Non activist Gays have gotten a bum rap from these LGBT activists.

MayCaesar

Hmm, let us see here...

https://www.mckinleyirvin.com/resources/same-sex-marriage-parenting-divorce-in-washingto/divorce-for-same-sex-couples/

According to data published by the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law, in 2011 the divorce rate for same-sex couples was 1.1% per year, while the divorce rate for straight couples was 2% per year. (Note that the percent of couples that get divorced is eventually around 50 percent, but only one or two percent get divorced in a particular year.)

I sympathise with your position with regards to vilification of gays who choose to have heterosexual marriages, but you should not make up your own statistics to support your narrative.

Also, if you want your attributions to biology to be taken seriously, at least name the subject properly. There is no such thing as "Science of Biology": biology is science. And no, that science does not say anything of the sort of statements you are claiming.

We_are_accountable

@MayCaesar

Spare me your ludicrous stats. Gay marriage has just recently become legal in most States, and there is no possible way to get any numbers on how many of these marriages will last a lifetime.

I'm not talking about Gay marriage, I'm talking about life long committed relationships. How many have you seen? Do you know of any Gay relationships that have lasted for a lifetime? I'm sure there are a few, but I have not seen any.

Do you remember the Aids crisis? Do you remember all the Gay swapping parties that were a big contributor to the spread of Aids? I don't think there were many committed monogamous relationships going on with those people. Homosexuality seems to revolve around sex, more so then committed relationships.

Oh, I forgot.... IGNORE .

MayCaesar

@We_are_accountable

That is why the stats mention the yearly rate. Besides, you were the first one talking about instability of those marriages, yet once the stats turned out to not confirm your narrative, suddenly "there is no possible way to get any numbers"? When you start a game, you get to play it.

Ignore me all you want; you are factually wrong whether you do it or not.

MichaelElpers

@MayCaesar. I guess the only thing accountable can hinge his bets on is that, there arent as many gay relationships that decide to enter legal marriage.  Therefore there may be a lot of gay relationships, whose intent was to be permanent, but wouldnt be counted as "divorce".
Also how like to know how many straight people end up with a stable permanent relationship compared to gays.

* I dont know the numbers just being devils advocate.

We_are_accountable

@MichaelElpers

All we have to do is look around us. For any Gay people that you ight know of, how many have you seen with a life long committed relationship. Do you see couples who met in their early twenties, let's say, and are still together at retirement?

MichaelElpers

@We_are_accountable. Im not really sure, i dont really keep track of other peoples relationships unless they are my close friends.

Anyways though anecdotal evidence like that isnt necessarily reliable either.

We_are_accountable

@MichaelElpers

One thing you and I both know is that statistics on so many failed Gay relationships will never be published or talked about, because it hurts the Pro LGBT narrative of Homosexuality being a wonderful natural normal sexual orientation.

Are you old enough to remember how desperatly Democrats tried to shift blame for the spread of Aids from the Gay community? Remember how we heard non stop talk about Aids beig spread through blood transfusions of tainted blood in hospitals, through dirty drug needles of addicts, etc. etc.
They went out of their way to down play the harm of all the Gay swapping parties, promiscuous lifestyles, etc, with the spread of Aids.
When they did speak to sex being a cause of spreading Aids, they seldom differentiated how Gay sex spread the majority of Aids cases, versus heterosexual sex.

We also seldom hear from the Left on the undesired results of Transgender surgeries and it's lifetime need for dangerous drugs.

We seldom hear of all the depression and guilt from women after abortions.

We seldom here about the harm from marijuana. Remember the Democrat Party's war on cigarettes? Their silence on the harmful effects of marijuana is deafening.

We hardly ever hear how the Democrat Party supports ALL abortions for any reason at any stage. They love to talk about extreme cases only. They do not talk about how they believe children are mature enough to make decisions on getting abortions without Parents being notified

When the facts do not fit into the Left's narrative, the story seldom appears.

John_C_87

"Also, if you want your attributions to biology to be taken seriously, at least name the subject properly." ( MayCeasar, debateisland, 2020) 

Yes, We_are_Accountable name the subject properly as a freedom of the press has a prejudice as it's legal precedent and can be abolished by the simple addition of a charge or cost. There is no connection to a fundamental idea that it would be just like quoting the wrong number for scripture religious service of a church as a state of legal principles.

