Homosexuality: Disorder

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.
Post Reply
KMCopeland
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2279
Location: The American South

Re: Homosexuality: Disorder

Post by KMCopeland »

So much energy and passion trying to convince the world how sinful other people are.

Something's just wrong about that.

User avatar
David13
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7072
Location: Utah

Re: Homosexuality: Disorder

Post by David13 »

You totally miss the issue.
The issue is, is it sin or not. The agenda says it's not.
I think a lot of us believe it is.
dc

User avatar
Sirocco
Praise Me!
Posts: 3808

Re: Homosexuality: Disorder

Post by Sirocco »

David13 wrote:You totally miss the issue.
The issue is, is it sin or not. The agenda says it's not.
I think a lot of us believe it is.
dc
But sin really, in a way, exists if you believe it does.
Because you don't believe in the sin of all the other religions, only your own, and vice versa.
And those who don't believe in any religion have no sin...

I really don't think you can have a religion influence a government regarding sin, when not everyone is on the same page to what sin is and what is a sin or not.

User avatar
Thinker
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12975
Location: The Universe - wherever that is.

Re: Homosexuality: Disorder

Post by Thinker »

At the heart, sin is incorrect thought and subsequent e-motions and actions.
It's missing the mark - often in harmful ways to the person or others.

Homosexual practices statistically prove to be harmful to the person and to others.

User avatar
Sirocco
Praise Me!
Posts: 3808

Re: Homosexuality: Disorder

Post by Sirocco »

Thinker wrote:At the heart, sin is incorrect thought and subsequent e-motions and actions.
It's missing the mark - often in harmful ways to the person or others.

Homosexual practices statistically prove to be harmful to the person and to others.
Uh huh...harmful in the "someone might jump you/parents might kick you out of the house" harmful?
Do you have any actual credible sources?
Because the only harmful things I have seen really impact GLBT people I know, is how crappy a lot of other people treat them.
Oh sure I don't have my foot much in the water (I've no desire to be with either men or women) but know enough...
And I don't see, using myself as an example, how my life would impact you if I married a man, a woman or a Nintendo DS

User avatar
Thinker
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12975
Location: The Universe - wherever that is.

Re: Homosexuality: Disorder

Post by Thinker »

Sirroco,
It would help if you read the OP before engaging in more logical fallacy and cognitive distortion, unless of course, emotional reasoning is all you have considered...
Thinker wrote:The American Psychological Association originally defined homosexuality as a disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-II (DSM-II), then, was harassed into changing the definition. "Led by radicals like Franklin Kameny, pro-sodomy activists attacked psychiatrists across America, as Newsweek describes: “But even more than the government, it is the psychiatrists who have experienced the full rage of the homosexual activists. Over the past two years, gay-lib organizations have repeatedly disrupted medical meetings, and three months ago—in the movements most aggressive demonstration so far—a group of 30 militants broke into a meeting of the American Psychiatric Association in Washington, where they turned the staid proceedings into near chaos..."
http://www.freewebs.com/theborngayhoax/theapa.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So, the definition of homosexuality was changed from being a disorder to being normalized, not because of scientific research, but as a political move by harassing homosexual fetish lobbyists.

The truth found in undeniable statistics is that actions based on homosexual fetishes make it a disorder (state of confusion) and even one that causes suffering by such confusion:

1. Homosexuality is not ever truly sex but involves fetishes, because sex involves the sexual organs of each, and homosexuality must resort to subsitutes... fetishes. (Fetish: any object or nongenital part of the body that causes a habitual erotic response or fixation. ) Anal sex is such a fetish. Some fetishes cause no harm, but unfortunatley anal sex can cause anal fissures, anal cancer, colon rupture and bacterial infections.

2. According to the United States Center for Disease Control (US CDC), those with homosexual fetishes are many times more likely to contract STDs than heterosexuals. http://www.cdc.gov/stdconference/2000/m ... ay2000.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

3. According to the United States Center for Disease Control (US CDC), those with homosexual fetishes are many times more likely to contract AIDS than heterosexuals. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

4. Also According to the United States Center for Disease Control (US CDC), those with homosexual fetishes are more likely to develop mental illness. Research also has found that, compared to other men, MSM are at increased risk of: Major depression during adolescence and adulthood; Bipolar disorder; and Generalized anxiety disorder during adolescence and adulthood. MSM are also at greater risk for other health threats that often occur in conjunction with mental health problems (i.e., co-morbidities). These include greater use of illegal drugs and a greater risk for suicide.

