Homosexuality: Disorder

[simpleton]

Also another interesting thing is B Y believed and practiced the "" blood atonement" ...as in the ecclesiastical church which I guess technically was under the umbrella of the literal "Kingdom of God" ...so yes it was enforced...
That would resolve mucho problemas
Actually I shouldn't say "he practiced it" the whole kingdom of Deseret did...

[Ezra]

Please explain....wow.?

Word of wisdom d&c89

[simpleton]

Ty

[Jamescm]

It confuses me why one would reject homosexuality as a "disorder". You may embrace it, you may build your identity and entire political face on it, you may attempt to weild government into forcing all others to support it, but that doesn't make it "not a disorder".

Aberrant, unusual, not normal, indifferent or contrary to the actual purpose and drive of the original. Objectively and non-pejoratively, homosexuality is a disorder. It is not insensitive to say so, and a rejection of such a notion is a terrible disservice to those actually experiencing same-sex attraction who are trying to better understand themselves.

[zionminded]

It confuses me why one would reject homosexuality as a "disorder". You may embrace it, you may build your identity and entire political face on it, you may attempt to weild government into forcing all others to support it, but that doesn't make it "not a disorder".

Aberrant, unusual, not normal, indifferent or contrary to the actual purpose and drive of the original. Objectively and non-pejoratively, homosexuality is a disorder. It is not insensitive to say so, and a rejection of such a notion is a terrible disservice to those actually experiencing same-sex attraction who are trying to better understand themselves.

It is a terrible disservice to label people as broken or flawed, when they may just be different than you, based on your culture and beliefs. The statistics behind homosexual reparative therapy has become very controversial, because it simply doesn't work.

http://www.josephnicolosi.com/what-is-r ... erapy-exa/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Thinker]

Zionminded,
I agree that name-calling is wrong, and that is why I have not called anyone names, rather focused on BEHAVIOR.
And why I've encouraged us all to remember that we ALL are sinners - and to love all sinners (all of us) but to NOT love sin.
I've gone to different 12-step programs and I do see some wisdom in acknowledging they have a problem but I don't like labeling themselves, "My name is.... and I am an alcoholic."

It is important to NOT identify oneself by one's behavior.
I may have done this at times - because it's easier to state - but really, homosexuality is behavior independent of the identity of an individual.
When you label yourself something, self-fulfilling prophecy can happen and it basically makes people stuck either in their minds or in those doing the labeling.
But behavior must be labeled for what it is - if it causes harm and proves to be a disorder (state of confusion) then it is important to not deny the truth, for the sake of well-being of those who believe whatever you say.

[zionminded]

Zionminded,
I agree that name-calling is wrong, and that is why I have not called anyone names, rather focused on BEHAVIOR.
And why I've encouraged us all to remember that we ALL are sinners - and to love all sinners (all of us) but to NOT love sin.
I've gone to different 12-step programs and I do see some wisdom in acknowledging they have a problem but I don't like labeling themselves, "My name is.... and I am an alcoholic."

It is important to NOT identify oneself by one's behavior.
I may have done this at times - because it's easier to state - but really, homosexuality is behavior independent of the identity of an individual.
When you label yourself something, self-fulfilling prophecy can happen and it basically makes people stuck either in their minds or in those doing the labeling.
But behavior must be labeled for what it is - if it causes harm and proves to be a disorder (state of confusion) then it is important to not deny the truth, for the sake of well-being of those who believe whatever you say.

Thank you.

Heterosexuality is a behavior too. Clearly heterosexual copulation is needed for making babies, but most sex has nothing little to with making babies. Does that mean that heterosexual outside of this normal biological function is bad? Of course not, because we've approved its use in the bounds of marriage.

[Thinker]

Zionminded,
I agree that name-calling is wrong, and that is why I have not called anyone names, rather focused on BEHAVIOR.
And why I've encouraged us all to remember that we ALL are sinners - and to love all sinners (all of us) but to NOT love sin.
I've gone to different 12-step programs and I do see some wisdom in acknowledging they have a problem but I don't like labeling themselves, "My name is.... and I am an alcoholic."