Okay for We_Are_Accountable a homosexual couple is never married until they are in a position to be held as a united state legally by the state's of law. At least one of us had the foresight to address the problem with a legal objection, taking the united state into my constitutional objection. An a new word describing a witness account was formed as an independent state without prejudice, BiniVir. Without prejudice is meant clearly to mean without having a criminal unprosecuted by fear of civil trial creating all criminal equal as a criminal's in the form of united state perjury. This as the crime of perjury can be complex and hard to gain a criminal conviction.

All homosexuals are created equal as men for all men are to be created equal by their creator. Therefore the focus is to be placed here at a legal form of the union set for a law allowing a United State Constitutional structure to remain in tack to preserve the liberty of the Court's right to preserve the American United States constitution, as its constitutional common defense to the general welfare. The creator here is a state of a union of single partnerships in interactions of the legal governing state of law. As the single unit required to form a more perfect state of the union.

Giving forth on this day February 23, 2020, a more perfect state of a union Binivir creating all men equal by their creator. As we are here in United in a debate, I ask officially how you plead.  Yeah? in favor of Binivir. Nay? opposed to Binivir.

Let it be known, a female vote is taken but is under prejudice as all women have not yet created themselves as a united state without prejudice constitutionally equal under governing of law. This possible crime, not theirs to bear alone to bear with prejudice.


My fingers hurt when I am forced to write all constitutionally....

John_C_87

@We_are_accountable ;

Should I be writing a rap to explain this?

It is unclear if people don't just need profanity and twerking to maintain any attention span.

AlofRI

For a year or so I went with a 30+ year old virgin. First runner-up in the Miss Maine Contest. She got married some time after the contest to a "gay" man. Of course, she didn't KNOW that. Back in those unfortunate days (for both of them), it was "customary" (and safer), for a gay to be married to a woman for … appearance. I came into the picture about 10 years after the marriage had been annulled. This beautiful woman, a teacher, had been, well, hiding from life for a "perceived mistake". A REAL shame. Society has grown since the 60's, even SOME of the religious side of it. Today, a gay doesn't have to hide it. It's a much better situation for all of us …. that believe in peoples rights under the Constitution.

AlofRI

We_are_accountable said:

@MayCaesar

Spare me your ludicrous stats. Gay marriage has just recently become legal in most States, and there is no possible way to get any numbers on how many of these marriages will last a lifetime.

I'm not talking about Gay marriage, I'm talking about life long committed relationships. How many have you seen? Do you know of any Gay relationships that have lasted for a lifetime? I'm sure there are a few, but I have not seen any.

Do you remember the Aids crisis? Do you remember all the Gay swapping parties that were a big contributor to the spread of Aids? I don't think there were many committed monogamous relationships going on with those people. Homosexuality seems to revolve around sex, more so then committed relationships.

Oh, I forgot.... IGNORE .

I DO remember the AIDs crisis, The first carrier in the U.S. HAPPENED to be a gay guy. When he found he was infected he went kind of bonkers and started "spreading it" throughout N.Y.C. He would say, after a relationship, "I have "gay cancer", and now you have too!" A shame. if he had been simply a sexually active white college guy, it may not have been blamed on the gay community. Such is life. YOUR "ludicrous stats" may have been unavailable today.

The divorce rate is VERY high among your white, religious folk also, and  in many cases an unhappy couple is forced to REMAIN unhappy due to  religious doctrine. I'd rather we had more happy people that could admit "the shoe doesn't fit", so, …… IGNORE.

MayCaesar

@We_are_accountable

That is very convenient, to claim that the data supports your narrative, but this data will never be published, because it is politically inconvenient. You can make any claim this way: "Drug addicts on average are wealthier than people who do not consume drugs, the drug critics just do not allow any data to be published!"

The question then is, if the data is not published, how in the world can you know what narrative it supports? You do not; it is, once again, a purely emotional position based on your skewed perceptions, rather than on some sort of a logical analysis.

I personally do not know; it is quite possible that gay relationships fail more often than heterosexual relationships. I linked the article that suggests otherwise, but it is just one article based on analysis of one limited dataset which may or may not be restrictive.
The difference between you and me is that when I do not know something, I refrain from making claims on it, whether I want them to be true or not, while in your case you claim whatever you hope is the case. If it turns out that gay relationships are just as stable or more stable than heterosexual ones, then your whole narrative will fall apart, hence you desperately cling to the possibility that this is not the case.