5. Most babies are born healthy, without disorders, including without homosexual fetishes. At birth, our brains are only 25% developed. This makes us less intelligent at birth than many other mamals, however it ends up in our best interest because along with more caregiving support, we are better able to adapt to environmental influences. Under various circumstances, some such adaptations result in the development of homosexual fetishes. There is no such thing as a gay gene - as mentioned in the first link above.

Evidence shows that the development of homosexual fetishes is more linked to environmental influences than to biology. Science does not support the claim that homosexuality is genetic.. Even Homosexual Researchers Debunk ‘Born Gay’ Urban Legend http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/724179/posts" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"1. No research has found provable biological or genetic differences between heterosexuals & homosexuals that weren't caused by their behavior. 2. In 2 large studies conducted... Homosexuals overwhelmingly believed their feelings and behavior were the result of social or environmental influences. (Note that the focus of homosexual fetishes is limited to select countries, globally.) 3. Older homosexuals often approach the young 4. Early homosexual experiences influence adult patters of behavior 5. Sexual conduct is influenced by cultural factors - esp. religious convictions 6. Many change their sexual preferences 7. There are many ex-homosexuals"

The homosexual fetish herd is trying to push its way into the public - to make this disorder that statistically proves to be harmful, be accepted, even legally. Don't fall for it. Love people, don't love the sin. "Tolerance applies to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies to truth, but never to persons. Tolerance applies to the erring; intollerance to the error." -Fulton Sheen
Then, there's also....
Thinker wrote:Please defend marriage as defined between a man and a woman!

Kids of Gay Parents More Likely to Suffer Mental Problems, Study Shows
http://www.charismanews.com/us/48331-ki ... tudy-shows" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"Researchers found that 17 percent of children with same-sex parents had serious emotional problems compared to 7 percent of children with a mom and dad."

Study: Children of Parents in Same-Sex Relationships Face Greater Risks
http://www.citizenlink.com/2012/06/11/s ... ter-risks/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"According to data from the New Family Structures Study, led by Mark Regnerus at the University of Texas at Austin, children raised by homosexual parents are dramatically more likely than peers raised by married heterosexual parents to suffer from a host of social problems. Among them are strong tendencies, as adults, to exhibit poor impulse control; suffer from depression and thoughts of suicide; need mental health therapy; identify themselves as homosexual; choose cohabitation; be unfaithful to partners; contract sexually transmitted diseases; be sexually molested; have lower income levels; drink to get drunk; and smoke tobacco and marijuana."

Adults Raised by Gay Couples Speak Out Against Gay ‘Marriage’ in Federal Court
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/laurett ... eral-court" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
Sirocco
Praise Me!
Posts: 3808

Re: Homosexuality: Disorder

Post by Sirocco »

Thinker wrote:Sirroco,
It would help if you read the OP before engaging in more logical fallacy and cognitive distortion, unless of course, emotional reasoning is all you have considered...
You just couldn't repost that without adding an insult could you?

I never had any harsh words or thoughts about you, heck I even admitted some lack of, I suppose qualifications to speak about this, if it were, but you just couldn't respond without digging at me.

KMCopeland
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2279
Location: The American South

Re: Homosexuality: Disorder

Post by KMCopeland »

David13 wrote:You totally miss the issue.
The issue is, is it sin or not. The agenda says it's not.
I think a lot of us believe it is.
dc
No, you totally miss the issue. It isn't whether or not it's a sin. It's why is it so important to identify, and marginalize, this particular sin? You don't make that much fuss about adultery -- it's a sin too. There's an agenda that says adultery's okay too. So what should we do about that sin? Keep them out of stores, apartments, and restaurants?

Go ahead and quietly think it's a sin, like you do adultery, when you run into an adulterer in public. And then try to understand, like you do with adultery, that it isn't your place to take action against other peoples' sins.