It is important to NOT identify oneself by one's behavior.
I may have done this at times - because it's easier to state - but really, homosexuality is behavior independent of the identity of an individual.
When you label yourself something, self-fulfilling prophecy can happen and it basically makes people stuck either in their minds or in those doing the labeling.
But behavior must be labeled for what it is - if it causes harm and proves to be a disorder (state of confusion) then it is important to not deny the truth, for the sake of well-being of those who believe whatever you say.

Thank you.

Heterosexuality is a behavior too. Clearly heterosexual copulation is needed for making babies, but most sex has nothing little to with making babies. Does that mean that heterosexual outside of this normal biological function is bad? Of course not, because we've approved its use in the bounds of marriage.

Your response has so many relative logical fallacies: firstly because you didn't respond to my reponse, strawmen and red hering, but also argumentum ad populum, observational selection, non sequitur and bandwagon fallacy.

With all due respect, as a therapist, it would be good for you to educate yourself on basic cognitive distortions (many of which are logical fallacies) so you can help your clients think, and thereby feel and act better.

Obviously, a lot of hetersexual (man/woman) sexual intercourse does not produce children, but ALL children come from heterosexual union (sperm & egg). This is why common sense told law makers for centuries that the society (& future societies) are all founded and come from the union of a man and a woman, so it is in society's interest to recognize, honor & support that union.
Marriage is primarily for the future society - to make sure children are given a comitted relationship in which to be raised.

Sex is healthy - as long as it doesn't hurt either.
But the choice for 2 men is to resort to sexual substitutes - anal sex - which is NOT healthy because (besides risks of AIDS/HIV and STDS), anal sex has risks of anal fissures, anal cancer, colon rupture and bacterial infection. These are medical FACTS.

[zionminded]

Zionminded,
I agree that name-calling is wrong, and that is why I have not called anyone names, rather focused on BEHAVIOR.
And why I've encouraged us all to remember that we ALL are sinners - and to love all sinners (all of us) but to NOT love sin.
I've gone to different 12-step programs and I do see some wisdom in acknowledging they have a problem but I don't like labeling themselves, "My name is.... and I am an alcoholic."

It is important to NOT identify oneself by one's behavior.
I may have done this at times - because it's easier to state - but really, homosexuality is behavior independent of the identity of an individual.
When you label yourself something, self-fulfilling prophecy can happen and it basically makes people stuck either in their minds or in those doing the labeling.
But behavior must be labeled for what it is - if it causes harm and proves to be a disorder (state of confusion) then it is important to not deny the truth, for the sake of well-being of those who believe whatever you say.

Thank you.

Heterosexuality is a behavior too. Clearly heterosexual copulation is needed for making babies, but most sex has nothing little to with making babies. Does that mean that heterosexual outside of this normal biological function is bad? Of course not, because we've approved its use in the bounds of marriage.

Your response has so many relative logical fallacies: firstly because you didn't respond to my reponse, strawmen and red hering, but also argumentum ad populum, observational selection, non sequitur and bandwagon fallacy.

With all due respect, as a therapist, it would be good for you to educate yourself on basic cognitive distortions (many of which are logical fallacies) so you can help your clients think, and thereby feel and act better.

Obviously, a lot of hetersexual (man/woman) sexual intercourse does not produce children, but ALL children come from heterosexual union (sperm & egg). This is why common sense told law makers for centuries that the society (& future societies) are all founded and come from the union of a man and a woman, so it is in society's interest to recognize, honor & support that union.
Marriage is primarily for the future society - to make sure children are given a comitted relationship in which to be raised.

Sex is healthy - as long as it doesn't hurt either.
But the choice for 2 men is to resort to sexual substitutes - anal sex - which is NOT healthy because (besides risks of AIDS/HIV and STDS), anal sex has risks of anal fissures, anal cancer, colon rupture and bacterial infection. These are medical FACTS.

All good points, but homophobic positions are based largely on the distain for homosexual sex. These facts are very small statistics in comparison to much larger issues, like the prevalence of HIV in reckless behaviors, suicide rates, stable families, acceptance etc.

[Thinker]

Zionminded,
I have presented plenty of objective data from sources like the United States Center for Disease Control. You have made assertions based on logical fallacies & of course no data to support it.

It is absurd for you to suggest you somehow KNOW what I fear - as if you were a mind reader, and as if feelings trump facts (emotional reasoning logical fallacy). When I hear the ad hominem attack, “homophobe” - it’s been a couple things:

1) People repeating jargon they heard others say - continuing the mind control systematically created by a researcher in neuropsychiatry & implemented so well by leftists that many blindly preach such lies without realizing how they were manipulated.
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/issu ... _ball.html ... &/or...

