Mormon Church To US Supreme Court: Ban Gay Marriage

[Serenity7855]

And none of that pertains to the social sciences.

You may need to check that. I did and found that it says The main social sciences include economics, political science, etc

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The main social sciences include economics, political science, etc

Economics and political sciences have nothing to do with psychiatry, psychology, sociology, anthropology, or any other field that is relative to the study of homosexuality. So, yes, I was wrong about that, but nevertheless they have nothing to do with human behavior and cognitive functioning.

 

[Ingledsva]

Yes, the Bible is identified as first in our canon.

However, how can you interpret the LDS claim that the Bible is the first book in our canon as the LDS claiming that the Bible is the only book in our canon?

Your acknowledging that the Bible is the first in our canon should help you understand that there is also a second or more books which are considered canon in the LDS Church.

You admitting that the Bible is the first book identified in our canon is also you admitting that there are MORE BOOKS INCLUDED IN OUR CANON!

This means that the Bible is not the ONLY SOURCE OF REVELATION FOR THE LDS CHURCH.

That is what I have been saying from the beginning and I thank you for finally admitting that you were wrong.

You cannot lump the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in with all other "Christian" churches.

We are infinitely unique and you should actually know a little about our beliefs before deciding to ignorantly comment on them.

You keep twisting-twisting - trying to make it say something it doesn't.

AGAIN - since you keep ignoring it.

The LDS pages say the Bible is the source for that material. They quote ONLY the Bible for it.

Stop the BULL! I posted the LDS main books in post number 2336!

*

 

[Serenity7855]

And this is the crux of the problem. You are right to say that a God who hates homosexual acts would not create homosexuals. That would be unfair. I would have a cognitive dissonance myself if I believed in that stuff. So, your conclusion is that homosexuals and, by extension, heterosexuals chose their orientation. They could have chosen the other side, if they wanted.

No, that is not what I am saying or my belief. I don't think that either come to a definitive point in their lives where they draw a line and decide to either be gay or straight. I believe that it is a gradual process as we progressively evolve into the people we will eventually become, all constantly influenced by the environment in which we live, for both gay and straight people alike. It fits in perfectly with the memory I have of my development from child to adolescent to adult. Not a date and a time to make my choice on, but a slow and methodical development, guided by the social environment in which I grew up. I genuinely believe that for the most part it is social conditioning, a bit like brainwashing, social conditioning.

I believe that conclusion does not pass even the most basic tests. We, or at least most of us, have no choice in deciding for which sex we are attracted. If I want to pick up a man and land in a bar full of women, there is no way I might contemplating going to bed with a woman, instead. I was never attracted by women, even though I can say if a woman is beautiful or not, i fell in love with S. Connery while I was still playing with Barbies and did not know anything about these things. How can falling in love be a choice? Did you choose to fall in love with a woman?

I fell in love with Sophia Lauren and Diana Ross, but I never contemplated anything of a sexual nature with them, I just had an empty crush on them, which, I believe, that I had not become a heterosexual at that point but I was a non-binary.

I was, however, very drawn to my wife and I gradually fell in love with her, but that is my point. We follow a path mapped out for us by social conditioning. We are to young to cut our own path, so our parent do it for us, and in the process, inadvertently condition us. But it is more than that for me, it is a part of being tried and tested in the flesh, part of the reason for our existence, to withstand the fiery darts of Satan. We will be judged for our moral choices. We all have the light of Christ, our conscience, that is, a person's moral sense of right and wrong, viewed as acting as a guide to one's behaviour. If our conscience tell us that it is wrong, then it usually is and we should not make that choice.

Isn't more rational to accept this obvious fact and that a God that hates homosexual acts is just a figment of your imagination or just a projection of your own personal distaste for gays sexual acts?

I think that my cognitive reasoning would set off alarm bells if I was imagining that God hates sexual perversion, but I do have apersonal distate for sexual perversions. I hope that I am not projecting it though because that would mean that my reasoning is not objective.

No concern. But please accept the possibility tha people in general do not choose their sexual orientation because of social convention and your peculiar case is not generalizable to the whole population.

OK

By the way, it is also a ridiculous defense. People get killed for being homosexuals, even today. That is a hell of enforced social convention. So, why do they risk their lives if it so easy to swap?

