# Is Homosexuality a Mental Disorder ?



## GreenBean

The American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973 only after years of political pressure from gay activists. The American Psychiatric association board of trustees passed this decision followed by a statement which listed among the reasons for their decision as changing social norms and growing gay rights activism . So basically, a scientific institution was coerced into changing a scientific opinion or classification due to political pressure !

Removing homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses was not triggered by some scientific breakthrough.  There was no new fact or set of facts that stimulated this major change.  Rather, it was the simple reality that gay people started to kick up a fuss. 

In subsequent years the APA has become so politicized , that it has lost any credibility as a Scientific organization and in the words of one former APA President it is totally "Beholden to the Gay Rights Movement"

Myself and many others , who for fear of reprisals remain silent believe that Homosexuality is and always has been a Mental Disorder and Homosexuals should not be deterred from seeking Psychological / Psychiatric Help.


----------



## DGS49

Psychology and Psychiatry are focused on what is "normal."

The historical reason why phychiatry cosidered homosexual orientation to be "abnormal" was that it flies in the face of biological reality.  In short, the penis, testes, and so on have a reproductive purpose, defined clearly in nature.  Semen has a natural purpose.

Homosexual acts use male reproductive organs (and mainly parts of the digestive system) in ways that are contrary to their obvious natural functions.  There is nothing normal about a man sticking his penis up another man's ass in a bizarre parody of sexual intercourse.  The that fact that it is physically possible does not make it "natural" or "normal"; it's possible to simulate sexual intercourse with a wide variety of animals and plants.  So what?  I've heard homosexuals make the argument that since it is (and I have to take this entirely on faith) "pleasant" to be the buggee, that means it must be normal to bugger.  Baloney.

Homosexuality is the inexplicable desire on the part of a man to "copulate" with other men.  Since this copulation is biologically abnormal, then by necessity the sexual urge to do it must be psychologically abnormal, and if it is abnormal then it should be treatable from a psychiatric standpoint.

But it is not difficult to see why the APA decided to "concede the point," so to speak.  Many, if not most homosexuals, do not consider themselves to be "flawed," and even if they do, they prefer their homosexual orientation.  Consider: a homosexual can go out to any gay bar in the country and "get laid" on any night he chooses.  What heterosexual can say the same?


----------



## DGS49

As a footnote, I will say that in my totally uneducated opinion, homosexuality and lesbianism are totally different phenomena.  Lesbians are not sexually attracted to other women in the same way that homosexuals are attracted to men.  Most just crave affection and cannot relate to men, for one reason or another.


----------



## aaronleland

Yeah. We all know how much pull those gay activists had in the 1970s. Idiot.


----------



## bodecea

DGS49 said:


> As a footnote, I will say that in *my totally uneducated opinion,* homosexuality and lesbianism are totally different phenomena.  Lesbians are not sexually attracted to other women in the same way that homosexuals are attracted to men.  Most just crave affection and cannot relate to men, for one reason or another.



Well then.


----------



## Iceweasel

This thread has potential.


----------



## GreenBean

aaronleland said:


> Yeah. We all know how much pull those gay activists had in the 1970s. Idiot.



Kindly  refrain from flagging yourself as an "Idiot"  - Simply let your opinions do the work for you.

According to the American Psychiatric Association, until 1974 homosexuality was a mental illness.  Freud had alluded to homosexuality numerous times in his writings, and had concluded that paranoia and homosexuality were inseparable.  Other psychiatrists wrote copiously on the subject, and homosexuality was treated on a wide basis. 

 ....  in 1970 gay activists protested against the APA convention in San Francisco.  These scenes were repeated in 1971, and as people came out of the closet and felt empowered politically and socially, the APA directorate became increasingly uncomfortable with their stance.

When homosexuality was declassified - Dr. Ronald Bayer, a pro-homosexual psychiatrist has described what actually occurred in his book, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis.

In Chapter 4, "Diagnostic Politics: Homosexuality and the American Psychiatric Association," Dr. Bayer says that the first attack by homosexual activists against the APA began in 1970 when this organization held its convention in San Francisco. Homosexual activists decided to disrupt the conference by interrupting speakers and shouting down and ridiculing psychiatrists who viewed homosexuality as a mental disorder. In 1971, homosexual activist Frank Kameny worked with the Gay Liberation Front collective to demonstrate against the APA's convention. At the 1971 conference, Kameny grabbed the microphone and yelled, "Psychiatry is the enemy incarnate. Psychiatry has waged a relentless war of extermination against us. You may take this as a declaration of war against you."

Homosexuals forged APA credentials and gained access to exhibit areas in the conference. They threatened anyone who claimed that homosexuals needed to be cured.


----------



## TheOldSchool

GreenBean said:


> aaronleland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Freud had alluded to homosexuality numerous times in his writings, and had concluded that paranoia and homosexuality were inseparable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freud is a laughingstock.  Is that really the best you can do?
Click to expand...


----------



## GreenBean

TheOldSchool said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aaronleland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Freud had alluded to homosexuality numerous times in his writings, and had concluded that paranoia and homosexuality were inseparable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freud is a laughingstock.  Is that really the best you can do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Freud and his protege Carl Jung are the founding fathers of Modern Psychiatry .   But perhaps we should fast forward to a more modern example.  I'll start with *Charles Socarides*.
> 
> Charles Socarides , a prominent psychiatrist, psychoanalyst, physician, educator and author wrote that the removal of homosexuality from the American Psychiatric Associations Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders was a serious mistake, and theorized that it contributed to the AIDS epidemic. He compared the gay community to confused children.  Socarides claimed that the vote to delete homosexuality from the American Psychiatric Associations Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, was heavily influenced by pressure from gay activists, in particular a letter sent by the National Gay Task Force to 18,000 APA members asking them to support its removal.
> 
> The New York Times in 1995 stated  "Socarides offered the closest thing to hope that many gay people had in the 1960s: the prospect of a cure. Rather than brand them as immoral or regard them as criminal, Socarides told gay people that they suffered from an illness whose effects could be reversed." [ An Analyst, a Father, Battles Homosexuality - NYTimes.com ]
> 
> Socarides theorized that homosexuality is a treatable neurotic adaptation. He wrote that classical male homosexuality generally develops in the first two years of life, "caused by a controlling mother who prevents her son from separating from her, and a weak or rejecting father who does not serve as a role model for his son ... "   Socarides reported that "about a third" of his patients became heterosexual after treatment. [ How America Went Gay ]
> 
> He taught Psychiatry at Columbia University and the State University of New York Downstate Medical Center, and was Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York City, from 1978 to 1996.
Click to expand...


----------



## iamwhatiseem

I do not believe it is a _mental_ disorder, but could be if a child was raised in a home where homosexuality is preferred or encouraged.
 Homosexuality, it it's purity, that is, someone who is specifically attracted to their own sex is, by definition, an abnormality. There is no serious argument that could be provided based on the obvious biological purpose of male/female genitalia. Therefore homosexuality is a _biological _disorder.
 To me, the question should be "is this abnormality unacceptable?" Should it be shunned or banned in some way. And my answer to that is no. It serves no purpose to punish people for something they cannot control, as long as it does no harm to others.


----------



## NYcarbineer

GreenBean said:


> The American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973 only after years of political pressure from gay activists. The American Psychiatric association board of trustees passed this decision followed by a statement which listed among the reasons for their decision as changing social norms and growing gay rights activism . So basically, a scientific institution was coerced into changing a scientific opinion or classification due to political pressure !
> 
> Removing homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses was not triggered by some scientific breakthrough.  There was no new fact or set of facts that stimulated this major change.  Rather, it was the simple reality that gay people started to kick up a fuss.
> 
> In subsequent years the APA has become so politicized , that it has lost any credibility as a Scientific organization and in the words of one former APA President it is totally "Beholden to the Gay Rights Movement"
> 
> Myself and many others , who for fear of reprisals remain silent believe that Homosexuality is and always has been a Mental Disorder and Homosexuals should not be deterred from seeking Psychological / Psychiatric Help.



What would make it a mental disorder?


----------



## NYcarbineer

iamwhatiseem said:


> I do not believe it is a _mental_ disorder, but could be if a child was raised in a home where homosexuality is preferred or encouraged.
> Homosexuality, it it's purity, that is, someone who is specifically attracted to their own sex is, by definition, and abnormality. There is no serious argument that could be provided based on the obvious biological purpose of male/female genitalia. Therefore homosexuality is a _biological _disorder.
> To me, the question should be "is this abnormality unacceptable?" Should it be shunned or banned in some way. And my answer to that is no. It serves no purpose to punish people for something they cannot control.



Is using contraception for the purpose of facilitating non-reproductive intercourse a 'biological disorder' among heterosexual humans?


----------



## iamwhatiseem

NYcarbineer said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not believe it is a _mental_ disorder, but could be if a child was raised in a home where homosexuality is preferred or encouraged.
> Homosexuality, it it's purity, that is, someone who is specifically attracted to their own sex is, by definition, and abnormality. There is no serious argument that could be provided based on the obvious biological purpose of male/female genitalia. Therefore homosexuality is a _biological _disorder.
> To me, the question should be "is this abnormality unacceptable?" Should it be shunned or banned in some way. And my answer to that is no. It serves no purpose to punish people for something they cannot control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is using contraception for the purpose of facilitating non-reproductive intercourse a 'biological disorder' among heterosexual humans?
Click to expand...


Nice strawman! 
But seriously...


----------



## bodecea

And left-handed people were once considered evil.

And in the 1800s, doctors believed that women were too emotional to become artists...and that women were incapable of running machinery such as sewing machines and typewriters.


----------



## RosieS

Do homophobia and transphobia arouse unfounded anxiety and stress among their practitioners?

And is it a mental defect to attempt to force others to fear those of differing sexuality?

If your answer to both questions is "yes", DING! DING! DING! you win the stuffed tiger.

Regards from Rosie


----------



## Iceweasel

RosieS said:


> Do homophobia and transphobia arouse unfounded anxiety and stress among their practitioners?
> 
> And is it a mental defect to attempt to force others to fear those of differing sexuality?
> 
> If your answer to both questions is "yes", DING! DING! DING! you win the stuffed tiger.
> 
> Regards from Rosie


Hey wait a second. How come it can't be normal to be repulsed by homosexuality? I believe there's a much longer track record than those who think it's a phobia to not embrace it as normal.


----------



## iamwhatiseem

bodecea said:


> And left-handed people were once considered evil.
> 
> And in the 1800s, doctors believed that women were too emotional to become artists...and that women were incapable of running machinery such as sewing machines and typewriters.



Another strawman...2nd one so far.


----------



## bodecea

iamwhatiseem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> And left-handed people were once considered evil.
> 
> And in the 1800s, doctors believed that women were too emotional to become artists...and that women were incapable of running machinery such as sewing machines and typewriters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another strawman...2nd one so far.
Click to expand...


Share with us how showing that people had some pretty silly thought about what was wrong or abnormal in the past is a strawman.  Do you have a problem with mankind advancing?..You don't like us learning from our mistakes?


----------



## Nosmo King

What group is best served if homosexuality was reinstated in the DSM?  What group would be most harmed?  

And what difference did it make dropping homosexuality as a mental disorder?  What harm has open homosexuality wrought on society?  Is it promiscuity that homophobes fear most?  What are they doing to excuse heterosexual promiscuity?


----------



## iamwhatiseem

bodecea said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> And left-handed people were once considered evil.
> 
> And in the 1800s, doctors believed that women were too emotional to become artists...and that women were incapable of running machinery such as sewing machines and typewriters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another strawman...2nd one so far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Share with us how showing that people had some pretty silly thought about what was wrong or abnormal in the past is a strawman.  Do you have a problem with mankind advancing?..You don't like us learning from our mistakes?
Click to expand...


Being left handed is not the same. There is no obvious physical or mental reason behind the old nonacceptance of this "difference". The belief was not scientific.
As I stated, pure homosexuality, where one is ONLY attracted to their own sex defies the biological makeup of man. 
And again I say, the real question is should the abnormality be shunned. And to that, I say no. I will not discriminate against someone based on something that is not their control, and causes no harm against anyone else. 
Believe it or not normal does exist. This is not agreeable to your average liberal, who wants to believe anything is normal.


----------



## GreenBean

NYcarbineer said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> The American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973 only after years of political pressure from gay activists. The American Psychiatric association board of trustees passed this decision followed by a statement which listed among the reasons for their decision as changing social norms and growing gay rights activism . So basically, a scientific institution was coerced into changing a scientific opinion or classification due to political pressure !
> 
> Removing homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses was not triggered by some scientific breakthrough.  There was no new fact or set of facts that stimulated this major change.  Rather, it was the simple reality that gay people started to kick up a fuss.
> 
> In subsequent years the APA has become so politicized , that it has lost any credibility as a Scientific organization and in the words of one former APA President it is totally "Beholden to the Gay Rights Movement"
> 
> Myself and many others , who for fear of reprisals remain silent believe that Homosexuality is and always has been a Mental Disorder and Homosexuals should not be deterred from seeking Psychological / Psychiatric Help.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What would make it a mental disorder?
Click to expand...




> A mental disorder, also called a mental illness or psychiatric disorder, is a mental or behavioral pattern or anomaly that causes either suffering or an impaired ability to function in ordinary life (disability), and which is not developmentally or socially normative. Mental disorders are generally defined by a combination of how a person feels, acts, thinks or perceives. This may be associated with particular regions or functions of the brain or rest of the nervous system, often in a social context. Mental disorder is one aspect of mental health. Wikipedia



Homosexual people tend to experience more mental health problems than heterosexual people, research indicates. - Dr. Apu Chakraborty of University College London, UK.

His team looked at rates of mental disorder among 7,403 adults living in the UK, whose details were obtained from the Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey 2007. Rates of depression, anxiety, obsessive compulsive disorder, phobia, self-harm, suicidal thoughts, and alcohol and drug dependence were significantly higher in homosexual respondents.

Higher Risk of Mental Health Problems for Homosexuals | Psych Central


----------



## Nosmo King

If, as it is alleged, politics was behind the decision to drop homosexuality as a mental disorder, isn't politics at play in this thread?  Who would want to reinstate homosexuality as a disorder?  Who would benefit?  And what would that benefit be?  Nothing but political points scored at someone else's expense.

Remember this: laws protect the unpopular rights.  Popular rights don't need such protection.


----------



## iamwhatiseem

GreenBean said:


> Homosexual people tend to experience more mental health problems than heterosexual people, research indicates. - Dr. Apu Chakraborty of University College London, UK.
> 
> His team looked at rates of mental disorder among 7,403 adults living in the UK, whose details were obtained from the Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey 2007. Rates of depression, anxiety, obsessive compulsive disorder, phobia, self-harm, suicidal thoughts, and alcohol and drug dependence were significantly higher in homosexual respondents.
> 
> Higher Risk of Mental Health Problems for Homosexuals | Psych Central



But does that come from homosexuality, or a result of the phases one goes through before they accept themselves for what they are?
I once read about the "phases gay people go through"

1) Inactive Denial
2) Active denial (may become particularly promiscuous with the opposite sex in an attempt to deny or "cure" the feelings they have.
3) Self loathing.
4) Acceptance
5) Pride  

 Not sure I have that totally right, but close.
Anyone who would go through the first three stages is bound to have internal anguish and problems dealing with the disorder.


----------



## GreenBean

iamwhatiseem said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexual people tend to experience more mental health problems than heterosexual people, research indicates. - Dr. Apu Chakraborty of University College London, UK.
> 
> His team looked at rates of mental disorder among 7,403 adults living in the UK, whose details were obtained from the Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey 2007. Rates of depression, anxiety, obsessive compulsive disorder, phobia, self-harm, suicidal thoughts, and alcohol and drug dependence were significantly higher in homosexual respondents.
> 
> Higher Risk of Mental Health Problems for Homosexuals | Psych Central
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But does that come from homosexuality, or a result of the phases one goes through before they accept themselves for what they are?
> I once read about the "phases gay people go through"
> 
> 1) Inactive Denial
> 2) Active denial (may become particularly promiscuous with the opposite sex in an attempt to deny or "cure" the feelings they have.
> 3) Self loathing.
> 4) Acceptance
> 5) Pride
> 
> Not sure I have that totally right, but close.
> Anyone who would go through the first three stages is bound to have internal anguish and problems dealing with the disorder.
Click to expand...


That's a question one of the Studies addressed attempts to explore.  I recall reading something similar to what you just posted , and it was in print - not digital - I'll have to search my library later to see I can find it.  But it dealt with Ex-Gay and conversion therapy and postulated that *many gays do not get past the self loathing stage *

Of those a percentage seek counseling - where it is available
A percentage become somebodies Bitch
A percentage remain abstinent
A percentage remain closeted and continue otherwise normal lives


----------



## RosieS

Iceweasel said:


> RosieS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do homophobia and transphobia arouse unfounded anxiety and stress among their practitioners?
> 
> And is it a mental defect to attempt to force others to fear those of differing sexuality?
> 
> If your answer to both questions is "yes", DING! DING! DING! you win the stuffed tiger.
> 
> Regards from Rosie
> 
> 
> 
> Hey wait a second. How come it can't be normal to be repulsed by homosexuality? I believe there's a much longer track record than those who think it's a phobia to not embrace it as normal.
Click to expand...


Dunno what a track record has to do with it.

If you find homosexuality repulsive, refuse to participate.

But I doubt you ever have been invited.

It is not like pedophilia where society has a positive duty to protect children.

It is the same as heterosexuality - not anyone's business what consenting adults do in private.

So why are you repulsed by what you do not, and should not, know?

That ignorant repulsion is more than a little crazy.

Just MYOB and you will be fine.

Regards from Rosie


----------



## Nosmo King

Iceweasel said:


> RosieS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do homophobia and transphobia arouse unfounded anxiety and stress among their practitioners?
> 
> And is it a mental defect to attempt to force others to fear those of differing sexuality?
> 
> If your answer to both questions is "yes", DING! DING! DING! you win the stuffed tiger.
> 
> Regards from Rosie
> 
> 
> 
> Hey wait a second. How come it can't be normal to be repulsed by homosexuality? I believe there's a much longer track record than those who think it's a phobia to not embrace it as normal.
Click to expand...

Why do you find homosexuality repulsive?  Are you threatened by it?  Why?  Are you afraid it's contagious?  Are you repulsed by homosexual promiscuity?  Are you threated by heterosexual promiscuity?  Do you have any responsibility for the actions of other consenting adults?  Do you believe that homosexuality should be criminalized?  What measures would you endorse to repress homosexuality?  Should homosexuals be discriminated against in other fields like employment and housing and lending?  What real tangible harm has befallen you due to homosexuality?  Have you ever met a homosexual?  Did you realize that you were meeting a homosexual at that time?  Did they attack you?


----------



## Iceweasel

RosieS said:


> Dunno what a track record has to do with it.


You dunno. Really? We have all of recorded history where it was/is considered deviant but in the last 20 or less years we are told by the very vocal minority that we are phobic or deranged if we don't think it's normal. How does that not matter to you?


> Why are you repulsed by what you do not, and should not, know?
> 
> That ignorant repulsion is more than a little crazy.


I'll stick with the opinions of 99.999999999999999999999999% of the rest of mankind. Thanks.