User avatar
David13
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7072
Location: Utah

Re: Homosexuality: Disorder

Post by David13 »

There is absolutely no comparison between any "adulterers rights campaign" and the homosexual campaign. The lobbying, the public "pride" parades. You have seen the adulterers do that?
I sure haven't.
The truth is, the adultery is still 100% "in the closet". Two entirely different things. Based on the behavior of the sinner.
What's wrong is wrong. And I don't not think anyone should be "proud" of something wrong.
So yes, my reaction is different.
dc

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12983

Re: Homosexuality: Disorder

Post by Fiannan »

David13 wrote:There is absolutely no comparison between any "adulterers rights campaign" and the homosexual campaign. The lobbying, the public "pride" parades. You have seen the adulterers do that?
I sure haven't.
The truth is, the adultery is still 100% "in the closet". Two entirely different things. Based on the behavior of the sinner.
What's wrong is wrong. And I don't not think anyone should be "proud" of something wrong.
So yes, my reaction is different.
dc
Now hold on there. You can turn on just about any movie or TV show made in the past 20 years and adultery is part of the plot. And it is often presented as if you root for the man or woman who is in an unfulfilling relationship to hook up with the man or woman of their dreams who has come into their life. While homosexuality is now being integrated into mass media it still has a ways to go before it catches up to adultery. And as for fornication...

True, there are no parades for adultery or fornication but maybe there is no need. Look at what happened when Bill's affair with Monica came out, his support with women skyrocketed. Gotta understand Freud to know why that happened. Even the movie Dr. Zhivago, in which adultery is at its core, was a favorite of young adult LDS women back in the 1990s.

Maybe people can relate to adultery more than they can relate to homosexuality. Also, adultery does not (on the face of it) negatively affect the reproduction of the species while homosexuality can certainly set it back.

User avatar
Elizabeth
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 11796
Location: East Coast Australia

Re: Homosexuality: Disorder

Post by Elizabeth »

http://godfatherpolitics.com/21400/appl ... s-freedom/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"Tim Cook is the CEO of Apple. He has sex with men. I’m not revealing anything about him that he has not revealed about himself. Here’s what he said:
“While I have never denied my sexuality, I haven’t publicly acknowledged it either, until now. So let me be clear: I’m proud to be gay, and I consider being gay among the greatest gifts God has given me.”
“Proud to be gay”? What does that mean?
Cook’s statement reveals something about how the same-sex sexuality movement defines itself. Cook states that he never denied his “sexuality.” A pedophile and an adulterer could say the same thing. There are millions of people who argue that that they are “proud” of their behavior.
By the way, homosexuals get very upset when pedophilia is used as an example of another form of “sexual preference.” Consider the following:
"‘Paedophilic interest is natural and normal for human males,’ said the presentation. ‘At least a sizeable minority of normal males would like to have sex with children … Normal males are aroused by children.’
“The statement that paedophilia is ‘natural and normal’ was made not three decades ago but last July [2013]. It was made not in private but as one of the central claims of an academic presentation delivered, at the invitation of the organisers, to many of the key experts in the field at a conference held by the University of Cambridge.
“Other presentations included ‘Liberating the paedophile: a discursive analysis,’ and ‘Danger and difference: the stakes of hebephilia.’
“Hebephilia is the sexual preference for children in early puberty, typically 11 to 14-year-olds.”
Could the day come when discriminating against pedophile behavior and pedophile marriages will bring about leftist outrage? Ted Kennedy, Chuck Schumer, Barbara Boxer, Harry Reid, and 93 other senators signed the national Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in 1993. That was only 22 years ago. A lot could change in another 22 years. Pedophilia could be mainstreamed.
I and millions of other people believe same-sex sexuality is immoral, anti-science, and irrational. The Bible states that it is “unnatural” (Rom. 1:26-27) in terms of biology and thereby irrational.
Those who reject the Bible have nothing from which to argue in order to make their case for anything. In fact, in evolutionary terms, same-sex sexuality is contrary to evolution. Tim’s Cook’s DNA will stop with him. If he attempts to find a surrogate, he will only be admitting that same-sex sexuality is “unnatural.”
Religious freedom laws protect everybody. They are not about discriminating against anybody. The word “homosexual” does not appear anywhere in any of the religious freedom laws, and that includes Indiana’s law which is very similar to the national law that was signed by Bill Clinton in 1993 with almost unanimous consent from Congress (only three no votes).
It’s not surprising that Tim Cook “does not quote a single word from any of the religious freedom laws he denounces” which are an extension of the First Amendment, you know, that pesky right from the Constitution that has served our nation well for more than 230 years.
To do so will lead to a lot of explaining. Better to throw the elephant.
Why were these new state laws necessary? Because of people like Tim Cook who wants to cut down the Liberty Tree of clear thinking and impose his will on the vast majority of Americans by force of law. Cook is a bigot and hypocrite who wants to force people to believe like he does and at the same time call for a boycott of those who don't.
This is done by forcing people to accept certain behaviours they believe are contrary to their worldview. Everybody should have this freedom. Cook and others are calling for a boycott of Indiana saying they refuse to do business with the state. They are free to do so, but if a baker wants to boycott a same-sex wedding, it’s a criminal offense.
The irony is thick with these people.
These religious freedom laws were written for people like Barronelle Stutzman, owner of Arlene's Flowers, “who declined to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding because of her Christian belief in traditional marriage.” She “has been fined $1,001 by a Washington court and will be held liable to pay the legal fees incurred by the gay couple, which could ‘devastate’ her financially. . . . Stutzman is still at risk of losing her retirement savings and business as she will be responsible for paying the legal fees and damages incurred by Ingersoll and Freed, who were represented by the ACLU.”
Her “crime”? Not agreeing that same-sex marriage is legitimate marriage. So who’s the bigot? It’s multi-billionaire Tim Cook who will not allow people like Barronelle Stutzman to believe in a way different from him.”

