Woman Jailed for being Against Homosexuality
- Thread starter ComplexCity
- Start date
Conspirator.
Active member
Awards
I'm very sure that the condition of her release is that she must not interfere with her deputies issuing marriage licenses to same-*** couples, if she can't bring herself to sign the relevant documents.
Last edited:
BlazeRelease
Active member
The news said that the ones handed out since her jailing are invalid though. So everyone who got married this week (even straight couples) aren't recognized.
BlazeRelease
Active member
There are plenty of neurologists who have done plenty of research on the issue.
I've even cited them before, numerous times.
But people don't want to actually read about science and other nerdy stuff. They just like to pick a direction and run until the ground no longer supports them.
See, this is why I have come to cite things less frequently. I get tired of repeating myself and re-hashing the same citations repeatedly, only for people to turn around and say: "Yeah, well, that's what you think, man. Common sense is on my side!"
You must be registered for see links
" Other writers have noted the connection as well, although the numbers they cite vary depending on which studies they reference. Drs. Stanton Jones and Mark Yarhouse analyzed data from what is probably the best survey of sexual behavior in America. They write, “Experience of sexual abuse as a child, in other words, more than tripled the likelihood of later reporting homosexual orientation.” They continue, “Other studies have reported the same trend.” (4) In 1995, Dr. Thomas Schmidt, author of Straight and Narrow, cited two different studies about high rates of sexual abuse in homosexual and bisexual men. He writes:
Nevertheless, it is disturbing to find that although under 4 percent of boys are molested by men, a recent major study found that the rate of childhood molestation by men among homosexual or bisexual men was nearly ten times that (35 percent). It is also notable that 75 percent of homosexual men report their first homosexual experience prior to the age of sixteen, as compared to 22 percent of heterosexual men reporting their first heterosexual experience. (5) "
You must be registered for see links
" 4.) A study of 425 homosexual males, ages 17 to 22, reported that 41.4% reported an occasion of forced ***. 79 of the boys reported beginning **** *** with men when they were ages 3 to 14.
(Lemp, G., Hirozawa, A., Givertz, D., Nieri, G., Anderson, L., Linegren, M., Janssen, R., Katz, M., (1994) Seroprevalance of HIV and Risk Behaviors Among Young Homosexual and Bisexual Men. Journal of the American Medical Association)
5.) The Archives of Sexual Behavior reports "One of the most salient findings of this study i sthat 46% of homosexual men and 22% of homosexual women reported having been molested by a person of the same gender."
(Marie E. Tomeo, "Comparative Data of Childhood and Adolescent Molestation in Heterosexual and Homosexual Persons, "Archives of Sexual Behavior 30 (2001): 539)
...
1.) Dr. Dickson's study showed a relationship between early childhood sexual abuse and a child's later involvement in homosexual behaviors. According to Dickson, an alarming 49% of homosexuals surveyed had been molested compared to less than 2% of heterosexuals.
(Dickson, Gregory, Ph.D., "An Empirical Study of the Mother/Son Dyad in Relation to the Development of Adult Male Homosexuality: An Object Relations Perspective.")
2.) Researchers at the Kinsey Institute have found "a strong relationship between those whose first experience was homosexual and those who practiced homosexuality later in life."
3.) The 1995 Massachusetts Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance found that gay, lesbian and bisexual lifestyle orientation was associated with having had sexual intercourse before the age of 13, and with having experienced sexual contact against one's will.
(R. Garafolo, "The Association between Health Risk Behaviors and Sexual Orientation Among a School-Based Sample of Adolescents," Pediatrics 101 (1998): 895-902)
...
6.) Noted child *** abuse expert David Finkelhor found that boys victimized by older men were over four times as likely to be currently engaged in homosexual activity than were non-victims. The finding aplied to nearly half the boys who had such an experience...Further, the adolescents themselves often linked their homosexuality to their sexual victimization experiences."
(Bill Watkins & Arnon Bentovin, "The Sexual Abuse of Male Children and Adolescents: A Review of Current Research, "Journal of Child Psychiatry 33 (1992); in Bryen Finkelman, Sexual Abuse (New York: Garland Publishing, 1995): p. 316) "
It is, biologically, impossible for the same depth of bonding to occur between individuals of the same ***.
That is not to say that members of the same *** cannot share a bond - a deep one, even. It is just that it is not possible for the two to bond in the way that people of the opposite *** can. Now, this is from my own personal opinion, as there is little research to either support or contradict this view.
In this case, homosexuality represents a sort of shorting of one's self. It is foregoing the ideal for the expedient and is accepting a condition that has been foisted upon one's self as opposed to realizing the true self.
You're just all over the board.
First, I do not make false scientific claims.
Second, if I -really- didn't like Homosexuals, I would welcome their practice and encourage everyone I didn't like to participate in behavior that would ensure they do not reproduce.
You know the 'hateful' facebook jokes about how we all know someone who we believe shouldn't reproduce? The fact that there are people who believe an individual has something worth passing on to future generations is indicative of what I said, before. Abuse is a very insidious process that turns you against the people who care about you and toward the people who perpetuate the abuse.