----------



## GISMYS

Don't try to play games! Sick abomination of sexual perversion is a choice,a choice to live in sin!!!


----------



## Iceweasel

Nosmo King said:


> Why do you find homosexuality repulsive?  Are you threatened by it?


Threatened? Repulsed and threatened are two different words with very different meanings. Why a man whould choose a man's hairy ass is beyond me, I think it's foul and that's a pretty normal reaction. With or without your approval. 


> Do you believe that homosexuality should be criminalized?  What measures would you endorse to repress homosexuality?  Should homosexuals be discriminated against in other fields like employment and housing and lending?  What real tangible harm has befallen you due to homosexuality?  Have you ever met a homosexual?  Did you realize that you were meeting a homosexual at that time?  Did they attack you?


Jesus. You got your freak on but I'm the one with the problem? See a shrink.


----------



## Nosmo King

Iceweasel said:


> RosieS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dunno what a track record has to do with it.
> 
> 
> 
> You dunno. Really? We have all of recorded history where it was/is considered deviant but in the last 20 or less years we are told by the very vocal minority that we are phobic or deranged if we don't think it's normal. How does that not matter to you?
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you repulsed by what you do not, and should not, know?
> 
> That ignorant repulsion is more than a little crazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll stick with the opinions of 99.999999999999999999999999% of the rest of mankind. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Back in the dark days of slavery it was posited that Blacks were not fully human beings.  There was a long track record of that belief to bolster the bigots.  Is this the kind of 'track record' you cling to here?


----------



## Nosmo King

Iceweasel said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you find homosexuality repulsive?  Are you threatened by it?
> 
> 
> 
> Threatened? Repulsed and threatened are two different words with very different meanings. Why a man whould choose a man's hairy ass is beyond me, I think it's foul and that's a pretty normal reaction. With or without your approval.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe that homosexuality should be criminalized?  What measures would you endorse to repress homosexuality?  Should homosexuals be discriminated against in other fields like employment and housing and lending?  What real tangible harm has befallen you due to homosexuality?  Have you ever met a homosexual?  Did you realize that you were meeting a homosexual at that time?  Did they attack you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jesus. You got your freak on but I'm the one with the problem? See a shrink.
Click to expand...

I'm straight.  And I don't see the use in repulsion.  I embrace tolerance rather than blind fear and hatred.  No homosexual has ever harmed me.  I believe in the American principles of live and let live, personal freedom, and tolerance.


----------



## aaronleland

GISMYS said:


> Don't try to play games! Sick abomination of sexual perversion is a choice,a choice to live in sin!!!


----------



## Nosmo King

GISMYS said:


> Don't try to play games! Sick abomination of sexual perversion is a choice,a choice to live in sin!!!


In your opinion, is sin and unlawful behavior the same thing?  Are we under some form of Christian Sharia law, or are our laws predicated on something other than religious dogma?


----------



## aaronleland

RosieS said:


> So why are you repulsed by what you do not, and should not, know?



I wouldn't use the word repulsion, as that is a little strong. Discomforted? That word I can live with. I'm am discomforted by public displays of affection in general. I understand that others may be discomforted by the image of me with another man. I can accept that. It's human nature.


----------



## GISMYS

nosmo king said:


> iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nosmo king said:
> 
> 
> 
> why do you find homosexuality repulsive?  Are you threatened by it?
> 
> 
> 
> threatened? Repulsed and threatened are two different words with very different meanings. Why a man whould choose a man's hairy ass is beyond me, i think it's foul and that's a pretty normal reaction. With or without your approval.
> 
> 
> 
> do you believe that homosexuality should be criminalized?  What measures would you endorse to repress homosexuality?  Should homosexuals be discriminated against in other fields like employment and housing and lending?  What real tangible harm has befallen you due to homosexuality?  Have you ever met a homosexual?  Did you realize that you were meeting a homosexual at that time?  Did they attack you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> jesus. You got your freak on but i'm the one with the problem? See a shrink.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i'm straight.  And i don't see the use in repulsion.  I embrace tolerance rather than blind fear and hatred.  No homosexual has ever harmed me.  I believe in the american principles of live and let live, personal freedom, and tolerance.
Click to expand...


40 million+ dead from hiv aids and another 40million+ hiv positive and countless millions more with std's and ruined lives of shame and guilt=the price of sick abomination sexual perversion!


----------



## paperview

Ugh...this again.

Two things are absent from this APA _reclassification_       some of the knuckle-dragging anti-homosexuals use to bolster what       they       think is an argument: 

      They apparently believe the top psychiatrists in the field were        incapable of making  sensible, informed decisions about an area in        which they specialize and spend a great deal of time studying and        interacting with patients. They have this sense professionals and        doctors would not look at the science, all their data and dealings        with       the matter and  forgo their reputations and discipline  in the       field to       concede to noisy rabbles. The only answer  for them is: those       doctors       must have been 'bullied.'

      Also - When discussing this change in classification to &#8220;not a        disorder&#8221; back in 73, what isn't discussed is why it was first        classified as a disorder in the first place.

      Go back into the history of the study of psychiatry and methods        used       back then - heck, we only have to go back a few more  decades and       recall       for homosexuality, some forms of  depression and certain maladies,       they       were drilling holes in  people's skulls, they were taking out full       sections of their  brains, butchering their frontal lobes, they       were       attaching  electric nodes to their heads and electrocuting people       in        attempts to _cure_.

      The evidence was seen, eventually, this did not work.  Science, of        course, is a process of trial and error and learning.  

      It was in the 19th century homosexuality was originally put in the        APA's classification as a mental illness. The 19th century.  I        can't       help but wonder if some of these folks who so vehemently  rail       against       homosexuality are still stuck there.  The APA  moved out, they       didn't.

 Masturbation was once classified as a disorder and a cause of       mental       illness. 

When they changed THAT classification, I wonder how many       sad        souls inhaled a great sigh of relief or did they strike out at the        APA       for having the audacity - the sheer gall - at reclassifying  what       would       make most of us "disordered" today.

      Science. Blessed science.


----------



## Nosmo King

GISMYS said:


> nosmo king said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> threatened? Repulsed and threatened are two different words with very different meanings. Why a man whould choose a man's hairy ass is beyond me, i think it's foul and that's a pretty normal reaction. With or without your approval.
> jesus. You got your freak on but i'm the one with the problem? See a shrink.
> 
> 
> 
> i'm straight.  And i don't see the use in repulsion.  I embrace tolerance rather than blind fear and hatred.  No homosexual has ever harmed me.  I believe in the american principles of live and let live, personal freedom, and tolerance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 40 million+ dead from hiv aids and another 40million+ hiv positive and countless millions more with std's and ruined lives of shame and guilt=the price of sick abomination sexual perversion!
Click to expand...

You might have a point if all those cases of HIV AIDS were exclusively a result of homosexual contact.  But we both know the facts.  AIDS in Africa is pandemic due to the lack of information, condoms and medical facilities.  We also know that drugs have been developed to stem the tide of HIV AIDS, but those drugs are not widely available in the regions most adversely affected. 

And you speak of "ruined lives of shame and guilt".  Who is casting the shame and guilt but ardent homophobes?


----------



## GISMYS

nosmo king said:


> gismys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nosmo king said:
> 
> 
> 
> i'm straight.  And i don't see the use in repulsion.  I embrace tolerance rather than blind fear and hatred.  No homosexual has ever harmed me.  I believe in the american principles of live and let live, personal freedom, and tolerance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 40 million+ dead from hiv aids and another 40million+ hiv positive and countless millions more with std's and ruined lives of shame and guilt=the price of sick abomination sexual perversion!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you might have a point if all those cases of hiv aids were exclusively a result of homosexual contact.  But we both know the facts.  Aids in africa is pandemic due to the lack of information, condoms and medical facilities.  We also know that drugs have been developed to stem the tide of hiv aids, but those drugs are not widely available in the regions most adversely affected.
> 
> And you speak of "ruined lives of shame and guilt".  Who is casting the shame and guilt but ardent homophobes?
Click to expand...


now you see how wise god is god wanted you to avoid hiv aids and std's but!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## aaronleland




----------



## Nosmo King

GISMYS said:


> nosmo king said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gismys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 40 million+ dead from hiv aids and another 40million+ hiv positive and countless millions more with std's and ruined lives of shame and guilt=the price of sick abomination sexual perversion!
> 
> 
> 
> you might have a point if all those cases of hiv aids were exclusively a result of homosexual contact.  But we both know the facts.  Aids in africa is pandemic due to the lack of information, condoms and medical facilities.  We also know that drugs have been developed to stem the tide of hiv aids, but those drugs are not widely available in the regions most adversely affected.
> 
> And you speak of "ruined lives of shame and guilt".  Who is casting the shame and guilt but ardent homophobes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> now you see how wise god is god wanted you to avoid hiv aids and std's but!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

How is HIV AIDS any different from other STDs?  Untreated venereal disease is fatal too.  Do you suppose God had a hand in syphilis?  Or are you wrapping yourself in suppositions and using God as an aegis to defend hatred?


----------



## RosieS

Iceweasel said:


> RosieS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dunno what a track record has to do with it.
> 
> 
> 
> You dunno. Really? We have all of recorded history where it was/is considered deviant but in the last 20 or less years we are told by the very vocal minority that we are phobic or deranged if we don't think it's normal. How does that not matter to you?
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you repulsed by what you do not, and should not, know?
> 
> That ignorant repulsion is more than a little crazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll stick with the opinions of 99.999999999999999999999999% of the rest of mankind. Thanks.
Click to expand...


Your kind of crazy and fearing that which you will never do is petty and minor.

I find walking on hot coals repulsive. It makes me anxious watching it, no matter how many reassurances people give. I will never ever do it.

Worse than that is sword swallowing. I can't bear to watch, even if some fake it. I will never ever do it and will not watch it, either, due to being repulsed.

If that is a metaphor for you, then you need to rethink things and not choose crazy.

No one needs to care about my minor and petty tics

If you are repulsed by men having sex with men, you are watching the WRONG PORNOS.

Stick with straight porn and your craziness will end.

Regards from Rosie


----------



## aaronleland




----------



## GISMYS

God let them go ahead into every sort of sex sin, and do whatever they wanted to&#8212;yes, vile and sinful things with each other&#8217;s bodies.  25 Instead of believing what they knew was the truth about God, they deliberately chose to believe lies. So they prayed to the things God made, but wouldn&#8217;t obey the blessed God who made these things. So it was that when they gave God up and would not even acknowledge him, God gave them up to doing everything their evil minds could think of. ROMANS 1:24-28


----------



## Nosmo King

GISMYS said:


> God let them go ahead into every sort of sex sin, and do whatever they wanted toyes, vile and sinful things with each others bodies.  25 Instead of believing what they knew was the truth about God, they deliberately chose to believe lies. So they prayed to the things God made, but wouldnt obey the blessed God who made these things. So it was that when they gave God up and would not even acknowledge him, God gave them up to doing everything their evil minds could think of. ROMANS 1:24-28


Should we use the Bible as the DSM?  Should we use the Bible as a Code of Law, a textbook, the final authority on morality and ethics?  Would you advocate a system of laws based on biblical interpretation?  Who gets to do that interpretation?  Would a form of Christian sharia law be a better model for this country?  What are your views on those who do not adhere strictly to the Bible?  Should they too have a voice, or should they be shunned as unbelievers?


----------



## GreenBean

paperview said:


> Ugh...this again.
> 
> Two things are absent from this APA _reclassification_       some of the knuckle-dragging anti-homosexuals use to bolster what       they       think is an argument:
> 
> They apparently believe the top psychiatrists in the field were        incapable of making  sensible, informed decisions about an area in        which they specialize and spend a great deal of time studying and        interacting with patients. They have this sense professionals and        doctors would not look at the science, all their data and dealings        with       the matter and  forgo their reputations and discipline  in the       field to       concede to noisy rabbles. The only answer  for them is: those       doctors       must have been 'bullied.'



It only passed by 55%
Of that 55% - some were by forged ballots and forged credentials




> Also - When discussing this change in classification to &#8220;not a        disorder&#8221; back in 73, what isn't discussed is why it was first classified as a disorder in the first place.



Actually, it wasn't entirely deleted from the DSM - it was initially reclassified as a "Sexual Orientation Disorder" 




> Go back into the history of the study of psychiatry and methods  used back then - heck, we only have to go back a few more  decades and recall  for homosexuality, some forms of  depression and certain maladies,       they       were drilling holes in  people's skulls, they were taking out full       sections of their  brains, butchering their frontal lobes, they       were       attaching  electric nodes to their heads and electrocuting people       in        attempts to _cure_.



Nice History - did you ever watch "One Flew over the Cuckoos Nest"  - what you say is true but is not really relevant to the argument at hand.  



> The evidence was seen, eventually, this did not work.  Science, of  course, is a process of trial and error and learning.



Which involves Scientific Objectivity - trial and error learning that is - I will adress that a bit further on.



> Masturbation was once classified as a disorder and a cause of mental illness.



Not for several Centuries - I believe that was even pre-Freud 



> When they changed THAT classification, I wonder how many  sad souls inhaled a great sigh of relief or did they strike out at the APA  for having the audacity - the sheer gall - at reclassifying  what  would make most of us "disordered" today.



Who is "Most of Us"  2 - 5% of the population ?  ... and of that 2 - 5% many are well aware of the fact that they have a problem,some have sought counseling - However Gay propagandists are going to great lengths to deny them the right to get the counseling they desire.


A former president of the American Psychological Association (APA), *who also introduced the motion to declassify homosexuality as a mental illness in 1975,* says that the APA has been taken over by &#8220;ultraliberals&#8221; beholden to the &#8220;gay rights movement,&#8221; who refuse to allow an open debate on reparative therapy for homosexuality.

In an interview with representatives of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) in late April, Cummings said that the organization&#8217;s problems began with the rejection of the Leona Tyler Principle, which required that all public positions of the APA be supported by scientific evidence.

The APA &#8220;started changing pretty drastically by the late 1980s,&#8221; said Cummings.  &#8220;By the mid 1990s, *the Leona Tyler principle was absolutely forgotten, that political stances seemed to override any scientific results. Cherry-picking results became the mode. The gay rights movement sort of captured the APA.&#8221;*

LifeSiteNews Mobile | Former president of APA says organization controlled by ?gay rights? movement



The Leona Tyler Principle, adopted by the American Psychological Association (APA) in 1973, has just been unanimously adopted by NARTH&#8217;s Governing Board on the advice of its Scientific Advisory Committee. In essence, the principle states that *when psychologists are speaking as members of their profession, any advocacy in which they engage should be based on scientific data and demonstrable professional experience.* Perhaps Dr. Tyler, then APA&#8217;s president, was able to foresee the day when organized psychology would be influenced by activism, and she wanted to ensure that psychology as a profession would not be eroded as it has today.

NARTH adopts Leona Tyler Principle


----------



## GISMYS

Nosmo King said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> God let them go ahead into every sort of sex sin, and do whatever they wanted toyes, vile and sinful things with each others bodies.  25 Instead of believing what they knew was the truth about God, they deliberately chose to believe lies. So they prayed to the things God made, but wouldnt obey the blessed God who made these things. So it was that when they gave God up and would not even acknowledge him, God gave them up to doing everything their evil minds could think of. ROMANS 1:24-28
> 
> 
> 
> Should we use the Bible as the DSM?  Should we use the Bible as a Code of Law, a textbook, the final authority on morality and ethics?  Would you advocate a system of laws based on biblical interpretation?  Who gets to do that interpretation?  Would a form of Christian sharia law be a better model for this country?  What are your views on those who do not adhere strictly to the Bible?  Should they too have a voice, or should they be shunned as unbelievers?
Click to expand...


YES!!! OUR GOOD laws are based on biblical interpretation. poor laws come from man's ideas and opinions.


----------



## Nosmo King

GISMYS said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> God let them go ahead into every sort of sex sin, and do whatever they wanted toyes, vile and sinful things with each others bodies.  25 Instead of believing what they knew was the truth about God, they deliberately chose to believe lies. So they prayed to the things God made, but wouldnt obey the blessed God who made these things. So it was that when they gave God up and would not even acknowledge him, God gave them up to doing everything their evil minds could think of. ROMANS 1:24-28
> 
> 
> 
> Should we use the Bible as the DSM?  Should we use the Bible as a Code of Law, a textbook, the final authority on morality and ethics?  Would you advocate a system of laws based on biblical interpretation?  Who gets to do that interpretation?  Would a form of Christian sharia law be a better model for this country?  What are your views on those who do not adhere strictly to the Bible?  Should they too have a voice, or should they be shunned as unbelievers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YES!!! OUR GOOD laws are based on biblical interpretation. poor laws come from man's ideas and opinions.
Click to expand...

So you think science, just as it was in Galileo's time, should take a back seat to someone's interpretation of the Bible.  How is that attitude supposed to make us wise, free and smarter?


----------



## GISMYS

True science is part of GOD'S creation. There is no conflict with GOD and true science!


----------



## Howey

Homosexuality is not a disorder, however the fear of homosexuality is.


----------



## GreenBean

Nosmo King said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nosmo king said:
> 
> 
> 
> i'm straight.  And i don't see the use in repulsion.  I embrace tolerance rather than blind fear and hatred.  No homosexual has ever harmed me.  I believe in the american principles of live and let live, personal freedom, and tolerance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 40 million+ dead from hiv aids and another 40million+ hiv positive and countless millions more with std's and ruined lives of shame and guilt=the price of sick abomination sexual perversion!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You might have a point if all those cases of HIV AIDS were exclusively a result of homosexual contact.  But we both know the facts.  AIDS in Africa is pandemic due to the lack of information, condoms and medical facilities.  We also know that drugs have been developed to stem the tide of HIV AIDS, but those drugs are not widely available in the regions most adversely affected.
> 
> And you speak of "ruined lives of shame and guilt".  Who is casting the shame and guilt but ardent homophobes?
Click to expand...


HIV / AIDS originates in homosexuality - IV drug users were also getting it by sharing needles, many innocent people got it through transfusions from tainted blood. {Yet many Gays insist they should still be able to donate Blood}

When the virus first began appearing -the syndrome was initially termed "GRID", or gay-related immune deficiency.

As per US Statistics Aids.gov
Although Gay Men represent about 4% of the male population in the United States in 2010, they accounted for 78% of new HIV infections


----------



## GISMYS

NTG said:


> Homosexuality is not a disorder, however the fear of homosexuality is.



"Homosexuality" is a sick choice,a unnatural choice,a perverted choice,an abomination!!!


----------



## Iceweasel

Nosmo King said:


> Back in the dark days of slavery it was posited that Blacks were not fully human beings.  There was a long track record of that belief to bolster the bigots.  Is this the kind of 'track record' you cling to here?


Since you can't articulate a coherant response to what I said it's you who are the bigot. Everything I said is true. I didn't say anything about being inhuman and past wrongs are a poor excuse to justify anything. In this case it's the homosexual slander than failure to embrace it as normal is a disorder. If you can't take it, don't dish it out.