Well, I don't know if it is easy to swap once you are committed to who you have become, because the process is gradual we don't even notice it happening. We feel like we have always been that way and that no choice was involved, and for all intents and purposes, there was no definitive choice, it was propagandized and indoctrination. Just like my own sexuality was based on who I became through the environment in which I was raised, I to cannot think of a specific time that I decided to be straight, I feel like I have always been straight. It is as a result of gradual social conditioning that creates the illusion that this is how we have always been.

Good question. When I asked why homosexuality has only been prevalent since the 1960s so, if it is natural, then why didn't it erupt decads wbefore. I was told that people were to afraid to comeof being persecuted. Now you are saying that they come out inspite of the persecution. Which one is right? Why do they risk their lives, because they believe that is who they are as much as I believe that is who I am.

 

[McBell]

Actually the quote goes
"Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, but the highest form of intelligence."

So basically another quote mine?

 

[McBell]

Aren't I a very naughty boy.

Perhaps.
But it does show how low you are willing to go.
It also reveals your dishonesty.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Good question. When I asked why homosexuality has only been prevalent since the 1960s so, if it is natural, then why didn't it erupt decads wbefore. I was told that people were to afraid to comeof being persecuted. Now you are saying that they come out inspite of the persecution. Which one is right? Why do they risk their lives, because they believe that is who they are as much as I believe that is who I am.

[/QUOTE]
How are you claiming it's only been prevalent since the 60s? Many ancient cultures knew of gay or trans people. Even the Church married gay couples before they decided not to. Gay or trans folk are only persecuted in homophobic societies. If you are a society that doesn't care or celebrates it (many "first couples" in mythology were intersexed and if you were gay or trans, you were considered a sacred throwback), then you are fine.

 

[Katzpur]

LDS member do not get cremated.

Most don't; some do. The Church does not forbid it, and it's very common in some countries. (Not that this has anything to do with the thread topic. I just thought I'd throw that out there in case anyone finds your "fact" to be questionable.)

 

[Prestor John]

What is very telling and also very Freudian in these remarks is the use of the word "IT" to refer to a person who would dare to act on a same sex attraction or that person engaging in homosexual behaviors. You devalue that person with your vitriol. You may wish to think you're unbiased or that you are all about equality but your very words tell a vastly different story. One that reeks of prejudice.

You misunderstand.

I used the word "it" to describe the "same-sex attraction" not to describe the individual who has that attraction.

I apologize for the confusion.

 

[Serenity7855]

So what if they cannot procreate together? They’re not aliens. They have feelings and emotions like all other human beings.

No one is disputing that. I am merely stating a hurdle in their ability to raise children

Did you not read what I just said? All human beings share the same hormones that facilitate bonding behavior, trust and psychological stability.

Because there is no biological link between them. My children are the product of both me and my wife. We created them together and that creates a bond like no other bond. I love my nieces and nephews but not in the same way as I do my child. In fact, I do not love anyone in the same way as I love my children. It is a special bond between two people who are biologically linked. I do not believe that the same things exist between children who are adopted and their parents. I believe it is a spiritual link.

My cousin also happens to be adopted. She got the opportunity to go and meet her birth parents a few years ago. We all met them. It was glaringly clear that they were her parents based on the fact that she looked exactly like them. I mean, exactly. Total biological link. She hung out with them a bunch of times, went to a few birthday parties and dinners. But you know what? She found that she felt awkward and uncomfortable around them. She was embarrassed to admit that she didn’t even like them very much. And she told me that it made her realize how much she really loved her mom and what a great relationship they have. Not her biological mom, but her adopted mom.

Your cousin is also another of your straw men. Your argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated my proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition, your cousin. Just because she preferred her adopted mum to her biological mum does not set a precedence, or disprove my argument of spiritual bonding between a child and her/his parents. Attempting to generalize an entire population of people from a sample of one doesn’t make sense. There is always going to be an exception to the rules.

You may not, but I love my niece and nephew as though they were my own. I would do anything for either of them. I am also biologically linked to them.

Are you suggesting that I do not feel the same about my extended family when you say "You may not", because that is not what I said. What I said was. " I love my nieces and nephews but not in the same way as I do my child."

