Yes, that is also an extremist viewpoint.
Most extremists were usually fighting for liberty, equality, and justice, in their minds. It's the tactics relative to the importance/freedoms gained, not the content, that determines whether someone is an extremist.

That cant be. Maybe 20 years ago like you said but Roy Moore, who wants homosexuals jailed, and his supporters like president trump are not extremist. The people who speak to them are. Things have been reversed !!

The lowest form of the lowest form of wit. Congratulations on losing the argument I guess?

Mike Pence (if the views attributed to him by left wing media are true*) is an extremist. That doesn't preclude the gay lobby being extremist also.

By the way, gays already have liberty, equality and justice in the Western world (don't get me started on Islam). What they want is for people to be forced to accept their mental abnormality as "normal" and desirable (and it is an abnormality - it's a mental condition that severely affects health, mental health, quality of life and normal participation in male-female pair bonding), and for society to be forced to sanction and recognize gay bonding as equivalent to formal religious male-female pair bonding.

They're doing by this vilification, victimization, bullying, deceit and pushing for notions of crimethink, including in laws (Canada HRC for example). They're extremist scum, just like the people who use to want to lock them up or forcibly control their behavior are extremist scum.

That you only think one side is problematic does not bode well for your morality or ethics or concern for impartial principles (liberty, justice, equality, as you say).

*They're probably not; even the notion that he might have supported funding for voluntary "conversion" therapy is not settled. http://www.politifact.com/california...-settled-matt/

Never claimed to be a whit fountain like you. Go to go with what you got.


Nope they are still oppressed here sometimes.


That you think im in an argument with you is funny.

I'll grant you there are a handful of US states where gay people may have a harder time. Calling it "oppressed" is a bit rich though, and disrespectful to people were actually oppressed in a meaningful way.

Like the cake makers. Good point.

Let's review:

Good extremists = Christians who want to get rid of gays, blacks and poors. Other religions need not apply.

Bad extremists = Anyone who opposes the "good extremists" and would like everyone to enjoy the same protections under the law.


See? It's easy to understand once you accept the tooth.

I think it is explained well enough even in the first article, the one you linked, without having to read the counter argument I linked, but how about this:

There is today a criteria for "being Scottish", which might be 'subject has a Scottish passport'.
There used to be previous criteria for "being a person in the Northern parts of the British Isles", which perhaps included 'subject lived in the Northern parts of the British Isles', but also 'subject's favourite Bond is Sean Connery". Not only is this far too broad for today's classification, it is NOT the same classification, it is a large superset.

The claim you have offered is that 80% of children that considered themselves Scottish at the time no longer do.
But the facts are that those children (*) only considered themselves to be from the Northern parts of the British Isles, and it is not at all clear that they ever considered themselves to be Scottish.

In summary: perhaps there are many children that used to be but are no longer gender dysphoric, but this cannot reasonably be demonstrated from the data at hand.

(*) Perhaps I am not reading the article properly, but I was shocked at this excerpt: "Singh notes that of the 139 participants she successfully contacted for followup, “88 (63.3%) met diagnostic criteria for GID in childhood and the remaining 51 (36.7%) were subthreshold for the diagnosis” ".
So, in the original study, only 63% of the participants met THAT criteria?! The criteria that is much more broad than the modern criteria being compared to????

Well this would be an important question, though it could be viewed as moving the goalposts away from the original "80%" claim. I thought I read something in the TransAdvocate article, but it must have been a link or two away from it, that mentioned some of today's clinics having 100% accuracy rates. I'd take that with a pinch of salt, but what I would suggest is that there are some alarming anecdotes of zealot parents making tragic decisions that are obviously messed up, but when these stories are the ones you hear most much about, it skews public opinion.

The most obvious point that surely you'll agree, is that there is a chasm of results between a desired 0% prediction failure and a claim of 80% prediction failure. You don't have to have perfect results in order to respond to spurious claims of enormous failure rates.

Social norms / customs is not the same as sexual attraction / preference. While I agree I have an emotional interest through empathy, in that I hate to see displays of bigotry against particular minority groups, I don't have an emotional investment in thinking about underlying causes. In fact my usual response to someone trying to justify their anti-homosexual bigotry is "so what if it is a choice?"

Just remember:

If someone is gay and they turn straight, well of course they are still gay.

If someone is straight and they turn gay, well of course they were gay all along!

Funny how that works.

My personal opinion is that people are typically fluid and many folks transition during their lives (and sometimes several times). I know some gay folks who obviously can't stand the thought of pussy and probably never will, but others who swing back and forth. I imagine that most people are not binary and will make some changes as they progress through life. I know i have.

But here's the key point. Who cares? Why is it anyone's business what Joe or Sally want to do with their lives? All the arguments about whether people can choose or are born that way are moot. In either scenario, it's their right to do whatever the **** they want without having to endure bigotry, stigmatization, violence, etc.

Yeah. Anyone who actually knows any gays and bisexuals knows that it's very fluid for a majority. I'm just floored at the dishonest claims that it's innate and unchangeable. It's against science and common experience, but the pro-gay lobby parrot it like crazy.
Because we live in a socialist world with socialist schooling and have to decide what to tell our kids. The disease burden of homosexuality is immense. As a matter of social policy it's best discouraged. And religious people deeply believe it's wrong and would prefer not to associate with it. You want to interfere with their right to do so. Why? Why be a busybody? Why not "who cares" the religious view as well? If someone wants to put up a "god hates ****" sign, good on them. If someone wants to be in a gay relationship, good on them. Why the double standard?
Violence, sure. We already have laws about that. But why shouldn't they endure bigotry and stigmatization? The bigots in this thread are doing that to Christian people. Why are they fair game and not gays? There is probably less choice in religion than there is in homosexuality - the familial patterns of inheritance are far stronger in religion than in homosexuality.

