Election math: addition not division

Comments

1. Martin on Jan 21, 2008 7:21:54 PM:

   It should be noted that in his Martin Luther King speech at the Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, Barack Obama specifically said that blacks had been unkind to their gay brothers and sisters. He stands with us and speaks the hard truths to all.

1. Randy on Jan 21, 2008 8:36:34 PM:

   People who support a person's right to self determination concerning same sex attraction cover all social, religious and political spectrums.

   It's time to accept the fact that some of us do change and we do have a choice in who we identify with and how we steward our lives. My being "ex-gay" has nothing to do with being anti anything. I am "ex-gay" because that IS the truth of my life. We are not a myth.

   Just like "gay" folk weren't a myth in the 1950's.

   I think it is quite possible for open minded politicians to be both pro-gay and pro "ex-gay" if they truly respect a persons right to self-determination.

   Gay issues aren't the only thing a candidate or a voter (including me) should be concerned about.

1. Lucrece on Jan 21, 2008 9:24:29 PM:

   There is no such thing as "ex-gay" according to any reputable scientific foundation.

   A better word for the euphemism that you use, "self-determination", is "repression".

1. North Dallas Thirty on Jan 21, 2008 11:48:46 PM:

   And once again we see demonstrated that liberal gays and lesbians, while demanding that no one else judge their sexual choices, insist on the right to judge and namecall everyone else's.

   If Randy doesn't want to be gay, more power to him. It means nothing to me one way or the other.

1. Craig Ranapia on Jan 22, 2008 1:24:08 AM:

   Anyway, call me an cock-eyed optimist, but is it possible that Obama just might have more of an influence on Kirbyjon Caldwell than Caldwell has on him? In the end, you win the haters over one at a time -- and some of 'em need a long-term investment.

1. Lucrece on Jan 22, 2008 11:06:26 AM:

   "Sexual choices"? The actual term associated with sexual orientation is sexual attraction, get your lexicon right.

   I am not criticizing his individual delusion so much as I am calling out his unrelated push of a fallacious, misleading movement that targets ignorant and desperate individuals with equally ignorant and desperate families.

1. North Dallas Thirty on Jan 22, 2008 2:52:41 PM:

   "Sexual choices"? The actual term associated with sexual orientation is sexual attraction, get your lexicon right.

   Why? Do attractions automatically determine what you do? Do human beings have no choice whatsoever and must automatically follow any attraction?

   The mindreading games in which liberal gays indulge are well on display here, Lucrece; for instance, you insist that you "know" that Randy is "repressed" and "delusional". You know nothing of the sort. You simply are claiming that, since you believe attractions are biological and immutable, Randy's cannot possibly have changed or altered.

   I am fully open to that possibility. I CHOOSE not to exercise it. I am perfectly happy with who I am, and see no compelling reason to change.

1. Lucrece on Jan 22, 2008 7:19:49 PM:

   "Why? Do attractions automatically determine what you do? Do human beings have no choice whatsoever and must automatically follow any attraction?"

   No, but those attractions are immutable. If you so decide to ignore the current consensus of the medical community in order to stick it to some "liberal gay", then that's your problem.

   He may choose to behave differently, but he is still a homosexual because sexual orientation is not evaluated on behavior but on attraction, which is immutable.

   Of course, some of you get all nervous about not having control over every aspect of your life. That's a pity, but it's your problem.

   Highjacking the comment thread to promote such a devious movement based on left-handed propaganda is still questionable behavior. It is beyond foolish to tell people that oner particular religion, Christianity, has the potential to cure you of something that is not even a disease.

1. North Dallas Thirty on Jan 22, 2008 7:40:28 PM:

   He may choose to behave differently, but he is still a homosexual because sexual orientation is not evaluated on behavior but on attraction, which is immutable.

   Thank you for demonstrating the typical copout.

   When liberal gays are confronted with people who have changed their behavior, since they cannot refute that, they immediately turn to telepathy, claiming that they "know" the person still has "attractions" and is therefore gay.

   As we see in today's news, that's not even close to reality.