Haven’t you ever had a friend that you loved as family?

Yes, but I have never had a friend that I love as much as my family.

Ah, but remember, that was only a part of the findings of the studies that have been cited on this thread. Which was that sex of the parents doesn’t play a role in how a child is going to turn out.

Do you really think that?

Nobody has to commit adultery. Artificial insemination and surrogacy are available options, besides adoption.

It will still mean that one of them will not be the biological parent.

Well you should probably be able to sit well knowing that gay people attempting to adopt are probably going through much more intense scrutiny than straight couples are.

Yes, because that is what they love to tell us.

Well, because most people don’t have sex in front of children, first of all.

Don't they, are you sure, or is this anecdotal?

Secondly, people who are wild and promiscuous aren’t generally the types of people who want to raise children. They’re usually the types of people who get pregnant by accident and end up raising kids they weren’t interested in having in the first place. These would be heterosexual people.

How do you know that. Where is your evidence, or should I just accept it on your say so.

And thirdly, if these people are as wild and crazy as you’re making them out to be, they wouldn’t make it through the adoption vetting process anyway.

I have not conducted any surveys or studies so the figure you just pointed my way is a falsehood.

Why wouldn't they make it through the adoption vetting process. Why would they tell anybody what they do for entertainment?

So that’s the only reason you had children? To “perpetuate your seed?” And so you assume that’s everyone’s reason for having children?

It is one significant reason, along with perpetuating my name and bringing into mortality those who eagerly wait to get a body of flesh and blood. But one of the main reasons was to follow in the footsteps of those who have gone before me. To make my parents grandparent, to follow societies norm by doing what everyone else was doing, and to care for someone who would be dependant on me. So the reasons are multifaceted.

Gay people don’t make a conscious choice to be attracted to people of the same sex.

Yes, I am aware of that and have told you that many times

They just are. I don’t know why people continue to question that apparent fact.

Nothing in our entire universe just is, there is always a reason and it is my opinion that social conditioning plays a key role in making people who they are.

So some children are going to realize as they grow and develop that they are gay.

No, because that would invoke a choice and there is no choice with social conditioning. it is a gradual process that will appear to them to be just what they are and have always been, and probably what they initially think that everyone else is.. The sexual perversion is a separate issue that muddies the water, Nobody is compelled to have sex. It is not the essence of life or an absolute necessity. Nobody has ever died as a result of a poor sex life. and it is not a fundamental right. In the way that heterosexuals do, guided by external influences and internal biology, causing a feminine disposition that will ultimately be realised as being gay. Nobody needs to lay with a man as he does a woman. It is all down to self control and Choosing The Right.

This could be your own child. They’re probably going to have feelings of embarrassment, of being different from others, of isolation because they have nobody to talk to about the feelings they are having, of being weird and different or an abomination (depending on what they hear at school or at church). Shielding them from the fact that gay people exist and/or teaching them they gay people are making some kind of conscious choice or are lesser human beings in some way, isn’t going to help those children. It is going to hurt them.

My children were not even aware of the existence of gays until they were 12-13 years old. They had not developed a sexual preference until then. They were still innocent to that stuff. Children are not attracted to the same sex or the opposite sex. It is not a part of their world until adolescence kicks in.

No, I do not believe that any of my children could have been gay. The environment that they were raised in would not have allowed for that. I don't know if you have travelers, or gypsies, in the US, but over here their are a lot. There are very few homosexuals in their communities because their environment is driven by masculinity leaving little option for them to drift in that direction. My wife is a traveler and of the thousands of travelers she either know or is related to, not one of them is gay. Proof positive that social conditioning play a big role in homosexuality.

 

[Serenity7855]

Most don't; some do. The Church does not forbid it, and it's very common in some countries. (Not that this has anything to do with the thread topic. I just thought I'd throw that out there in case anyone finds your "fact" to be questionable.)

I am sure that you are right, however, at my age I go to a lot of funerals, predominately LDS one. Hand on heart, I have never been to an endowed members cremation. They have all been burials. I can only speak from my own knowledge and experience thogh, which is why I say that I am sure you are right.