----------



## JakeStarkey

*Is Homosexuality a Mental Disorder ? *

Sexuality can be the vehicle for addiction, whether hetero or homo, yes.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Iceweasel said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Back in the dark days of slavery it was posited that Blacks were not fully human beings.  There was a long track record of that belief to bolster the bigots.  Is this the kind of 'track record' you cling to here?
> 
> 
> 
> Since you can't articulate a coherant response to what I said it's you who are the bigot. Everything I said is true. I didn't say anything about being inhuman and past wrongs are a poor excuse to justify anything. In this case it's the homosexual slander than failure to embrace it as normal is a disorder. If you can't take it, don't dish it out.
Click to expand...


The inability to adapt to social and cultural change can be a disorder, yes.


----------



## Iceweasel

Nosmo King said:


> I'm straight.  And I don't see the use in repulsion.  I embrace tolerance rather than blind fear and hatred.  No homosexual has ever harmed me.  I believe in the American principles of live and let live, personal freedom, and tolerance.


What's wrong with repulsion? People are supposed to lie to make you feel better? Lot's of heterosexual stuff is repulsive as well. If they said I had a disorder I'd give it right back to them.


----------



## Iceweasel

RosieS said:


> Your kind of crazy and fearing that which you will never do is petty and minor.


Your continued slander is petty and minor. I'm not afraid of you or any whack job that wants to intimidate people into believe homosexuality is normal. What you do is your business but telling me I am wrong to be repulsed is where you cross the line.


> I find walking on hot coals repulsive. It makes me anxious watching it, no matter how many reassurances people give. I will never ever do it.
> 
> Worse than that is sword swallowing. I can't bear to watch, even if some fake it. I will never ever do it and will not watch it, either, due to being repulsed.
> 
> If that is a metaphor for you, then you need to rethink things and not choose crazy.


No, you need to rethink how stupid you are for trying to brainwash and insult people into bowing down to your demands. Ain't gonna happen.


> No one needs to care about my minor and petty tics
> 
> If you are repulsed by men having sex with men, you are watching the WRONG PORNOS.
> 
> Stick with straight porn and your craziness will end.
> 
> Regards from Rosie


Your craziness is probably just beginning.


----------



## GISMYS

every homo harms everyone around them. unnatural,perverted,shame, ruined lives,guilt sickness and death!


----------



## RosieS

Iceweasel said:


> RosieS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your kind of crazy and fearing that which you will never do is petty and minor.
> 
> 
> 
> Your continued slander is petty and minor. I'm not afraid of you or any whack job that wants to intimidate people into believe homosexuality is normal. What you do is your business but telling me I am wrong to be repulsed is where you cross the line.
> 
> 
> 
> I find walking on hot coals repulsive. It makes me anxious watching it, no matter how many reassurances people give. I will never ever do it.
> 
> Worse than that is sword swallowing. I can't bear to watch, even if some fake it. I will never ever do it and will not watch it, either, due to being repulsed.
> 
> If that is a metaphor for you, then you need to rethink things and not choose crazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you need to rethink how stupid you are for trying to brainwash and insult people into bowing down to your demands. Ain't gonna happen.
> 
> 
> 
> No one needs to care about my minor and petty tics
> 
> If you are repulsed by men having sex with men, you are watching the WRONG PORNOS.
> 
> Stick with straight porn and your craziness will end.
> 
> Regards from Rosie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your craziness is probably just beginning.
Click to expand...


Look up slander. If you are hearing these words that I type; you are certifiable.

Regards from Rosie


----------



## GreenBean

NTG said:


> Homosexuality is not a disorder, however the fear of homosexuality is.



*Prove it *- Don't just spout off and disappear - the purpose of Open Forums is for everybody to speak their mind as articulately as they are capable - I know you're capable of better than that .


----------



## paperview

GreenBean said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ugh...this again.
> 
> Two things are absent from this APA _reclassification_       some of the knuckle-dragging anti-homosexuals use to bolster what       they       think is an argument:
> 
> They apparently believe the top psychiatrists in the field were        incapable of making  sensible, informed decisions about an area in        which they specialize and spend a great deal of time studying and        interacting with patients. They have this sense professionals and        doctors would not look at the science, all their data and dealings        with       the matter and  forgo their reputations and discipline  in the       field to       concede to noisy rabbles. The only answer  for them is: those       doctors       must have been 'bullied.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It only passed by 55%
> Of that 55% - some were by forged ballots and forged credentials
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also - When discussing this change in classification to &#8220;not a        disorder&#8221; back in 73, what isn't discussed is why it was first classified as a disorder in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, it wasn't entirely deleted from the DSM - it was initially reclassified as a "Sexual Orientation Disorder"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice History - did you ever watch "One Flew over the Cuckoos Nest"  - what you say is true but is not really relevant to the argument at hand.
> 
> Which involves Scientific Objectivity - trial and error learning that is - I will adress that a bit further on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Masturbation was once classified as a disorder and a cause of mental illness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not for several Centuries - I believe that was even pre-Freud
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When they changed THAT classification, I wonder how many  sad souls inhaled a great sigh of relief or did they strike out at the APA  for having the audacity - the sheer gall - at reclassifying  what  would make most of us "disordered" today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who is "Most of Us"  2 - 5% of the population ?  ... and of that 2 - 5% many are well aware of the fact that they have a problem,some have sought counseling - However Gay propagandists are going to great lengths to deny them the right to get the counseling they desire.
> ...
> 
> In an interview with representatives of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH)...
Click to expand...

We've already been through your Narth garbage before.
*DSM-III-R (1987)*

 In 1987, the DSM-III-R was published as a revision of the DSM-III,   under the direction of Spitzer. Categories were renamed and reorganized,   and significant changes in criteria were made.

 Six categories were  deleted while others were added. 

Controversial diagnoses, such as  pre-menstrual dysphoric disorder and masochistic personality disorder,  were considered and discarded. *"Sexual orientation disturbance" was  also removed*  and was largely subsumed under "sexual disorder not  otherwise  specified", which can include "persistent and marked distress  about  one&#8217;s sexual orientation."[23][34]   Altogether, the DSM-III-R contained 292 diagnoses and was 567 pages   long. Further efforts were made for the diagnoses to be purely   descriptive, although the introductory text stated that for at least   some disorders, "particularly the Personality Disorders, the criteria   require much more inference on the part of the observer" (p. xxiii).[17]

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 

I'm not going to waste my time arguing again with an obvious raging homophobe -- except to laugh my ass off that you think people who masturbate make up only 2 to 5% of the population.


----------



## Nosmo King

Iceweasel said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm straight.  And I don't see the use in repulsion.  I embrace tolerance rather than blind fear and hatred.  No homosexual has ever harmed me.  I believe in the American principles of live and let live, personal freedom, and tolerance.
> 
> 
> 
> What's wrong with repulsion? People are supposed to lie to make you feel better? Lot's of heterosexual stuff is repulsive as well. If they said I had a disorder I'd give it right back to them.
Click to expand...

When repulsion drives political decisions, tyranny follows.


----------



## Nosmo King

GISMYS said:


> True science is part of GOD'S creation. There is no conflict with GOD and true science!


Which sciences are, in your opinion, false sciences?  What about the scientific method rings false to you?  Would you pass science through a template of biblical approval?


----------



## Nosmo King

Iceweasel said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Back in the dark days of slavery it was posited that Blacks were not fully human beings.  There was a long track record of that belief to bolster the bigots.  Is this the kind of 'track record' you cling to here?
> 
> 
> 
> Since you can't articulate a coherant response to what I said it's you who are the bigot. Everything I said is true. I didn't say anything about being inhuman and past wrongs are a poor excuse to justify anything. In this case it's the homosexual slander than failure to embrace it as normal is a disorder. If you can't take it, don't dish it out.
Click to expand...

society tends to move into enlightenment rather than languish in assumptions, superstition, fear and hatred.  Those are the attributes of ignorance.  You may be personally repulsed by homosexuality, but your opinion, not based in scientific study, is merely an opinion. You cite a statistic that 99.99999999% of people find homosexuality repulsive.  Can you articulate precisely where you found that statistic?  

How am I to respond to your false claims?  Am I to prove a negative?


----------



## Toro

GreenBean said:


> The American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973 only after years of political pressure from gay activists. The American Psychiatric association board of trustees passed this decision followed by a statement which listed among the reasons for their decision as changing social norms and growing gay rights activism . So basically, a scientific institution was coerced into changing a scientific opinion or classification due to political pressure !
> 
> Removing homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses was not triggered by some scientific breakthrough.  There was no new fact or set of facts that stimulated this major change.  Rather, it was the simple reality that gay people started to kick up a fuss.
> 
> In subsequent years the APA has become so politicized , that it has lost any credibility as a Scientific organization and in the words of one former APA President it is totally "Beholden to the Gay Rights Movement"
> 
> Myself and many others , who for fear of reprisals remain silent believe that Homosexuality is and always has been a Mental Disorder and Homosexuals should not be deterred from seeking Psychological / Psychiatric Help.



Medical sciences evolve.  At one time, leeching and bloodletting were considered good treatments for a whole raft of ailments.  Psychology is no different.  

As our understanding of medical and psychological conditions improves, so does our diagnoses.


----------



## Uncensored2008

What a stupid question.

No, vice is not a "mental disorder." Vice might be considered a MORAL disorder, or might just be part of the human condition. One might say we all have vices, the question is what they are.

Is homosexuality any more destructive than gambling? I doubt it.


----------



## Toro

Nosmo King said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Back in the dark days of slavery it was posited that Blacks were not fully human beings.  There was a long track record of that belief to bolster the bigots.  Is this the kind of 'track record' you cling to here?
> 
> 
> 
> Since you can't articulate a coherant response to what I said it's you who are the bigot. Everything I said is true. I didn't say anything about being inhuman and past wrongs are a poor excuse to justify anything. In this case it's the homosexual slander than failure to embrace it as normal is a disorder. If you can't take it, don't dish it out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> society tends to move into enlightenment rather than languish in assumptions, superstition, fear and hatred.  Those are the attributes of ignorance.  You may be personally repulsed by homosexuality, but your opinion, not based in scientific study, is merely an opinion. You cite a statistic that 99.99999999% of people find homosexuality repulsive.  Can you articulate precisely where you found that statistic?
> 
> How am I to respond to your false claims?  Am I to prove a negative?
Click to expand...


Ultimately, its repulsion that leads most people to discriminate against homosexuality.  People project homosexual acts onto themselves but use more acceptable reasons, i.e. religion, to discriminate against homosexuals.


----------



## Iceweasel

RosieS said:


> Look up slander. If you are hearing these words that I type; you are certifiable.
> 
> Regards from Rosie


Slander is the making of false charges. Calling people homophobes or fearful is slander. You're unethical to say the least.


----------



## Iceweasel

Nosmo King said:


> When repulsion drives political decisions, tyranny follows.


The tyranny is coming from your camp.


----------



## Iceweasel

Nosmo King said:


> society tends to move into enlightenment rather than languish in assumptions, superstition, fear and hatred.  Those are the attributes of ignorance.


The ignorance is all yours since you are lying about people that don't bow to your intimidating tactics. That isn't enlightment, Einstein, that's propaganda.


> You may be personally repulsed by homosexuality, but your opinion, not based in scientific study, is merely an opinion. You cite a statistic that 99.99999999% of people find homosexuality repulsive.  Can you articulate precisely where you found that statistic?
> 
> How am I to respond to your false claims?  Am I to prove a negative?


Are you to be taken seriously? Apparently not. Most of mankind has not/does not view homosexuality favorably. It might not fit your world view but it's a fact. Show us where all the great homosexual relationship/marriages were in history. What's all the harping about discrimination if it's been so peachy? You people can't keep up with your own lies.


----------



## Iceweasel

Toro said:


> Ultimately, its repulsion that leads most people to discriminate against homosexuality.  People project homosexual acts onto themselves but use more acceptable reasons, i.e. religion, to discriminate against homosexuals.


Huh? You aren't repulsed by anything? No wonder you use a bull for an avatar.


----------



## paperview

Iceweasel said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> When repulsion drives political decisions, tyranny follows.
> 
> 
> 
> The tyranny is coming from your camp.
Click to expand...

Aren't you a self-proclaimed member of a hate group?

Remind me again -- what did your avatar used to be?


----------



## GISMYS

Believe God's word on sick sexual perversion=== Don&#8217;t you know that those doing such things have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don&#8217;t fool yourselves. Those who live immoral lives, who are idol worshipers, adulterers or homosexuals&#8212;will have no share in his Kingdom. 1CORINTHIANS 6:9


----------



## Toro

Iceweasel said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ultimately, its repulsion that leads most people to discriminate against homosexuality.  People project homosexual acts onto themselves but use more acceptable reasons, i.e. religion, to discriminate against homosexuals.
> 
> 
> 
> Huh? You aren't repulsed by anything? No wonder you use a bull for an avatar.
Click to expand...


Based on that post, your avatar should be an empty space of nothingness.


----------



## Borillar

Is homosexuality a mental disorder? No, but it certainly seems to cause a lot of wingnuts to go crazy.


----------



## Gracie

If it is a mental illness, sure were a helluvalot of greek and roman mental disorders back in the day. And they didn't bother to hide it, either.


----------



## GISMYS

YES!!!! sick sexual perversion goes back thousands of years to sodom and gomorrah, do we really want to see the usa go down that road??


----------



## RosieS

Iceweasel said:


> RosieS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look up slander. If you are hearing these words that I type; you are certifiable.
> 
> Regards from Rosie
> 
> 
> 
> Slander is the making of false charges. Calling people homophobes or fearful is slander. You're unethical to say the least.
Click to expand...


Slander is spoken defamation. If you heard my words then you are seriously crazed.

If homosexuality is repulsive to you, you are fearful and you are homophobic. A phobia being the fear of something.

Many people find spiders and snakes repulsive due to being in fear of them.

Libel is silent due to being something written and not spoken.

I would charge you with intellectual dishonesty but that would presume intellect on your part

Regards from Rosie.


----------



## 007

Borillar said:


> Is homosexuality a mental disorder? No, but it certainly seems to cause a lot of wingnuts to go crazy.



Is homosexuality a mental disorder? Yes, and I've never seen so many people waste so much of their time attempting to defend outright disgusting sexual deviancy. They're as much to blame for the spread of homosexuality as the homosexuals themselves. Homos need mental help, not told that their perverted behavior is OK.


----------



## Noomi

GreenBean said:


> Myself and many others , who for fear of reprisals remain silent believe that Homosexuality is and always has been a Mental Disorder and Homosexuals should not be deterred from seeking Psychological / Psychiatric Help.



It is not a mental disorder, no matter what you think.


----------



## GISMYS

Noomi said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Myself and many others , who for fear of reprisals remain silent believe that Homosexuality is and always has been a Mental Disorder and Homosexuals should not be deterred from seeking Psychological / Psychiatric Help.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a mental disorder, no matter what you think.
Click to expand...


YES!! Homosexuality IT IS JUST A SICK UNNATURAL CHOICE WITH A VERY HIGH PRICE!!


----------



## Gracie

gismys said:


> noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> greenbean said:
> 
> 
> 
> myself and many others , who for fear of reprisals remain silent believe that homosexuality is and always has been a mental disorder and homosexuals should not be deterred from seeking psychological / psychiatric help.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it is not a mental disorder, no matter what you think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes!! Homosexuality it is just a sick unnatural choice with a very high price!!
Click to expand...


and I AM GETTING FED UP WITH YOUR UNNATURAL CAPS affliction.


----------



## GISMYS

gracie said:


> gismys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is not a mental disorder, no matter what you think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes!! Homosexuality it is just a sick unnatural choice with a very high price!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and i am getting fed up with your unnatural caps affliction.
Click to expand...


get over it!!!! Silly bimbo!!!


----------



## Gracie

This ain't the religion forum, Thumper.


----------



## emilynghiem

It's related to spiritual karma.
Sometimes it is born in the spirit, sometimes it is caused or passed on by unnatural abuse.
Not all cases are the same, some can change some cannot.
It's a spiritual process. So it will take science some time to study and quantify spiritual phenomena and processes; only if there is a scientific consensus can the state make any public policies. As long as people disagree religiously without agreed proof, it remains faith-based. so politics and govt should not make any decisions on spiritual matters such as this.



GreenBean said:


> The American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973 only after years of political pressure from gay activists. The American Psychiatric association board of trustees passed this decision followed by a statement which listed among the reasons for their decision as changing social norms and growing gay rights activism . So basically, a scientific institution was coerced into changing a scientific opinion or classification due to political pressure !
> 
> Removing homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses was not triggered by some scientific breakthrough.  There was no new fact or set of facts that stimulated this major change.  Rather, it was the simple reality that gay people started to kick up a fuss.
> 
> In subsequent years the APA has become so politicized , that it has lost any credibility as a Scientific organization and in the words of one former APA President it is totally "Beholden to the Gay Rights Movement"
> 
> Myself and many others , who for fear of reprisals remain silent believe that Homosexuality is and always has been a Mental Disorder and Homosexuals should not be deterred from seeking Psychological / Psychiatric Help.


----------



## Nosmo King

007 said:


> Borillar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is homosexuality a mental disorder? No, but it certainly seems to cause a lot of wingnuts to go crazy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is homosexuality a mental disorder? Yes, and I've never seen so many people waste so much of their time attempting to defend outright disgusting sexual deviancy. They're as much to blame for the spread of homosexuality as the homosexuals themselves. Homos need mental help, not told that their perverted behavior is OK.
Click to expand...

If their 'preverted' behavior does not impact you directly, who's business is it?  Homosexuals don't 'recruit'.  They are adults in the privacy of their own homes like any heterosexual couple.  Homosexuals are not, by default, child molesters.  Heterosexuals claim the majority of pedophiles.  Homosexuals hold jobs, they pay taxes and hold American citizenship.  Most, like most heterosexuals, are sober, responsible members of the community.  I think the LBGT community wants nothing more than simple tolerance and respect for their accomplishments, not their sexuality.  Do you expect or demand respect for your sexuality?  I don't and I'm straight.

Think of them as perverted if you will.  Unless promiscuity is an issue (an issue not exclusive of homosexuals), I say live and let live.  I see no harm at all.


----------



## GISMYS

Nosmo King said:


> 007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Borillar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is homosexuality a mental disorder? No, but it certainly seems to cause a lot of wingnuts to go crazy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is homosexuality a mental disorder? Yes, and I've never seen so many people waste so much of their time attempting to defend outright disgusting sexual deviancy. They're as much to blame for the spread of homosexuality as the homosexuals themselves. Homos need mental help, not told that their perverted behavior is OK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If their 'preverted' behavior does not impact you directly, who's business is it?  Homosexuals don't 'recruit'.  They are adults in the privacy of their own homes like any heterosexual couple.  Homosexuals are not, by default, child molesters.  Heterosexuals claim the majority of pedophiles.  Homosexuals hold jobs, they pay taxes and hold American citizenship.  Most, like most heterosexuals, are sober, responsible members of the community.  I think the LBGT community wants nothing more than simple tolerance and respect for their accomplishments, not their sexuality.  Do you expect or demand respect for your sexuality?  I don't and I'm straight.
> 
> Think of them as perverted if you will.  Unless promiscuity is an issue (an issue not exclusive of homosexuals), I say live and let live.  I see no harm at all.
Click to expand...


