Quote# 59494

Because it's [gay marriage] been voted down? Everyone should have the right to vote according to their personal values, including Christians.

[Not when those values violate others' rights.]

Well their values violate MY rights. Double Standard!

[This is complete bullshit. You are denying a group of people a right which they want to have. How is this not discrimination? Analogy time! Say marriage is only legal between people of the same race. "Oh," say the supporters. "Everyone has the right to marry someone of their race, so everyone is equal!"]

Homosexuality is behavior and should NOT be treated like race.

[quote he posted]
“There is no research supporting a genetic basis of homosexuality. [It] has been discredited by Scientific America… They’re desperate to find the biological causes. There are none.” – Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons, Philidelphia

Sir Lucario, The Cave of Dragonflies 50 Comments [2/23/2009 4:22:48 AM]
Fundie Index: 5

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 2 | bottom


Because it's [gay marriage] been voted down? Everyone should have the right to vote according to their personal values, including Christians.

But what if I was against Christian marraiges? Afterall, I have a right to vote according to my personal values.

[Well their values violate MY rights. Double Standard! ]

The only right they violate is your "right" to be a bigot.

[Homosexuality is behavior and should NOT be treated like race. ]

Okay, lets treat christians as second class citizens. Afterall, Christianity is behavior and not a race.

2/23/2009 4:28:30 AM


"Everyone should have the right to vote according to their personal values, including Christians."

And some people want to kill all Christians.
This is why democracy is stupid. You have people voting for things, and people are mostly stupid.

2/23/2009 4:29:37 AM


I actually agree with the first part of this post. "Everyone should have the right to vote according to their personal values"--yes, that's true. You should have the right to vote however you want, even if I find your voting repugnant.

However, the rest of this is nonsense. Gays' values do not violate your rights in any way. Homosexuality is status, not behavior. Even if it were a choice (which I doubt), religion is a choice, is it not? Someone can change their religion more easily than their sexuality, and religion is protected against discrimination. Why should sexuality not be so protected?

Of course, you could argue that religion as a choice should not be protected. Have fun finding a job when no one in this "christophobic" nation will hire you.

2/23/2009 4:31:07 AM


Their being married to each other violates your rights how? It doesn't affect your marriage or your right to marry someone of the opposite sex.

And despite your quote, there is certainly a biological basis. The fact that we haven't found it yet (according to your quote at least) doesn't mean it doesn't exist. In light of that, homosexuality -is- a valid group to protect. Race is too, but that's only because there are people who can't understand that race ISN'T a valid biological division for humans and that (other than some phenotypic differences and slight differences in susceptibility to certain diseases as a result of genetics that adapted to local conditions before people started moving around a ton) a "black" human is the same as an asian human is the same as a "white" human is the same as an aboriginal human and so on.

2/23/2009 4:35:16 AM


Dr. Fitzgibbons, eh? This Dr. Fitzgibbons?

"Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons, a psychiatrist who has worked with many homosexuals, believes that a little boy's lack of hand-eye co-ordination and athletic ability causes peer rejection so strong that it can lead to homosexuality."

The man who thinks that one should pray to find a spouse?

The same "unbiased" "psychiatrist" who works for the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (a.k.a. "NARTH")?

Great research, shithead.

2/23/2009 4:39:02 AM


... violates your right to dictate other peoples lives? I'd say I'm surprised by your bull headed jackassness, but then you pretty much based your religion off of you only being right and everyone else goes to hell, so I'm not actually surprised at all.

2/23/2009 4:40:34 AM


Richard Fitzgibbons is a lunatic fringe homophobe who thinks alternatively that homosexuality is caused by a lack of athletic ability and childhood sexual abuse. He offers no evidence other than his own self-proclaimed "professional experience"

2/23/2009 4:49:26 AM

a mind far far away

Everyone should have the right to vote according to their personal values, including Christians

I completely agree. Even though I completely disagree with them, and think their views are bullshit, they still have the right to vote however they want.

Well their values violate MY rights. Double Standard!

No, they don't.

Homosexuality is behavior and should NOT be treated like race.

This makes no sense. Everything is a "behavior". If you're referring to the idea that homosexuality is learned or chosen behavior, then you're wrong. Homosexuality is something you're either born with or not born with. You're either homosexual, or you're not. End of debate.