2) The person is projecting their own fear of facts like anal sex risks, high rates of STDs, HIV/AIDs & mental illness among those practicing homosexuality.
“Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others.”

[eddie]

It's difficult to understand taking a tolerant stand on homosexuality, even sympathetic . It is an unhappy lifestyle with a high incidence of suicide.
It doesn't mean we hate the sinner, just the sin.

[Daniel2]

but really, homosexuality is behavior independent of the identity of an individual.
When you label yourself something, self-fulfilling prophecy can happen and it basically makes people stuck either in their minds or in those doing the labeling.
But behavior must be labeled for what it is - if it causes harm and proves to be a disorder (state of confusion) then it is important to not deny the truth, for the sake of well-being of those who believe whatever you say.

"Homosexuality" isn't a behavior... it's "sexual attraction to people of one's own sex." Sexual behavior is behavior.

While we cannot and do not choose to whom we're attracted, we can choose how and when to act upon them.

How we choose to define ourselves may or may not be congruent with our inherent sexual orientation.

Many of us who have denied our innate attractions for a long time and dealt with them in unhealthy and dysfunctional ways find a sense of peace and fulfillment in acknowledging that we are, in fact, gay. Doing so isn't always defining ourselves by our sexual behavior, because many of us identify as gay whether we're acting on it or not. Our invocation of the identity as 'gay' or 'lesbian' is a relief, because we finally feel we no longer have to pretend to be or seem like someone we're not.

Even as it cautions people not to define themselves by their homosexuality, the LDS church recognizes that coming out can be valuable and healthy for at least some people and even some of it's own members.

[David13]

but really, homosexuality is behavior independent of the identity of an individual.
When you label yourself something, self-fulfilling prophecy can happen and it basically makes people stuck either in their minds or in those doing the labeling.
But behavior must be labeled for what it is - if it causes harm and proves to be a disorder (state of confusion) then it is important to not deny the truth, for the sake of well-being of those who believe whatever you say.

"Homosexuality" isn't a behavior... it's "sexual attraction to people of one's own sex." Sexual behavior is behavior.

While we cannot and do not choose to whom we're attracted, we can choose how and when to act upon them.

How we choose to define ourselves may or may not be congruent with our inherent sexual orientation.

Many of us who have denied our innate attractions for a long time and dealt with them in unhealthy and dysfunctional ways find a sense of peace and fulfillment in acknowledging that we are, in fact, gay. Doing so isn't always defining ourselves by our sexual behavior, because many of us identify as gay whether we're acting on it or not. Our invocation of the identity as 'gay' or 'lesbian' is a relief, because we finally feel we no longer have to pretend to be or seem like someone we're not.

Even as it cautions people not to define themselves by their homosexuality, the LDS church recognizes that coming out can be valuable and healthy for at least some people and even some of it's own members.

Admitting you have a problem is the first step in resolving the problem, and returning to normality.
dc

[Daniel2]

but really, homosexuality is behavior independent of the identity of an individual.
When you label yourself something, self-fulfilling prophecy can happen and it basically makes people stuck either in their minds or in those doing the labeling.
But behavior must be labeled for what it is - if it causes harm and proves to be a disorder (state of confusion) then it is important to not deny the truth, for the sake of well-being of those who believe whatever you say.

"Homosexuality" isn't a behavior... it's "sexual attraction to people of one's own sex." Sexual behavior is behavior.

While we cannot and do not choose to whom we're attracted, we can choose how and when to act upon them.

How we choose to define ourselves may or may not be congruent with our inherent sexual orientation.

Many of us who have denied our innate attractions for a long time and dealt with them in unhealthy and dysfunctional ways find a sense of peace and fulfillment in acknowledging that we are, in fact, gay. Doing so isn't always defining ourselves by our sexual behavior, because many of us identify as gay whether we're acting on it or not. Our invocation of the identity as 'gay' or 'lesbian' is a relief, because we finally feel we no longer have to pretend to be or seem like someone we're not.

Even as it cautions people not to define themselves by their homosexuality, the LDS church recognizes that coming out can be valuable and healthy for at least some people and even some of it's own members.