John_C_87

AlofRI said:

For a year or so I went with a 30+ year old virgin. First runner-up in the Miss Maine Contest. She got married some time after the contest to a "gay" man. Of course, she didn't KNOW that. Back in those unfortunate days (for both of them), it was "customary" (and safer), for a gay to be married to a woman for … appearance. I came into the picture about 10 years after the marriage had been annulled. This beautiful woman, a teacher, had been, well, hiding from life for a "perceived mistake". A REAL shame. Society has grown since the 60's, even SOME of the religious side of it. Today, a gay doesn't have to hide it. It's a much better situation for all of us …. that believe in peoples rights under the Constitution.

A person’s Constitutional right can be assigned Miranda as a united state conducive to law. It can argue that any couple as a homosexual man and heterosexual woman are in fact still married had the exchanged taken place with a traditional wedding vow.

All that is established is an inability to define a preservation of the United State with the Constitution by Court or Religion that hosts the Union. What was to have taken place had there been no prejudice would have simply been a civil union as a second event, the right to marriage is simply no longer viable at any time the courts may release its state of legal bond stopped half of the union but would lose credibility as a witness to religion by this prejudice. The marriage in place would stand to ensure that the couples must remain in a united state of love honor and obey. The Title of marriage stands as having been used by the one choice of whom take the vowed of Marriage with. It is a legal connection. The court does not show any legal reason why a couple must be held in the same residence to serve the likely-hood of Marriage honor and obey. When either couple states leave, the honor of the union of marriage with the word obeying means to leave not superseded the vows of the union and stay. A vow is taken of till death do you part it is not mistakable for murder to abandon the state of the marriage vows.

RickeyD

Keep the nastiness, obscenity, immorality, perversion, away from the public square, my family, our posterity and there is no problem. I don't want to see your LGBTQ defilement, I don't desire to witness the breech of nature and the vulgarity, obscenity...so if you'll take it back to the closet where it belongs, we're good!

John_C_87

Well sadly RickyD that is not the issue, it is an issue just not this one. Can you give a reason why two men who set up a household together can not be united as Binivir when you are witnessing them as sharing the same residence? In the most basic way, a large group created by only the need for these two men to be seen legally together.

Keep in mind you are not being asking what they are doing while living together, in a house only that they are in fact living in the same household. Are we not creating all men as equals by providing a title to describing this witness account? Is this something a woman can do, create all men as equal in this way?

smoothie

Anybody has the right to disagree with anything, so I don't agree with those identity politics. Being gay doesn't mean you are forced to go out with your same-sex, you can marry the opposite gender and have relations with them if you want. Gays can be anything they want, they even have political opinions ranging across the entire spectrum. Currently, there are actually sub-groups of gays distancing themselves from transgenderism and gender identity politics and overall leftism now that more republicans are stopping the crusade against homosexuality.

Also instead of using your observation bias of "look around", try and look at data first and foremost as it will remove that bias lens of yours regarding same-sex relationships. @MayCaesar actually is putting up facts and you are just saying to "look around" like its more viable than studies by professionals. Why?

We_are_accountable

@smoothie

Thank you for your civil response. I agree with much of what you say. Where I do not agree is your assumption that I have a bias against LGBT groups.

I have no bias, but i do have a brain and can see the bias from the Left pushing these LGBT agendas into our schools, our entertainment programming, our Sports, and our State's rights to disagree.

There is no data on how many Gay relationshps (most revolving around non marital unions) actually last. All we can do is "look around" and see for ourselves how many lifelong committed Gay relationshipsliving there are.

I know of none, but I'm sure there are a few. If Homosexuality is a natural normal sexual orientation, we should see at least as many life long relationships as we do with Heterosexuals. As I mentioned in my debate, two men coming together as one union is not how we are designed. Men and women have totally separate personality traits, and those differences fit well together. 

smoothie

We_are_accountable said:

Where I do not agree is your assumption that I have a bias against LGBT groups.

I have no bias, but i do have a brain and can see the bias from the Left pushing these LGBT agendas into our schools, our entertainment programming, our Sports, and our State's rights to disagree.

@We_are_accountable Hard to believe you have no bias when you are the poster child for anti-gay conservatives. You do tend to have a bias against LGBT since you aren't really pushing any groundbreaking issues with being a homosexual but fight so diligently for media with LGBT to change to your personal views or to be blacked out. You fight against LGBT citing that it is "unnatural" and wrong and something worth fighting against which is far more of a biased opinion. Can you cite why you are against homosexuality instead of just shouting that it's bad? Can you think for yourself or are you against LGBT to "own the libs"?

We_are_accountable said:

There is no data on how many Gay relationshps (most revolving around non marital unions) actually last. All we can do is "look around" and see for ourselves how many lifelong committed Gay relationshipsliving there are.