2/23/2009 5:09:13 AM


So, values of tolerance, inclusion, and diversity "violate your rights"? How? Then again, you folks are fucking morons, and think you have a RIGHT to VIOLATE OTHERS' RIGHTS just because you believe (wrongly) that "God" hates them. WTF is WRONG with you?!

2/23/2009 5:30:59 AM


well, disregarding the article. they guy does have a point. gay marriage is not the same as interracial hetero marriage. however, i still don't think they should be denied that right.

2/23/2009 5:32:08 AM


Well their values violate MY rights.

Explain, or shut up and fuck off.

2/23/2009 5:42:50 AM

Tolpuddle Martyr

Discredited by Scientific America eh? I guess you mean all the scientists in America? I dont know about that but the popular science magazine Scientific American had this to say in an editorial...

"Take genes. In 1993, Dean Hamer at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland, identified a region on the X chromosome that might predispose men to homosexuality - a putative "gay gene". And there are findings to support Hamer's notion that such a gene might increase a woman's chances of having more children, which would ensure that it persists...

...It would be wrong to say that homosexuality is all down to "nature": it is likely that people are influenced to different degrees by both biology and learning. But the notion that homosexuality is "unnatural" is equally wrong. Robinson's other comments are also disturbing. Homosexuality is not a mental disorder and there is absolutely no valid scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed."

Scientific American: Editorial: Why homosexuality is not unnatural
18 June 2008, Magazine issue 2661

Lying for Jesus again eh, "Dr." Fitzgibbons?

2/23/2009 6:04:04 AM


What a disaster.

2/23/2009 6:18:50 AM


Well their values violate MY rights. Double Standard!

Shouldn't it be "Well their rights violate MY values"?

2/23/2009 6:25:50 AM


Well their values violate MY rights. Double Standard!

Shouldn't it be "Well their rights violate MY values"?

2/23/2009 6:25:52 AM


DevilsChaplain google the guys name, every single site citing him as an expert has family, catholic, christian or free republic in the name.

2/23/2009 6:36:18 AM


Quite aside from the constitutional arguments, I think I'm right in saying that the majority of people across America do support gay rights - certainly, you've just elected a president who's apparently squarely behind them. It's only by localising the vote to areas with above average pockets of bigotry, and often apparently bussing them in from elsewhere, that the more recent state laws against homosexuality have been passed, and I think they're still opposed at the federal level - and this, I feel, is a stupid and profoundly anti-democratic measure. How far should local opposition to overall democratic law go? If a state can disregard federal laws it doesn't like, why can't a single town disregard state laws it doesn't like; why can't an individual disregard even those if he doesn't like them? It's surely exactly the same principle, and thus the same arguments defend or condemn such action at all levels.

2/23/2009 6:41:04 AM


Oh, yes, I chose a sexuality that made me hate myself. I'm bi just for the kick I got out of begging god to make me straight. I wanted to feel alone. To hate gym because the 14 year old me couldn't help but notice soft curves and how wonderful other women smell.
You fail, fucker!

2/23/2009 7:13:38 AM


While the principle that everyone should have the right to vote about anything, is a good one in most modern nations. The tyranny of the majority still exists and this is a perfect example why people should not be voting about issues like this in the first place.

Lastly, though there may not have been a genetic component discovered yet, there is significant evidence that homosexuality is a developmental while still in the uterus.

2/23/2009 7:20:19 AM


"Well their values violate MY rights. Double Standard! "

What rights are those asswipe? C'mon, let's hear'em buttfuck

2/23/2009 8:28:41 AM

Grigori Yefimovich

Richard Fitzgibbons? Really?

Isn't that animal abuse?

2/23/2009 8:52:59 AM


"Well their values violate MY rights. Double Standard!"

You don't care about their rights, why should they care about yours?

Narcissism is alive and well in the fundie world.

2/23/2009 9:36:06 AM



2/23/2009 10:38:20 AM


If 'Dr' Fitzgibbons' ideas were true all of the following people would be gay:
1. Serial killers and other sociopaths
2. Aspies
3. Feral humans

That's obviously not true.

2/23/2009 10:38:56 AM


Wow. Just wow. You feel discriminated against because you aren't allowed to discriminate others by taking away their rights?
Even if homosexuality was proven to not be genetic, what difference would it make? It hurts noone. If it'a a choice, just like, say, religion, then homosexuals's rights should be protected.

2/23/2009 11:34:48 AM

1 2 | top: comments page