Admitting you have a problem is the first step in resolving the problem, and returning to normality.
dc

Agreed! That’s why it was healthy for me to finally admit I was suffering from LDS-delusion before I was able to return to normality.

[Serragon]

"Homosexuality" isn't a behavior...

The act of labeling oneself is behavior.

If you take upon yourself the title of homosexual, you are taking an action to separate yourself from everyone else. Your carnal desire becomes your identity.

It is not healthy. It does not heal. It simply elevates something that should be subdued to become the defining characteristic in your life.

[David13]

but really, homosexuality is behavior independent of the identity of an individual.
When you label yourself something, self-fulfilling prophecy can happen and it basically makes people stuck either in their minds or in those doing the labeling.
But behavior must be labeled for what it is - if it causes harm and proves to be a disorder (state of confusion) then it is important to not deny the truth, for the sake of well-being of those who believe whatever you say.

"Homosexuality" isn't a behavior... it's "sexual attraction to people of one's own sex." Sexual behavior is behavior.

While we cannot and do not choose to whom we're attracted, we can choose how and when to act upon them.

How we choose to define ourselves may or may not be congruent with our inherent sexual orientation.

Many of us who have denied our innate attractions for a long time and dealt with them in unhealthy and dysfunctional ways find a sense of peace and fulfillment in acknowledging that we are, in fact, gay. Doing so isn't always defining ourselves by our sexual behavior, because many of us identify as gay whether we're acting on it or not. Our invocation of the identity as 'gay' or 'lesbian' is a relief, because we finally feel we no longer have to pretend to be or seem like someone we're not.

Even as it cautions people not to define themselves by their homosexuality, the LDS church recognizes that coming out can be valuable and healthy for at least some people and even some of it's own members.

Admitting you have a problem is the first step in resolving the problem, and returning to normality.
dc

Agreed! That’s why it was healthy for me to finally admit I was suffering from LDS-delusion before I was able to return to normality.

It isn't LDS that's the delusion.
Homosexuality is an abnormality.
And you are deluded if you think otherwise.
dc

[Daniel2]

The act of labeling oneself is behavior.

If you take upon yourself the title of homosexual, you are taking an action to separate yourself from everyone else. Your carnal desire becomes your identity.

It is not healthy. It does not heal. It simply elevates something that should be subdued to become the defining characteristic in your life.

From the LDS Church's website https://mormonandgay.lds.org/articles/f ... -questions:

If you experience same-sex attraction, you may or may not choose to use a sexual orientation label to describe yourself.

...For some people, keeping feelings of same-sex attraction private can result in shame or a negative internal dialogue. Sharing those feelings with a trusted confidant can be liberating and healing. Some, however, wish they had waited longer or at least limited the number of people to whom they disclosed their feelings, so this decision shouldn’t be based on yielding to pressure to “come out” publicly or openly identify as gay. If you decide to disclose feelings of same-sex attraction, prayerfully consider whom you would like to tell about it and how to share this aspect of your mortal experience.

If you decide to share your experiences of feeling same-sex attraction or to openly identify as gay, you should be supported and treated with kindness and respect, both at home and in church. We all need to be patient with each other as we figure things out.

I don't go around introducing myself to new people by saying, "Hi, my name is Daniel and I'm gay, just so you know..." While I may self-identify internally as gay/homosexual (which is only one personality trait among many that I use to define myself on a daily basis), I rarely use the term in in-person discussions. Most people understand I'm gay when we exchange information about our families, and I mention my husband and our kids. I don't usually discuss being gay unless they ask something about it. My 'carnal desires' or 'sexual preferences' aren't any more a part of my public life than any straight person introducing his wife would be. The term 'husband' is by far more important to me and public than the designation of gay. That I am his 'husband' and he is my 'husband' both carry deep personal meaning and value. I cherish the ring I wear on my finger, and it is a symbol that reminds me to be the best possible husband I can be to him in all facets of our shared lives together.

[Daniel2]

It isn't LDS that's the delusion.
Homosexuality is an abnormality.
And you are deluded if you think otherwise.
dc

You only say that because you're suffering from abnormal Religious-Attraction.

If you sought out the help of a professional psychologist, you'd be able to overcome the delusional fantasy to which you've surrendered yourself.