   Frappier said it's normal at that age for a certain percentage to have questions about their sexual orientation. He noted the minority responses would include those of teens identifying themselves as gay, as well as those who might have had a one-time attraction to someone of the same sex.

   "One-time attraction" does not by any stretch of the imagination equal "gay", but by your definition, since they had an "attraction" and "attractions" are immutable, even once means they are irrevocably and completely gay.

1. Lucrece on Jan 22, 2008 10:39:36 PM:

   "Thank you for demonstrating the typical copout.

   When liberal gays are confronted with people who have changed their behavior, since they cannot refute that, they immediately turn to telepathy, claiming that they "know" the person still has "attractions" and is therefore gay."

   Lovely spin. These "changes" have been refuted by authorities on the subject, not by liberals. You do realize you're resorting to the same kind of omniscient attitude that you're criticizing, correct?

   "'One-time attraction' does not by any stretch of the imagination equal "gay", but by your definition, since they had an "attraction" and "attractions" are immutable, even once means they are irrevocably and completely gay."

   Attractions are also unique. The attraction that took place is still immutable in terms of the object of attraction. One particular attraction to a member of the same sex does not mean you're gay. You're inventing definitions and putting them on my mouth.

   You've also brought a completely different background that's irrelevant to Randy's background. He's not some sexually confused teen. He's someone actively participating in an organization that lies about curing something that doesn't need curing through some particular divine adoration. Are you actually supporting that such disproven methods work?

1. North Dallas Thirty on Jan 23, 2008 3:10:59 AM:

   Lucrece, you're contradicting yourself.

   You claimed above that no one has same-sex attractions unless they're gay; now you're claiming that people can have same-sex attractions and not be gay.

   In short, you just change the definition to suit whatever need you have at the moment. Hence, your ability to say "disproven" is hindered by the fact that you simply change the requirements for "proof" anytime you are challenged.

   Furthermore, you apply an impossible standard. Alcoholism and other forms of addictive behavior have a relapse rate of almost 80%, but no one says treatment for them "doesn't work". Oddly enough, though, psychologists (specifically, those supported by liberal gays) insist that even ONE failure or relapse means ex-gay therapy "doesn't work".

   And again, I cannot possibly see why you care. There simply is no reason for you to butt into other peoples' decisions on whether or not to go into reparative therapy. It amuses me to no end when gays and lesbians scream about how your sex life should be no one's business but your own, but then insist on bashing people like Randy for offering other people a choice about their sex lives and exercising that choice themselves.

   Just say "no thanks", like I did, and be done with it.

1. Lucrece on Jan 23, 2008 8:57:12 AM:

   "You claimed above that no one has same-sex attractions unless they're gay; now you're claiming that people can have same-sex attractions and not be gay."

   That's outright false. Let's steer away from purposely misconstruing my statements in order to prove your points.

   "In short, you just change the definition to suit whatever need you have at the moment. Hence, your ability to say "disproven" is hindered by the fact that you simply change the requirements for "proof" anytime you are challenged."

   I have not changed a definition because I have yet to introduce a definition. You were the one to assume what gay means and wrongly extrapolate from my statements what gay would mean and why your example was correct. Of course, creating arguments for your opponents is no new trick of yours.

   "Furthermore, you apply an impossible standard. Alcoholism and other forms of addictive behavior have a relapse rate of almost 80%, but no one says treatment for them "doesn't work". Oddly enough, though, psychologists (specifically, those supported by liberal gays) insist that even ONE failure or relapse means ex-gay therapy "doesn't work"."

   Invalid comparison. Substance addiction and sexual orientation cannot be compared on similar grounds. There is no relapse for being gay because it is not a defect.

   Furthermore, the therapy is not rejected because of "relapse", rather because of the fallacious assumptions and methodology involved. Then again, you don't care. You just pick and choose arguments for the other side instead of answering the other side
   s actual arguments. Sprinkle it with conspiracy theories of liberal gays pushing psychologists with agendas, and you're good to go.