 

[Serenity7855]

How are you claiming it's only been prevalent since the 60s? Many ancient cultures knew of gay or trans people. Even the Church married gay couples before they decided not to. Gay or trans folk are only persecuted in homophobic societies. If you are a society that doesn't care or celebrates it (many "first couples" in mythology were intersexed and if you were gay or trans, you were considered a sacred throwback), then you are fine.

I was not around and I was expressing an opinion based on my own experience and knowledge. I know of no other time, other then Sodom and Gomorrah, that had such a prevalence of homosexuality'

 

[Katzpur]

Hand on heart, I have never been to an endowed members cremation.

Nor have I.

 

[Shad]

And from an organization that the Southern Poverty Law Centre considers a hate group, no less.
I'm sure there's no bias there though.

None at all. I swear!

 

[SkepticThinker]

You claim that a link you posted was to a peer reviewed published paper proving a link between HIV and AIDS. There were no peer reviewed published papers and when i pointed it out to you then you gave an impression that you did not know what a published paper was.

Actually there were peer reviewed articles all over it. And on top of that I have probably posted at least 25 more individual, peer-reviewed articles. Everything I provide to you has proper reference material. You need to stop repeating this now. It is not correct.

I did not say that it was anything other than a article. I do not have to substantiate that. The only time that poster ask for evidence is when you have proved their point wrong. Ths study blows much of your claims clean out of the water. And what is the first thing that you do? You look for something that will discredit it. Then come up with a back street organisation that is pro-gay. Why do you think that this article is anything but the truth.

You do have to substantiate it if you are going to beat up on other posters for not citing proper scientific articles when they are actually providing exactly what you've asked for.

You accuse me of something that you do all the time

Let’s dispel of any notion that children become gay because they were raised by someone who is gay. Studies don’t bear that out. Common sense doesn’t bear that out. So let’s get that one out of the way.

What Studies

Secondly, people who are wild and promiscuous aren’t generally the types of people who want to raise children. They’re usually the types of people who get pregnant by accident and end up raising kids they weren’t interested in having in the first place. These would be heterosexual people.

Where is the link that confirms this

Well, because most people don’t have sex in front of children, first of all.

Where is the link that confirms this

What we do know, is that on average, there is no extra level of harm inflicted on a child raised by gay parents than there is on children raised by heterosexual parents.

Where is the evidence that supports this. without that it is anecdotal

If you look at the studies I keep showing you, the best predictors of suffering on the child’s part results from things entirely unrelated to the sex of the parents.

What studies do you refer to. Do they exist.

Except that is not the truth of it. I don’t know where you got “nearly 100% from. Oddly enough, if you look at the divorce rate among gay couples (the small amount of statistics that have been collected so far), they appear to be higher among marriages between two women than between two men. (Apparently gay women marry at higher rates than gay men do). And on average, divorce rates among heterosexual couples are far higher than that for gay couples. Let’s face it, the divorce rate has been quite high long before gay marriage was ever brought into the picture. If anybody is making a mockery of the institution of marriage, maybe it’s the heterosexuals.

I see allusions to studies and some names but no actual citations or links to anything at all.

Study after study shows no risk to the well being of children raised by same sex couples. You are harbouring a fear that needn’t exist.

What studies? I see allusions to studies and some names but no actual citations or links to anything at all.

These are counter arguments to yours and pleas for you to look at the scientific literature I have repeatedly cited. What problem do you have with that? And this nothing to do with citing proper scientific literature, which is what we're talking about in this post.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Peter Sprigg
Senior Fellow for Policy Studies

Peter S. Sprigg is Senior Fellow for Policy Studies at the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C. Mr. Sprigg joined FRC in 2001, and his research and writing have addressed issues of marriage and family, human sexuality, the arts and entertainment, and religion in public life.

Mr. Sprigg has been quoted as a spokesman for FRC in many major newspapers, and he has been interviewed or participated in debates on all of the national television networks. He is the author of the book Outrage: How Gay Activists and Liberal Judges Are Trashing Democracy to Redefine Marriage (Regnery, 2004), and he was co-editor of the FRC book Getting It Straight: What the Research Shows about Homosexuality. Mr. Sprigg also edited FRCs agenda-setting booklet, 25 Pro-Family Policy Goals for the Nation.