If you find the above characterizations offensive or demeaning, you'd be right in doing so--I only did it in both this and my previous to try to make a point: It should feel uncomfortable and offensive to have something that you cherish and find value described in demeaning and dismissive language. And while any of us are free to hold whatever views we want, and while any of us are free do use whatever language we want, the language we choose to use is going be a reflection of whether or not we're responding "sensitively and thoughtfully," as well as whether our outreach is "loving and compassionate."

I think that's what Dallin Oaks meant when he said, "There is no change in the Church’s position of what is morally right. But what is changing—and what needs to change—is helping Church members respond sensitively and thoughtfully when they encounter same-sex attraction in their own families, among other Church members, or elsewhere."

And when Quentin Cook said, “As a Church nobody should be more loving and compassionate. … Let us be at the forefront in terms of expressing love, compassion, and outreach. Let’s not have families exclude or be disrespectful of those who choose a different lifestyle as a result of their feelings about their own gender.”

In my experience, the internet's anonymity seems to bring out the worst in many, and we become far more coarse in our treatment of one another, far more harsh in our language, and far less loving and compassionate than I hope we'd be in real life. I imagine many would cringe if the type of language used here were used from the pulpit or by missionaries attempting to build bridges. I wish people could be more civil online, but understand I can't force anyone to be respectful. Until others choose to do so themselves, I'll continue to try to be the change I hope to see in the world.

Thankfully, LDS church leaders in recent years are leading by example and avoiding much of the harsh and judgmental phrases and terms that are strewn across this board.

[skmo]

"Homosexuality" isn't a behavior...

The act of labeling oneself is behavior.

But it's a behavior which can be helpful if it's done in a healthy way. I am an alcoholic. That's a label I put on myself because I've proven to myself that I cannot casually drink alcohol, therefore acknowledging that about myself gives me a recognized weakness which can be stronger in me than it is in others.

We are told we are given weaknesses so they can be made strong. In my pain and suffering, I tried to justify my use of alcohol because it was to relieve that suffering. Along the way all I accomplished was to discover another weakness about myself. This has allowed me to apply the label of "alcoholic" to me to strengthen my commitment to obeying the Word of Wisdom.

If you take upon yourself the title of homosexual, you are taking an action to separate yourself from everyone else. Your carnal desire becomes your identity.

It doesn't have to. Of course it can, but the two are not inseparably joined. If you are doing that to be an excuse to justify weakness and/or to distance yourself from being an active follower of Christ, then yes, it could cause more harm. If done with humility and faith, it is a strengthening action.

Make no mistake: The level of faith and the depth of humility needed to do that are great, and I would agree it's much more likely that people will use it as a buffer to insulate them from the pain of committing sinful actions.

It is not healthy. It does not heal. It simply elevates something that should be subdued to become the defining characteristic in your life.

Again - I think it's more likely this is to be the outcome, but it doesn't have to be.

[Serragon]

[

I don't go around introducing myself to new people by saying, "Hi, my name is Daniel and I'm gay, just so you know..." While self-identify as gay/homosexual, I rarely use the term in in-person discussions. Most people understand I'm gay when we exchange information about our families, and I mention my husband and our kids. I don't usually discuss being gay unless they ask something about it. My 'carnal desires' or 'sexual preferences' aren't any more a part of my public life than any straight person introducing his wife would be. The term 'husband' is by far more important to me and public than the designation of gay. That I am his 'husband' and he is my 'husband' both carry deep personal meaning and value. I cherish the ring I wear on my finger, and it is a symbol that reminds me to be the best possible husband I can be to him in all facets of our shared lives together.

Yes, you do go around saying "Hi, my name is Daniel and I'm gay" because you have a husband and introduce him as such. By your own admission others know you are homosexual because of this. They know you are embracing your fetish instead of subduing it.

If you had not taken this title upon yourself, then no one would know except the few people you confided in. The focus would be on helping you to subdue this carnal part of yourself instead of reveling in it.

Your final 2 sentences are irrelevant. You can find meaning and value in all manner of relationships. It does not make them moral or appropriate.

[Serragon]

But it's a behavior which can be helpful if it's done in a healthy way. I am an alcoholic. That's a label I put on myself because I've proven to myself that I cannot casually drink alcohol, therefore acknowledging that about myself gives me a recognized weakness which can be stronger in me than it is in others.

