the same basic biological functions, regardless of sex, when it comes to waste elimination and that there was no valid reason to prohibit him from using women's restrooms if he needed to relieve himself. He lost, of course.

But belt some gay guy who comes into a men's restroom and tries to "flirt" with you or "spy" on you, and you're gunna do at least a year in the pen for a "hate crime" if the gays have their way, ya know?