   "And again, I cannot possibly see why you care. There simply is no reason for you to butt into other peoples' decisions on whether or not to go into reparative therapy. It amuses me to no end when gays and lesbians scream about how your sex life should be no one's business but your own, but then insist on bashing people like Randy for offering other people a choice about their sex lives and exercising that choice themselves."

   I cannot see why people care when teenagers and pre-teens get involved in the web and might interact with pedophiles online. After all, it's a private medium.

   We all know this is false. Randy's movement targets desperate and ignorant individuals. There is no such thing as "reparative therapy" because there's nothing to repair; I repeat, homosexuality is not an illness. Also, I'll find you hard-pressed to tell me that this choice is one that genuinely comes to them without outside pressure.

   As for what you do, get over it. I think you have made it clear enough. Obviously, whatever doesn't involve you is of little importance.

1. North Dallas Thirty on Jan 23, 2008 1:47:03 PM:

   There is no relapse for being gay because it is not a defect.

   Get this through your head, Lucrece; some people do not want to be gay or act on same-sex attractions and consider it to be a problem of the same type as alcoholism.

   That is their issue, not yours.

   And another one of your game examples:

   Also, I'll find you hard-pressed to tell me that this choice is one that genuinely comes to them without outside pressure.

   Again, the copout; rather than admit that some people might not want to be gay, you insist that everyone does, but that they're just being "pressured" not to be.

   Obviously you find other peoples' choices threatening. Why is that?

   
   I cannot see why people care when teenagers and pre-teens get involved in the web and might interact with pedophiles online. After all, it's a private medium.

   Easy answer; that involves TWO people, one of whom is underage and does not have the right to consent. Reparative therapy involves ONE person, which is you yourself.
   

1. Lucrece on Jan 23, 2008 3:26:52 PM:

   "Get this through your head, Lucrece; some people do not want to be gay or act on same-sex attractions and consider it to be a problem of the same type as alcoholism.

   That is their issue, not yours. "

   It's a flawed perspective resulting from a long-standing campaign to demonize homosexuals. Get it through your head.

   "Again, the copout; rather than admit that some people might not want to be gay, you insist that everyone does, but that they're just being "pressured" not to be."

   Explain why they might not want to be gay. Your analysis is superficial and you know it. The only one resorting to cop-outs here is you.

   
   "Easy answer; that involves TWO people, one of whom is underage and does not have the right to consent. Reparative therapy involves ONE person, which is you yourself."

   Ah, ah, ah, not quite. Many of those going into the Exodus program are teenagers and do not have the right to consent. Statutory rape also exists to account for individuals who are slick enough to try to psychologically abuse vulnerable targets that do not have a developed, logical perspective on such topics. Reparative therapy involves one representative of the group, which happens to be a biased and uneducated clergyman, and the person going in for "reparative" therapy him/herself.
   

1. North Dallas Thirty on Jan 23, 2008 4:20:05 PM:

   It's a flawed perspective resulting from a long-standing campaign to demonize homosexuals.

   And oddly enough, they consider yours a flawed perspective resulting from a long-standing campaign to cover up and hide the risks and consequences of gay activity.

   You're both entitled to your own perspective.

   Explain why they might not want to be gay.

   Why don't you ask them?

   Oh, that's right; you've already assumed you know. Got it.

   Many of those going into the Exodus program are teenagers and do not have the right to consent.

   Their parents may with perfect right consent to send them there.

   And the adults who choose to go there may go there as well.

   Reparative therapy involves one representative of the group, which happens to be a biased and uneducated clergyman, and the person going in for "reparative" therapy him/herself.

   LOL.....and you just revealed your own prejudice and bigotry in that statement by claiming that all the people involved are "uneducated".

   What you continue to make obvious, Lucrece, is that you are incapable of objective evaluation here because of your own prejudice and bigotry.

   
   

1. Lucrece on Jan 23, 2008 6:27:24 PM:

   This is laughably pointless. The responses get more shameless by the second.

   I think it's time I follow suit like everyone else in here and start ignoring whatever comments are put up under your name.

1. Monster Beats Sale on Nov 30, 2011 2:12:37 AM:

   I think it's time I follow suit like everyone else in here and start ignoring whatever comments are put up under your name.