If the admission that "I'm a homosexual" meant that people realized they had a problem and were trying to overcome it, I would agree with you. Unfortunately, that is not how this particular title is used.

[Daniel2]

Yes, you do go around saying "Hi, my name is Daniel and I'm gay" because you have a husband and introduce him as such. By your own admission others know you are homosexual because of this. They know you are embracing your fetish instead of subduing it.

If you had not taken this title upon yourself, then no one would know except the few people you confided in. The focus would be on helping you to subdue this carnal part of yourself instead of reveling in it.

Your final 2 sentences are irrelevant. You can find meaning and value in all manner of relationships. It does not make them moral or appropriate.

I think you're missing my point, but it appears to be little more than a semantic difference to you, so it's not worth arguing over.

Your final paragraph indicates there's little point in continuing the conversation with someone who isn't willing to have a good-faith discussion. I hope no one ever tells you the value you derive from your relationship with your spouse is "irrelevant." That's a pretty rotten thing to say, regardless of feelings of religious superiorty.

[skmo]

If the admission that "I'm a homosexual" meant that people realized they had a problem and were trying to overcome it, I would agree with you. Unfortunately, that is [almost never] how this particular title is used.

I made a change to your comment to reflect how I feel about it. I have a gay married couple who are friends, and this distinction is quite important to them.

They're gay, both of them. He is, and so is she. I am one of the only people who knows about this, though, not even their 3 daughters know (I don't think.) They're both very faithful people, very strong with the Spirit. This has helped them both to adjust to the life they needed rather than the one they wanted. They love and respect each other, and it's been hard for them, but they've made it work.

However, and the importance of this CANNOT be understated, they do NOT wear their gayness as a badge. They were honest with each other before their marriage, and the only reason I became aware of it (though I certainly suspected) was because of the situation of my own excommunication and the wild path my life took to get there.

[skmo]

I hope no one ever tells you the value you derive from your relationship with your spouse is "irrelevant."

It's not that the relationship is or isn't important, it's that a person can never have a spouse of the same gender in God's plan. Legal definitions for the terrestrial world can be altered to allow for it, but we've been given clear revelation on this:

"...Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose... God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife..."
-- The Family: A Proclamation to the World

A same sex couple living together in sin is neither more nor less in need of repentance and forgiveness than a heterosexual couple is, but there is a functional difference: A man and woman can repent and be married. A same sex couple cannot be married according to God's proclamation to us. It's not that I think same sex activity is "disgusting" or any of those negative feelings normally associated with SSA, especially in the LDS community (although far more so in the Baptist one) because from my own experience I understand that's a matter of preference and taste. I also recognize that pleasure and perversion can go together just as easily as pleasure and happiness, but perversion and happiness cannot. I recognize that if I pervert the Word of Wisdom with couple of bottles of Grey Goose Citron or Macallan 18 I may get some pleasure out of it, but I'll also get a profoundly corresponding pain eventually.

It's very important that church leaders remind us that we're commanded to share the gospel with love, not with disgust. People with weaknesses need to be accepted and loved and helped. However, there are a couple of bridges the two sides find profoundly difficult to cross:

Religious people, especially those with a Kinsey Scale score of 0 or even 1 have a difficult time finding love and acceptance of the moral differences between hetero- and homo- sexual people. Some people, even some on this board are rabidly, fanatically dedicated to pointing out the perversion of the ways of people with SSA. Ironically, this is often accompanied by a complete blindness to their own sin of pride. I believe it is often these people the church leaders are trying to reach out to so that the gospel can be preached with Christ's love rather than the verbal rack and pincers.

The other side to that coin is that people who are gay will fall back on words aimed to show compassion and claim they actually justify sin. God's commandments on this are clear: Our gender in an inherent part of who we are, being sons and daughters of God. Use of sexual activity is only permitted between a male husband and his lawfully married female wife. It's important that we all accept that not everyone will have the same philosophical views, but that doesn't justify mistreatment of anyone.

[gardener4life]

You know...speaking of the devil I've been seeing all this spam on this Weinstein guy for the past week. And I've noticed that some of his victims are now lesbians. I still think that homosexuality is wrong and I trust the scriptures on this.

But I do wonder if some people are like that because of predators like this guy.