http://godfatherpolitics.com/21400/appl ... LBhrbtz.99" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
David13
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7072
Location: Utah

Re: Homosexuality: Disorder

Post by David13 »

S&N. Thank you. I like the truth you speak.
Fiannan
First, I don't watch tv, sitcoms, movies, etc. I didn't even see Dr Zhivago, so I have no idea what the theme was.
And the reason is exactly that. It's all part of an agenda, a plot or conspiracy if you will to revise the concept of sin, to rewrite the book on right and wrong, and probably to sell a lot of other things as well, such as the "proper" form of government.
None of which do I subscribe to.
The adulterers generally do not go into the schools as the homosexuals have and demand that the school teach little children that homo. is perfectly 100% a - ok, and must, must mind you be "celebrated, encouraged, accepted" etc etc.
And as to this idea that everyone gets to vote on what is today sin, and that if everyone is doing it, it is ok.
I think, to some extent there is an absolute difference between right and wrong that will never change.
I think it can be said that Islam is rather extremely against homosexuality, but also just about every 'Latino' country is somewhat severely not in favor of homosexuality. It's only here that this "new agenda" has started to sprout like a giant weed.
I don't think any of us here go as far as Islam or the Latino countries.
But I do think that like S&N posts, some of the others go way too far. And that is the point. If the adulterer keeps their affair secret, how could I ever say anything about it? I wouldn't even know. I wouldn't approve, they wouldn't demand that i revise my beliefs. And we wouldn't have to try for this "new, improved morality." This neo revisionist concept of right and wrong.
dc

Benjamin_LK
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2502
Location: Valley Forge, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: Homosexuality: Disorder

Post by Benjamin_LK »

I am sorry, but I honestly miss the thank you function. Just for everyone, including the moderators to know.

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12983

Re: Homosexuality: Disorder

Post by Fiannan »

While you are all debating sin and gay marriage you might consider that the whole dynamic of "SSA" is being re-designed by the younger generation:

http://nymag.com/news/features/15589/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

KMCopeland
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2279
Location: The American South

Re: Homosexuality: Disorder

Post by KMCopeland »

David13 wrote:There is absolutely no comparison between any "adulterers rights campaign" and the homosexual campaign. The lobbying, the public "pride" parades. You have seen the adulterers do that? I sure haven't.
They don't have to have parades or lobbyists. They're already fully accepted, and fully protected by the law.
Fiannan wrote:
David13 wrote:The truth is, the adultery is still 100% "in the closet". Two entirely different things. Based on the behavior of the sinner. What's wrong is wrong. And I don't not think anyone should be "proud" of something wrong. So yes, my reaction is different. dc
Now hold on there. You can turn on just about any movie or TV show made in the past 20 years and adultery is part of the plot. And it is often presented as if you root for the man or woman who is in an unfulfilling relationship to hook up with the man or woman of their dreams who has come into their life. While homosexuality is now being integrated into mass media it still has a ways to go before it catches up to adultery. And as for fornication...

