Court blocks California law banning g...

Court blocks California law banning gay therapy

There are 109 comments on the Sacramento Bee Newspaper story from Dec 21, 2012, titled Court blocks California law banning gay therapy. In it, Sacramento Bee Newspaper reports that:

A federal appeals court on Friday put the brakes on a first-of-its-kind California law that bans therapy aimed at turning gay minors straight.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Sacramento Bee Newspaper.

Occupy this

Lakeport, CA

#74 Dec 24, 2012
Ask yourselves this...How would small groups of early human beings maximize the genetic diversity within their individual groups?

Certainly not by inventing gay marriage or by sotomizng children...

The only way to maximize genetic diversity within any given group of early human beings would be through the implementation of what we call marriage - the union of one man and one woman.

...if anyone can come up with a better method of maximizing genetic diversity, then I'm all ears...

Marriage as religion defines it in modern times, is nothing less than a survival tactict.

On every level, homosexuality and pedophilia represent a threat to our survival. A majority of humanity today, are designed to view homosexuality and pedophilia as a threat to the survival of the human race.

These are the facts.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#75 Dec 25, 2012
Occupy this wrote:
Ask yourselves this...How would small groups of early human beings maximize the genetic diversity within their individual groups?
Certainly not by inventing gay marriage or by sotomizng children...
The only way to maximize genetic diversity within any given group of early human beings would be through the implementation of what we call marriage - the union of one man and one woman.
...if anyone can come up with a better method of maximizing genetic diversity, then I'm all ears...
Marriage as religion defines it in modern times, is nothing less than a survival tactict.
On every level, homosexuality and pedophilia represent a threat to our survival. A majority of humanity today, are designed to view homosexuality and pedophilia as a threat to the survival of the human race.
These are the facts.
So you know English by any chance?

“Live and let live”

Since: Apr 08

New Orleans

#78 Dec 25, 2012
Occupy this wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, there is. But you won't accept it.
It does not matter because it does not apply to me as an individual. You're picking a pseudoscientific viewpoint that fits your worldview, and claiming it evidence to brand gay people as pedophiles. No, I don't accept being stereotyped, and there is no respectable scientific study that supports this made up "theory" of yours that being gay and being a pedophile are somehow related. Pardon my french, but that is some fn ignorant, bigoted, bullshit, and once again I'm struck that people like you actually exist out there. Take your opinion and shove it bitch.

“Live and let live”

Since: Apr 08

New Orleans

#80 Dec 26, 2012
Occupy this wrote:
...they didn't like stinky, hairy butts. They all said that they preferred soft butts with no hair...
Idiot, it's called "personal hygiene" i.e... taking baths and trimming body hair... something I guess you probably have seldom done. Women often don't like stinky hairy guy butts either. I guess that's why so many woman fall for us gay men. Seems we understand the merit of personal hygiene a lot better than the average hairy oaf of a straight guy.

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#82 Dec 26, 2012
Where you buying your smoke man. It reads really wack.
Occupy this wrote:
Ask yourselves this...How would small groups of early human beings maximize the genetic diversity within their individual groups?
Certainly not by inventing gay marriage or by sotomizng children...
The only way to maximize genetic diversity within any given group of early human beings would be through the implementation of what we call marriage - the union of one man and one woman.
...if anyone can come up with a better method of maximizing genetic diversity, then I'm all ears...
Marriage as religion defines it in modern times, is nothing less than a survival tactict.
On every level, homosexuality and pedophilia represent a threat to our survival. A majority of humanity today, are designed to view homosexuality and pedophilia as a threat to the survival of the human race.
These are the facts.

“Live and let live”

Since: Apr 08

New Orleans

#83 Dec 26, 2012
Occupy this

Lakeport, CA

#84 Dec 26, 2012
Josh in New Orleans wrote:
Now this article is junk science. Early man did not have a population problem. It was vital for early humans/prehumans to maximize their numbers - Life was dangerous and short so early human groups needed as large a population as possible with the greatest genetic diversity as possible.