That is why God let go of them and let them do all these evil things, so that even their women turned against Gods natural plan for them and indulged in sex sin with each other.  27 And the men, instead of having normal sex relationships with women, burned with lust for each other, men doing shameful things with other men and, as a result, getting paid within their own souls with the penalty they so richly deserved.

28 So it was that when they gave God up and would not even acknowledge him, God gave them up to doing everything their evil minds could think of.
 ROMANS 1:26-28


----------



## Nosmo King

GISMYS said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Myself and many others , who for fear of reprisals remain silent believe that Homosexuality is and always has been a Mental Disorder and Homosexuals should not be deterred from seeking Psychological / Psychiatric Help.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a mental disorder, no matter what you think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YES!! Homosexuality IT IS JUST A SICK UNNATURAL CHOICE WITH A VERY HIGH PRICE!!
Click to expand...

Those with more knowledge of homosexuality disagree.  

If homosexuality is a mental disorder, no one could bash it out of their psyches with a Bible.


----------



## emilynghiem

GISMYS said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Myself and many others , who for fear of reprisals remain silent believe that Homosexuality is and always has been a Mental Disorder and Homosexuals should not be deterred from seeking Psychological / Psychiatric Help.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a mental disorder, no matter what you think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YES!! Homosexuality IT IS JUST A SICK UNNATURAL CHOICE WITH A VERY HIGH PRICE!!
Click to expand...


Yes and no.

For cases where people do not choose or want to be homosexual,
because they confirm it isn't natural for them,
they did not ASK for the spiritual karma they were born into
or the sexual abuse that may have caused it in some cases.

You seem to contradict yourself.

If it is a mental disorder, people didn't choose to be inflicted with it!


----------



## GISMYS

emilynghiem said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a mental disorder, no matter what you think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YES!! Homosexuality IT IS JUST A SICK UNNATURAL CHOICE WITH A VERY HIGH PRICE!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes and no.
> 
> For cases where people do not choose or want to be homosexual,
> because they confirm it isn't natural for them,
> they did not ASK for the spiritual karma they were born into
> or the sexual abuse that may have caused it in some cases.
> 
> You seem to contradict yourself.
> 
> If it is a mental disorder, people didn't choose to be inflicted with it!
Click to expand...

That is why God let go of them and let them do all these evil things, so that even their women turned against Gods natural plan for them and indulged in sex sin with each other.  27 And the men, instead of having normal sex relationships with women, burned with lust for each other, men doing shameful things with other men and, as a result, getting paid within their own souls with the penalty they so richly deserved.

28 So it was that when they gave God up and would not even acknowledge him, God gave them up to doing everything their evil minds could think of.
ROMANS 1:26-28


----------



## Noomi

GISMYS said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> YES!! Homosexuality IT IS JUST A SICK UNNATURAL CHOICE WITH A VERY HIGH PRICE!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and no.
> 
> For cases where people do not choose or want to be homosexual,
> because they confirm it isn't natural for them,
> they did not ASK for the spiritual karma they were born into
> or the sexual abuse that may have caused it in some cases.
> 
> You seem to contradict yourself.
> 
> If it is a mental disorder, people didn't choose to be inflicted with it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is why God let go of them and let them do all these evil things, so that even their women turned against Gods natural plan for them and indulged in sex sin with each other.  27 And the men, instead of having normal sex relationships with women, burned with lust for each other, men doing shameful things with other men and, as a result, getting paid within their own souls with the penalty they so richly deserved.
> 
> 28 So it was that when they gave God up and would not even acknowledge him, God gave them up to doing everything their evil minds could think of.
> ROMANS 1:26-28
Click to expand...


Prove God exists in order to validate your argument.


----------



## GISMYS

GISMYS said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> YES!! Homosexuality IT IS JUST A SICK UNNATURAL CHOICE WITH A VERY HIGH PRICE!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and no.
> 
> For cases where people do not choose or want to be homosexual,
> because they confirm it isn't natural for them,
> they did not ASK for the spiritual karma they were born into
> or the sexual abuse that may have caused it in some cases.
> 
> You seem to contradict yourself.
> 
> If it is a mental disorder, people didn't choose to be inflicted with it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is why God let go of them and let them do all these evil things, so that even their women turned against Gods natural plan for them and indulged in sex sin with each other.  27 And the men, instead of having normal sex relationships with women, burned with lust for each other, men doing shameful things with other men and, as a result, getting paid within their own souls with the penalty they so richly deserved.
> 
> 28 So it was that when they gave God up and would not even acknowledge him, God gave them up to doing everything their evil minds could think of.
> ROMANS 1:26-28
Click to expand...


little man may make all the shameful laws they want but it is GOD THAT HAS THE FINAL WORD!!!


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

GreenBean said:


> Is Homosexuality a Mental Disorder ?


No. 

But the hatred you and others exhibit toward gay Americans certainly is.


----------



## emilynghiem

Nosmo King said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a mental disorder, no matter what you think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YES!! Homosexuality IT IS JUST A SICK UNNATURAL CHOICE WITH A VERY HIGH PRICE!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those with more knowledge of homosexuality disagree.
> 
> If homosexuality is a mental disorder, no one could bash it out of their psyches with a Bible.
Click to expand...


Not bash it out of them with a Bible.
But heal past abuses with forgiveness that breaks the cycle.
And once that abuse is healed, then any unnatural sexual patterns it caused
can also be healed. by forgiveness and healing, not bashing judgment or punishment.

You are right. I have never heard of anyone healed that way.
The spiritual healing that has healed unnatural cases of homosexuality,
is based on forgiveness therapy (that also heals cancer, drug addiction, schizophrenia, and other diseases in cases of generational sickness treated by Christian deliverance prayer).

If these debates and studies on homosexuality
lead to medical research and proof of spiritual healing curing all forms
of physical and mental abuse, addiction, disease and even unhealthy relationships,
then many more people will benefit from this knowledge.

The gay people and advocates who were so persecuted and hated
just might lead to solutions that free many more people from suffering and death.

When medical science proves the same methods that heal unnatural
cases of homosexuality also heal many other diseases and social ills.


----------



## Gracie

Who actually CHOOSES to become a homosexual? They were born that way. Has nothing to do with mental illness. Not a shrink and not a doc, but that is what I believe.  Who would want the shunning, the ridicule, the hate by CHOICE? Nobody.


----------



## GreenBean

Nosmo King said:


> Those with more knowledge of homosexuality disagree.



And who would you say has more knowledge of homosexuality ?  

Those afflicted by it ?

Those  mindless soulless puppets who call themselves Liberals & Progressives and are incapable of thinking for themselves.

The Professionals who study it .
The true professionals who study and understand it are those involved in Ex-Gay therapy aka Gay conversion therapy - If homosexuality were not a disorder then of course there would be no need for conversion.  So the so-called professionals who condemn gay conversion without the slightest shred of credible evidence to do so and disregard Scientific objectivity are little more than prostitutes to the Gay Agenda. They have whored off their professionalism to Political correctness and to political pressure.

Who my friend, would you say has more knowledge of Homosexuality ?


----------



## GISMYS

gracie said:


> who actually chooses to become a homosexual? They were born that way. Has nothing to do with mental illness. Not a shrink and not a doc, but that is what i believe.  Who would want the shunning, the ridicule, the hate by choice? Nobody.



sexual perversion is a choice like all sin is!!!


----------



## GreenBean

Gracie said:


> Who actually CHOOSES to become a homosexual? They were born that way. Has nothing to do with mental illness. Not a shrink and not a doc, but that is what I believe.  Who would want the shunning, the ridicule, the hate by CHOICE? Nobody.



Who chooses to be obese, anorexic, a Crack Head, A meth addict, a junkie, an alcoholic, a pedophile, a pig fucker.  No kid wakes up one day and says I wanna be a pervert when I grow up.   

Not all the choices we make in life are conscious choices.  I spent some years of my life as a Drug Addict, I pulled myself out of that and feel no shame - the shame would have been to have never tried - homosexuals are no diff.from other addicts they are sick - there is  shame in being Gay , nothing to show "Pride" in - there is no shame in seeking to escape it.  Although the Drug Dealers of Gay Addiction, the Gay Agendaites  preach otherwise

GISMYS: I Don't know your God .  But  My God does not sent human beings to an eternal torment in Lakes of Fire for unconscious choices.   I do agree that Sexual Perversion is a choice the Dark side of The Human Psyche envelops many of our Brothers and Sisters in - You Like to call that Dark Side Satan. Satan tempts man as your Bible says he tempted Jesus - I don't hate my brothers and sisters for falling prey to his many temptations - I pity them and will help those I can - whether they be addicts to substances or sexual perversion - Tough Love is my medicine.

C CLAYTON:  *You think you know Hate ?   *You Ain't seen nothing Pal - you haven't got a friggin clue as to what REAL HATE looks like and what  REAL HATE can do.  Come back and talk to me when you graduate High School in a few years.


----------



## emilynghiem

GISMYS said:


> That is why God let go of them and let them do all these evil things, so that even their women turned against Gods natural plan for them and indulged in sex sin with each other.  27 And the men, instead of having normal sex relationships with women, burned with lust for each other, men doing shameful things with other men and, as a result, getting paid within their own souls with the penalty they so richly deserved.
> 
> 28 So it was that when they gave God up and would not even acknowledge him, God gave them up to doing everything their evil minds could think of.
> ROMANS 1:26-28



1. for the cases of homosexuality where people cannot change but were made that way by God (ie some eunuchs are made by god and some by man)
I agree that these past sins of infidelity can create generational karma and curses
where future generations suffer the sins of the father until the fourth and fifth generation.

so yes, this does explain why some people are born that way and cannot change
it is the consequence of past sins 
so the suffering inflicted on them by society is hell

thank you for proving this point. your judgment and torment fulfills the warning in the Bible

all the bullying, suicides, lynching of gays as hate crimes. blame for AIDS.
all this is hell for past sins visited on future generations until these are forgiven and healed

2. for cases of homosexuality healed in Christ Jesus
this is achieved and received by forgiveness
not by judgment or punishment

I have never known a single person who came to healing in Christ by
being lectured by the Bible

The spiritual healers I have known who healed people of homosexual abuse
teach forgiveness and do not judge or preach at people which "provokes anger"

How many people have you healed by preaching to them this way?

I think I will follow the teachings of those who have healed
cancer, mental illness, demonic voices, and saved people from dying
by praying for forgiveness and restoration. not judgment punishment or rejection.

I pray that you and I reach agreement in Christ to uplift more people
and stop all this cycle of sin and suffering. My apologies if we misunderstood each other.
As neighbors in Christ, I trust that we do agree on God's laws but may
have different ways to explain how we got there. God bless you with wisdom and clarity.


----------



## GISMYS

emilynghiem said:


> gismys said:
> 
> 
> 
> that is why god let go of them and let them do all these evil things, so that even their women turned against gods natural plan for them and indulged in sex sin with each other.  27 and the men, instead of having normal sex relationships with women, burned with lust for each other, men doing shameful things with other men and, as a result, getting paid within their own souls with the penalty they so richly deserved.
> 
> 28 so it was that when they gave god up and would not even acknowledge him, god gave them up to doing everything their evil minds could think of.
> Romans 1:26-28
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. For the cases of homosexuality where people cannot change but were made that way by god (ie some eunuchs are made by god and some by man)
> i agree that these past sins of infidelity can create generational karma and curses
> where future generations suffer the sins of the father until the fourth and fifth generation.
> 
> So yes, this does explain why some people are born that way and cannot change
> it is the consequence of past sins
> so the suffering inflicted on them by society is hell
> 
> thank you for proving this point. Your judgment and torment fulfills the warning in the bible
> 
> all the bullying, suicides, lynching of gays as hate crimes. Blame for aids.
> All this is hell for past sins visited on future generations until these are forgiven and healed
> 
> 2. For cases of homosexuality healed in christ jesus
> this is achieved and received by forgiveness
> not by judgment or punishment
> 
> i have never known a single person who came to healing in christ by
> being lectured by the bible
> 
> the spiritual healers i have known who healed people of homosexual abuse
> teach forgiveness and do not judge or preach at people which "provokes anger"
> 
> how many people have you healed by preaching to them this way?
> 
> I think i will follow the teachings of those who have healed
> cancer, mental illness, demonic voices, and saved people from dying
> by praying for forgiveness and restoration. Not judgment punishment or rejection.
> 
> I pray that you and i reach agreement in christ to uplift more people
> and stop all this cycle of sin and suffering. My apologies if we misunderstood each other.
> As neighbors in christ, i trust that we do agree on god's laws but may
> have different ways to explain how we got there. God bless you with wisdom and clarity.
Click to expand...


god says his word will not return void,i believe god's word!!!!and you???


----------



## Gracie

Save your breath Emily. She's gonna bonk you on the head with her bible.


----------



## emilynghiem

GISMYS said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and no.
> 
> For cases where people do not choose or want to be homosexual,
> because they confirm it isn't natural for them,
> they did not ASK for the spiritual karma they were born into
> or the sexual abuse that may have caused it in some cases.
> 
> You seem to contradict yourself.
> 
> If it is a mental disorder, people didn't choose to be inflicted with it!
> 
> 
> 
> That is why God let go of them and let them do all these evil things, so that even their women turned against Gods natural plan for them and indulged in sex sin with each other.  27 And the men, instead of having normal sex relationships with women, burned with lust for each other, men doing shameful things with other men and, as a result, getting paid within their own souls with the penalty they so richly deserved.
> 
> 28 So it was that when they gave God up and would not even acknowledge him, God gave them up to doing everything their evil minds could think of.
> ROMANS 1:26-28
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> little man may make all the shameful laws they want but it is GOD THAT HAS THE FINAL WORD!!!
Click to expand...


OK
I agree God wins:
Luke 6

27 But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,

28 Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.

29 And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloak forbid not to take thy coat also.

30 Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.

31 And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.

32 For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them.

33 And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same.

34 And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again.

35 But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.

*36 Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.

37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:

38 Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.*

This is the kind of unconditional love and forgiveness
taught by people who have healed people of all manner of unnatural ills.

I pray for God's loving grace to embrace you and fill your thoughts and words with
loving wisdom that moves hearts and minds to agreement in Christ. 

May all faults be corrected, all sins flaws or biases removed, and all wrongs made right.
I join with you in receiving full correction so the truth sets us free from divisive strife.

I believe we agree in spirit, but our words and approaches betray us where we misunderstand each other's intent. Sorry for this and may we all enlighten each other.


----------



## Nosmo King

GreenBean said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those with more knowledge of homosexuality disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And who would you say has more knowledge of homosexuality ?
> 
> Those afflicted by it ?
> 
> Those  mindless soulless puppets who call themselves Liberals & Progressives and are incapable of thinking for themselves.
> 
> The Professionals who study it .
> The true professionals who study and understand it are those involved in Ex-Gay therapy aka Gay conversion therapy - If homosexuality were not a disorder then of course there would be no need for conversion.  So the so-called professionals who condemn gay conversion without the slightest shred of credible evidence to do so and disregard Scientific objectivity are little more than prostitutes to the Gay Agenda. They have whored off their professionalism to Political correctness and to political pressure.
> 
> Who my friend, would you say has more knowledge of Homosexuality ?
Click to expand...

Do you believe in psychiatry?  Do you believe it is a credible science which employs the scientific method?  Do you believe the parents and siblings of homosexuals understand and have more knowledge of homosexuality?  Are their experiences and research driven by some conspiratorial agenda?  Why is it the only solution you see is to either convert homosexuals or condemn them?  How have homosexuals adversely impacted your personal life?  You have dedicated a lot of thought and energy into the condemnation and conversion of homosexuals.  Do you imagine that they have dedicatd a lot of thought on how to piss you off?


----------



## GreenBean

Noomi said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Myself and many others , who for fear of reprisals remain silent believe that Homosexuality is and always has been a Mental Disorder and Homosexuals should not be deterred from seeking Psychological / Psychiatric Help.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a mental disorder, no matter what *you think.*
Click to expand...


The Diff.between you and I Noomi - is that *I THINK*


----------



## GISMYS

GreenBean said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Myself and many others , who for fear of reprisals remain silent believe that Homosexuality is and always has been a Mental Disorder and Homosexuals should not be deterred from seeking Psychological / Psychiatric Help.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a mental disorder, no matter what *you think.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Diff.between you and I Noomi - is that *I THINK*
Click to expand...


BOTTOMLINE=COUNT THE COST OF LIVING IN THE SICK SEXUAL PERVERSION=HOMOSEXUALITY!!!== Those who live immoral lives, who are idol worshipers, adulterers or homosexualswill have no share in GOD'S Kingdom. 1 CORINTHIANS 6:9


----------



## emilynghiem

GISMYS said:


> god says his word will not return void,i believe god's word!!!!and you???



Yes I am in agreement with you, along with others who have
healed homosexuality and other sexual abuses
by praying for deliverance and healing in Christ Jesus.

My grievance with you is not conflict over God's word, which I see we both believe in.
My issue is that healing process in Christ
is not brought about this way.

To invoke and invite divine healing and salvation in Christ
the key to opening the door to the Kingdom of God
is forgiveness

this is the choice that allows God in to make all things right
all other preaching and projecting judgment
shuts the door on God's wisdom by putting
our words and wishes before HIS

Can you and I agree to give this to God in Christ
and let God in to do all things by His Will

Otherwise if we judge and reject
then people judge and reject what we say

if we agree to receive forgiveness and correction in Christ
then others agree to receive and forgive us as Children of God

we are judged as we judge others
received as we receive others
forgiven as we forgive others

Can we agree to let God govern our relationships here
and correct all flaws between us in Christ Jesus


----------



## GISMYS

emilynghiem said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> god says his word will not return void,i believe god's word!!!!and you???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I am in agreement with you, along with others who have
> healed homosexuality and other sexual abuses
> by praying for deliverance and healing in Christ Jesus.
> 
> My grievance with you is not conflict over God's word, which I see we both believe in.
> My issue is that healing process in Christ
> is not brought about this way.
> 
> To invoke and invite divine healing and salvation in Christ
> the key to opening the door to the Kingdom of God
> is forgiveness
> 
> this is the choice that allows God in to make all things right
> all other preaching and projecting judgment
> shuts the door on God's wisdom by putting
> our words and wishes before HIS
> 
> Can you and I agree to give this to God in Christ
> and let God in to do all things by His Will
> 
> Otherwise if we judge and reject
> then people judge and reject what we say
> 
> if we agree to receive forgiveness and correction in Christ
> then others agree to receive and forgive us as Children of God
> 
> we are judged as we judge others
> received as we receive others
> forgiven as we forgive others
> 
> Can we agree to let God govern our relationships here
> and correct all flaws between us in Christ Jesus
Click to expand...