True, there are no parades for adultery or fornication but maybe there is no need. Look at what happened when Bill's affair with Monica came out, his support with women skyrocketed. Gotta understand Freud to know why that happened. Even the movie Dr. Zhivago, in which adultery is at its core, was a favorite of young adult LDS women back in the 1990s.

Maybe people can relate to adultery more than they can relate to homosexuality. Also, adultery does not (on the face of it) negatively affect the reproduction of the species while homosexuality can certainly set it back.
Fiannan old bud, I think we might be on common ground here. But what about birth control? That has certainly has set back reproduction too. Is that a sin on the same level as homosexuality?

User avatar
David13
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7072
Location: Utah

Re: Homosexuality: Disorder

Post by David13 »

Abstinence is birth control. And not a sin.
And is nothing like, nor comparable to adultery or homosexuality.
I really think you miss something here.
That is, the distinctions.
I don't believe anyone ever caught a disease from abstinence.
And that's not the end of it.
dc

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12983

Re: Homosexuality: Disorder

Post by Fiannan »

David13 wrote:Abstinence is birth control. And not a sin.
And is nothing like, nor comparable to adultery or homosexuality.
I really think you miss something here.
That is, the distinctions.
I don't believe anyone ever caught a disease from abstinence.
And that's not the end of it.
dc
Depends, in Judaism if a man, for example, refused to have relations with his wife because he wanted no children with her then you would have grounds for divorce. This of course was true in the USA up until the advent of no-fault divorce. Also, the legalization of birth control did not occur nationwide until the mid-1960s. Christianity seeing birth control as okay is a relatively recent transformation -- appears that LDS have been affected by the dominant culture as well.

As for homosexuality there is a connection to population control that has been discussed here. Even pornography, the apex of capitalism, is connected with population control, both in terms of societal pacification and reduction of birth rates.

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12983

Re: Homosexuality: Disorder

Post by Fiannan »

Fiannan old bud, I think we might be on common ground here. But what about birth control? That has certainly has set back reproduction too. Is that a sin on the same level as homosexuality?
Look up statements of prophets of The Restoration -- plenty of commentary there. ;)

I would prefer to discuss this in regards to evolutionary psychology however. Obviously if two men form an exclusive relationship then that will be the end of both their family lines. In most lesbian situations the couples usually only have one or two babies through donors and only one becomes the birth-mother. So there you might have genetic enhancement since most lesbians get donors through clinics that weed out inferior potential donors but you also have an overall negative birthrate as you would minimally need such couples to have 5 kids to replace themselves overall.

So to answer your question I think homosexuality is something that is being normalized and mainstreamed with a population reduction agenda behind it. As for sin, I believe at least with males the Old Testament says it is. Yet a woman in such a relationship who has children is probably more in line with the Bible that a woman who is married to a man but chooses never to reproduce.

User avatar
Thinker
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12975
Location: The Universe - wherever that is.

Re: Homosexuality: Disorder

Post by Thinker »

Sirocco wrote:
Thinker wrote:Sirroco,
It would help if you read the OP before engaging in more logical fallacy and cognitive distortion, unless of course, emotional reasoning is all you have considered...
You just couldn't repost that without adding an insult could you?

I never had any harsh words or thoughts about you, heck I even admitted some lack of, I suppose qualifications to speak about this, if it were, but you just couldn't respond without digging at me.
My quote is right above yours and if you reread it - you'll notice that there is no insult to you personally, but about your way of arguing, using logical fallacy - like strawman or red hering. Logical fallacy also can include ad hominem attack - so I'm aware of the difference between attacking illogical comments and attacking a person personally, as you have done. Yet, it seems you do not realize the difference, because you have used logical fallacy again, to avoid the inconvenient truths pointed out to you in response to your question.

