'That's So Gay!'

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
542

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
If you really want to visit someone, here is a trick, in the hospital if you say you’re their pastor, most of the time they will allow you through as long as there is not a police escort with them.

I thought lying was a sin. And why should he even have to?

Lying is a sin, but saying you’re a pastor or a preacher does not mean he is a religious leader.

Your retarded argument still fails to show why he should have to say that he is something his is not to gain access to his partner in hospital.

Who cares, would you rather have an ideological debate with the head nurse or would rather just go see the guy? I am not disagreeing with him, he should be able to go see the person in the hospital. Just like I should be able to see my girlfriend, but I can’t, so instead of having a stick up my ass I just do what I have to do. And I like how you call my argument retarded, when I am not presenting him an argument at all, in this situation. I am offering him a solution!

Yet instead of taking care of business like he wants people to think he is or other people want to seem, everyone wants to have a debate about it. Plus, this “gay rights” thing still should be a state to state decision. I do not want California’s funky ass knowledge screwing with my states laws, even though that seems the way of America. Just follow California, they are doing it right.[/quote]

So much fail. I didn’t think it was possible.

  1. It’s wrong to force gays to lie to gain access to their partner. I’m talking about a couple that has made a lifelong commitment (i.e. marriage) and is still denied this right. Boohoo your girlfriend is sick, she has family. At least if you slap a rig on her finger, you gain access. What do gays have? Lying? You offer a retarded solution. You’re putting a band aid over a gunshot.

  2. The issue is FEDERAL rights that are denied. The includes hospital visitation.

543

Earlier I wrote: [quote]Notice how he deleted the relevant part? I think that’s for the “internet win” …or maybe he really is just a little too thick to follow…[/quote]

… well, looks like the later won out…

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
orion wrote:

You claimed that he called anyone disagreeing with him a “bigot”.

That is factually false and since I quoted you it is there for all to see.

I do not need to be sober to deal with you.

No, dipshit - Mak was complaining about Mick28’s name-calling, and I asked if he considered slandering someone a “bigot” was in fact just as bad or worse…

…which is what Forlife, not Mick28, is guilty of.

Mick28 hasn’t called anyone a bigot, and I never said he did.

I wanted to know why Mak - for example - expressed disapproval at Mick28’s name-calling, but has little to say about Forlife’s.

Now I get it - you just aren’t that strong a reader.[/quote]

The last line was the cherry on top.

PS, don’t say I never gave you anything, here’s what you wrote, underlined is the relevant part:

544

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

The last line was the cherry on top.

PS, don’t say I never gave you anything, here’s what you wrote, underlined is the relevant part:

slandering [b]everyone[/b] you disagree with[/quote]

So odd, that Mak - to whom the post was directed - knew exactly what I was talking about, Forlife’s delightful statement that

Anybody that advocates disparate treatment of gays is a bigot, irrespective of whether or not they agree with me.

…as in, anyone who, for example, doesn’t believe in Forlife’s absolutism on gay rights is, in fact, a bigot. I was curious as to why Mak thought it ok for Mick28 to be a name-caller but he was giving Forlife a pass.

Makavali got it straightaway - maybe he could tutor you?

Again, your crush on me is getting creepy. Move along.

545

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:

The last line was the cherry on top.

PS, don’t say I never gave you anything, here’s what you wrote, underlined is the relevant part:

slandering [b]everyone[/b] you disagree with

So odd, that Mak - to whom the post was directed - knew exactly what I was talking about, Forlife’s delightful statement that

Anybody that advocates disparate treatment of gays is a bigot, irrespective of whether or not they agree with me.

…as in, anyone who, for example, doesn’t believe in Forlife’s absolutism on gay rights is, in fact, a bigot. I was curious as to why Mak thought it ok for Mick28 to be a name-caller but he was giving Forlife a pass.

Makavali got it straightaway - maybe he could tutor you?

Again, your crush on me is getting creepy. Move along. [/quote]

Oh I got it brain surgeon, you had an entertaining sideshow with Orion because you did not. (and if you check Mak’s response, you might even notice he got Orion’s post too… the second line big guy)

And it’s rather cute you have fantasies that I have a crush on you. Funny that with all the people’s posts I’ve responded to over the weekend you seem to think I’m singling you out… poor baby want a bottle?

And to your point, who “calls more names”? You or forlife? This rant of yours is hilarious. Please keep these up, I love it.

546

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
If you really want to visit someone, here is a trick, in the hospital if you say you’re their pastor, most of the time they will allow you through as long as there is not a police escort with them.

I thought lying was a sin. And why should he even have to?

Lying is a sin, but saying you’re a pastor or a preacher does not mean he is a religious leader.

Your retarded argument still fails to show why he should have to say that he is something his is not to gain access to his partner in hospital.