Mr. Sprigg is an ordained Baptist minister. Before coming to FRC, he served as pastor of Clifton Park Center Baptist Church in Clifton Park, N.Y. Mr. Sprigg previously served for ten years as a professional actor and unit leader in Covenant Players, an international Christian drama ministry. Prior to his career in ministry, Mr. Sprigg worked in the government and non-profit sectors, including service as economic development assistant to the late Congressman Robert F. Drinan (D-Mass.).

Arguments from a man that failed to convince the court system and has zero education in any relevant field. Very convincing...

Really? Zero Education.
.
Mr. Sprigg received the Master of Divinity degree cum laude from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary (Mass.). He earned a Bachelor of Arts degree summa cum laude from Drew University (N.J.), with a double major in political science and economics. Mr. Sprigg lives in the Washington D.C. metro area with his wife and son.

None of which have anything to do with the things we are talking about. Thank you for demonstrating that he has zero education in any relevant field.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I see allusions to studies and some names but no actual citations or links to anything at all.
Well, according to a recent study there is plenty of reasons. Apparently children who are raised in a same sex home do not do as well as those who are raised in a heterosexual home. As the recent study states. This is what that study says about the studies you refer to. "Such studies usually have relied on samples that are small and not representative of the population, and they frequently have been conducted by openly homosexual researchers who have an ideological bias on the question being studied. In addition, these studies also usually make comparisons with children raised by divorced or single parents--rather than with children raised by their married, biological mother and father.and studies which purportedly show that children of homosexuals do just as well as other children--but which are methodologically weak and thus scientifically inconclusive.

You really need to stop this, and start paying attention:

From my post #2160:


http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/amp/44/6/941/
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...chase_site_license=LICENSE_DENIED_NO_CUSTOMER
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/dev/31/1/124/
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/amp/64/8/727/
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/109/2/341.short
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10888691.2010.500958
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...enticated=false&deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=
http://cdp.sagepub.com/content/15/5/241.short
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-007-9348-4#/page-1
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11113-014-9329-6
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20879687
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/03/18/peds.2013-0377
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...enticated=false&deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-9450.00302/abstract
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/fam/20/3/526/
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1996.tb01578.x/abstract
http://whatweknow.law.columbia.edu/...eing-of-children-with-gay-or-lesbian-parents/http://www.apa.org/about/policy/parenting.aspx

You’d rather go with that one single study you cited …. Why?

 

[Serenity7855]

Actually there were peer reviewed articles all over it. And on top of that I have probably posted at least 25 more individual, peer-reviewed articles. Everything I provide to you has proper reference material. You need to stop repeating this now. It is not correct.

Then quite simply, if you believe that, then you cannot properly know what proper reference material is, you have already demonstrated that you are a bit shaky on peer reviewed published papers, therefore, you are not the best person to take advise from, wouldn't you agree?.

I might say the same thing to you. At that time you had posted just one published paper, which I agreed with, it just did not do what you had been challenged to do, provide evidence that showed a definitive connection between HIV and AIDS. Nothing that you published did that. Which is fine because it is a well known bowl of contention between the drug companies and a higher proportion of microbiologist then you may think.

You do have to substantiate it if you are going to beat up on other posters for not citing proper scientific articles when they are actually providing exactly what you've asked for.

No, I beat nobody up, I just tell it as I see it. The article are sufficient evidence without needing published papers to qualify everything. Science is not the arbiter of all thing that exist. Science has its role and must stick with it. Somethings are just a given, commonsense. As you said to me, you need to have more faith in those that write these articles instead of thinking that they are all lying or being deceptive.

You make it very obvious that you believe that your are completely right in what you say, however, you become predictable when evidence goes against your beliefs about homosexuality, at which point, you use obvious techniques to divert the topic away from the potentially damaging evidence that casts doubt over what you believe they are. Discrediting sources, authors, publishers and the credibility of the site. You then discredit the person who is providing the evidence. When a point has clearly been won you immediately move the goal post. You use methods of intimidation when you use words that suggest that I must be wrong because WE have determined it, or, four posters have told you that you are wrong so you must be wrong. You openly denegrate me with posters that are so hostile that I have them on ignore.You use Gish Gollop to present the truth from being said, and your worst tactic, by far, is your use of straw men and making two wrongs a right in almost every post. Before throwing stones you really need make sure that your house is not made of glass. It is all a part of what militant atheisrs are, after all, they do not have they same morals as a Christian has

These are counter arguments to yours and pleas for you to look at the scientific literature I have repeatedly cited. What problem do you have with that? And this nothing to do with citing proper scientific literature, which is what we're talking about in this post.

