Comments on: New York Republican Donors Back Gay Marriage Push http://www.rlc.org/ny-push/ The Conscience of the Republican Party Fri, 26 Apr 2013 21:19:07 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Anonymous http://www.rlc.org/ny-push/comment-page-1/#comment-20562 Anonymous Wed, 18 May 2011 05:16:00 +0000 http://www.rlc.org/?p=5139#comment-20562 Actually, NYJoe ... your comments validates the tendency to recklessness that is inherent to psycho-sexual/mental distress, and to futile gay-activist attempts to articulate a "new science" to justify ... distress! It has reached extremes of delusion that are ... unprecedented ... and your words confirm it! Consider the following (and remembering your words): "The A.P.A. Normalization of Homosexuality, and the Research Study of Irving Bieber"´, found at http://www.narth.com/docs/normalization.html  concludes with the following astonishing speculation which illustrates what happens when science is replaced by "human rights" arguments: "... Dr. Bieber pointed out that there were several other conditions in the DSM-II that did not fulfill the "distress and social disability" criteria: voyeurism, fetishism, sexual sadism, and masochism. A.P.A.'s Dr. Spitzer replied that these conditions should perhaps also be removed from the DSM-II ² and that if the sadists and fetishists were to organize as did the gay activists, they, too, might find their conditions normalized..." Ar you getting this Joe? Because if you are not, then Dr. Jeffrey Satinover in "Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth" calls it ..."denial so intense that self-examination is entirely precluded ..." In other texts, it is known as ... a strong delusion ... Actually, NYJoe … your comments validates the tendency to recklessness that is inherent to psycho-sexual/mental distress, and to futile gay-activist attempts to articulate a “new science” to justify … distress!

It has reached extremes of delusion that are … unprecedented … and your words confirm it!

Consider the following (and remembering your words):

“The A.P.A. Normalization of Homosexuality, and the Research Study of Irving Bieber”´, found at http://www.narth.com/docs/normalization.html  concludes with the following astonishing speculation which illustrates what happens when science is replaced by “human rights” arguments:

“… Dr. Bieber pointed out that there were several other conditions in the DSM-II that did not fulfill the “distress and social disability” criteria: voyeurism, fetishism, sexual sadism, and masochism. A.P.A.’s Dr. Spitzer replied that these conditions should perhaps also be removed from the DSM-II ² and that if the sadists and fetishists were to organize as did the gay activists, they, too, might find their conditions normalized…”

Ar you getting this Joe?

Because if you are not, then Dr. Jeffrey Satinover in “Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth” calls it …”denial so intense that self-examination is entirely precluded …”

In other texts, it is known as … a strong delusion …

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.rlc.org/ny-push/comment-page-1/#comment-20563 Anonymous Wed, 18 May 2011 05:16:00 +0000 http://www.rlc.org/?p=5139#comment-20563 Actually, NYJoe ... your comments validates the tendency to recklessness that is inherent to psycho-sexual/mental distress, and to futile gay-activist attempts to articulate a "new science" to justify ... distress! It has reached extremes of delusion that are ... unprecedented ... and your words confirm it! Consider the following (and remembering your words): "The A.P.A. Normalization of Homosexuality, and the Research Study of Irving Bieber"´, found at http://www.narth.com/docs/normalization.html  concludes with the following astonishing speculation which illustrates what happens when science is replaced by "human rights" arguments: "... Dr. Bieber pointed out that there were several other conditions in the DSM-II that did not fulfill the "distress and social disability" criteria: voyeurism, fetishism, sexual sadism, and masochism. A.P.A.'s Dr. Spitzer replied that these conditions should perhaps also be removed from the DSM-II ² and that if the sadists and fetishists were to organize as did the gay activists, they, too, might find their conditions normalized..." Ar you getting this Joe? Because if you are not, then Dr. Jeffrey Satinover in "Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth" calls it ..."denial so intense that self-examination is entirely precluded ..." In other texts, it is known as ... a strong delusion ... Actually, NYJoe … your comments validates the tendency to recklessness that is inherent to psycho-sexual/mental distress, and to futile gay-activist attempts to articulate a “new science” to justify … distress!

It has reached extremes of delusion that are … unprecedented … and your words confirm it!

Consider the following (and remembering your words):

“The A.P.A. Normalization of Homosexuality, and the Research Study of Irving Bieber”´, found at http://www.narth.com/docs/normalization.html  concludes with the following astonishing speculation which illustrates what happens when science is replaced by “human rights” arguments:

“… Dr. Bieber pointed out that there were several other conditions in the DSM-II that did not fulfill the “distress and social disability” criteria: voyeurism, fetishism, sexual sadism, and masochism. A.P.A.’s Dr. Spitzer replied that these conditions should perhaps also be removed from the DSM-II ² and that if the sadists and fetishists were to organize as did the gay activists, they, too, might find their conditions normalized…”

Ar you getting this Joe?