Homosexuality and pedophilia were a direct threat on all fronts to the survival of early mankind.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#85 Dec 27, 2012
Occupy this wrote:
<quoted text>
Now this article is junk science. Early man did not have a population problem. It was vital for early humans/prehumans to maximize their numbers - Life was dangerous and short so early human groups needed as large a population as possible with the greatest genetic diversity as possible.
Homosexuality and pedophilia were a direct threat on all fronts to the survival of early mankind.
Yet now with our resources running out in a few generations, currently farming resources are stretched so that more of the population starves than not, and you think a small, tiny, insignificant drop in the population because less than 10% of the humans want to not breed ... oh wait, that's right, most straight people don't want to breed either, then there are us asexuals and a ton of sterile humans ..... what was your excuse for hating those different than you again?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#86 Dec 27, 2012
Occupy this wrote:
<quoted text>
Now this article is junk science. Early man did not have a population problem. It was vital for early humans/prehumans to maximize their numbers - Life was dangerous and short so early human groups needed as large a population as possible with the greatest genetic diversity as possible.
Homosexuality and pedophilia were a direct threat on all fronts to the survival of early mankind.
That doesn't bear out when you consider the "nanny factor". Also, non-human social species don't appear to be under a darwinian burden from their samesex activities. Consider the Bonobos.
Crooked liberal media

United States

#87 Dec 27, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet now with our resources running out in a few generations, currently farming resources are stretched so that more of the population starves than not, and you think a small, tiny, insignificant drop in the population because less than 10% of the humans want to not breed ... oh wait, that's right, most straight people don't want to breed either, then there are us asexuals and a ton of sterile humans ..... what was your excuse for hating those different than you again?
You're clueless. The science dictates that heterosexuals are genetically designed to reject homosexuality and pedophilia. It was a critical design feature of early humans. Without it, the human race probably would not have survived.

Like it or not, we all have to live with our genes. The gay Nazi's are just going to have to live with the realities of human nature. You can't make people like the smell of sh*t. They're designed to find it offensive.

“Live and let live”

Since: Apr 08

New Orleans

#88 Dec 27, 2012
Occupy this wrote:
<quoted text>
Now this article is junk science. Early man did not have a population problem. It was vital for early humans/prehumans to maximize their numbers.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/2539...



The truth is, the possibility of a mother having a gay child goes up with each subsequent pregnancy and it is now known that epigenetic factors play a crucial role in the process. Therefore, it is a reasonable hypothesis that homosexuality in the human species serves as a stop-gap for unbridled procreation. In early human populations existing in areas with limited resources, a prosperous tribe with a relatively low infant mortality rate might quickly grow to such numbers that resources become scarce and people die. Having some members of a tribe born homosexual not only helps protect against detrimental population explosions, but those individuals that do not procreate still procure resources for the rest of the tribe without some of those resources having otherwise gone to their children, because they have none. In this way, homosexuality actually increases the evolutionary fitness.

“Live and let live”

Since: Apr 08

New Orleans

#89 Dec 27, 2012
Crooked liberal media wrote:
You can't make people like the smell of sh*t.
I don't know where you get this cooked up idea because it's not supported by any anthropological facts. In most tribal cultures, both historical, and many isolated modern tribes, homosexuality is/was a non-issue.
Annie

