"Reparative Therapy" for Gays

[DavidS]

I'm a conservative. I have no liberal leanings and I don't consider myself to be an extremist. I'm both a social and fiscal conservative. If a conservative doesn't believe in gun ownership he doesn't purchase a gun. If a liberal doesn't believe in gun ownership he doesn't want anyone to be able to purchase a gun. Now, who is the extremist, the conservative, or the liberal? I'm going to hazard a guess that you are relatively young. I'll let you in on a little secret. As you age your liberal leanings will disappear. If they don't you'll sound a lot like Harry Reid when you get old. You're beginning to sound like Harry Reid already.

I am sure there are at least as many liberal extremists or more as there are conservative extremists. I happen to not agree in many areas with either one. It is my opinion that extremism is the main reason Washington is in gridlock.

I would say I am a fiscal conservative and a social moderate.

As long as I sound like the Harry that got the A or B rating.

Be careful about assumptions. I get my monthly check, too.

[b4uqzme]

I read and re-read the article carefully. It's a shame that the media portrays offering help to those who seek it as something negative. Just some sensationalism pointed at the conservative party.

I see nothing wrong with reparative therapy for those who want it. That doesn't say anything about my opinion of gays. I also endorse rehab for those seeking to break their drug habits, marriage counseling for anyone wanting to save their marriage, antibiotics for someone needing to cure their cold... I also mow the lawn when it gets too long (doesn't mean I hate grass)... a new washer when the faucet starts dripping (I like water I really do)... I know I am getting a little silly but so is this article... and so is this thread IMO.

Many issues are not political at all...we politicize them.

[DavidS]

Many issues are not political at all...we politicize them.

Absolutely! But it was not the media that politicized it.
It was the Republican Party that decided to politicize the issue by including it in their platform. The repercussions are their own fault.

It is actions like this that make me shake my head at the party leadership.

[ripley16]

I thought this was a gun forum. Seems to be coming more of an ultra right wing ****** forum. Sad.

What the ultra left wing conspiracy calls ultra right wing used be just called normal.

These days feel more like a "Bizarro Superman" comic book issue. Everything is upside down and backwards.

[b4uqzme]

Absolutely! But it was not the media that politicized it.
It was the Republican Party that decided to politicize the issue by including it in their platform. The repercussions are their own fault.

It is actions like this that make me shake my head at the party leadership.

Yep, silly.

[Bawanna]

I think it's all a matter of government sticking their noses in places they got no business sticking it. Gays, religion, what size soft drink I can order, these are things that the federal government has no business being involved in.
It's all progressive steps leading to the point where they tell us every move of our day.

In most of this stuff for once Hildog has it right. What difference does it make.

[DavidS]

+1

[muggsy]

I am sure there are at least as many liberal extremists or more as there are conservative extremists. I happen to not agree in many areas with either one. It is my opinion that extremism is the main reason Washington is in gridlock.

I would say I am a fiscal conservative and a social moderate.

As long as I sound like the Harry that got the A or B rating.

Be careful about assumptions. I get my monthly check, too.

Allow me to explain something to you David. Gays aren't seeking equality they are seeking social acceptance of their perversions. If they were seeking equality a civil union would give them what they are looking for. The have equal rights now. A homosexual can't marry a person of the same sex in most states and neither can someone who is straight. If same sex marriage is allowed then why can't a man marry two women in the name of love. What's wrong with a man and his daughter marrying in the name of love. How about Jocko marrying one of his sheep, or the entire flock for that matter in the name of love? Destroy the definition of marriage and you destroy it's meaning. When nothing is immoral anything goes.

[DavidS]

Allow me to explain something to you David. Gays aren't seeking equality they are seeking social acceptance of their perversions. If they were seeking equality a civil union would give them what they are looking for. The have equal rights now. A homosexual can't marry a person of the same sex in most states and neither can someone who is straight. If same sex marriage is allowed then why can't a man marry two women in the name of love. What's wrong with a man and his daughter marrying in the name of love. How about Jocko marrying one of his sheep, or the entire flock for that matter in the name of love? Destroy the definition of marriage and you destroy it's meaning. When nothing is immoral anything goes.

History has already shown that separate but equal is not equal.

Marry two women, it was legal. It was legal for centuries and still is in some locations. It was legal in the USA until the mid 1800's. What changed?