I know of none, but I'm sure there are a few. If Homosexuality is a natural normal sexual orientation, we should see at least as many life long relationships as we do with Heterosexuals. As I mentioned in my debate, two men coming together as one union is not how we are designed. Men and women have totally separate personality traits, and those differences fit well together. 

There hasn't been much data on LGBT as it is only recently starting its mainstream acceptance and legality. There have been models and predictions that show in favor, but yes these are not a great assessment of the real outcome. The data will talk much more powerfully in the future for these debates, that is yet to come. That is a perfectly reasonable argument.

Once you start "looking around" if you notice your own thought process you will notice confirmation bias. This is similar to RickeyD blaming everything bad on everything that isn't christianity. When you want a conclusion to be something, you will look for everything damning the opposing view. This is why I focus on hard data and studies by professionals because we are not experts. You have already shown one sign of confirmation bias which is forcing your own personal view on what makes a sexual orientation normal and natural and setting higher expectations. This makes the results vastly different from an unbiased lens. You have created the expectation by yourself that the only healthy relationships are very long and last until retirement. You want LGBT to fail, you would wait patiently until a same-sex relationship ends and then scream "I FOUND PROOF ALL THESE RELATIONSHIPS ARE BAD". I will say this is a bit unreasonable considering the overloading amount of failed heterosexual marriages and great short-term relationships people experience.

Different personality traits fitting together as an argument for heterosexual relationships? Thats a new one. Food for thought, do you also know that men can be more feminine and women can be more masculine? Also, the expectation of "opposites attract" can also be another forced piece of damning evidence for same-sex relationships. Even myths like horoscope matching are simply myths and have no evidence that "matching horoscopes" will develop better relationships. There are still many great relationships opposite-sex and same-sex where personalities are practically similar.

We_are_accountable

@smoothie

FOR THE MILLIONTH TIME, I DO NOT TALK ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY BEING BAD, I TALK ABOUT LGBT ACTIVISTS PUSHING THEIR AGENDAS INTO OUR PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND CONDITIONING OUR CHILDREN!

Until you address the truth of what I speak out about, we are through!

MayCaesar

@We_are_accountable

If homosexuality is not bad, then what is wrong with telling people that homosexuality is not bad? What conditioning exactly do you imply; is someone converting straight kids into homosexuals or something?

You keep talking about some mythical "LGBT agenda", but never explain what exactly it entails.

Now, I do know some aspects of the LGBT movement I wish were not present, and, for that matter, the whole idea of an "LGBT movement" has something off about it; I think people should talk about acceptance of everyone, rather than one specific group.
But something tells me that what I dislike about this movement is quite different from what you dislike about it, hence I would like to see some explanation. 

You have mentioned the problem with "LGBT commercials" or something, but never explained how they are fundamentally different from "straight commercials", as an example. It is not clear what exactly you are unhappy with and why.

smoothie

@We_are_accountable Ah, but you want to hide LGBT from media? You cite it "unnatural", "abnormal" and fight so hard against this "agenda"? What is such an agenda? What is this conditioning/brainwash to create your political opponents? Do you think the entire world is against you?

If homosexuality isn't bad, why do you have such a strong stance against its acceptance? You say socialism and abortion are bad, why stop there? Continue with your partisanship. You can come out and say it's bad anytime, like RickeyD who calls it sickening sodomy that should remain in the closet. See what im doing? I'm generalizing your views, doesn't feel that great does it friend? If you hate it so much then why are you generalizing users' views into "leftist"? You create your own opponents with your bias.

We_are_accountable

@smoothie

Your every post proves my generalizing of you. You fit the exact person I describe... TO A TEE!

smoothie

@We_are_accountable Ah no, I am not a socialist or democrat and I am fairly quite pro-individual freedom. I am just trying to understand how your dismay of anything homosexual arose just because your political opponents endorsed it yet you say you have nothing against the homosexual? How you suddenly starting going against LGBT because there is acceptance? Are you uncomfortable with LGBT having a voice?

Still refuse to answer questions. A shame

smoothie said:

You cite it "unnatural", "abnormal" and fight so hard against this "agenda"? What is such an agenda? What is this conditioning/brainwash to create your political opponents? Do you think the entire world is against you?

MayCaesar said:

If homosexuality is not bad, then what is wrong with telling people that homosexuality is not bad? What conditioning exactly do you imply; is someone converting straight kids into homosexuals or something?