If you have anything substantial to contribute to this discussion - please scroll up to my response to your question, read through the OP and other post about the statistical harm homosexual preferences shows to have, and comment on that, rather than making up some other easier-to-refute argument.
Thanks.

KMCopeland
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2279
Location: The American South

Re: Homosexuality: Disorder

Post by KMCopeland »

Sweet&Noble wrote:"Tim Cook is the CEO of Apple. He has sex with men. I’m not revealing anything about him that he has not revealed about himself. Here’s what he said:

“While I have never denied my sexuality, I haven’t publicly acknowledged it either, until now. So let me be clear: I’m proud to be gay, and I consider being gay among the greatest gifts God has given me.”

“Proud to be gay”? What does that mean?
It probably means he's no more ashamed of it than you are of being heterosexual.
Sweet&Noble wrote:Cook’s statement reveals something about how the same-sex sexuality movement defines itself. Cook states that he never denied his “sexuality.” A pedophile and an adulterer could say the same thing. There are millions of people who argue that that they are “proud” of their behavior.
It really doesn't reveal anything like that. It's just a handy excuse for you to make a salacious comment about pedophiles and adulterers, hoping people will conflate them with gay people. But since most pedophiles and adulterers are heterosexual, you should probably refrain from using them to try to prove how bad homosexuality is.

Millions of people who are proud of their behavior aren't pedophiles or adulterers. And millions of pedophiles and adulterers are heterosexuals.
Sweet&Noble wrote:“The statement that paedophilia is ‘natural and normal’ was made not three decades ago but last July [2013]. It was made not in private but as one of the central claims of an academic presentation delivered, at the invitation of the organisers, to many of the key experts in the field at a conference held by the University of Cambridge.
People say idiotic things all the time.
Sweet&Noble wrote: ... That was only 22 years ago. A lot could change in another 22 years. Pedophilia could be mainstreamed.
Crimes against children will never be mainstreamed.
Sweet&Noble wrote:I and millions of other people believe same-sex sexuality is immoral, anti-science, and irrational.
I and millions of other people believe adultery is immoral too. We just know it's generally none of our business.
Sweet&Noble wrote:The Bible states that it is “unnatural” (Rom. 1:26-27) in terms of biology and thereby irrational.
The Bible doesn't quite say that. You added that part about "in terms of biology." And the Bible condemns adultery much more rigorously than it does homosexuality. Where's your outrage about adultery?
Sweet&Noble wrote:Those who reject the Bible have nothing from which to argue in order to make their case for anything.
You reject the Bible yourself. I don't even have to ask you to know that you don't think adulterers should be stoned to death, or that divorced women who remarry are adulterers, or that women shouldn't be allowed to speak in church, or that eating shrimp is a capital crime. So I guess since you've rejected the Bible, you're the one who has nothing from which to argue in order to make your case for anything, right?
Sweet&Noble wrote:In fact, in evolutionary terms, same-sex sexuality is contrary to evolution.
So is modern medical care.
Sweet&Noble wrote:Tim’s Cook’s DNA will stop with him.
Why would you object to that?
Sweet&Noble wrote:If he attempts to find a surrogate, he will only be admitting that same-sex sexuality is “unnatural.”
No more than the millions of heterosexual people, who use in vitro fertilization in order to have children, are admitting their sexuality is unnatural.
Sweet&Noble wrote:Religious freedom laws protect everybody. They are not about discriminating against anybody.
If that's the case then nobody will have any problems with them.
Sweet&Noble wrote:It’s not surprising that Tim Cook “does not quote a single word from any of the religious freedom laws he denounces” which are an extension of the First Amendment, you know, that pesky right from the Constitution that has served our nation well for more than 230 years.
Since freedom of religion is so clearly protected in the First Amendment, and since it's served us well for so long, there's certainly no need for state laws protecting it anew.