The people who championed social Darwinism 100 years ago were the people who served as the direct and ancestral mentors of those who are advocating most strongly for gay rights, now.
You are a pawn - a tool to be used by them for their gain, and their gain, only.
The problem is that these disorders and statistics transcend cultural and societal boundaries.
You should try reading comprehension, next time.
I wasn't born with a set of knee pads to bend down and suck your ****. You've been raised in an era where that is what you believe you are entitled to - and deluded enough to honestly believe it is not the case.
It's okay. Though you do not understand, I bear you no ill-will. Everyone has already been saved, but not everyone can be spared. It's funny how it works out like that.
There are a few.
I am generally rather quiet when it comes to VMs. It has nothing to do with my military affiliation. That's purely a product of your perspective.
The list of people who have put me in my place is fairly small. On this forum there is really only one who can claim to have done that, and there was a reason I spoke to her in the poetic language that I did.
There is, also, a method to my madness.
When two people agree upon the foundations of what constitutes the standards of reality - IE - the scientific method - and the limitations of its use - a debate can be productive and result in the growth of an individual(s) understanding of the subject. Two people from two different schools of thought can review similar sets of data and debate two different interpretations of that data and the merits/demerits/limitations of the data.
When two people are in fundamental disagreement about what forms the basis of objective reality - it is impossible for the discussion to be very productive. When I am speaking in terms of science and others are speaking in terms of consensus - it's a debate where one side is talking color and the other side is talking flavor. The debate can only serve as an illustrative platform.
So, why the apocalyptic and poetic language?
The foundation of the misunderstanding is the powerful lie of a world we live in. We live in a world of convenience and political consensus. Power is wrought not from the achievements of individuals - but from compliance and servitude to a cadre of political castes who assert control through schemes of partial truths and empty promises. It will come to an end.
The apocalyptic talk is a window back to the reality that was obscured by the illusion, before. Because when the first lie ends, there are sure to be more lies scrambled to further obscure the truth in the future.
Which is what I mean when I say that most of what I say is meant for the future and a time yet to come - or that 'it does not make sense, yet.'
You misunderstand.
I don't see the world through the lens of the present. The world we live in, currently, is ancient history to me, and everyone here is a part of that history ('here' meaning the Earth).
It makes little difference to me where I am at any given point in time, or who I am speaking to. You and I do not understand the concept of greatness to be the same thing.
BlazeRelease
Active member
Your point was that homosexuality is against natural selection process and evolution because we aren't interested in natural reproduction.
Which is true. However, nothing about that makes is bad people, nor does it give anyone the right to discriminate against us.
Humans don't have to follow the "natural code", it's not required to survive at this point.
BlazeRelease
Active member
I read it. And a personal narrative in a Christian study is just about the worst way to find info on sexuality.
Also, two people of the same *** ARE just as capable of forming romantic bonds in the same way as heterosexuals.
The brain recognizes another as a romantic partner based on two things. Sexual attraction and social compatibility. I have seen several documentaries about human bonding and emotions etc, and I know plenty about this.
Two men who are attracted to each other (or two women) are just as capable of creating the same romantic bonds. Gender plays no role in the development of social bonds in human other than the sexual attraction at hand
Please stop spreading misinformation to people. Nothing you are posting is even true for the most part.
I had to come to terms with myself on this. I've done all the research I can on homosexuality in order to make sure what I am isn't wrong, before accepting myself. I know next to everything there is to know about it (from current available info) because I want to live my life the best way possible for me, not a lie. And I know that a lot of your info posted is simply not true, or a biased study at best.
You should at least consider where your getting your information from.
Your info is dated as published in 2005, and its a study conducted in the '80s. That's really not the optimal way to gather information. Especially for something controversial and non-Christian friendly like homosexuality.
Last edited:
SolarSpider
Active member
You obviously didn't pay attention to anything that was going on or you wouldn't have posted this.
She was denying marriage license to EVERYONE, as a way to disapprove of same *** marriage. She should have stayed in jail longer.
You sure are right! Human beings have free will. I don't discriminate against gay people. But if somebody says its wrong that's not discriminating. That's their opinion and belief. You yourself just said it isn't natural. It's not wise to go outside your nature but hey, you have free will so so what you do. As I said before, engaging your nature to the fullest brings out your full human potential. But enough of this. You get that it's not natural
SolarSpider
Active member
Natural - existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.
Normal - conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected.
Homosexuality is natural, but not normal.
And I said the first law of nature is survival. Survival consists of multiplying and producing. Engaging in that action does not go with your nature of survival. This is why the guy just agreed it wasn't natural. Survival instincts weren't created by human kind by the way
Because you say so.
Because statistics don't matter. Because the impartial reviews done by numerous medical researchers over the course of decades is irrelevant.
Learn your place.
The brain recognizes another as a romantic partner based on two things. Sexual attraction and social compatibility. I have seen several documentaries about human bonding and emotions etc, and I know plenty about this.[/quote]
This would be the point where you cite something.