Whatever you have sited does not prove the point that you are failing to make. Science needs counter arguments for it to function correctly. Pleas from whom, your friend on here who all have the same reputation as you? I have no problems. I am a great believer in the truth, because it is a constant that never changes and those who try to will eventually be exposed for their lies and deceptions, as I have done here on numerous occasions. The only pleasure that comes from winning a debate is in knowing that it was won fairly and without dishonesty. If you do use lies, underhanded techniques, and other clandestine methods, then what have you won? contempt and aversion.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I might say the same thing to you. At that time you had posted just one published paper,which I agreed with, it just did not do what you had been challenged to do, provide evidence that showed a definitive connection between HIV and AIDS. Nothing that you published did that. Which is fine because it is a well known bowl of contention between the drug companies and a higher proportion of microbiologist then you may think.

This has been done. Not by me, but by researchers all over the world. I gave you a small sampling of the studies that have been done. And throughout the entire thread you have continued to cry that you have not received them, and you have also outright questioned my intelligence and tried to tell me that I don't know what a peer-reviewed paper is while simultaneously thoroughly demonstrating that it is you who can't recognize them.

No, I beat nobody up, I just tell it as I see it. The article are sufficient evidence without needing published papers to qualify everything. Science is not the arbiter of all thing that exist. Science has its role and must stick with it. Somethings are just a given, commonsense. As you said to me, you need to have more faith in those that write these articles instead of thinking that they are all lying or being deceptive.

I didn't say that to you. I said you have no reason to believe that thousands of people all over the world, spanning many decades of research are all in cahoots with each other to deceive everyone else.

You make it very obvious that you believe that your are completely right in what you say, however, you become predictable when evidence goes against your beliefs about homosexuality, at which point, you use obvious techniques to divert the topic away from the potentially damaging evidence that casts doubt over what you believe they are. Discrediting sources, authors, publishers and the credibility of the site. You then discredit the person who is providing the evidence. When a point has clearly been won you immediately move the goal post. You use methods of intimidation when you use words that suggest that I must be wrong because WE have determined it, or, four posters have told you that you are wrong so you must be wrong. You openly denegrate me with posters that are so hostile that I have them on ignore.You use Gish Gollop to present the truth from being said, and your worst tactic, by far, is your use of straw men and making two wrongs a right in almost every post. Before throwing stones you really need make sure that your house is not made of glass. It is all a part of what militant atheisrs are, after all, they do not have they same morals as a Christian has

This is just more whining. I've been trying to stick to the content of the argument all along.

If you have my posts on ignore than you shouldn't be able to see any of them. I think you're talking about somebody else.

Whatever you have sited does not prove the point that you are failing to make. Science needs counter arguments for it to function correctly. Pleas from whom, your friend on here who all have the same reputation as you? I have no problems. I am a great believer in the truth, because it is a constant that never changes and those who try to will eventually be exposed for their lies and deceptions, as I have done here on numerous occasions. The only pleasure that comes from winning a debate is in knowing that it was won fairly and without dishonesty. If you do use lies, underhanded techniques, and other clandestine methods, then what have you won? contempt and aversion.

I don't need lectures about debates. I need you to address my counterarguments against your claims instead of whining that such counterarguments constitute some kind of personal attack against your sensibilities.

 

[Serenity7855]

None of which have anything to do with the things we are talking about. Thank you for demonstrating that he has zero education in any relevant field.

Your thank yous are like your opinions, empty. He is educated and does not have zero education, as claimed, but for the more astute of us, education tells the world that you have the ability to learn and the resilience to study. He is very much an intellectual in the field of same sex relationships because of his time served working within it. He is well known for his literature and knowledge in this field, which caused you to try and dig for dirt on him rather then address his views,.Now you might be forgiven in thinking that, as someone who writes paper, that you may have been aware that academic achievement indicates an ability to learn and comprehend.