You keep talking about some mythical "LGBT agenda", but never explain what exactly it entails.

You have mentioned the problem with "LGBT commercials" or something, but never explained how they are fundamentally different from "straight commercials", as an example. It is not clear what exactly you are unhappy with and why.

We_are_accountable

@smoothie

If I have to explain to you, in detail, what has OBVIOUSLY been going on for years with this non stop LGBT cheer leading by the Democrat Party, then I have over estimated your knowledge of politics. A person would have had to live in a cave for the last 20 years not to see the activism of these LGBT groups.

I repeatedly give you example of what is happening in our public schools, on our family programming TV commercials, etc.
We can't sit down with our children to watch entertainment shows such as The Vocie, American Idol, Awards shows, etc., where they don't go out of their way to cheer lead a singer being Trangender or Homosexual.
It's funny how they never mention a singer being Heterosexual before he sings. No one needs to know what a person's sexual orientation is! It's a singing competition! Millions of parents do not want their children being conditioned to believe that these sexual orientations are normal.

You know exactly what my concerns are, and simply play ignorant while trying to paint me as hating Gays. STOP THE DECEPTION!

If you are ignorant to all this propaganda and conditioning of our children, then please ignore me, I want to debate people who are hoenst and who watch the news.

I said you are the type of person that fits my generalization to a tee, because you never speak out against all the issues. If you agree with some of my positions, why are you silent on these issues? Where are your debates speaking to these issues?

You are silent on the Left's support of No Restriction abortions, Infanticide, Democrats ending the Hyde Amendment, Democrats trying to force ALL public schools to allow boys, who think they are girls, into our daughter's sports, Transgenders talking to our kindergartners, etc. etc.

Your silence says it all! You have no problem commenting on my concerns with all this LGBT activism. If you agree with some of it, try speaking out once in your life, and may be stemming this extreme Big Brother indoctrination of our children. When I see you actually speaking out, I might actually believe you. Create some debates if you care about these issues.

smoothie

@We_are_accountable Have you ever wondered why there is such activism? Why people go out of the way to mention homosexuality like its a fancy title? I don't think homosexuality is any more special than heterosexuality, but there are key differences. Homosexuality and LGBT is politicized, because of people on both sides going out of their way to say yes or no to homosexual acceptance. The fact that this is a thing is sad because people don't leave them alone. There was discrimination and hatred, same with african-americans. If you are only against the politicization of LGBT, you need to think of why it's there.

Once people remain silent about any mention of homosexuality, it would stop being such a big deal. However, there are people like you who cry about the mear sight of a homosexual couple anywhere in the media. You are giving them more reasons to politicize homosexuality when it is brought down as worse than heterosexuality. Also, the mere mention of homosexuality is not always a political statement. Entertainment and media used to not have the power to make characters any sexuality other than straight, since it is accepted mainstream now they finally have the chance to include it if they want to. If you want to go out and silence these creators for their choice of what to include in THEIR MEDIA, which they have all the choice to include whatever they want, then you are fighting against freedom of the press. If there was mention of christian anything in commercials and media I wouldn't scream like you because I don't go out of my way to get upset about different things that don't align with what I believe. I recognize difference and respect other people's right to their personal views.

Your line of thought of "unnatural abnormality" is what caused a backlash from LGBT members. They used their discrimination to gain power politically to fight for their same equality to heterosexuality. I believe in a few decades, people will stop caring about people's sexuality and just see them as a person instead of a sex act. We can only hope so. However, if you continue to point at every mention of homosexuality like its always "left liberal media bias" then we will get nowhere. Homosexuality exists and is not always your political "indoctrination" to just MENTION it.

You seem to have a "if you aren't with me you're against me" problem. Not everybody is going to go out of their way and spam forums on this website talking about how much they hate modern-day issues. I am not a whiner and you can't make me shout and scream about every little first-world problem that goes against personal politics. Just because I am "silent" doesn't mean I automatically agree with everything. You need to understand not everybody has the same outraged mindset as you do.

MayCaesar

@We_are_accountable ;

Singers sing songs about being attracted to the opposite sex all the time. Homosexuals actually very rarely, if ever, sing such songs; it is enough for them to just say, "Guys, I am gay", and move on.

People put out their heterosexuality much-much-much more than their homosexuality. People are just used to it, so they do not pay any attention to it. While putting out one's homosexuality is relatively novel, hence some people feel like it is being overdone.

It is true that there is a lot of identity politics stuff, such as people complaining when there are no homosexuals among the Grammy award winners... But I fail to see how that conditions children in any way. Are your children going to become homosexuals just to spite the Grammy folks? Please.