This spate of laws enshrining the practice of withholding services from people whose personal, private choices offend you have nothing to do with religious freedom. They have to do with people's need to pretend gay people don't exist. These so-called religious freedom laws have about as much to do with religous freedom as the Patriot Act has to do with patriotism.
Sweet&Noble wrote:Why were these new state laws necessary?
They weren't.
Sweet&Noble wrote:Because of people like Tim Cook who wants to cut down the Liberty Tree of clear thinking and impose his will on the vast majority of Americans by force of law. Cook is a bigot and hypocrite who wants to force people to believe like he does ...
Isn't Tim Cook speaking out against using the force of law to protect your right to act as judge & jury on gay people?
Sweet&Noble wrote:This is done by forcing people to accept certain behaviours they believe are contrary to their worldview.
Nobody is forcing anybody to accept anything.
Sweet&Noble wrote:Everybody should have this freedom.
Everybody does have it. You can quietly condemn every single gay person you run into. You just can't deprive them of the same freedoms that you have because you think they are sinners.
Sweet&Noble wrote:Cook and others are calling for a boycott of Indiana saying they refuse to do business with the state. They are free to do so, but if a baker wants to boycott a same-sex wedding, it’s a criminal offense.
I don't believe the baker should be in trouble unless there are no other bakers to choose from. I thought that was over the top.
Sweet&Noble wrote:These religious freedom laws were written for people like Barronelle Stutzman, owner of Arlene's Flowers, “who declined to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding because of her Christian belief in traditional marriage.” She “has been fined $1,001 by a Washington court and will be held liable to pay the legal fees incurred by the gay couple
[/quote]I don't think that's fair either, but only as long as there are other florists of equal quality readily available to the couple in question.

User avatar
David13
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7072
Location: Utah

Re: Homosexuality: Disorder

Post by David13 »

Quote from KMCopeland
"I don't believe the baker should be in trouble unless there are no other bakers to choose from. I thought that was over the top."

KM
There is the point. You finally found it. The whole 'homosexual agenda' is indeed 'over the top', gone too far, been carried long beyond what it should have been, been used as a weapon against decent people and should not have been.

Fiannan
What you are telling me about tv is that it is basically non graphic pornography today? Then why do you watch it?
Or do you turn it on and see, then just turn it off? I do that. 400 channels and I find nothing on. I like Phil Robertson (the one with the beard) but their show is ridiculously stupid. I never watched more than 2 minutes.
dc

KMCopeland
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2279
Location: The American South

Re: Homosexuality: Disorder

Post by KMCopeland »

Fiannan wrote:So to answer your question I think homosexuality is something that is being normalized and mainstreamed with a population reduction agenda behind it.
Seems a lot more likely the only agenda is gay people have gotten tired of hiding.
Fiannan wrote:As for sin, I believe at least with males the Old Testament says it is. Yet a woman in such a relationship who has children is probably more in line with the Bible that a woman who is married to a man but chooses never to reproduce.
So it's the actual act of being pregnant that puts the homosexual woman more in line with the Bible than the homosexual man?

KMCopeland
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2279
Location: The American South

Re: Homosexuality: Disorder

Post by KMCopeland »

Image

KMCopeland
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2279
Location: The American South

Re: Homosexuality: Disorder

Post by KMCopeland »

David13 wrote:Quote from KMCopeland
"I don't believe the baker should be in trouble unless there are no other bakers to choose from. I thought that was over the top."

KM
There is the point. You finally found it. The whole 'homosexual agenda' is indeed 'over the top', gone too far, been carried long beyond what it should have been, been used as a weapon against decent people and should not have been.
I think you're overreacting.

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12983

Re: Homosexuality: Disorder

Post by Fiannan »

So it's the actual act of being pregnant that puts the homosexual woman more in line with the Bible than the homosexual man?
If a gay man were married to a lesbian woman and they used IVF to have children then that at least would mean he was fulfilling the first commandment - to multiply and replenish the earth. However, such unions, though they sometimes exist, are exceedingly rare.

Ultimately sex and sexuality, whether from a Biblical or evolutionary standpoint, is for reproduction - all other factors, unless we get into esoteric considerations regarding spiritual intermingling, are mere side benefits. So in a manner of speaking yes, a woman (one who is heterosexual or lesbian) who desires to bring children into the world and nurture them is equal in that aspect of righteousness. While there may be other factors one could consider both deserve flowers on Mother's Day.

Post Reply