Who cares, would you rather have an ideological debate with the head nurse or would rather just go see the guy? I am not disagreeing with him, he should be able to go see the person in the hospital. Just like I should be able to see my girlfriend, but I can’t, so instead of having a stick up my ass I just do what I have to do. And I like how you call my argument retarded, when I am not presenting him an argument at all, in this situation. I am offering him a solution!

Yet instead of taking care of business like he wants people to think he is or other people want to seem, everyone wants to have a debate about it. Plus, this “gay rights” thing still should be a state to state decision. I do not want California’s funky ass knowledge screwing with my states laws, even though that seems the way of America. Just follow California, they are doing it right.

So much fail. I didn’t think it was possible.

  1. It’s wrong to force gays to lie to gain access to their partner. I’m talking about a couple that has made a lifelong commitment (i.e. marriage) and is still denied this right. Boohoo your girlfriend is sick, she has family. At least if you slap a rig on her finger, you gain access. What do gays have? Lying? You offer a retarded solution. You’re putting a band aid over a gunshot.[/quote]

Actually, I offered a solution, but no one likes it. That, or it didn’t go through. I however said that it’s not ‘gay rites’ that are in question, it’s the hospital that I gave a solution for. If legislation would make it so that partners at any level could visit then there would not be a problem. That is great, fucking dip shit, you think just because I do not call her my domestic partner that you can devalue my relationship with her. I am not making fun of two dudes relationship with each other shallow, so where do you get off talking shit about my? Explain that you fucking douche bag.

Check yourself, you just shat on your own face, it’s States that dictate the right of marriage between people.

Second, it’s the individual hospitals that dictate who they allow into see the patients. However, there is certain legislative pieces that say who is allowed to visit the patient, not who is not allowed.

547

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Who cares, would you rather have an ideological debate with the head nurse or would rather just go see the guy? I am not disagreeing with him, he should be able to go see the person in the hospital. Just like I should be able to see my girlfriend, but I can’t, so instead of having a stick up my ass I just do what I have to do. And I like how you call my argument retarded, when I am not presenting him an argument at all, in this situation. I am offering him a solution!

Yet instead of taking care of business like he wants people to think he is or other people want to seem, everyone wants to have a debate about it. Plus, this “gay rights” thing still should be a state to state decision. I do not want California’s funky ass knowledge screwing with my states laws, even though that seems the way of America. Just follow California, they are doing it right.[/quote]

For a Christian, I’m surprised that you are advocating blatant lying as a solution to discrimination.

Anyway, visiting your partner in the hospital and making medical decisions on his behalf is only one example of 1,000+ federal responsibilities/benefits that are denied to gay couples. Most of those cannot be achieved through personal contracts, and are only possible through federal recognition of gay relationships.

548

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Actually, I am in touch with two of them at the moment, one is a man, and one is a woman.[/quote]

Out of curiosity, how do you just happen to be “in touch” with two ex-gays at the moment? That is pretty unusual.

549

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
it’s States that dictate the right of marriage between people.[/quote]

As we’ve pointed out repeatedly, there is a slew of federal responsibilities/benefits associated with marriage, and states are required to recognize the validity of a marriage conducted in other states. Gay couples do not have access to any of these responsibilities/benefits, including survivorship benefits if your partner dies, social security benefits, federal tax benefits, immigration rights, child custody rights, and many, many others that can only be handled at the federal level.

550

[quote]forlife wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Actually, I am in touch with two of them at the moment, one is a man, and one is a woman.

Out of curiosity, how do you just happen to be “in touch” with two ex-gays at the moment? That is pretty unusual.[/quote]

I agree it is unusual to know two ex-gays. What’s not unusual however is for someone to become an ex-gay. You’ve still not answered the question as to how someone becomes an ex-gay if this is something that’s genetic. And don’t say that if someone claims to be an ex-gay they are somehow not happy because the evidence proves you wrong.

The fact is therapy has worked for many.

551

[quote]ZEB wrote:
forlife wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Actually, I am in touch with two of them at the moment, one is a man, and one is a woman.

Out of curiosity, how do you just happen to be “in touch” with two ex-gays at the moment? That is pretty unusual.

I agree it is unusual to know two ex-gays. What’s not unusual however is for someone to become an ex-gay. You’ve still not answered the question as to how someone becomes an ex-gay if this is something that’s genetic. And don’t say that if someone claims to be an ex-gay they are somehow not happy because the evidence proves you wrong.

The fact is therapy has worked for many.

[/quote]
And you never answered MY question Zeb! Here it is again for you:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
forlife wrote:

In case you missed it, every major medical and mental health organization has concluded, based on 40 years of research, that people don’t choose their sexual orientation and they can’t change it. Would you like the quotes again?

I hate to say it but this is the reason that some have calle you “forliar”.