Lastly, who gives a flying potato about what is "normal" and what is not? It is normal in the world to live in Third World conditions; I do not see people in the First World lining up to do so though. If you want your children to be normal, then you have already failed them in, at least, one way.

We_are_accountable

@smoothie

You keep distorting the facts of what we are talking about. This is because there is no refuting the truth of my words. You must distort and deceive in every response.

You just said that people on my side do not accept Homosexuals. COMPLETE DISTORTION AS ALWAYS!

I know why the Left has politicized these LGBT agendas! It's called politics, big money and votes! If you do not know this then WOW!
Yes, this all started for reasons of non discrimination when it came to jobs, hospital visitation rights, etc.
We on the Right accepted these common sense rights. That is old news! Stop talking about old news, and address the activism of what these groups are forcing on everyone. This is where the non stop arguing stems from.

You again distorted my stance on this issue. What a shock! You said I cry at the mear sight of a Homosexual couple in media. COMPLETE DISTORTION ONCE AGAIN!
I speak out against the CHEER LEADING of Homosexuality as being another normal sexual orientation... ON FAMILY PROGRAMMING, IN OUR PUBLIC SCHOOLS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
They do not simply show to Gay men together which I have no problem with. They spend the next couple minutes lifting up their Gay lifestyles as a wonderful normal thing to be embraced. GUESS WHAT? There are millons of parents watching this show with their impressionable children, who DO NOT AGREE with this political correct indoctrination. How about having some respect for parents when it comes to these very controversial issues.

You again distort my position when talking about freedom of the press. We have this thing called a RATING SYSTEM in our media, and they warn parents that certain shows are meant for an adult audience. This does not prevent free speech. It's a common sense system to protect our children from adult subject matter.
I have no problem with Gays in movies or documentaries, etc. etc. when it is known what the show entails.

I am talking about family programming where kids are watching. I realize you could not care less if our children are being indoctrinated to embrace Homosexuality or Transgenderism as being normal.

It's truly arrogant to so disrepect parent's right's to protect their children from adult subject matter.

So in a couple decades, do you want to live in a culture where people stop worrying about our children being exposed to sexual orientations where people are attracted to corpses, to animals, to consenting children, etc.?
Under your logic, parents such as myself who want to protect our children from all this LGBT normalization, should just and let it happen. Are you ok with your kids being taught that Beastiality, Necrophilia, etc. are also normal sexual orientations, OR DO YOU DRAW THE LINE SOMEWHERE?

Why do you get to draw the line with the current LGBT alphabet, but would deny future groups from jumping on the band wagon? Can you get the point? Can you grasp the slippery slope where society must protect our children from whatever activist group comes out next.

I don't have an outraged mindset! I have simple wisdom to see the slippery slpe in action, while people like you bury your head and say NOTHING! You allow activist groups to shape our children's future and you say NOTHING!!!

It's not outrage to take a stand! People like me took a stand when Slavery was the law of the land! No different then speaking out for unborn lives. This is not outrage. It is humanity!

smoothie

@We_are_accountable You saying the acceptance of homosexuals is wrong, constitutes me to believe you don't much like homosexuals. You keep proposing your negative opinions as the argument that it is lesser and unnatural but if you are fine with it then why do you keep doing this? If you are fine with a homosexual couple in media then why do you outrage when somebody mentions it is okay in that media? Very confusing.

I don't think in black and white either, obviously not everybody on "your side" hates homosexuals. You have distorted my view when making the claim of distortion, funny. Just for that, I will counter. I will say you are putting your accepting of "common sense" non-discrimination towards homosexuals in a lighter tone for "your side", while many members of "your side" would very much disagree with you. Look at some things rejected and approved by other members of "your side". You also offer no evidence of these "ads" so excuse me if I believe you think the inclusion of any gay couple is "political bias and indoctrination", another belief held by members "your side". However, I hate partisan generalization arguments so I'm gonna stop with that before you rage again and call me a "leftist".

It's not "forcing" to say "I think homosexuality is okay and should be accepted". It's not indoctrination to share beliefs. When you try to hide the mention of homosexuality in a positive light behind this "adult" rating, you are just blacking out opinions you don't like. There is no mention of these issues to be shoved behind an adult rating in many respected forms of media ratings. Why do you want to censor the media, you think somebody promoting rights for a discriminated group should be shoved behind the "adult" rating? Don't even try and pin "sexual content" on homosexuality either. Heterosexuality has been advertised in children's media for years without sex.