THE JUDGMENT OF GOD IN IN====BOTTOMLINE=COUNT THE COST OF LIVING IN THE SICK SEXUAL PERVERSION=HOMOSEXUALITY!!!== Those who live immoral lives, who are idol worshipers, adulterers or homosexualswill have no share in GOD'S Kingdom. 1 CORINTHIANS 6:9


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

GISMYS said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and no.
> 
> For cases where people do not choose or want to be homosexual,
> because they confirm it isn't natural for them,
> they did not ASK for the spiritual karma they were born into
> or the sexual abuse that may have caused it in some cases.
> 
> You seem to contradict yourself.
> 
> If it is a mental disorder, people didn't choose to be inflicted with it!
> 
> 
> 
> That is why God let go of them and let them do all these evil things, so that even their women turned against Gods natural plan for them and indulged in sex sin with each other.  27 And the men, instead of having normal sex relationships with women, burned with lust for each other, men doing shameful things with other men and, as a result, getting paid within their own souls with the penalty they so richly deserved.
> 
> 28 So it was that when they gave God up and would not even acknowledge him, God gave them up to doing everything their evil minds could think of.
> ROMANS 1:26-28
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> little man may make all the shameful laws they want but it is GOD THAT HAS THE FINAL WORD!!!
Click to expand...


Thank goodness for the Constitution, to protect us from this type of mental illness.


----------



## GISMYS

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is why God let go of them and let them do all these evil things, so that even their women turned against Gods natural plan for them and indulged in sex sin with each other.  27 And the men, instead of having normal sex relationships with women, burned with lust for each other, men doing shameful things with other men and, as a result, getting paid within their own souls with the penalty they so richly deserved.
> 
> 28 So it was that when they gave God up and would not even acknowledge him, God gave them up to doing everything their evil minds could think of.
> ROMANS 1:26-28
> 
> 
> 
> 
> little man may make all the shameful laws they want but it is GOD THAT HAS THE FINAL WORD!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank goodness for the Constitution, to protect us from this type of mental illness.
Click to expand...


Bottomline=== GOD HAS THE FINAL WORD NOT little man!!!!===Dont you know that those doing such things have no share in the Kingdom of God? Dont fool yourselves. Those who live immoral lives, who are idol worshipers, adulterers or homosexualswill have no share in his Kingdom.  1 corinthians 6:9


----------



## emilynghiem

GreenBean said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those with more knowledge of homosexuality disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And who would you say has more knowledge of homosexuality ?
> 
> Those afflicted by it ?
> 
> Those  mindless soulless puppets who call themselves Liberals & Progressives and are incapable of thinking for themselves.
> 
> The Professionals who study it .
> The true professionals who study and understand it are those involved in Ex-Gay therapy aka Gay conversion therapy - If homosexuality were not a disorder then of course there would be no need for conversion.  So the so-called professionals who condemn gay conversion without the slightest shred of credible evidence to do so and disregard Scientific objectivity are little more than prostitutes to the Gay Agenda. They have whored off their professionalism to Political correctness and to political pressure.
> 
> Who my friend, would you say has more knowledge of Homosexuality ?
Click to expand...


Hi Green Bean: I run into this same problem with liberals and progressives, and I am one. most have no idea there is true spiritual healing that has helped people overcome abuse and cases of homosexuality caused by sexual abuse.  Most only hear about fraudulent faith healing and traumatizing gay people by punishing them instead of healing sexual abuse. There is fraudulent abusive forced conversion, but that is the opposite of the effective spiritual therapy that has healed homosexuality naturally through forgiveness.

I only found one friend who understood there are BOTH types of cases, some are spiritually born that way by karma, some cases are unnatural caused by sexual abuse, some cases can be healed and some cannot be.

Why this hysteria and imposition that ALL cases HAVE to be the SAME?

Some depression is temporary caused by circumstances and can go away.
Some depression is chronic and is NOT the same as circumstantial.
Some can be healed, and some people have this condition all their lives.
Not all cases are the same in cancer, depression, etc.

Where did this come from that all homosexuality is the same?

As for experts on homosexuality and healing, Dr. Francis MacNutt wrote a book on Can Homosexuality be healed, and makes a distinction between which cases can be.

I would listen to an experienced healer who has worked with people of both cases.

The common factor in cases of healing, whether homosexuality or cancer, addiction or abuse, the key is forgiveness.

So that is why I ask Christians and therapists to agree on this point.
Whether you believe in homosexuality as unnatural or natural,
they key to healing any sick condition is forgiveness.

Unforgiveness blocks the natural healing process so people stay stuck in cycles
of sickness addiction or abuse.

Do you agree that forgiveness is the common factor in all spiritual healing therapy
and recovery, from AA to demonic deliverance? healing all forms of addiction or abuse?


----------



## GISMYS

YOU TRY TO IGNORE GOD'S WORD AT YOUR OWN PERIL!==Bottomline=== GOD HAS THE FINAL WORD NOT little man!!!!===Dont you know that those doing such things have no share in the Kingdom of God? Dont fool yourselves. Those who live immoral lives, who are idol worshipers, adulterers or homosexualswill have no share in his Kingdom. 1 corinthians 6:9


----------



## bodecea

GISMYS said:


> YOU TRY TO IGNORE GOD'S WORD AT YOUR OWN PERIL!==Bottomline=== GOD HAS THE FINAL WORD NOT little man!!!!===Dont you know that those doing such things have no share in the Kingdom of God? Dont fool yourselves. Those who live immoral lives, who are idol worshipers, adulterers or homosexualswill have no share in his Kingdom. 1 corinthians 6:9



Which god is that again?


----------



## emilynghiem

GISMYS said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> little man may make all the shameful laws they want but it is GOD THAT HAS THE FINAL WORD!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank goodness for the Constitution, to protect us from this type of mental illness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bottomline=== GOD HAS THE FINAL WORD NOT little man!!!!===Dont you know that those doing such things have no share in the Kingdom of God? Dont fool yourselves. Those who live immoral lives, who are idol worshipers, adulterers or homosexualswill have no share in his Kingdom.  1 corinthians 6:9
Click to expand...


OK so we agree that the sins of man have sent us to hell by our own UNFORGIVENESS.
That is the lesson in the OT, that the wages of sin is death and the OT shows the killing.

Now for the NT, the path to SALVATION.
Doesn't Jesus represents divine grace by forgiveness.
so that in order to receive God's forgiveness
we forgive one another in Christ Jesus and hand our relationships over to him.

We agree what causes hell is unforgiveness of sins
What about what saves us by forgiveness in Christ and healing grace

Do you really expect to establish the Kingdom of God
by condemning people to hell for sins, isn't that establishing hell.

So to establish the opposite is to forgive and correct
so we are rejoined and reconciled in Christ?

Are we seeking the path to heaven or to hell?
Which direction are you trying to point and focus on?


----------



## GISMYS

emilynghiem said:


> gismys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> c_clayton_jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> thank goodness for the constitution, to protect us from this type of mental illness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bottomline=== god has the final word not little man!!!!===dont you know that those doing such things have no share in the kingdom of god? Dont fool yourselves. Those who live immoral lives, who are idol worshipers, adulterers or homosexualswill have no share in his kingdom.  1 corinthians 6:9
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ok so we agree that the sins of man have sent us to hell by our own unforgiveness.
> That is the lesson in the ot, that the wages of sin is death and the ot shows the killing.
> 
> Now for the nt, the path to salvation.
> Doesn't jesus represents divine grace by forgiveness.
> So that in order to receive god's forgiveness
> we forgive one another in christ jesus and hand our relationships over to him.
> 
> We agree what causes hell is unforgiveness of sins
> what about what saves us by forgiveness in christ and healing grace
> 
> do you really expect to establish the kingdom of god
> by condemning people to hell for sins, isn't that establishing hell.
> 
> So to establish the opposite is to forgive and correct
> so we are rejoined and reconciled in christ?
> 
> Are we seeking the path to heaven or to hell?
> Which direction are you trying to point and focus on?
Click to expand...


the big problem with those living in sexual perversion = they try to say sick sexual perversion  is not sin, by doing that they compound their sin by denying the word of god!!!


----------



## emilynghiem

bodecea said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOU TRY TO IGNORE GOD'S WORD AT YOUR OWN PERIL!==Bottomline=== GOD HAS THE FINAL WORD NOT little man!!!!===Dont you know that those doing such things have no share in the Kingdom of God? Dont fool yourselves. Those who live immoral lives, who are idol worshipers, adulterers or homosexualswill have no share in his Kingdom. 1 corinthians 6:9
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which god is that again?
Click to expand...


I think our friend is fixed on "idolizing a retributive God" in the OT.
When we agree that is Part I, which marks a stage in human history,
Maybe we can move to Part II where we actually resolve things to reach agreement
and a mature understanding of all this spiritual process.

The rapture is supposed to be close, any day now, order arising from chaos
and solutions arising out of clouds of crisis.

So hopefully our friend won't miss the bus, standing on the street corner preaching about it.


----------



## GISMYS

emilynghiem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOU TRY TO IGNORE GOD'S WORD AT YOUR OWN PERIL!==Bottomline=== GOD HAS THE FINAL WORD NOT little man!!!!===Dont you know that those doing such things have no share in the Kingdom of God? Dont fool yourselves. Those who live immoral lives, who are idol worshipers, adulterers or homosexualswill have no share in his Kingdom. 1 corinthians 6:9
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which god is that again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think our friend is fixed on "idolizing a retributive God" in the OT.
> When we agree that is Part I, which marks a stage in human history,
> Maybe we can move to Part II where we actually resolve things to reach agreement
> and a mature understanding of all this spiritual process.
> 
> The rapture is supposed to be close, any day now, order arising from chaos
> and solutions arising out of clouds of crisis.
> 
> So hopefully our friend won't miss the bus, standing on the street corner preaching about it.
Click to expand...


THIS IS GOD'S WORD IN THE ""NEW"" TESTMENT!!   YOU TRY TO IGNORE GOD'S WORD AT YOUR OWN PERIL!==Bottomline=== GOD HAS THE FINAL WORD NOT little man!!!!===Dont you know that those doing such things have no share in the Kingdom of God? Dont fool yourselves. Those who live immoral lives, who are idol worshipers, adulterers or homosexualswill have no share in his Kingdom. 1 corinthians 6:9


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

emilynghiem said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank goodness for the Constitution, to protect us from this type of mental illness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bottomline=== GOD HAS THE FINAL WORD NOT little man!!!!===Dont you know that those doing such things have no share in the Kingdom of God? Dont fool yourselves. Those who live immoral lives, who are idol worshipers, adulterers or homosexualswill have no share in his Kingdom.  1 corinthians 6:9
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK so we agree that the sins of man have sent us to hell by our own UNFORGIVENESS.
> That is the lesson in the OT, that the wages of sin is death and the OT shows the killing.
> 
> Now for the NT, the path to SALVATION.
> Doesn't Jesus represents divine grace by forgiveness.
> so that in order to receive God's forgiveness
> we forgive one another in Christ Jesus and hand our relationships over to him.
> 
> We agree what causes hell is unforgiveness of sins
> What about what saves us by forgiveness in Christ and healing grace
> 
> Do you really expect to establish the Kingdom of God
> by condemning people to hell for sins, isn't that establishing hell.
> 
> So to establish the opposite is to forgive and correct
> so we are rejoined and reconciled in Christ?
> 
> Are we seeking the path to heaven or to hell?
> Which direction are you trying to point and focus on?
Click to expand...


You and other theists are at liberty to sort this out amongst yourselves, on your own, in your private churches and homes and wherever else

You and other theists are not at liberty, however, to seek to codify the hatred your religion teaches, nor to justify that hate with lies about gay Americans being mentally ill.


----------



## GISMYS

c_clayton_jones said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gismys said:
> 
> 
> 
> bottomline=== god has the final word not little man!!!!===dont you know that those doing such things have no share in the kingdom of god? Dont fool yourselves. Those who live immoral lives, who are idol worshipers, adulterers or homosexualswill have no share in his kingdom.  1 corinthians 6:9
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ok so we agree that the sins of man have sent us to hell by our own unforgiveness.
> That is the lesson in the ot, that the wages of sin is death and the ot shows the killing.
> 
> Now for the nt, the path to salvation.
> Doesn't jesus represents divine grace by forgiveness.
> So that in order to receive god's forgiveness
> we forgive one another in christ jesus and hand our relationships over to him.
> 
> We agree what causes hell is unforgiveness of sins
> what about what saves us by forgiveness in christ and healing grace
> 
> do you really expect to establish the kingdom of god
> by condemning people to hell for sins, isn't that establishing hell.
> 
> So to establish the opposite is to forgive and correct
> so we are rejoined and reconciled in christ?
> 
> Are we seeking the path to heaven or to hell?
> Which direction are you trying to point and focus on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you and other theists are at liberty to sort this out amongst yourselves, on your own, in your private churches and homes and wherever else
> 
> you and other theists are not at liberty, however, to seek to codify the hatred your religion teaches, nor to justify that hate with lies about gay americans being mentally ill.
Click to expand...


"in god we trust" one nation under god with liberty and justice for all!!! Why ask for the judgment of sodom and gomorrah???? Think!


----------



## Barb




----------



## GISMYS

barb said:


>



yes!!!! Signs of the end days are worldwide!!!!


----------



## Gracie

Fruitloop. Nutbar. And that's putting it nicely.


----------



## auditor0007

GreenBean said:


> The American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973 only after years of political pressure from gay activists. The American Psychiatric association board of trustees passed this decision followed by a statement which listed among the reasons for their decision as changing social norms and growing gay rights activism . So basically, a scientific institution was coerced into changing a scientific opinion or classification due to political pressure !
> 
> Removing homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses was not triggered by some scientific breakthrough.  There was no new fact or set of facts that stimulated this major change.  Rather, it was the simple reality that gay people started to kick up a fuss.
> 
> In subsequent years the APA has become so politicized , that it has lost any credibility as a Scientific organization and in the words of one former APA President it is totally "Beholden to the Gay Rights Movement"
> 
> Myself and many others , who for fear of reprisals remain silent believe that Homosexuality is and always has been a Mental Disorder and Homosexuals should not be deterred from seeking Psychological / Psychiatric Help.



Any psychologist who believes that homosexuality is a psychological disorder proves that psychology is pretty much a farce.


----------



## Noomi

GISMYS said:


> gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> who actually chooses to become a homosexual? They were born that way. Has nothing to do with mental illness. Not a shrink and not a doc, but that is what i believe.  Who would want the shunning, the ridicule, the hate by choice? Nobody.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sexual perversion is a choice like all sin is!!!
Click to expand...


Go off and masturbate somewhere, you tard.


----------



## Iceweasel

paperview said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> When repulsion drives political decisions, tyranny follows.
> 
> 
> 
> The tyranny is coming from your camp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aren't you a self-proclaimed member of a hate group?
> 
> Remind me again -- what did your avatar used to be?
Click to expand...

It used to be what it is now and you made the same stupid or dishonest mistake. Considering homosexuality abnormal isn't hate no matter how badly you want it to be. It makes you the hater. Haters insult, slander, attempt intimidation and propagandize. 

You are what you hate.


----------



## GreenBean

auditor0007 said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> The American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973 only after years of political pressure from gay activists. The American Psychiatric association board of trustees passed this decision followed by a statement which listed among the reasons for their decision as changing social norms and growing gay rights activism . So basically, a scientific institution was coerced into changing a scientific opinion or classification due to political pressure !
> 
> Removing homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses was not triggered by some scientific breakthrough.  There was no new fact or set of facts that stimulated this major change.  Rather, it was the simple reality that gay people started to kick up a fuss.
> 
> In subsequent years the APA has become so politicized , that it has lost any credibility as a Scientific organization and in the words of one former APA President it is totally "Beholden to the Gay Rights Movement"
> 
> Myself and many others , who for fear of reprisals remain silent believe that Homosexuality is and always has been a Mental Disorder and Homosexuals should not be deterred from seeking Psychological / Psychiatric Help.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any psychologist who believes that homosexuality is a psychological disorder proves that psychology is pretty much a farce.
Click to expand...


Yes - Psychology as defined by the APA is little more than a farce.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

'As defined by..' yes. APA doesn't define psychology world-wide thankfully.


----------



## GISMYS

Yes!! Sexual perverts want to say their sin is not sin,just another lifestyle,sorry perverts that lie won't fly. Confess your sin and repent, don't compound your sins by trying to deny the truth of god's word!!!


----------



## bodecea

Iceweasel said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> The tyranny is coming from your camp.
> 
> 
> 
> Aren't you a self-proclaimed member of a hate group?
> 
> Remind me again -- what did your avatar used to be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It used to be what it is now and you made the same stupid or dishonest mistake. Considering homosexuality abnormal isn't hate no matter how badly you want it to be. It makes you the hater. Haters insult, slander, attempt intimidation and propagandize.
> 
> *You are what you hate*.
Click to expand...


Indeed.


----------



## bodecea

GISMYS said:


> Yes!! Sexual perverts want to say their sin is not sin,just another lifestyle,sorry perverts that lie won't fly. Confess your sin and repent, don't compound your sins by trying to deny the truth of god's word!!!



Which god?


----------



## Iceweasel

bodecea said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are what you hate[/SIZE][/B].
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed.
Click to expand...

So stop hating.


----------



## Howey

GISMYS said:


> Yes!! Sexual perverts want to say their sin is not sin,just another lifestyle,sorry perverts that lie won't fly. Confess your sin and repent, don't compound your sins by trying to deny the truth of god's word!!!




God does not hate. To hate in the name of God is blasphemy.

Enjoy your stay in hell.


----------



## Uncensored2008

GISMYS said:


> THE JUDGMENT OF GOD IN IN====BOTTOMLINE=COUNT THE COST OF LIVING IN THE SICK SEXUAL PERVERSION=HOMOSEXUALITY!!!== Those who live immoral lives, who are idol worshipers, adulterers or homosexualswill have no share in GOD'S Kingdom. 1 CORINTHIANS 6:9



Do you hold the same for those who gamble? use prostitutes? Drink alcohol? Use drugs?

Look, you're not sane, I get it. But vice has no victim. It is none of your business how someone else gets their jollies. Two men rutting in the dirt might make you have funny feelings, but it neither picks your pocket nor breaks your leg, thus it is none of your concern.

We are all free to do as we please, as long as what we do does not infringe upon others.


----------



## Uncensored2008

GISMYS said:


> Bottomline=== GOD HAS THE FINAL WORD NOT little man!!!!===Dont you know that those doing such things have no share in the Kingdom of God? Dont fool yourselves. Those who live immoral lives, who are idol worshipers, adulterers or homosexualswill have no share in his Kingdom.  1 corinthians 6:9



When god states those words from his own mouth, then I will listen. But a little man like you claiming to speak the mind of god is no concern of mine.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Delta4Embassy said:


> 'As defined by..' yes. APA doesn't define psychology world-wide thankfully.



"Psychology as a science is just slightly less legitimate than astrology." - Uncensored2008


----------



## GISMYS

Uncensored2008 said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bottomline=== GOD HAS THE FINAL WORD NOT little man!!!!===Dont you know that those doing such things have no share in the Kingdom of God? Dont fool yourselves. Those who live immoral lives, who are idol worshipers, adulterers or homosexualswill have no share in his Kingdom.  1 corinthians 6:9
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When god states those words from his own mouth, then I will listen. But a little man like you claiming to speak the mind of god is no concern of mine.
Click to expand...


