Generation LGBTQIA - UGH!

[PaulConventionWV]

So the reason to applaud and hobnob with the ignorant is because they have donated a bunch of money (a really unproven claim, given the people involved in these threads). Absolute logic wins once again!

I would also like to express my sadness at your having to entertain a guest within your ass, or is it that you're having a donkey over for dinner, or perhaps it was some kind of insult? Clarity is somewhere up there near godliness, I hear.

Are you really telling us that this forum is hateful simply because some people here entertain the possibility of being an ex-gay? Is that what "hate" is to you people these days, you liberals? You can accuse us of hate all you want, but that doesn't make it true. Question your own beliefs about moral conservatism.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

We need to think of the word for people with no sexual organs

Androids?

 

[PaulConventionWV]

There probably isn't such thing as an ex-gay. Unless, that person was never gay before, or is just stopping from having "homosexual urges". That doesn't mean he/she isn't attracted to same sex. Don't believe me? Read up on some of the ex-founders of Exodus International, NARTH, Love Won Out, or any of its other parasitic sisters. See how far that got them before they had to admit that conversion/reparative therapy is a bunch of crap.

Oh and second of all, who fucking cares whether you're born that way or whether you're not. I don't make an argument for either one. I'm happy and I don't care to force my moral code on you. I think that's a fair enough deal, don't you?

So how can you say that there "probably isn't such a thing as an ex gay"? How could you possibly even begin to make that assessment? Do you not see the hypocrisy in claiming that those who voluntarily choose to identify themselves as ex-gay are faking it or just not aware of who they really are? You are assuming your own infallibility but the fallibility of others is still very real to you. You don't see that you're making some of the same arguments as those you label "homophobes" when they say you're just not aware of who you are?

Also, I don't care what happened to some organization who turned out to be failures in life. The reality is that we have many people now who are starting to go against the grain by "converting" themselves successfully. As predicted, people like you will ostensibly deny that they were real gays in the first place or that they really did convert like they say they did. You all have your own way of saying it, but in the end, you are repeating the same hypocritical mantra, that those who choose to change are lying to themselves about who they are.

And who cares whether they were born that way? Well, it seems that you give them no option than being the same person they've always been, so it kind of seems like it matters to you. Otherwise, you would welcome the idea that some gays can change their ways since you have no way of knowing whether or not they truly are different. And yet you assume they "probably aren't" any different because it reinforces your preconceived notions about how sexuality works.

Also, I don't believe I said anything about forcing my moral code on anyone. Did I ever do that to you? I advocate persuasion not force. Can you please explain to me why the automatic assumption is that I am using force to spread my views. Please, I would like to hear an explanation as to why I am automatically assumed to be a statist if I think it's possible to convert, or if I think homosexuality is morally wrong. What part of that argument even implies force?

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I never said i believed in EX-Gay or conversion therapy. I don't. The (current) scientific consensus is that it is inborn. I just hate the activities of smug LBGT students and groups attacking their own people for being christian or being right wing. If they want to be what they project (Loving, Tolerant, scientific) then they should'nt be so damn smug, violent or self-confident. Rather, they should set a greater example of being loving or tolerant of their enemies. Of course, america likes shit flinging fights.

Bullshit. There's no "scientific consensus" on conversion therapy. Is this like the "consensus" on global warming, or the "consensus" on evolution? When are we going to stop being ruled by consensus?

As far as I know, the subject has hardly even been studied scientifically at all.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I never said i believed in EX-Gay or conversion therapy. I don't. The (current) scientific consensus is that it is inborn. I just hate the activities of smug LBGT students and groups attacking their own people for being christian or being right wing. If they want to be what they project (Loving, Tolerant, scientific) then they should'nt be so damn smug, violent or self-confident. Rather, they should set a greater example of being loving or tolerant of their enemies. Of course, america likes shit flinging fights.

Bullshit. There's no "scientific consensus" on conversion therapy. Is this like the "consensus" on global warming, or the "consensus" on evolution? When are we going to stop being ruled by consensus?

As far as I know, the subject has hardly even been studied scientifically at all.

 

[MelissaWV]

Are you really telling us that this forum is hateful simply because some people here entertain the possibility of being an ex-gay? Is that what "hate" is to you people these days, you liberals? You can accuse us of hate all you want, but that doesn't make it true. Question your own beliefs about moral conservatism.

Did you even read what I responded to?

Me: ... Threads like this are not uncommon. At least Theocrat isn't here to chime in as to the exact nature of one's eternal punishment.

Now let's pause for a moment. What does that have to do with saying the forum is hateful? Where did I say anything of the sort? We were discussing being ashamed of the behavior of a few people on the forums, not of their opinions. You're the one who introduced the word hate, then you tossed it into quotation marks and spun it around to tut-tut at me for using it.

I talked about ignorance. This thread has it in spades. So do a lot of other threads.

I talked about Theocrat. He has spoken at length about how most of us are going to hell, and is quite giddy when he tells you precisely what will happen. He's even said a few things I can't repeat in any company --- polite or otherwise --- about what should happen to LGBT who do not repent.

Other person: So? They probably campaign and donate more for Ron Paul than any socially liberal person. My stupid ass guest.

Here is an assertion that ignorance is okay, since the person donated more than I did, and campaigned more. Again, where's the word "hate"?

 

[Petar]

 

[pochy1776]

Please let this thread die, it pits paul supporter against paul supporter. Giant Douche (social liberal) vs turd sandwich (Theocrats)

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Did you even read what I responded to?



Now let's pause for a moment. What does that have to do with saying the forum is hateful? Where did I say anything of the sort? We were discussing being ashamed of the behavior of a few people on the forums, not of their opinions. You're the one who introduced the word hate, then you tossed it into quotation marks and spun it around to tut-tut at me for using it.

I talked about ignorance. This thread has it in spades. So do a lot of other threads.

Ok, so what are you calling ignorance? You seem to be of a like mind as the person you responded to and they seem to believe that gays can never be converted. I was responding to him as much as to you. The general anti-conversion sentiment is hypocritical and sickening.

I talked about Theocrat. He has spoken at length about how most of us are going to hell, and is quite giddy when he tells you precisely what will happen. He's even said a few things I can't repeat in any company --- polite or otherwise --- about what should happen to LGBT who do not repent.

I'm not sure why you're telling me about Theocrat. I'm not of a like mind to him.

Here is an assertion that ignorance is okay, since the person donated more than I did, and campaigned more. Again, where's the word "hate"?

Again, what's ignorance? That's the point. Before you go around telling people, "This doesn't justify your ignorance", why don't we settle whether or not they're as ignorant as you say?