Branson, MO

#90 Dec 27, 2012
TomInElPaso wrote:
Anne, your post was a pretty good one but really went off the tracks when you started to discuss your sisters children. All of them are NORMAL. What is normal for one person may not be normal for another but each persons sexuality is normal for them. Normal sexual orientations are heterosexual, bisexual and homosexual.
By the way, your niece isn't queer, she's lesbian. Further effeminate is by no means a definition of being gay. Many gay men are extremely masculine and many straight men have effeminate traits. The same goes for hetero and homosexual women, some are very feminine and some are much more masculine regardless of their orientation.
<quoted text>
I guess you're right on the effeminate part, that is not always true cause there were a few actors I found out over they years that are gay and they were or appeared to be very masucline men. In regards to saying two of my sister's children have normal sexual preferences, that's because I don't necessarily believe that all three are normal like you apparently do. And last I used the term queer cause when I was young were I come from that was another term used for a lesbian, I guess because they were different. At any rate I don't really care what a person's sexual preference is other than I don't feel they should flaunt it in front of others anymore than I flaunt my feelings for my significant other(my husband) in front of others.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#91 Dec 27, 2012
Josh in New Orleans wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/2539...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =NarI0URhWg0XX
The truth is, the possibility of a mother having a gay child goes up with each subsequent pregnancy and it is now known that epigenetic factors play a crucial role in the process. Therefore, it is a reasonable hypothesis that homosexuality in the human species serves as a stop-gap for unbridled procreation. In early human populations existing in areas with limited resources, a prosperous tribe with a relatively low infant mortality rate might quickly grow to such numbers that resources become scarce and people die. Having some members of a tribe born homosexual not only helps protect against detrimental population explosions, but those individuals that do not procreate still procure resources for the rest of the tribe without some of those resources having otherwise gone to their children, because they have none. In this way, homosexuality actually increases the evolutionary fitness.
I very sorry Josh, but we don't really "know" any such thing. With epi-genetics, it's all so inferential and untestable that it borders on speculation.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#92 Dec 27, 2012
Crooked liberal media wrote:
<quoted text>
You're clueless. The science dictates that heterosexuals are genetically designed to reject homosexuality and pedophilia. It was a critical design feature of early humans. Without it, the human race probably would not have survived.
Like it or not, we all have to live with our genes. The gay Nazi's are just going to have to live with the realities of human nature. You can't make people like the smell of sh*t. They're designed to find it offensive.
First, no, scientific research does not suggest that at all.

Second, scat is a mostly "straight" fetish.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#93 Dec 27, 2012
Annie wrote:
<quoted text> I guess you're right on the effeminate part, that is not always true cause there were a few actors I found out over they years that are gay and they were or appeared to be very masucline men. In regards to saying two of my sister's children have normal sexual preferences, that's because I don't necessarily believe that all three are normal like you apparently do. And last I used the term queer cause when I was young were I come from that was another term used for a lesbian, I guess because they were different. At any rate I don't really care what a person's sexual preference is other than I don't feel they should flaunt it in front of others anymore than I flaunt my feelings for my significant other(my husband) in front of others.
Have you ever paused to consider where such notions as "feminine" and "masculine" come from? I mean, is there something INTRINSICALLY stupid about females that they naturally want to wear stiletto heels or corsets? Isn't a great lot of it just cultural foolishness?

“Live and let live”

Since: Apr 08

New Orleans

#94 Dec 28, 2012
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
I very sorry Josh, but we don't really "know" any such thing. With epi-genetics, it's all so inferential and untestable that it borders on speculation.
I was speaking about the former- that the odds of having a gay child go up with each pregnancy. If epigenetic factors indeed play a role, and the science is not burdened by human error, then I think it it reasonable question it's evolutionary benefit.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#95 Dec 28, 2012
Josh in New Orleans wrote:
<quoted text>
I was speaking about the former- that the odds of having a gay child go up with each pregnancy. If epigenetic factors indeed play a role, and the science is not burdened by human error, then I think it it reasonable question it's evolutionary benefit.
That's all fine and dandy, but it's still too lacking in hard science.

"Logic is a way to go wrong with confidence." - Robert Heinlein

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#96 Dec 28, 2012
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
That's all fine and dandy, but it's still too lacking in hard science.
"Logic is a way to go wrong with confidence." - Robert Heinlein
Lacking in "hard" science? How so? Explain your assertion.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#97 Dec 29, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Lacking in "hard" science? How so? Explain your assertion.
Epi-genetics has never been tested in a lab. We aren't able to do so yet. It's as theoretical as string theory.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Federal Court rules Arizona cannot legally deny... Jul '16 nada 72
News Copyright lawsuits involving hit songs Jun '16 John McCharlie 3
News Appeals court: No right to carry concealed weap... Jun '16 WeTheSheeple 79
News Concealed carry in public not guaranteed under ... Jun '16 payme 11
News Could appeals court concealed carry ruling impa... Jun '16 RiflemanIII 1
News Appeals courts agree on concealed weapons ban r... Jun '16 Bama Yankee 1
News Illegal immigrants kidnapping children to sneak... Jun '16 tomin cali 1
More from around the web