I have posted study after study which clearly demonstrates that many so called gay men have become heterosexual through various forms of therapy. They have checked with these men up to 5 and 10 years after their therapy and many are happily married not having any thoughts of sex with another man.[/quote]

Honest question for you Zeb: Were these “studies” from the same source you posted that claimed that homosexual marriage is part of a plot by central bankers to create a world government? My guess is that they are.

553

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
…Did it ever occur to you that as far as this board is concerned you’re an irrelevant piece of shit?

[/quote]

I’m sure many here think the same way about you!

554

[quote]ZEB wrote:
forlife wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Actually, I am in touch with two of them at the moment, one is a man, and one is a woman.

Out of curiosity, how do you just happen to be “in touch” with two ex-gays at the moment? That is pretty unusual.

I agree it is unusual to know two ex-gays. What’s not unusual however is for someone to become an ex-gay. You’ve still not answered the question as to how someone becomes an ex-gay if this is something that’s genetic. And don’t say that if someone claims to be an ex-gay they are somehow not happy because the evidence proves you wrong.

The fact is therapy has worked for many.

[/quote]

Prove it. Because the American Psyciatric Association said “…psychiatric literature strongly demonstrates that treatment attempts to change sexual orientation are ineffective. However, the potential risks are great including depression, anxiety, and self-destructive behavior.”

The American Medical Association, states in its policy number H-160.991, that it opposes the use of reparative or conversion therapy that is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that the patient should change his/her homosexual orientation.

You are so full of shit it must dribble out of your mouth when you talk.

556

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
ZEB wrote:
forlife wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Actually, I am in touch with two of them at the moment, one is a man, and one is a woman.

Out of curiosity, how do you just happen to be “in touch” with two ex-gays at the moment? That is pretty unusual.

I agree it is unusual to know two ex-gays. What’s not unusual however is for someone to become an ex-gay. You’ve still not answered the question as to how someone becomes an ex-gay if this is something that’s genetic. And don’t say that if someone claims to be an ex-gay they are somehow not happy because the evidence proves you wrong.

The fact is therapy has worked for many.

Prove it. Because the American Psyciatric Association said “…psychiatric literature strongly demonstrates that treatment attempts to change sexual orientation are ineffective. However, the potential risks are great including depression, anxiety, and self-destructive behavior.”

The American Medical Association, states in its policy number H-160.991, that it opposes the use of reparative or conversion therapy that is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that the patient should change his/her homosexual orientation.

You are so full of shit it must dribble out of your mouth when you talk.
[/quote]

I think the whole discussion is worthless.

If you take the WHO s definition of “healthy” nobody is. No psychiatrist or psychologist worth his salt will claim that someone is 100% mentally healthy.

Since it is all a matter of definitions I guess you can define mental health in a way so that it excludes homosexuality but why would anyone want to do that? The act of declaring something to be “sick”, “wrong” or “unnatural” is at least as agenda driven as the definitions of todays associations allegedly are.

This is just an attempt to frame the discussion a certain way and nothing more.

557

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Check yourself, you just shat on your own face, it’s States that dictate the right of marriage between people.

Second, it’s the individual hospitals that dictate who they allow into see the patients. However, there is certain legislative pieces that say who is allowed to visit the patient, not who is not allowed. [/quote]

Apparently I didn’t. We aren’t discussing that, we are discussing the rights denied at a federal level.

Educate yourself.

Legal status with stepchildren
Making spousal medical decisions
Spousal non-resident tuition deferential waiver
Permission to make funeral arrangements for a deceased spouse, including burial or cremation
Right of survivorship of custodial trust
Right to change surname upon marriage
Right to enter into prenuptial agreement
Right to inheritance of property
Spousal privilege in court cases (the marital confidences privilege and the spousal testimonial privilege)

That is but a small part of a larger list.

558

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Dustin wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
…Did it ever occur to you that as far as this board is concerned you’re an irrelevant piece of shit?

I’m sure many here think the same way about you!

Wow Dustin that was clever…you’ll have to draw it back a little no one can keep up with your wit.[/quote]

Whereas your wit is so incredibly sharp that it hardly hurts when it cuts…

559

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Gambit_Lost (what a great name for you)

You’re attacking two posters that probably have about double your IQ…Stop and think …take a while now because I know it’s difficult for you…Did it ever occur to you that as far as this board is concerned you’re an irrelevant piece of shit?

[/quote]

Great post, very insightful and thought provoking. +1

Would definitely recommend.

560

[quote]forlife wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Actually, I am in touch with two of them at the moment, one is a man, and one is a woman.

Out of curiosity, how do you just happen to be “in touch” with two ex-gays at the moment? That is pretty unusual.[/quote]

Well one day I met one, and down the road I met the other. Why you looking to meet more gay people?

I am a ‘counselor’ of sorts to both of them, and I met both witnessing.