Once again, this would be the point where you cite something.
I was quite open about my lack of citations regarding the biochemistry involved.
No, my friend, it is you who is denying reality.
Therein lay the problem.
You do not "accept" yourself. You become yourself. The very concept of identity has been inverted for you. You started with who you think you are and then acted to convince yourself that is who you are.
That's not how it works.
You can believe that, but pain and suffering is in your future so long as you continue to deny it.
The only information you will accept as valid is that which supports your ingrained belief that you are someone you are not responsible for.
Are Newton's experiments any less valid today than they were when they were first performed?
The fact of the matter is that when you reproduce these studies, you see very similar results regardless of what society and what era you are talking about.
This is the hallmark of the scientific process. If you apply the same methods and different groups see the same results, then it's fairly well established that the results are valid.
If you want to actually get into the nitty-gritty of neurology, I can.
I'm not saying that you have to cease homosexual behavior - but what you said about how you have to "accept yourself" stands out as a red flag that something isn't right.
You are who you become. There is nothing that you need to accept about yourself. Your identity is a continually developing thing that will shift and change throughout your life - it is something that is made and defined over time.
SolarSpider
Active member
You seem to be confusing normal with natural. Genetic variations have been a key factor in evolution. There are also people who are born with no desire to have *** or the inability to have children and that's a lot more common than you think. To try and simplify such a complex problem would be difficult to say the lest. It isn't normal to be gay or barren but it is natural, meaning it occurs in nature.
BlazeRelease
Active member
This would be the point where you cite something.
Once again, this would be the point where you cite something.
I was quite open about my lack of citations regarding the biochemistry involved.
No, my friend, it is you who is denying reality.
Therein lay the problem.
You do not "accept" yourself. You become yourself. The very concept of identity has been inverted for you. You started with who you think you are and then acted to convince yourself that is who you are.
That's not how it works.
You can believe that, but pain and suffering is in your future so long as you continue to deny it.
The only information you will accept as valid is that which supports your ingrained belief that you are someone you are not responsible for.
Are Newton's experiments any less valid today than they were when they were first performed?
The fact of the matter is that when you reproduce these studies, you see very similar results regardless of what society and what era you are talking about.
This is the hallmark of the scientific process. If you apply the same methods and different groups see the same results, then it's fairly well established that the results are valid.
If you want to actually get into the nitty-gritty of neurology, I can.
I'm not saying that you have to cease homosexual behavior - but what you said about how you have to "accept yourself" stands out as a red flag that something isn't right.
You are who you become. There is nothing that you need to accept about yourself. Your identity is a continually developing thing that will shift and change throughout your life - it is something that is made and defined over time.[/QUOTE]
Shows how little you know about the subject.
A homosexual is "WHAT" I am, not who I am. I accept myself as this being that is attracted to the same ***. It is NOT who I sm in any way shape or form.
The acceptance was a nessecary step for me because I was raised to think badly of homosexuals. But I was one. I did not "limit" myself by accepting "what" I am.
You are who you become, but you are what you are. You seem to lack the ability to differentiate between the two. It's not like I gave in and decided to be homosexual through weakness.
Through strength I was able to accept myself as a human who is gay instead of live a lie. You can NOT change your sexuality. All studies bar religiously biased ones support this fact.
Your argument is one that would be more sound against transgendered people, since they are the ones who can't accept themselves and try to change.
I am merely accepting myself as a person who happens to be gay. It isn't who I am, it's an irrelevant circumstance of my life that people will judge me by. But don't confuse my acceptance as a weakness of me "giving into my sexuality". As I said, that's what I sm.
SolarSpider
Active member
Most of the studies from the earlier generations were propaganda and have little to no scientific value. The only people who actually believes those studies are not gay, nor have they taken the time to actually discuss the topic with a gay individual. Don't let blatant ignorance bait you into an endless conversation with someone who will dismiss even the most valid points.
DeadManWonderLand
Active member
Are you retarded or just some kid you who is talking about a subject he or she knows nothing about ?
Its the third option....both.
Marriage between the same *** is now legal...on the federal level.
She took an oath.She works for the federal government.If she wants Government money she has to do her government job.
The nation has a founding principle that deals with being able to practice you're religion.THAT HOWEVER,does not mean she can take her personal beliefs and enforce on them onto the public.You do not spout about individual rights and go and deny them.....that is called being a Ducking retard.She is not a martyr she is a dipshit.
She wants to deny them a license ? Quit.No what she wants specifically is to force her views onto others.Not cool.
Last edited:
DeadManWonderLand
Active member
They can say don't like it.That is a statement of their opinion.
It is not morally,ethically or intrinsically wrong.
So yes when someones says it is wrong it is in fact without a doubt discrimination.
DeadManWonderLand
Active member
Exactly why it is a win for them.
She continues to have her federal job getting paid federal money (The people of the nations money that includes money from taxes of the people she tried denying btw)why being able to ignore the oath she took to hold the position in the first place.
She is the equivalent of a kid who gets an "equal attention cake" at a siblings birthday.