Should mentioning heterosexuality or christianity in a positive tone be put behind this "adult" rating aswell? Even when they just say "I think being straight is okay and should be accepted"? I guarantee you do not. I think you only care when it's mentioning something you don't like. This is why I think you are against the freedom of the press.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_Parental_Guidelines

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Association_of_America_film_rating_system

I also have good news. When children grow up to teenagers they will develop their own political and personal views that may be wildly different by how anybody or anything brought them up. People are not an immediate byproduct of what their parents personally believe, if you want to hide opposing political opinions from your kids it is in vain. I was raised conservatively and now I'm an independent voice. I watched Veggietales which was literally aimed at children to promote christianity but I'm still an atheist. People will get their own opinions upon their voting age of 18, despite any amount of authoritarian parenting. Why do you think so many conservative parents are worried about their kids being "indoctrinated" into liberalism by going to college? They are simply experimenting with their beliefs now that they are out of your control! Even further, as I said being gay doesn't have to be political. One day your kid might say "Dad I'm gay" no matter how protective you are!

AND FINALLY DON'T FORGET: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope for the millionth time

You definitely have an outraged mindset. You hardly post about anything in a positive light and always start your debates by being angry at somebody or some group of people. You come off as extremely angry to me.

We_are_accountable

@smoothie

I wonder if anti Slavery people came across as angry? I would hope any person with humanity would be outraged at slavery, at viable babies being killed for mere convenience, for children being born alive from an unsuccessful abortion, and then allowed to die on a table with absolutely no help from doctors, to our impressionable children being indoctrinated to ignore the Science of Biology, and believe that unions between two men is natural and normal.

This is like the twilight zone of depravity and for people like you to judge those who speak out, as being angry people? That is the most arrogent condescending denial of a person's right to be angry!

Everyone should be angry when political activist groups prey our children's minds! The only reason you are not angry over these Liberal issues is because you actually support them!!!!!
It's truly says everything about non Christians when they are BLIND to this depravity all around us, and totally silent!

You and every other non Christian who says nothing while our children are targeted, are the biggest proof of God's existence. Only insecure people who are rebelling against God, could support our children being indoctrinated by these activist groups.

Yes, I am angry watching our culture fall into the gutter. For you to try and say that all of this propaganda and LGBT cheer leading does not affect how our children will grow up and to what they will believe, is absolutely ludicrous!

Are you blind to the change in American culture? I can not debate dishonesty! To try to say that all this LGBT hysteria is not affecting our children's view on sexuality and the natural design of our Bodies, is ludicrous.

OF COURSE THIS AFFECTS OUR CHILDREN AND WHAT THEY GROW UP TO BELIEVE! GET REAL!

Why was the Left so outraged over the freedom of a community public school to vote to allow a morning prayer with no child forced to pray along?
According to you, children will grow up to be who they are no matter how they are raised, or what prayers they might hear in schools, etc. etc.

How can you be so hypocritical to fear children hearing a simple prayer in schools, but having no problem when LGBT groups are coming into the school to INDOCTRINATE THEM?

Yes, I get angry every time I debate a hypocrite who wants it ALL THEIR WAY! It's always ok to censor religious expression, but not LGBT expression!
Please don't tell me how you are not against allowing religious expression on public land, because you never speak out against THAT censorship!

smoothie

@We_are_accountable Shift the blame over to me about irrelevant topics and ranting ideologues, per usual.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque

This is you. You need to grow up and accept not everybody is a partisan crusader. I'm not going to be mad and rant about things and kill my own brain cells. I will have civil debates.

If a child grows up and discovers things on their own away from their parents, they may develop their own views, they will have the freedom to do so. People will get their own opinions as they grow up! There are many liberal people from conservative families and conservative people from liberal families.

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2013/05/17/children-with-politically-engaged-parents-are-more-likely-to-deviate-from-their-parents-political-views-in-adulthood/

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/false-cause

Children cannot vote, and if you are uncomfortable with children sharing different beliefs than their parents GOOD! It proves your authoritarian control. I have never fought against religious expression on the same grounds as LGBT expression, I am only giving examples making your position look EXTREMELY OPINIONATED and BIAS which is very true. I believe in the freedom of information (not wanting to blackout everything I don't like) and that anybody can believe whatever they want. There are millions of religious clubs/mentioning in schools and on television and history classes. However, when you see a mention of a view you don't like you FREAK OUT. You are only angry at every opposing opinion and having anybody hear them. You only want to censor, no matter how much you shift the blame to things you don't like. YOU are the hypocrite.