GOD'S WORD ON SICK SEXUAL PERVERSION=OR WILL YOU COMPOUND YOUR SIN BY TRYING TO DENY GOD'S WORD ""IS"" GOD'S WORD??===God let go of them and let them do all these evil things, so that even their women turned against Gods natural plan for them and indulged in sex sin with each other.  27 And the men, instead of having normal sex relationships with women, burned with lust for each other, men doing shameful things with other men and, as a result, getting paid within their own souls with the penalty they so richly deserved. ROMANS 1:26-28


----------



## Uncensored2008

bodecea said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aren't you a self-proclaimed member of a hate group?
> 
> Remind me again -- what did your avatar used to be?
> 
> 
> 
> It used to be what it is now and you made the same stupid or dishonest mistake. Considering homosexuality abnormal isn't hate no matter how badly you want it to be. It makes you the hater. Haters insult, slander, attempt intimidation and propagandize.
> 
> *You are what you hate*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed.
Click to expand...


So then, you're George W. Bush, shortbus?


----------



## GISMYS

Parents need to have high moral standards!!!! Do you??


----------



## Katzndogz

Toro said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> The American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973 only after years of political pressure from gay activists. The American Psychiatric association board of trustees passed this decision followed by a statement which listed among the reasons for their decision as changing social norms and growing gay rights activism . So basically, a scientific institution was coerced into changing a scientific opinion or classification due to political pressure !
> 
> Removing homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses was not triggered by some scientific breakthrough.  There was no new fact or set of facts that stimulated this major change.  Rather, it was the simple reality that gay people started to kick up a fuss.
> 
> In subsequent years the APA has become so politicized , that it has lost any credibility as a Scientific organization and in the words of one former APA President it is totally "Beholden to the Gay Rights Movement"
> 
> Myself and many others , who for fear of reprisals remain silent believe that Homosexuality is and always has been a Mental Disorder and Homosexuals should not be deterred from seeking Psychological / Psychiatric Help.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Medical sciences evolve.  At one time, leeching and bloodletting were considered good treatments for a whole raft of ailments.  Psychology is no different.
> 
> As our understanding of medical and psychological conditions improves, so does our diagnoses.
Click to expand...


That's why pedophilia is no longer a mental illness but is now classified as a sexual orientation.


----------



## Vandalshandle

I would ask, "Is homophobia a mental disorder?", but I already know the answer. But, cheer up. Phobias of all kinds can be treated.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Vandalshandle said:


> I would ask, "Is homophobia a mental disorder?", but I already know the answer. But, cheer up. Phobias of all kinds can be treated.



"Homophobia" is a derogatory term coined to slander opponents of a particular political agenda.

The word has no more meaning than "****" or "beaner."  It is a word tossed about by bigots in an effort to silence opposition voices.


----------



## Barb

Uncensored2008 said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would ask, "Is homophobia a mental disorder?", but I already know the answer. But, cheer up. Phobias of all kinds can be treated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Homophobia" is a derogatory term coined to slander opponents of a particular political agenda.
> 
> The word has no more meaning than "****" or "beaner."  It is a word tossed about by bigots in an effort to silence opposition voices.
Click to expand...


I'm going to have to go look it up, but I'm almost certain that the term homophobia was used (minted) as a defense in a pretty high profile murder case, the one murdered was a gay man.


----------



## Barb

Murder and the Reasonable Man: Passion and Fear in the Criminal Courtroom - Cynthia Lee - Google Books 

It was called "Gay (or homosexual) panic disorder," in the 1920's, by Dr. E. Kempf, in _the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders_ in 1952, and in a study conducted by a Henry Adams, there was,* exclusively*, penile erection in those men in the study who self-identified as hostile to homosexuals. 

Judge Rejects 'Gay Panic' As Defense in Murder Case - NYTimes.com 



> ''It is a desperate defense, to begin with,'' said Nanci Clarence, a criminal defense lawyer in San Francisco who has worked on many cases involving gays as victims and witnesses. ''You are asking jurors to buy the notion that internalistic homophobia can be used to justify killing. That's a lot to bite off.''
> 
> Mr. McKinney, 22, has confessed to killing Mr. Shepard, and prosecutors who have charged him with first-degree murder say they will seek the death penalty.
> 
> But in opening statements last week, his lawyer, Jason Tangeman, told the jury that Mr. McKinney's ''five-minute emotional rage'' against Mr. Shepard followed advances that reminded Mr. McKinney of homosexual abuse he had suffered as a child. Therefore, Mr. Tangeman argued, his client deserves no more than a conviction for manslaughter.
> 
> Legal experts say efforts by lawyers to mount such a defense have grown in recent years out of need, as society has become more tolerant.
> 
> Beatrice Dohrn, legal director of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, a gay advocacy group in New York, said lawyers historically could win lighter sentences, even acquittals, for people accused of violent crimes against gays simply by playing to a jury's homophobic bias.



And what did McKinney do to Sam Shepherd? 

Gay Man Dies From Attack, Fanning Outrage and Debate - NYTimes.com 



> By JAMES BROOKE
> Published: October 13, 1998
> FORT COLLINS, Colo., Oct. 12 Matthew Shepard, the gay college student who was kidnapped, robbed and pistol-whipped, died here today, five days after he was rescued from a Wyoming ranch where he had been left tied to a fence for 18 hours in near-freezing temperatures.
> 
> His death, announced at the Poudre Valley Hospital here, fanned the outrage that followed word of the attack, spawning vigils, producing calls for Federal hate-crimes legislation from President Clinton and fueling debates over such laws in a host of Western states, including Wyoming, that have resisted them.
> 
> In places from Denver to the University of Maryland, people turned out to mourn the soft-spoken 21-year-old who became an overnight symbol of deadly violence against gay people after he was found dangling from the fence by a passerby.
> 
> Russell A. Henderson, 21, and Aaron J. McKinney, 22, were charged with attempted murder and are expected to face first-degree murder charges that could bring the death penalty. Their girlfriends, Chasity V. Pasley, 20, and Kristen L. Price, 18, were charged as accessories.


----------



## DGS49

"Homophobia" is a nonsense term coined by Liberals to try to demonize those with traditional views about homosexual sodomy.  It is analogous to the various "[blank]-denier" names they use for others with whom they disagree.

Anyone taking seriously the Bible, the Torah, the Quran, the Book of Mormon, and a host of other historical global religious guiding texts is taught (and generally believes) that homosexual acts are violative of the "Natural Law," and are thus to be shunned.

An insignificant number of people hate homosexuals and nobody fears them (a phobia is an irrational fear), but the Homosexual Lobby seeks to perpetuate the myths of hate and fear, because those emotions, if true, could serve to cement their VICTIM status in our culture.  How often in this very thread have accusations been made of hate and fear, when all that was expressed was a perfectly normal revulsion directed at one or more forms of homosexual sodomy?

I never "hated" my father-in-law (may he rest in peace), but I was nauseated by the fact that he used to eat tripe.  Neither do I hate homosexuals, though I am nauseated by the thought of them buggering one another (and worse).  More poignantly, I do not hate adulterers (I know several of them), but I find their conduct disgusting and repulsive.

But homosexuals want to deny us the right to condemn their conduct, because they want to be identified by their STATUS as an AGGRIEVED MINORITY, like "Black" people, "Hispanics," and "Wimmin."  If we criticize their BEHAVIOR as "immoral" or "sinful," there really is no defense.

I ain't buying it.  Go ahead, call me a "homophobe"; it is a nonsense "insult," meaningless to anyone with a three-digit IQ.  Call me a "hater," you are only branding yourself an idiot.

Who knows, if Homosexuality had never been re-classified as "normal" (excluse my over-simplification), maybe the AIDS epidemic never would have spread to the extent it did.  Saved us a lotta fuckin money.


----------



## Vox

it is a deviation.

not necessarily mental, but behavioral.

it is also multifactorial - meaning there is no single cause, as, for example, for mumps, which is always caused by a virus.

there is no single "virus" which leads into practice of homosexuality.

for some it is disbalance of hormones experienced in utero, for the others - after being born, for yet others - it is a result of early abuse by a homosexual pedophile predator which preconditions the victims behavior, for yet another - it is a choice after failed hetero relationships and experimentation with the same sex.

for yet others - it can be different combinations of the all of the above.


can it be a singled psychiatric disorder, which means a disbalance of mediators in the brain ( which all psychiatric illnesses are) and all the factors I mentioned above simply lead to this disbalance - we do not know.


----------



## GISMYS

GOD HAS THE FINAL WORD NOT little man!!!!===Dont you know that those doing such things have no share in the Kingdom of God? Dont fool yourselves. Those who live immoral lives, who are idol worshipers, adulterers or homosexualswill have no share in his Kingdom. 1 corinthians 6:9


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Vox said:


> it is a deviation.
> 
> not necessarily mental, but behavioral.
> 
> it is also multifactorial - meaning there is no single cause, as, for example, for mumps, which is always caused by a virus.
> 
> there is no single "virus" which leads into practice of homosexuality.
> 
> for some it is disbalance of hormones experienced in utero, for the others - after being born, for yet others - it is a result of early abuse by a homosexual pedophile predator which preconditions the victims behavior, for yet another - it is a choice after failed hetero relationships and experimentation with the same sex.
> 
> for yet others - it can be different combinations of the all of the above.
> 
> 
> can it be a singled psychiatric disorder, which means a disbalance of mediators in the brain ( which all psychiatric illnesses are) and all the factors I mentioned above simply lead to this disbalance - we do not know.



I'm unconvinced homosexual, heterosexuality, or bisexuality even exist. I think as animals we're simply sexual. And given means and opportunity will 'dip our wicks; into anything and anyone warm n moist. The orientation definitinos are man-made, and fairly new. Prior to their invention no one was identifying as exclusively one thing or another. 

They're better thought of as behaviours than orientations. Many animals exhibit homosexual behaviours (over 1500.) But whether that means they're actually homosexual like people might say they are is highly unlikely since we're all biologically hardwired to reproduce. And afaik, there's no advantage to being strictly homosexual in the animal kingdom and nature so why would such a thing evolve? Rather, these animals merely exhibit the behaviour which to our eyes reminds us of ourselves. But ultimately, they're just words and not absolute or objective realities.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Barb said:


> Murder and the Reasonable Man: Passion and Fear in the Criminal Courtroom - Cynthia Lee - Google Books
> 
> It was called "Gay (or homosexual) panic disorder," in the 1920's, by Dr. E. Kempf, in _the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders_ in 1952, and in a study conducted by a Henry Adams, there was,* exclusively*, penile erection in those men in the study who self-identified as hostile to homosexuals.
> 
> Judge Rejects 'Gay Panic' As Defense in Murder Case - NYTimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ''It is a desperate defense, to begin with,'' said Nanci Clarence, a criminal defense lawyer in San Francisco who has worked on many cases involving gays as victims and witnesses. ''You are asking jurors to buy the notion that internalistic homophobia can be used to justify killing. That's a lot to bite off.''
> 
> Mr. McKinney, 22, has confessed to killing Mr. Shepard, and prosecutors who have charged him with first-degree murder say they will seek the death penalty.
> 
> But in opening statements last week, his lawyer, Jason Tangeman, told the jury that Mr. McKinney's ''five-minute emotional rage'' against Mr. Shepard followed advances that reminded Mr. McKinney of homosexual abuse he had suffered as a child. Therefore, Mr. Tangeman argued, his client deserves no more than a conviction for manslaughter.
> 
> Legal experts say efforts by lawyers to mount such a defense have grown in recent years out of need, as society has become more tolerant.
> 
> Beatrice Dohrn, legal director of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, a gay advocacy group in New York, said lawyers historically could win lighter sentences, even acquittals, for people accused of violent crimes against gays simply by playing to a jury's homophobic bias.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what did McKinney do to Sam Shepherd?
> 
> Gay Man Dies From Attack, Fanning Outrage and Debate - NYTimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By JAMES BROOKE
> Published: October 13, 1998
> FORT COLLINS, Colo., Oct. 12 Matthew Shepard, the gay college student who was kidnapped, robbed and pistol-whipped, died here today, five days after he was rescued from a Wyoming ranch where he had been left tied to a fence for 18 hours in near-freezing temperatures.
> 
> His death, announced at the Poudre Valley Hospital here, fanned the outrage that followed word of the attack, spawning vigils, producing calls for Federal hate-crimes legislation from President Clinton and fueling debates over such laws in a host of Western states, including Wyoming, that have resisted them.
> 
> In places from Denver to the University of Maryland, people turned out to mourn the soft-spoken 21-year-old who became an overnight symbol of deadly violence against gay people after he was found dangling from the fence by a passerby.
> 
> Russell A. Henderson, 21, and Aaron J. McKinney, 22, were charged with attempted murder and are expected to face first-degree murder charges that could bring the death penalty. Their girlfriends, Chasity V. Pasley, 20, and Kristen L. Price, 18, were charged as accessories.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Irrelevant to the bigoted term "homophobia," that the left uses to cow opponents to their cultural war into submission.


----------



## GISMYS

Those that make the sick choice to live in sexual perversion BEST COUNT THE COST!! =RUINED LIVES,DEATH AND HELL!!!


----------



## Katzndogz

Animals are never homosexual.  If a male animal was, just hypothetically, attempting anal penetration is an exhibition of dominance having nothing at all to do with sexuality.  It is an invitation to fight.  Some animals when deprived of the opposite sex for very long periods of time will sublimate with some aspects of homosexual behavior.  Bulls for instance when deprived of cows for a long period will exhibit affection and courtship behavior to other bulls, but they don't want to mate with them.   Two bulls who have bonded will fight to the death over a cow.   Animals are driven more by instinct than emotion.

The danger in homosexuality doesn't come from homosexuals themselves which is pretty benign.   The danger is that once homosexuality becomes just another form of normal behavior, all other deviant behaviors become normal also.


----------



## Howey

Katzndogz said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> The American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973 only after years of political pressure from gay activists. The American Psychiatric association board of trustees passed this decision followed by a statement which listed among the reasons for their decision as changing social norms and growing gay rights activism . So basically, a scientific institution was coerced into changing a scientific opinion or classification due to political pressure !
> 
> Removing homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses was not triggered by some scientific breakthrough.  There was no new fact or set of facts that stimulated this major change.  Rather, it was the simple reality that gay people started to kick up a fuss.
> 
> In subsequent years the APA has become so politicized , that it has lost any credibility as a Scientific organization and in the words of one former APA President it is totally "Beholden to the Gay Rights Movement"
> 
> Myself and many others , who for fear of reprisals remain silent believe that Homosexuality is and always has been a Mental Disorder and Homosexuals should not be deterred from seeking Psychological / Psychiatric Help.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Medical sciences evolve.  At one time, leeching and bloodletting were considered good treatments for a whole raft of ailments.  Psychology is no different.
> 
> As our understanding of medical and psychological conditions improves, so does our diagnoses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's why pedophilia is no longer a mental illness but is now classified as a sexual orientation.
Click to expand...


You ignorant dumbfuck. I'll bet Rush told you that, huh?



> A mainstream Christian news site and a number of smaller, right-wing blogs published stories this week alleging that the American Psychiatric Association, or APA, had classified pedophilia as a sexual orientation.
> 
> "Just as the APA declared homosexuality an orientation under tremendous pressure from homosexual activists in the mid-'70s, now, under pressure from pedophile activists, they have declared the desire for sex with children an orientation, too. It's not hard to see where this will lead. More children will become sexual prey," said an article in Charisma News, a Christian media organization, quoting "cultural expert" Sandy Rios, a Fox News contributor and talking head for the anti-gay American Family Association's radio station.
> 
> The article quickly went viral, garnering over 100,000 Facebook shares within 24 hours of being published and lighting up the right-wing blogosphere. Among many bloggers and commenters, the shared sentiment was that this was a logical progression from the normalization of homosexuality that began in the 1960's.
> 
> The only problem is, the report wasn't true. The APA appears to have made a seemingly small mistake that set off a rapid chain reaction of confusion and hate.
> 
> In a text discussion of changes it made to the way it refers to sexually deviant behaviors in its updated Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM, for short), the APA accidentally called pedophilia a "sexual orientation." Conservative media outlets and pundits pounced on the statement and disseminated it on blogs and social networks.
> 
> The APA issued a statement to the press on Thursday, saying it had acted in "error," and clarifying that the only difference in how pedophilia is referred to from the last DSM is that "the disorder name was changed from 'pedophilia' to 'pedophilic disorder'" in order to "maintain consistency with the chapters other disorder listings."


----------



## Vox

Delta4Embassy said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is a deviation.
> 
> not necessarily mental, but behavioral.
> 
> it is also multifactorial - meaning there is no single cause, as, for example, for mumps, which is always caused by a virus.
> 
> there is no single "virus" which leads into practice of homosexuality.
> 
> for some it is disbalance of hormones experienced in utero, for the others - after being born, for yet others - it is a result of early abuse by a homosexual pedophile predator which preconditions the victims behavior, for yet another - it is a choice after failed hetero relationships and experimentation with the same sex.
> 
> for yet others - it can be different combinations of the all of the above.
> 
> 
> can it be a singled psychiatric disorder, which means a disbalance of mediators in the brain ( which all psychiatric illnesses are) and all the factors I mentioned above simply lead to this disbalance - we do not know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm unconvinced homosexual, heterosexuality, or bisexuality even exist. I think as animals we're simply sexual. And given means and opportunity will 'dip our wicks; into anything and anyone warm n moist. The orientation definitinos are man-made, and fairly new. Prior to their invention no one was identifying as exclusively one thing or another.
> 
> They're better thought of as behaviours than orientations. Many animals exhibit homosexual behaviours (over 1500.) But whether that means they're actually homosexual like people might say they are is highly unlikely since we're all biologically hardwired to reproduce. And afaik, there's no advantage to being strictly homosexual in the animal kingdom and nature so why would such a thing evolve? Rather, these animals merely exhibit the behaviour which to our eyes reminds us of ourselves. But ultimately, they're just words and not absolute or objective realities.
Click to expand...


I actually AGREE with you.

technically speaking humans can experience orgasms and direct their affection at anything, if not socially restricted.