Because if you are not, then Dr. Jeffrey Satinover in “Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth” calls it …”denial so intense that self-examination is entirely precluded …”

In other texts, it is known as … a strong delusion …

]]> By: NYJoe http://www.rlc.org/ny-push/comment-page-1/#comment-20558 NYJoe Tue, 17 May 2011 12:31:00 +0000 http://www.rlc.org/?p=5139#comment-20558 Dear Eric, As a gay man I can tell you that liberal gays (and most other gays) would have no problem backing a measure that would allow multiple marriage for polyamorous couples. It is not a law that, if passed, would impinge on anyone's civil rights. To my knowledge, no one has ever proposed such a law to be voted on in in the legistlature. If it were to be proposed, I can gaurantee you that that the Conservatives would block it, not the liberals!...and particulalry not the gay voters. Again, allowing same-sex couples to marry does not hurt anyone, but not allowing it does restrict freedom. We are not looking for special rights, we are looking for equal rights. Dear Eric,

As a gay man I can tell you that liberal gays (and most other gays) would have no problem backing a measure that would allow multiple marriage for polyamorous couples. It is not a law that, if passed, would impinge on anyone’s civil rights. To my knowledge, no one has ever proposed such a law to be voted on in in the legistlature. If it were to be proposed, I can gaurantee you that that the Conservatives would block it, not the liberals!…and particulalry not the gay voters. Again, allowing same-sex couples to marry does not hurt anyone, but not allowing it does restrict freedom. We are not looking for special rights, we are looking for equal rights.

]]> By: NYJoe http://www.rlc.org/ny-push/comment-page-1/#comment-20559 NYJoe Tue, 17 May 2011 12:31:00 +0000 http://www.rlc.org/?p=5139#comment-20559 Dear Eric, As a gay man I can tell you that liberal gays (and most other gays) would have no problem backing a measure that would allow multiple marriage for polyamorous couples. It is not a law that, if passed, would impinge on anyone's civil rights. To my knowledge, no one has ever proposed such a law to be voted on in in the legistlature. If it were to be proposed, I can gaurantee you that that the Conservatives would block it, not the liberals!...and particulalry not the gay voters. Again, allowing same-sex couples to marry does not hurt anyone, but not allowing it does restrict freedom. We are not looking for special rights, we are looking for equal rights. Dear Eric,

As a gay man I can tell you that liberal gays (and most other gays) would have no problem backing a measure that would allow multiple marriage for polyamorous couples. It is not a law that, if passed, would impinge on anyone’s civil rights. To my knowledge, no one has ever proposed such a law to be voted on in in the legistlature. If it were to be proposed, I can gaurantee you that that the Conservatives would block it, not the liberals!…and particulalry not the gay voters. Again, allowing same-sex couples to marry does not hurt anyone, but not allowing it does restrict freedom. We are not looking for special rights, we are looking for equal rights.

]]> By: Rogerwilli http://www.rlc.org/ny-push/comment-page-1/#comment-20548 Rogerwilli Sun, 15 May 2011 01:11:00 +0000 http://www.rlc.org/?p=5139#comment-20548 As to this "small but influential group" ...    If Governor Cuomo, Clifford Asness, Paul Singer and Sean Avery cannot rebut the 21 specific reasons militating against "gay marriage" in the online article "Was Cuomo Misled on Gay Marriage?" then ... are they being misled on this issue?    Or ... are they willfully misleading others?    Do they possess the courage to reverse themselves … given the facts?    The truth around this development may be far simpler ... gay activists DEPEND on the fact that their “supporters” would rather not read the detail, and are "sympathetic" the "tolerance" trigger ...    Dr. Joseph Nicolosi offers the following comment about "intellectual circles" in his online article "The Removal of Homosexuality from the Psychiatric Manual"    "... Militant gay advocates working in a small but forceful network have caused apathy and confusion within our society. They insist that acceptance of the homosexual as a person cannot occur without endorsement of the homosexual condition. Intellectual circles too—who are self-conscious about sounding intolerant—proclaim homosexuality as normal, yet it is still not so for the average person for whom it “just doesn’t seem right.”... "    The difficulty is that, once they have been made aware of the facts, it takes a lot of courage to admit to being misled, and reverse themselves!    Again, do they possess the courage to reverse themselves … given the facts? As to this “small but influential group” … 
 
If Governor
Cuomo, Clifford Asness, Paul Singer and Sean Avery cannot rebut the 21
specific reasons militating against “gay marriage” in the online article
“Was Cuomo Misled on Gay Marriage?” then … are they being misled on
this issue? 
 
Or … are they willfully misleading others? 
 
Do they possess the courage to reverse themselves … given the facts? 
 