We are done here, troll. I have given you too many chances to expose your mindset but I'm still left confused. I guess I really will never get the trolls on this website, but I at least tried to understand. Have a nice life.

We_are_accountable

@smoothie

I will waste no more time with a very very deceptive person if you continue to distort my position!

It says everything about a person's position when they refuse to debate the facts and constantly distort the positions of others.

Again you said I want to black out everything I don't like... !
I said I want to keep LGBT content and indoctrination off FAMILY PROGRAMMING WHERE KIDS ARE WATCHING!
CAN YOU READ? OR MUST YOU ALWAYS DISTORT THE DEBATE TO TRY AND DEMONIZE YOUR OPPONENT?
Where did I EVER say people can not believe whatever they want to believe? !

You did what you always do and DISTORTED what i said about school prayer. Who does not know that schools have diverse classes where children can voluntarily join. That's called a CHOICE with the parents understanding the class and agreeing to it.

I'm talking about Transgenders coming into the classrooms, talking to every child. I'm not talking about special classes where kids join up.

What a shock that you did not mention school prayer? I must have missed where you said you support a public school's choice to have a prayer at beginning of day, with no chIld forced to pray. According to you, this will have no affect on what a child grows up to believe, correct. Are you for the freedom of choice for a school prayer in public schools?

If so, why have I never heard you speaking out against that censorship? It's amazing how fast people like you will demonize any Christian or Conservative who dares to question LGBT indoctrination of our children, yet you never defend a school's right to have a prayer.

Why is your so called anti censorship always one way? I don't want to censor anything unless it is controversial adult subject manner being put forth on our children. If you support censoring a school's choice to have a prayer, you better also support censoring every other controversial issue from schools.

MayCaesar

@We_are_accountable

Slavery was defeated exactly because people, instead of flipping out, made rational arguments against it and defeated the opposition in an open debate. Those who yelled in anger, on the other hand, have been left out of the pages of history books, and even other anti-slavery people tried to stay as far away from them as possible.

You are also picking the most irrelevant things ever, making the claim that the culture is falling apart based on them. Really, LGBT commercials and abortion clinics is what upsets you? ... How are you still alive? On this planet, there are wars, there are millions people starving, there are totalitarian states, there are genocides, there is torture. Yet two girls kissing on TV is what prevents you from sleeping at night?

I sense that it is not a real concern, but, rather, a product of your media bubble. There is no way anyone would start worrying about these things on their own; there has to be some serious outside influence here. Virtually all of your positions are exactly the same as those of the current bunch of Fox News anchors. It cannot be a coincidence.

We_are_accountable

@MayCaesar

LOL, spoken from the side that could not sleep at night from the thought of a public school prayer!!!!!

Your hypocrisy is truly pathetic.

You call killing viable babies for mere convenience as being irrelevant? How dead inside are you?

Would you have no problem with some dysfunctional person talking to your kids in school about Nechrofilia, or Beastiality? According to those groups, they are also born that way and want to be recognised with every other LGBT group in our public schools.They would also like to be included in the discussions with "safe places", and also be included in our history books.

It's truly sick how far the Left has fallen into bed with anti Science sexual disorders, and now conditioning our children to embrace.

For you to be so blind to the dangers of what is happening, means you lack the most basic of discernment to the dangers of all this LGBT madness.

You would be fine living in a world where the children's fathers are a name on a sperm bank's donor list. It is hard knowing we have so many people such as yourself, who fear the very mention moral values.

MayCaesar

@We_are_accountable

I could not care less about public school prayer. You should stop prescribing people positions they do not hold.

People are free to talk to my potential kids about anything; I do not believe in sheltered parenting and think my kids should get to interact with the real world, including its most controversial sides.

I am not "blind" to the dangers; I am perfectly aware of them as a result of cold, emotionless analysis, which is why I know that they are inconsequential. You would not even think about them, if you did not watch sensationalist media all the time, is my guess.

Once again, your positions mirror those promoted by Fox News one-in-one. It is clear that you are not thinking for yourself, and this is further supported by how weak and shallow your arguments are. You do not have a well thought-out position on things you talk about; your positions are not yours.

xlJ_dolphin_473

@We_are_accountable
LGBT attractions are not unnatural, because they happen in nature.
You say that homosexual relationships are broken. Well, if a homosexual man had a relationship with a heterosexual woman or vice versa, the relationship would be even more likely to break up.