----------



## Barb

Uncensored2008 said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Murder and the Reasonable Man: Passion and Fear in the Criminal Courtroom - Cynthia Lee - Google Books
> 
> It was called "Gay (or homosexual) panic disorder," in the 1920's, by Dr. E. Kempf, in _the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders_ in 1952, and in a study conducted by a Henry Adams, there was,* exclusively*, penile erection in those men in the study who self-identified as hostile to homosexuals.
> 
> Judge Rejects 'Gay Panic' As Defense in Murder Case - NYTimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ''It is a desperate defense, to begin with,'' said Nanci Clarence, a criminal defense lawyer in San Francisco who has worked on many cases involving gays as victims and witnesses. ''You are asking jurors to buy the notion that internalistic homophobia can be used to justify killing. That's a lot to bite off.''
> 
> Mr. McKinney, 22, has confessed to killing Mr. Shepard, and prosecutors who have charged him with first-degree murder say they will seek the death penalty.
> 
> But in opening statements last week, his lawyer, Jason Tangeman, told the jury that Mr. McKinney's ''five-minute emotional rage'' against Mr. Shepard followed advances that reminded Mr. McKinney of homosexual abuse he had suffered as a child. Therefore, Mr. Tangeman argued, his client deserves no more than a conviction for manslaughter.
> 
> Legal experts say efforts by lawyers to mount such a defense have grown in recent years out of need, as society has become more tolerant.
> 
> Beatrice Dohrn, legal director of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, a gay advocacy group in New York, said lawyers historically could win lighter sentences, even acquittals, for people accused of violent crimes against gays simply by playing to a jury's homophobic bias.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what did McKinney do to Sam Shepherd?
> 
> Gay Man Dies From Attack, Fanning Outrage and Debate - NYTimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By JAMES BROOKE
> Published: October 13, 1998
> FORT COLLINS, Colo., Oct. 12 Matthew Shepard, the gay college student who was kidnapped, robbed and pistol-whipped, died here today, five days after he was rescued from a Wyoming ranch where he had been left tied to a fence for 18 hours in near-freezing temperatures.
> 
> His death, announced at the Poudre Valley Hospital here, fanned the outrage that followed word of the attack, spawning vigils, producing calls for Federal hate-crimes legislation from President Clinton and fueling debates over such laws in a host of Western states, including Wyoming, that have resisted them.
> 
> In places from Denver to the University of Maryland, people turned out to mourn the soft-spoken 21-year-old who became an overnight symbol of deadly violence against gay people after he was found dangling from the fence by a passerby.
> 
> Russell A. Henderson, 21, and Aaron J. McKinney, 22, were charged with attempted murder and are expected to face first-degree murder charges that could bring the death penalty. Their girlfriends, Chasity V. Pasley, 20, and Kristen L. Price, 18, were charged as accessories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Irrelevant to the* bigoted *term "homophobia,*" that the left uses to cow opponents to their cultural war into submission.
Click to expand...




> ''It is a desperate defense, to begin with,'' said Nanci Clarence, a criminal defense lawyer in San Francisco who has worked on many cases involving gays as victims and witnesses. *''You are asking jurors to buy the notion that internalistic homophobia can be used to justify killing.* That's a lot to bite off.''


----------



## GISMYS

YOU COMPOUND YOUR SIN OF SICK SEXUAL PERVERSION BY TRYING TO DENY THE VERY HOLY WORD OF GOD!!!= NOT VERY SMART AT ALL!!! THINK!!! Leviticus 18:22
 22 "`Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."
 Leviticus 20:13. "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
 9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

 Romans 1:25-27
 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-- who is forever praised. Amen.
 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.
 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
 Genesis 19:1-29 says God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because of homosexuality. It stinks in the nostrils of God. Genesis 13:13 identify the men of Sodom as exceedingly wicked sinners. Genesis 18:20 says that the sin of Sodom is "very grievous." Genesis 18:23 adds emphasis to the portrayal of the inhabitants of Sodom as "wicked." Genesis 18:24-33 shows that God could not find even 10 righteous souls in Sodom. The perverts who inhabited Sodom, even wanted to rape God's Angels who had come to Sodom to rescue Lot.


----------



## Chaussette

People against homosexuals have a mental disorder. Like wtf is it of their business who's having sex with whom? Geez, really disturbed homophobes. Get a grip.


----------



## Nosmo King

GISMYS said:


> YOU COMPOUND YOUR SIN OF SICK SEXUAL PERVERSION BY TRYING TO DENY THE VERY HOLY WORD OF GOD!!!= NOT VERY SMART AT ALL!!! THINK!!! Leviticus 18:22
> 22 "`Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."
> Leviticus 20:13. "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
> 
> 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
> 9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
> 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
> 
> Romans 1:25-27
> 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-- who is forever praised. Amen.
> 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.
> 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
> Genesis 19:1-29 says God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because of homosexuality. It stinks in the nostrils of God. Genesis 13:13 identify the men of Sodom as exceedingly wicked sinners. Genesis 18:20 says that the sin of Sodom is "very grievous." Genesis 18:23 adds emphasis to the portrayal of the inhabitants of Sodom as "wicked." Genesis 18:24-33 shows that God could not find even 10 righteous souls in Sodom. The perverts who inhabited Sodom, even wanted to rape God's Angels who had come to Sodom to rescue Lot.



Do you prescribe all Biblical laws to be followed by contemporary American society?  Do you stringently follow each of the laws set down in the Bible?

Or, as I suspect, are you citing Biblical law to justify your own hatreds and fears?


----------



## MaryL

The OP makes a valid point. Medical doctors used to bow to the tobacco industry  and either pulled  their punches or endorsed smoking as "healthy". Despite of all the evidence from either science or  common sense. Homosexuality has become the cause celebre like the tobacco industry used to be, god knows why. We will see how this farce plays out. The truth will out, as they say.


----------



## Iceweasel

Chaussette said:


> People against homosexuals have a mental disorder. Like wtf is it of their business who's having sex with whom? Geez, really disturbed homophobes. Get a grip.


Wow, no one ever said that before. Do you have a website?


----------



## auditor0007

GreenBean said:


> The American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973 only after years of political pressure from gay activists. The American Psychiatric association board of trustees passed this decision followed by a statement which listed among the reasons for their decision as changing social norms and growing gay rights activism . So basically, a scientific institution was coerced into changing a scientific opinion or classification due to political pressure !
> 
> Removing homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses was not triggered by some scientific breakthrough.  There was no new fact or set of facts that stimulated this major change.  Rather, it was the simple reality that gay people started to kick up a fuss.
> 
> In subsequent years the APA has become so politicized , that it has lost any credibility as a Scientific organization and in the words of one former APA President it is totally "Beholden to the Gay Rights Movement"
> 
> Myself and many others , who for fear of reprisals remain silent believe that Homosexuality is and always has been a Mental Disorder and Homosexuals should not be deterred from seeking Psychological / Psychiatric Help.



I believe that thinking that homosexuality is a mental disorder is a mental disorder.  You see, if you remove religion completely, then homosexuality is just something different from the norm, very much comparable to being left handed.  Of course we do not ostracize people for being left handed.  Oh wait, we did do that for quite some time.  Oh, but that had to do with religion, didn't it, when the nuns would whack the hand of a left handed person to force them to use their right hand because the nuns thought being left handed meant you were possessed by the Devil?


----------



## Delta4Embassy

I don't believe homosexuality even exists. It's a made-up term used to persecute those who display a simple natural variation of sexuality. I don't believe in hetereosexuality either. There's just 'sexuality.' Males and females who prefer romantic and sexual relationships with their own sex have occured throughout human history. The terms though are relatively new. One of the less noble accomplishments of human beings is the inclination to categorize everything. For whatever reason, rather than viewing ourselves as one species, we seem to need to break ourselves up into categories. Free/Oppressed, rich/poor, democrat/republican, straight/gay are just a few examples. But these are all just ideas as concrete as fairy dust but not as pretty.


----------



## Iceweasel

Delta4Embassy said:


> I don't believe homosexuality even exists. It's a made-up term used to persecute those who display a simple natural variation of sexuality. I don't believe in hetereosexuality either. There's just 'sexuality.' Males and females who prefer romantic and sexual relationships with their own sex have occured throughout human history. The terms though are relatively new. One of the less noble accomplishments of human beings is the inclination to categorize everything. For whatever reason, rather than viewing ourselves as one species, we seem to need to break ourselves up into categories. Free/Oppressed, rich/poor, democrat/republican, straight/gay are just a few examples. But these are all just ideas as concrete as fairy dust but not as pretty.


You continue to amaze. Having been in high school gym class, military, local gyms, I've been around a lot of naked guys. Never once did I see anything tempting. With women, not so much. I suppose you feel like the animal kingdom operates on preconceived societal norms as well.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Delta4Embassy said:


> I don't believe homosexuality even exists. It's a made-up term used to persecute those who display a simple natural variation of sexuality. I don't believe in hetereosexuality either. There's just 'sexuality.' Males and females who prefer romantic and sexual relationships with their own sex have occured throughout human history. The terms though are relatively new. One of the less noble accomplishments of human beings is the inclination to categorize everything. For whatever reason, rather than viewing ourselves as one species, we seem to need to break ourselves up into categories. Free/Oppressed, rich/poor, democrat/republican, straight/gay are just a few examples. But these are all just ideas as concrete as fairy dust but not as pretty.



Good point.

We see in prisons that straight men become homosexual very quickly. 

Biologically, we are heterosexual. We have a drive to procreate and ensure the continuation of our genetic code. IF such a drive is absent, then it is probably a result of millions of years of evolotion that triggers genetic code to end the individual genetic line. Homosexuality is an evolutionary process to remove faulty code from the gene pool.


----------



## Katzndogz

Uncensored2008 said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe homosexuality even exists. It's a made-up term used to persecute those who display a simple natural variation of sexuality. I don't believe in hetereosexuality either. There's just 'sexuality.' Males and females who prefer romantic and sexual relationships with their own sex have occured throughout human history. The terms though are relatively new. One of the less noble accomplishments of human beings is the inclination to categorize everything. For whatever reason, rather than viewing ourselves as one species, we seem to need to break ourselves up into categories. Free/Oppressed, rich/poor, democrat/republican, straight/gay are just a few examples. But these are all just ideas as concrete as fairy dust but not as pretty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good point.
> 
> We see in prisons that straight men become homosexual very quickly.
> 
> Biologically, we are heterosexual. We have a drive to procreate and ensure the continuation of our genetic code. IF such a drive is absent, then it is probably a result of millions of years of evolotion that triggers genetic code to end the individual genetic line. Homosexuality is an evolutionary process to remove faulty code from the gene pool.
Click to expand...


Men in prison do not become homosexual.  They may engage in homosexual behavior but they do not become homosexual.   When they are out of prison they do not seek out other men to have sex with, nor do they form emotional attachments and fall in "love" with the men they have sex with.


----------



## bodecea

auditor0007 said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> The American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973 only after years of political pressure from gay activists. The American Psychiatric association board of trustees passed this decision followed by a statement which listed among the reasons for their decision as changing social norms and growing gay rights activism . So basically, a scientific institution was coerced into changing a scientific opinion or classification due to political pressure !
> 
> Removing homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses was not triggered by some scientific breakthrough.  There was no new fact or set of facts that stimulated this major change.  Rather, it was the simple reality that gay people started to kick up a fuss.
> 
> In subsequent years the APA has become so politicized , that it has lost any credibility as a Scientific organization and in the words of one former APA President it is totally "Beholden to the Gay Rights Movement"
> 
> Myself and many others , who for fear of reprisals remain silent believe that Homosexuality is and always has been a Mental Disorder and Homosexuals should not be deterred from seeking Psychological / Psychiatric Help.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that thinking that homosexuality is a mental disorder is a mental disorder.  You see, if you remove religion completely, then homosexuality is just something different from the norm, very much comparable to being left handed.  Of course we do not ostracize people for being left handed.  Oh wait, we did do that for quite some time.  Oh, but that had to do with religion, didn't it, when the nuns would whack the hand of a left handed person to force them to use their right hand because the nuns thought being left handed meant you were possessed by the Devil?
Click to expand...


Remember when religion taught us that left-handed was evil.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Katzndogz said:


> Men in prison do not become homosexual.  They may engage in homosexual behavior but they do not become homosexual.   When they are out of prison they do not seek out other men to have sex with, nor do they form emotional attachments and fall in "love" with the men they have sex with.



I think that was the point.

Homosexuality is a behavior, not a true orientation.


----------



## Uncensored2008

bodecea said:


> Remember when religion taught us that left-handed was evil.



No, but I remember when leftists started using this straw man....


----------



## Katzndogz

Uncensored2008 said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Men in prison do not become homosexual.  They may engage in homosexual behavior but they do not become homosexual.   When they are out of prison they do not seek out other men to have sex with, nor do they form emotional attachments and fall in "love" with the men they have sex with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that was the point.
> 
> Homosexuality is a behavior, not a true orientation.
Click to expand...


Homosexuality is a behavior, homosexuals, those who are only attracted to members of their own sex is an orientation, like pedophilia is an orientation.  They are attracted only to prepubescent minors, zoophiliacs are attracted only to animals, another orientation.  Homosexuality is an aberration benign in itself that becomes toxic when a significant percentage of the population consider it normal.


----------



## Katzndogz

Uncensored2008 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember when religion taught us that left-handed was evil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, but I remember when leftists started using this straw man....
Click to expand...


Religion never, at least in the last 60 or so years, thought being left handed was evil.  People taught children to be right handed because so much of what was used by hands, was geared towards right handed people.


----------



## Barb

Uncensored2008 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember when religion taught us that left-handed was evil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, but I remember when leftists started using this straw man....
Click to expand...


Really?

Left-handedness


----------



## GreenBean

Chaussette said:


> People against homosexuals have a mental disorder. Like wtf is it of their business who's having sex with whom? Geez, really disturbed homophobes. Get a grip.



*Further Proof of Homosexual Dementia*

Homosexual Serial Killers

Serial killers who are known to have been homosexual or bi-sexual is extremely high (over 43%), the total number of apprehended serial killers is too small to make 100% accurate statistically relevant statements , but homosexuals are certainly over represented 

Many of the most famous serial killers (e.g., Jeffrey Dahmer, Andrew Cunanan, John Wayne Gacy, etc.) were homosexuals

Given that less than 2% of adults are homosexuals (plus 1 to 2% who are bisexual), there should not be that many homosexuals among the total number of serial killers.

Conclusion : Homosexuals are Mentally Unstable in many facets - in addition to Pedophilia and a multitude of perversions and dementias they are also over represented among serial killers.  Basically they have a total indifference to Human Life when it gets in the way of their getting their rocks off nothing else matters - Not their own well being, not the well being of their neighbors, Children, and certainly not Society.  The number one / numero uno driving force behind their demented existence is sexual gratification ....*NOTHING ELSE MATTERS *


----------



## Chaussette

GreenBean said:


> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> People against homosexuals have a mental disorder. Like wtf is it of their business who's having sex with whom? Geez, really disturbed homophobes. Get a grip.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Further Proof of Homosexual Dementia*
> 
> Homosexual Serial Killers
> 
> *Serial killers who are known to have been homosexual or bi-sexual is extremely high (over 43%)*, the total number of apprehended serial killers is too small to make 100% accurate statistically relevant statements , but homosexuals are certainly over represented
> 
> Many of the most famous serial killers (e.g., Jeffrey Dahmer, Andrew Cunanan, John Wayne Gacy, etc.) were homosexuals
> 
> Given that less than 2% of adults are homosexuals (plus 1 to 2% who are bisexual), there should not be that many homosexuals among the total number of serial killers.
> 
> Conclusion : Homosexuals are Mentally Unstable in many facets - in addition to Pedophilia and a multitude of perversions and dementias they are also over represented among serial killers.  Basically they have a total indifference to Human Life when it gets in the way of their getting their rocks off nothing else matters - Not their own well being, not the well being of their neighbors, Children, and certainly not Society.  The number one / numero uno driving force behind their demented existence is sexual gratification ....*NOTHING ELSE MATTERS *
Click to expand...


So by your account, 57% of serial killers are hetero. Fuck are you an idiot.


----------



## GreenBean

Chaussette said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> People against homosexuals have a mental disorder. Like wtf is it of their business who's having sex with whom? Geez, really disturbed homophobes. Get a grip.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Further Proof of Homosexual Dementia*
> 
> Homosexual Serial Killers
> 
> *Serial killers who are known to have been homosexual or bi-sexual is extremely high (over 43%)*, the total number of apprehended serial killers is too small to make 100% accurate statistically relevant statements , but homosexuals are certainly over represented
> 
> Many of the most famous serial killers (e.g., Jeffrey Dahmer, Andrew Cunanan, John Wayne Gacy, etc.) were homosexuals
> 
> Given that less than 2% of adults are homosexuals (plus 1 to 2% who are bisexual), there should not be that many homosexuals among the total number of serial killers.
> 
> Conclusion : Homosexuals are Mentally Unstable in many facets - in addition to Pedophilia and a multitude of perversions and dementias they are also over represented among serial killers.  Basically they have a total indifference to Human Life when it gets in the way of their getting their rocks off nothing else matters - Not their own well being, not the well being of their neighbors, Children, and certainly not Society.  The number one / numero uno driving force behind their demented existence is sexual gratification ....*NOTHING ELSE MATTERS *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So by your account, 57% of serial killers are hetero. Fuck are you an idiot.
Click to expand...


   WOW !!!   Let me ask you - *does Fuzzy Logic Tickle ?  *

Yup that is Correct - considering Heterosexual People comprise approximately 95% of the population , and Homosexuals comprise less than 5% - I would say that's more than just a statistical anomaly   





> Fuck are *you* an idiot.


----------



## Chaussette

GreenBean said:


> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Further Proof of Homosexual Dementia*
> 
> Homosexual Serial Killers
> 
> *Serial killers who are known to have been homosexual or bi-sexual is extremely high (over 43%)*, the total number of apprehended serial killers is too small to make 100% accurate statistically relevant statements , but homosexuals are certainly over represented
> 
> Many of the most famous serial killers (e.g., Jeffrey Dahmer, Andrew Cunanan, John Wayne Gacy, etc.) were homosexuals
> 
> Given that less than 2% of adults are homosexuals (plus 1 to 2% who are bisexual), there should not be that many homosexuals among the total number of serial killers.
> 
> Conclusion : Homosexuals are Mentally Unstable in many facets - in addition to Pedophilia and a multitude of perversions and dementias they are also over represented among serial killers.  Basically they have a total indifference to Human Life when it gets in the way of their getting their rocks off nothing else matters - Not their own well being, not the well being of their neighbors, Children, and certainly not Society.  The number one / numero uno driving force behind their demented existence is sexual gratification ....*NOTHING ELSE MATTERS *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So by your account, 57% of serial killers are hetero. Fuck are you an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WOW !!!   Let me ask you - *does Fuzzy Logic Tickle ?  *
> 
> Yup that is Correct - considering Heterosexual People comprise approximately 95% of the population , and Homosexuals comprise less than 5% - I would say that's more than just a statistical anomaly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck are *you* an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Hetero serial killer have killed WAAAAYYYYY more people than gays or bis. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Dick Cheney... Fuck, are you an ass.


----------



## GreenBean

Chaussette said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> So by your account, 57% of serial killers are hetero. Fuck are you an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WOW !!!   Let me ask you - *does Fuzzy Logic Tickle ?  *
> 
> Yup that is Correct - considering Heterosexual People comprise approximately 95% of the population , and Homosexuals comprise less than 5% - I would say that's more than just a statistical anomaly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck are *you* an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hetero serial killer have killed WAAAAYYYYY more people than gays or bis. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Dick Cheney... Fuck, are you an ass.
Click to expand...


Stop grasping at straws , they probably tickle as  much as your Fuzzy Logic, actually your fuzzy Logic is tickling me - I gotta laugh every time you post more of your lunacy

Hitler, Stalin, Obama, Pol Pot are not Serial Killers - they are mass murderers and potential mass murderers - they did not kill for sexual gratification - *totally different demon*

Fuck, are *you* an ass.


----------



## Indeependent

Homosexuality is a bio-chemical aberration.
It does NOT make a person evil.
It does NOT make a person less intelligent.
It does NOT make a person less moral.


----------



## GISMYS

Indeependent said:


> Homosexuality is a bio-chemical aberration.
> It does NOT make a person evil.
> It does NOT make a person less intelligent.
> It does NOT make a person less moral.