In other words, people should be free to bigoted and stigmatizing if they want. Or does your view say that highly unhealthy buttsex and gender fluidity should be promoted and encouraged and called normal, but that stigmatization and bigotry - also normal if you look at the pro-gay people in this thread and their disdain for other opinions - shouldn't be called ok and normal?

That's a weird view, imo.

The important thing to remember is to support a president who supports someone who wants to put them in jail. And then call them extremist when they speak up against that non extremism action of wanting homosexuals jailed.

You guys should quote your dishonest straw man. But you wont.

Massive hypocrisy and wrongness again. But you are blind to it. For being the bright one you sure do that a lot.

Seriously though why do people care so much about other people sex lives and force their way into others bedrooms. Strange world.

Who's forcing their way into a bedroom? You have bizarre, almost paranoid views. I don't know anything about Mike Pence, but if left wing politifact are saying it's uncertain if he even supported a bill to provide funding for voluntary conversion therapy, I'm quite sure that everything you say is bull****.
Indeed.

Still. Do you accept that societies are built on mores? And that those mores are part of what determine, ultimately, the fate of said society?

Male-female pair bonding seems to be good for kids, their emotional and intellectual and mental health. Western society was built on that. We may or may not have advanced enough ecnomically and with division of labor for that not to matter as much as any more. But what if we're wrong?

For someone who hates Islam as much as you do...

A bunch of America. And you. You dont want homosexuals to have sex in their bedroom and think it should be discouraged. Force was hyperbole before you nit it up. You still inject yourself into the bedroom.

Never brought up Mike Pence not once. Not sure way you keep going on about him. Bad reading comp or making up positions for people to hold again i guess. Roy Moore is who im taking about.



Like i said you inject yourself into their sex life.

That's a stupid statement. That's like me saying that every Democrat
supports serial rapists because they support Bill Clinton.

Or, Democrats support serial sexual harassers, as long as they
vote Democrat (like how they currently are coddling Harvey Weinstein).

Trump supports the senate candidacy of someone who wants homosexuals in jail. Its like a fact man. He could say no i dont support you Roy because im pro lgbt even though ive kicked them out of the military and curtailed their equal protection. But nope he supports and will help try to elect someone who calls for their jailing.

So what in your mind you can endorse anyone and not have consciences or responsibility. Like if someone wanted AA put back in chains or in jail and trump supported their candidacy all is good. Crazy world.

Tooth tries so hard to dress up his spew, but underneath it's the same tired crap of "Why are you intolerant of intolerance?".

So dull.

So you openly admit to lying to further your position? No one is trying to "force their way into the bedroom". That implies and conjures up feelings and images of people actually physically coming in, something that would make nearly anyone recoil.

Why do you feel the need to create this dishonest hyperbole? Is it because your argument has no merit without it? This is just a fraction of what I mean about the gay lobby lying and smearing. Thank you for demonstrating it.

Ok, withdrawn. I don't see what one senator has to do with anything - all Democrats including you are rape supporters by your standards. Are you really going to be that silly?

Quote the post where I said or implied this?
I don't inject myself into anyone's sex life, or their association choices, or anything really. I'm a far more "live and let live" person than you are.. What people want to do in their lives is there business - whether it's not serve gay people, have sex with men, women, animals, hold up signs saying "god hates ****", I really don't care. Neither do the vast majority of people you hate. We are less of a moralizing busybody than people like you.

Where the point of disagreement comes down to is this:

1. Should we elevate homosexual behavior, as a society, to the same level as male-female lifetime pair bonding, which has developed out of religious institutions and the raising of children in stable homes?

2. Should children be taught that homosexual behavior is equivalent to heterosexual behavior? Should it be encouraged? What about gender dysmorphia? Should the breakdown of gender boundaries be encouraged, and treated as normal?

3. Should religious people be forced to do things they don't want to do, that are deeply against their faith, in order to stamp out "discrimination"?

They're the only points of contention. That you have manufacture other ones rather than talk about the actual points of contention shows a deep cowardice, and a realization that you don't have a strong position.

(1) can be argued convincingly both ways
(2) is a definite no for many of the questions. The responsible position is "Some people are gay and unchangeable, people's private business is their own, but homosexuality comes with mental and physical health risks".
(3) is an absolute no.

I realize why you don't want to discuss the actual points of contention - you have extremist views on these questions and your only way out is to slander your opposition and attribute views to them they don't hold. It's sad and pathetic. But it's your life.

And yet...

Sounds like you're not really "live and let live", doesn't it?

If it walks and quacks like a Christian fundamentalist...

Live and let live up until the point you're mowing women and kids down with trucks, keeping women as chattel, throwing gays off buildings, whipping them and stoning them to death in public, honor killing women. Support for many of these is > 50% in the global Muslim community.

If it walks and quacks like a vile person who equates peaceful personal choice with heinous acts...

Let's pretend that your numbers are right. Once upon a time >50% of Christians supported the same views. Does that make Christianity a vile religion, iyo? Is the Islam of the other 50% ok?

This is a false statement. The ignorance of history and culture of people equating historical Christianity with modern day (or historical) Islam is astounding. Pick up a book one day.
If true, sure. But a religion is a living thing. If Islam evolves to become say a mystical religion (for example, the tiny Muslim gnostic movement) and leaves behind its xenophobia, child-rape, slavery, jihad, women as chattel, murder of detractors view and laws, then Islam is no longer a vile religion.
No, most of it is still barbaric and oppressive and has been for 50 generations. The sliver at the top of this - close to "live and let live" and without the extreme suppression of female autonomy - is "ok":