The
truth around this development may be far simpler … gay activists
DEPEND on the fact that their “supporters” would rather not read the
detail, and are “sympathetic” the “tolerance” trigger … 
 
Dr.
Joseph Nicolosi offers the following comment about “intellectual
circles” in his online article “The Removal of Homosexuality from the
Psychiatric Manual” 
 
“… Militant gay advocates working in a
small but forceful network have caused apathy and confusion within our
society. They insist that acceptance of the homosexual as a person
cannot occur without endorsement of the homosexual condition.
Intellectual circles too—who are self-conscious about sounding
intolerant—proclaim homosexuality as normal, yet it is still not so for
the average person for whom it “just doesn’t seem right.”… “ 
 
The
difficulty is that, once they have been made aware of the facts, it
takes a lot of courage to admit to being misled, and reverse
themselves! 
 
Again, do they possess the courage to reverse themselves … given the facts?

]]> By: Rogerwilli http://www.rlc.org/ny-push/comment-page-1/#comment-20549 Rogerwilli Sun, 15 May 2011 01:11:00 +0000 http://www.rlc.org/?p=5139#comment-20549 As to this "small but influential group" ...    If Governor Cuomo, Clifford Asness, Paul Singer and Sean Avery cannot rebut the 21 specific reasons militating against "gay marriage" in the online article "Was Cuomo Misled on Gay Marriage?" then ... are they being misled on this issue?    Or ... are they willfully misleading others?    Do they possess the courage to reverse themselves … given the facts?    The truth around this development may be far simpler ... gay activists DEPEND on the fact that their “supporters” would rather not read the detail, and are "sympathetic" the "tolerance" trigger ...    Dr. Joseph Nicolosi offers the following comment about "intellectual circles" in his online article "The Removal of Homosexuality from the Psychiatric Manual"    "... Militant gay advocates working in a small but forceful network have caused apathy and confusion within our society. They insist that acceptance of the homosexual as a person cannot occur without endorsement of the homosexual condition. Intellectual circles too—who are self-conscious about sounding intolerant—proclaim homosexuality as normal, yet it is still not so for the average person for whom it “just doesn’t seem right.”... "    The difficulty is that, once they have been made aware of the facts, it takes a lot of courage to admit to being misled, and reverse themselves!    Again, do they possess the courage to reverse themselves … given the facts? As to this “small but influential group” … 
 
If Governor
Cuomo, Clifford Asness, Paul Singer and Sean Avery cannot rebut the 21
specific reasons militating against “gay marriage” in the online article
“Was Cuomo Misled on Gay Marriage?” then … are they being misled on
this issue? 
 
Or … are they willfully misleading others? 
 
Do they possess the courage to reverse themselves … given the facts? 
 
The
truth around this development may be far simpler … gay activists
DEPEND on the fact that their “supporters” would rather not read the
detail, and are “sympathetic” the “tolerance” trigger … 
 
Dr.
Joseph Nicolosi offers the following comment about “intellectual
circles” in his online article “The Removal of Homosexuality from the
Psychiatric Manual” 
 
“… Militant gay advocates working in a
small but forceful network have caused apathy and confusion within our
society. They insist that acceptance of the homosexual as a person
cannot occur without endorsement of the homosexual condition.
Intellectual circles too—who are self-conscious about sounding
intolerant—proclaim homosexuality as normal, yet it is still not so for
the average person for whom it “just doesn’t seem right.”… “ 
 
The
difficulty is that, once they have been made aware of the facts, it
takes a lot of courage to admit to being misled, and reverse
themselves! 
 
Again, do they possess the courage to reverse themselves … given the facts?

]]> By: Ericdondero http://www.rlc.org/ny-push/comment-page-1/#comment-20544 Ericdondero Sat, 14 May 2011 18:58:00 +0000 http://www.rlc.org/?p=5139#comment-20544 And what of Swingers Rights?  Will heterosexuals, particularly the poly-amorous, have the same rights to marry?  Why do liberal gays discriminate against straights with alternative lifestyles?  Oops, sorry.  I forgot.  I'm not supposed to being up that "uncomfortable" question that makes liberal gay rights activists out to be hypocrites.     And what of Swingers Rights?  Will heterosexuals, particularly the poly-amorous, have the same rights to marry?  Why do liberal gays discriminate against straights with alternative lifestyles? 

Oops, sorry.  I forgot.  I’m not supposed to being up that “uncomfortable” question that makes liberal gay rights activists out to be hypocrites.    

]]> By: Ericdondero http://www.rlc.org/ny-push/comment-page-1/#comment-20545 Ericdondero Sat, 14 May 2011 18:58:00 +0000 http://www.rlc.org/?p=5139#comment-20545 And what of Swingers Rights?  Will heterosexuals, particularly the poly-amorous, have the same rights to marry?  Why do liberal gays discriminate against straights with alternative lifestyles?  Oops, sorry.  I forgot.  I'm not supposed to being up that "uncomfortable" question that makes liberal gay rights activists out to be hypocrites.     And what of Swingers Rights?  Will heterosexuals, particularly the poly-amorous, have the same rights to marry?  Why do liberal gays discriminate against straights with alternative lifestyles? 

Oops, sorry.  I forgot.  I’m not supposed to being up that “uncomfortable” question that makes liberal gay rights activists out to be hypocrites.    

]]>