My philosophy on this matter: The government should get out of the marriage business completely, it is a religious rite and a personal choice. Whether a person is married or not should not have an effect on how the government treats the person.

My turn to guess: You are one generation previous to mine. You are born-again Christian. You are not going to agree with my viewpoint on very many occasions.

[Bob T]

I'll let you in on a little secret. As you age your liberal leanings will disappear.

Or...as in my case...as I age, (58 now), my conservative leanings are disappearing...I've become more liberal...especially on social issues. Just like Barry Goldwater...

If they were seeking equality a civil union would give them what they are looking for. The have equal rights now.

No they don't. Civil unions do not give the same rights as marriage, period. In most states it gives a few of the rights, not near all of the rights.

I like you muggsy, but am an old guy who is willing to change...gay marriage does not change my life, or your life, or any straight person's life...so let it happen...

[tv_racin_fan]

No they don't. Civil unions do not give the same rights as marriage, period. In most states it gives a few of the rights, not near all of the rights.

Civil union as they are currently defined do not give the same rights as marriage but then niether does marriage when it is defined by govt as a union between one man and one woman. Civil union could have given the same rights with the same amount of govt action as marriage can.

Personally I think what should have happened is as far as govt is concerned it should have been defined as civil union and then be a personal thing between a couple and their church as to if and or when they had a marriage. So one would go to the courthouse and enter into a civil union for the govt "benefits" then to a church if you chose to have a marriage.

[muggsy]

History has already shown that separate but equal is not equal.

Marry two women, it was legal. It was legal for centuries and still is in some locations. It was legal in the USA until the mid 1800's. What changed?

My philosophy on this matter: The government should get out of the marriage business completely, it is a religious rite and a personal choice. Whether a person is married or not should not have an effect on how the government treats the person.

My turn to guess: You are one generation previous to mine. You are born-again Christian. You are not going to agree with my viewpoint on very many occasions.

The Roman's had your attitude and look where it got them. To destroy a nation you must first destroy it's morality. For example, since when does a woman's right to choose supersede a child's right to life.to To destroy a nation first devalue life. If it's ok to kill 'em before their born then it's ok to kill em when they become a drain on society. You're on a very slippery slope David. Don't allow yourself to go a step too far. I'm a son of the greatest generation. I've experienced what you have yet to experience. Profit from it. Now you don't have to guess.

[muggsy]

Or...as in my case...as I age, (58 now), my conservative leanings are disappearing...I've become more liberal...especially on social issues. Just like Barry Goldwater...


No they don't. Civil unions do not give the same rights as marriage, period. In most states it gives a few of the rights, not near all of the rights.

I like you muggsy, but am an old guy who is willing to change...gay marriage does not change my life, or your life, or any straight person's life...so let it happen...

Bob, don't fix what ain't broke. We need things like morality to sustain a nation. Marriage was created because it benefited society. Homosexuality doesn't benefit society in any way. Your free to change if your happy with the direction in which our country is going. I see that direction as down hill. The changes being sought are straight from Rules for Radicals and those changes are designed to move us toward socialism. I don't want that for my children or my children's children.

[berettabone]

Allow me to explain something to you David. Gays aren't seeking equality they are seeking social acceptance of their perversions. If they were seeking equality a civil union would give them what they are looking for. The have equal rights now. A homosexual can't marry a person of the same sex in most states and neither can someone who is straight. If same sex marriage is allowed then why can't a man marry two women in the name of love. What's wrong with a man and his daughter marrying in the name of love. How about Jocko marrying one of his sheep, or the entire flock for that matter in the name of love? Destroy the definition of marriage and you destroy it's meaning. When nothing is immoral anything goes.

How do you know he hasn't????????????????

[Southerngunner]

I thought this was a gun forum. Seems to be coming more of an ultra right wing ****** forum. Sad.

I am also a member of other gun forums as well and one of them has a political section that is called "the Minefield" and it is recomended that you enter at your own risk. My point is if there is a sub forum that you don't care for you have control if you participate or not. What is said at the political side stays there just use the rest of the areas that suit you.

I personally have my own opinions about gay folks and it is not a lifestyle that I believe in or condone. And I have a problem being told that I have to accept and respect their actions,I Do Not and Will not.
Reparitive therapy? What are they going to do give them the sex organs that they were not born with so they can be the opposite gender,or just make them all politicians