THE """CHOICE""" TO LIVE IN SICK SEXUAL PERVERSION IS AN ABOMINATION !!!!!!GOD HAS THE FINAL WORD NOT little man!!!!===Dont you know that those doing such things have no share in the Kingdom of God? Dont fool yourselves. Those who live immoral lives, who are idol worshipers, adulterers or homosexualswill have no share in his Kingdom. 1 corinthians 6:9


----------



## Indeependent

GISMYS said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality is a bio-chemical aberration.
> It does NOT make a person evil.
> It does NOT make a person less intelligent.
> It does NOT make a person less moral.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THE """CHOICE""" TO LIVE IN SICK SEXUAL PERVERSION IS AN ABOMINATION !!!!!!GOD HAS THE FINAL WORD NOT little man!!!!===Dont you know that those doing such things have no share in the Kingdom of God? Dont fool yourselves. Those who live immoral lives, who are idol worshipers, adulterers or homosexualswill have no share in his Kingdom. 1 corinthians 6:9
Click to expand...


I am providing the Torah perspective.
Human being are conceived with the ultimate frailty of death and many other frailties in between conception and death.
The Jewish Scripture is devoid of verses demonizing the homosexual inclination; God only judges male/male homosexual behavior.


----------



## Chaussette

Worrying about homosexuals is a mental disorder.


----------



## GreenBean

Indeependent said:


> Homosexuality is a bio-chemical aberration.
> It does NOT make a person evil.
> It does NOT make a person less intelligent.
> It does NOT make a person less moral.



"Homosexuality is a bio-chemical aberration."
That's a theory only - unproven 

"It does NOT make a person evil."
Not all the Time- but statistically - their propensity for evil acts are horrifying

"It does NOT make a person less intelligent."
If I were to use only the intelligence of the posters on this Forum - your declaration would be blown {No Pun} out of the water.  However - Historically and Societal wise - yes that is correct.

"It does NOT make a person less moral"
Complete and Utter Nonsense -  Sodomy and Homosexuality are as immoral as you can get.



> Homosexual propaganda has been around for many years, the spark that ignited their present day stranglehold however was a brilliant book **After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays ...
> 
> This powerfully persuasive, perverse and popular book within the gay community presents an impassioned plea, a call to arms if you will for homosexual activists to implement an aggressive, concerted and organized campaign to mold public perceptions. The  book further lays out a blueprint, a methodology that has been rigidly implemented and enforced over the past 2 decades .....
> 
> *"All sexual morality should be abolished" (pages 64 to 67)*
> 
> Gay and Lesbian Media influences


----------



## Chaussette

GreenBean, why you so obsessed with gays?


----------



## GreenBean

GISMYS said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality is a bio-chemical aberration.
> It does NOT make a person evil.
> It does NOT make a person less intelligent.
> It does NOT make a person less moral.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THE """CHOICE""" TO LIVE IN SICK SEXUAL PERVERSION IS AN ABOMINATION !!!!!!GOD HAS THE FINAL WORD NOT little man!!!!===Dont you know that those doing such things have no share in the Kingdom of God? Dont fool yourselves. Those who live immoral lives, who are idol worshipers, adulterers or homosexualswill have no share in his Kingdom. 1 corinthians 6:9
Click to expand...


I don't share your religious zeal ,  nor Independents who quotes Torah and Talmud  but by all sane rationales secular and non secular Sexual Perverts are IMMORAL and an abomination to nature.


----------



## Chaussette

GreenBean said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality is a bio-chemical aberration.
> It does NOT make a person evil.
> It does NOT make a person less intelligent.
> It does NOT make a person less moral.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THE """CHOICE""" TO LIVE IN SICK SEXUAL PERVERSION IS AN ABOMINATION !!!!!!GOD HAS THE FINAL WORD NOT little man!!!!===Don&#8217;t you know that those doing such things have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don&#8217;t fool yourselves. Those who live immoral lives, who are idol worshipers, adulterers or homosexuals&#8212;will have no share in his Kingdom. 1 corinthians 6:9
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't share your religious zeal ,  nor Independents who quotes Torah and Talmud  but by all sane rationales secular and non secular Sexual Perverts are IMMORAL and an abomination to nature.
Click to expand...


Actually, in nature there are a lot of cases of homosexuality. Now you know.


----------



## GISMYS

Chaussette said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> THE """CHOICE""" TO LIVE IN SICK SEXUAL PERVERSION IS AN ABOMINATION !!!!!!GOD HAS THE FINAL WORD NOT little man!!!!===Dont you know that those doing such things have no share in the Kingdom of God? Dont fool yourselves. Those who live immoral lives, who are idol worshipers, adulterers or homosexualswill have no share in his Kingdom. 1 corinthians 6:9
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't share your religious zeal ,  nor Independents who quotes Torah and Talmud  but by all sane rationales secular and non secular Sexual Perverts are IMMORAL and an abomination to nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, in nature there are a lot of cases of homosexuality. Know you know.
Click to expand...


YES!!! YOU WILL BELIEVE GOD'S TRUTH OR SATAN'S LIES!!! YOUR CHOICE!!!=====But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, evil men who push away the truth from them.  19 For the truth about God is known to them instinctively; God has put this knowledge in their hearts.  20 Since earliest times men have seen the earth and sky and all God made, and have known of his existence and great eternal power. So they will have no excuse when they stand before God at Judgment Day.

21 Yes, they knew about him all right, but they wouldnt admit it or worship him or even thank him for all his daily care. And after a while they began to think up silly ideas of what God was like and what he wanted them to do. The result was that their foolish minds became dark and confused.
So God let them go ahead into every sort of sex sin, and do whatever they wanted toyes, vile and sinful things with each others bodies.  25 Instead of believing what they knew was the truth about God, they deliberately chose to believe lies. So they prayed to the things God made, but wouldnt obey the blessed God who made these things.

26 That is why God let go of them and let them do all these evil things, so that even their women turned against Gods natural plan for them and indulged in sex sin with each other.  27 And the men, instead of having normal sex relationships with women, burned with lust for each other, men doing shameful things with other men and, as a result, getting paid within their own souls with the penalty they so richly deserved


----------



## Barb

GreenBean said:


> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> People against homosexuals have a mental disorder. Like wtf is it of their business who's having sex with whom? Geez, really disturbed homophobes. Get a grip.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Further Proof of Homosexual Dementia*
> 
> Homosexual Serial Killers
> 
> Serial killers who are known to have been homosexual or bi-sexual is extremely high (over 43%), the total number of apprehended serial killers is too small to make 100% accurate statistically relevant statements , but homosexuals are certainly over represented
> 
> Many of *the most famous* serial killers (e.g., Jeffrey Dahmer, Andrew Cunanan, John Wayne Gacy, etc.) were homosexuals
> 
> Given that less than 2% of adults are homosexuals (plus 1 to 2% who are bisexual), there should not be that many homosexuals among the total number of serial killers.
> 
> Conclusion : Homosexuals are Mentally Unstable in many facets - in addition to Pedophilia and a multitude of perversions and dementias they are also over represented among serial killers.  Basically they have a total indifference to Human Life when it gets in the way of their getting their rocks off nothing else matters - Not their own well being, not the well being of their neighbors, Children, and certainly not Society.  The number one / numero uno driving force behind their demented existence is sexual gratification ....*NOTHING ELSE MATTERS *
Click to expand...


Serial Killers -- How Many Are There? by Diane Dimond on Creators.com - A Syndicate Of Talent 



> "A very conservative estimate is that *there are between 35 and 50 active serial killers in the United States" at any given time*. Often, Douglas told me, they will, "kill two to three victims and then have a 'cooling-off' period between kills." That period can be days and in some cases (such as the BTK Strangler, Dennis Rader, convicted of killing 10 people from 1974 to 1991) even years."





> *Rader found all his victims in Kansas not far from the Wichita home he shared with his wife and two kids*. Rader, the president of his local church, knocked on his victim's doors, and they simply let him in.



With a # ranging between 35-50 serial killers at any given time, your "statistics" are disingenuous, at best. Your conclusions are specious, spurious - intentionally dishonest.


----------



## Vox

Chaussette said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> People against homosexuals have a mental disorder. Like wtf is it of their business who's having sex with whom? Geez, really disturbed homophobes. Get a grip.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Further Proof of Homosexual Dementia*
> 
> Homosexual Serial Killers
> 
> *Serial killers who are known to have been homosexual or bi-sexual is extremely high (over 43%)*, the total number of apprehended serial killers is too small to make 100% accurate statistically relevant statements , but homosexuals are certainly over represented
> 
> Many of the most famous serial killers (e.g., Jeffrey Dahmer, Andrew Cunanan, John Wayne Gacy, etc.) were homosexuals
> 
> Given that less than 2% of adults are homosexuals (plus 1 to 2% who are bisexual), there should not be that many homosexuals among the total number of serial killers.
> 
> Conclusion : Homosexuals are Mentally Unstable in many facets - in addition to Pedophilia and a multitude of perversions and dementias they are also over represented among serial killers.  Basically they have a total indifference to Human Life when it gets in the way of their getting their rocks off nothing else matters - Not their own well being, not the well being of their neighbors, Children, and certainly not Society.  The number one / numero uno driving force behind their demented existence is sexual gratification ....*NOTHING ELSE MATTERS *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So by your account, 57% of serial killers are hetero. Fuck are you an idiot.
Click to expand...


no, it is YOU who is an idiot.

there are not more than 4-5% of the homosexuals in the general population. The question is why their representation in the serial killers is 10 times ( sic!!!) higher than their representation in the general population?


----------



## Vox

Chaussette said:


> GreenBean, why you so obsessed with gays?



the question is - why YOU are so obsessed with them? out of the 100 posts of yours the vast majority is in defence of the homosexuality.
did you just come out of the closet?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Barb said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember when religion taught us that left-handed was evil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, but I remember when leftists started using this straw man....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> Left-handedness
Click to expand...


I don't know how old you are, but I really don't remember anything from the 1400's....

Of course if you ARE over 600 years old, maybe you actually are the devil?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Indeependent said:


> Homosexuality is a bio-chemical aberration.
> It does NOT make a person evil.
> It does NOT make a person less intelligent.
> It does NOT make a person less moral.



Where did you come up with this?

I know the whole "gay gene" failed and you may be desperate for a physical explanation, but this is a level of absurdity only an ignorant cur could make up.


----------



## Uncensored2008

GISMYS said:


> THE """CHOICE""" TO LIVE IN SICK SEXUAL PERVERSION IS AN ABOMINATION !!!!!!GOD HAS THE FINAL WORD NOT little man!!!!===Dont you know that those doing such things have no share in the Kingdom of God? Dont fool yourselves. Those who live immoral lives, who are idol worshipers, adulterers or homosexualswill have no share in his Kingdom. 1 corinthians 6:9



Would you do me a favor, and argue for the other side....


----------



## Iceweasel

Chaussette said:


> ... in nature there are a lot of cases of homosexuality. Now you know.


I've heard that but the examples given are inferior males in a Bonobo tribe or something with no chance for a mate. Are there examples where a male animal prefers sex with a male over a female?


----------



## Uncensored2008

GreenBean said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality is a bio-chemical aberration.
> It does NOT make a person evil.
> It does NOT make a person less intelligent.
> It does NOT make a person less moral.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Homosexuality is a bio-chemical aberration."
> That's a theory only - unproven
> 
> "It does NOT make a person evil."
> Not all the Time- but statistically - their propensity for evil acts are horrifying
> 
> "It does NOT make a person less intelligent."
> If I were to use only the intelligence of the posters on this Forum - your declaration would be blown {No Pun} out of the water.  However - Historically and Societal wise - yes that is correct.
> 
> "It does NOT make a person less moral"
> *Complete and Utter Nonsense -  Sodomy and Homosexuality are as immoral as you can get.
> *
Click to expand...


Why?

What difference does it make to you who others have sex with?


----------



## Katzndogz

Homosexuality is a perversion.  It is a benign perversion.  It doesn't hurt anyone and only affects the parties who are homosexual.  They aren't evil, they aren't less intelligent.  Gays are more tolerant of amorality among their own, but that isn't the same as immorality. 

Homosexuality only becomes toxic when considered normal behavior by the surrounding social structure.   It leads invariably to acceptance of any kind of perversions.  All pervesions.  Once depravity is a way of life, normal people who only want to live decent lives are the ones who are perverted.

At one time a woman who refused to engage in promiscous sex was considered a decent woman.  Now such women are sexually repressed.  There is something wrong with them, or they would be screwing anyone who came along, male or female.


----------



## GreenBean

Chaussette said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> THE """CHOICE""" TO LIVE IN SICK SEXUAL PERVERSION IS AN ABOMINATION !!!!!!GOD HAS THE FINAL WORD NOT little man!!!!===Don&#8217;t you know that those doing such things have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don&#8217;t fool yourselves. Those who live immoral lives, who are idol worshipers, adulterers or homosexuals&#8212;will have no share in his Kingdom. 1 corinthians 6:9
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't share your religious zeal ,  nor Independents who quotes Torah and Talmud  but by all sane rationales secular and non secular Sexual Perverts are IMMORAL and an abomination to nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, in nature there are a lot of cases of homosexuality. Now you know.
Click to expand...


Not Really, Gay apologists like to try and paint am image that defames the animal kingdom and link the actions of some beasts to homosexuality - the fact of the matter is our cohabitants of this planet lack the sentience that Human beings possess and when in      "heat"  will boink just about anything around.  A Statue,a pillow, your leg .... sometimes all it takes is the correct scent - pheromones.  And it has been demonstrated that most animals will attempt to mate with an inanimate object if it has the correct smell.

[ame=http://youtu.be/uJJ53OWlo58]WTF! A stupid cute dog Humps Grandma's Leg! crazy!! - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://youtu.be/Pl-A3TQwNhI]This moose loves ... a statue? - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://youtu.be/YXo4ADWY14o]Deer Humping statue Funny - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://youtu.be/rBC37i86Rm0]Deer Tries to Mate with Teenage Girl - YouTube[/ame]


I could probably come up with a hundred or so examples .  The fact of the matter is that attempting to link animals to human homosexuality is a distasteful insult to the animal Kingdom .


----------



## GISMYS

Are you a human or just a talking animal???


----------



## Indeependent

Uncensored2008 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality is a bio-chemical aberration.
> It does NOT make a person evil.
> It does NOT make a person less intelligent.
> It does NOT make a person less moral.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did you come up with this?
> 
> I know the whole "gay gene" failed and you may be desperate for a physical explanation, but this is a level of absurdity only an ignorant cur could make up.
Click to expand...


You like to argue for arguments sake?
Be precise with what you disagree with; no ad hominems as that is the sign of a weak mind.


----------



## GreenBean

Barb said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> People against homosexuals have a mental disorder. Like wtf is it of their business who's having sex with whom? Geez, really disturbed homophobes. Get a grip.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Further Proof of Homosexual Dementia*
> 
> Homosexual Serial Killers
> 
> Serial killers who are known to have been homosexual or bi-sexual is extremely high (over 43%), the total number of apprehended serial killers is too small to make 100% accurate statistically relevant statements , but homosexuals are certainly over represented
> 
> Many of *the most famous* serial killers (e.g., Jeffrey Dahmer, Andrew Cunanan, John Wayne Gacy, etc.) were homosexuals
> 
> Given that less than 2% of adults are homosexuals (plus 1 to 2% who are bisexual), there should not be that many homosexuals among the total number of serial killers.
> 
> Conclusion : Homosexuals are Mentally Unstable in many facets - in addition to Pedophilia and a multitude of perversions and dementias they are also over represented among serial killers.  Basically they have a total indifference to Human Life when it gets in the way of their getting their rocks off nothing else matters - Not their own well being, not the well being of their neighbors, Children, and certainly not Society.  The number one / numero uno driving force behind their demented existence is sexual gratification ....*NOTHING ELSE MATTERS *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Serial Killers -- How Many Are There? by Diane Dimond on Creators.com - A Syndicate Of Talent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "A very conservative estimate is that *there are between 35 and 50 active serial killers in the United States" at any given time*. Often, Douglas told me, they will, "kill two to three victims and then have a 'cooling-off' period between kills." That period can be days and in some cases (such as the BTK Strangler, Dennis Rader, convicted of killing 10 people from 1974 to 1991) even years."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Rader found all his victims in Kansas not far from the Wichita home he shared with his wife and two kids*. Rader, the president of his local church, knocked on his victim's doors, and they simply let him in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With a # ranging between 35-50 serial killers at any given time, your "statistics" are disingenuous, at best. Your conclusions are specious, spurious - intentionally dishonest.
Click to expand...


Barb, that post was intended for intelligent thinking people , not you.   But since you are intent on attempting to address it - let me repost a portion of it in hopes that something might miraculously get through.



> Serial killers who are known to have been homosexual or bi-sexual is extremely high (over 43%), the *total number of apprehended serial killers is too small to make 100% accurate statistically relevant statements ,* but homosexuals are certainly over represented



Or perhaps another language ...  comprendere ?.....capisce ? ... katanoo ? ....   verstehen ?

Does that clarify anything for you Hundin ?


----------



## Barb

GreenBean said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Further Proof of Homosexual Dementia*
> 
> Homosexual Serial Killers
> 
> Serial killers who are known to have been homosexual or bi-sexual is extremely high (over 43%), the total number of apprehended serial killers is too small to make 100% accurate statistically relevant statements , but homosexuals are certainly over represented
> 
> Many of *the most famous* serial killers (e.g., Jeffrey Dahmer, Andrew Cunanan, John Wayne Gacy, etc.) were homosexuals
> 
> Given that less than 2% of adults are homosexuals (plus 1 to 2% who are bisexual), there should not be that many homosexuals among the total number of serial killers.
> 
> Conclusion : Homosexuals are Mentally Unstable in many facets - in addition to Pedophilia and a multitude of perversions and dementias they are also over represented among serial killers.  Basically they have a total indifference to Human Life when it gets in the way of their getting their rocks off nothing else matters - Not their own well being, not the well being of their neighbors, Children, and certainly not Society.  The number one / numero uno driving force behind their demented existence is sexual gratification ....*NOTHING ELSE MATTERS *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Serial Killers -- How Many Are There? by Diane Dimond on Creators.com - A Syndicate Of Talent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With a # ranging between 35-50 serial killers at any given time, your "statistics" are disingenuous, at best. Your conclusions are specious, spurious - intentionally dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Barb, that post was intended for intelligent thinking people , not you.   But since you are intent on attempting to address it - let me repost a portion of it in hopes that something might miraculously get through.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Serial killers who are known to have been homosexual or bi-sexual is extremely high (over 43%), the *total number of apprehended serial killers is too small to make 100% accurate statistically relevant statements ,* but homosexuals are certainly over represented
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or perhaps another language ...  comprendere ?.....capisce ? ... katanoo ? ....   verstehen ?
> 
> Does that clarify anything for you Hundin ?
Click to expand...


And Your conclusions remain specious, spurious - intentionally dishonest. you can't claim and "extremely high" percentage in such a small sample, bit your huge bolded red claimed just that.  

Speaking of red, I noticed I sent you green by mistake.  I'll be correcting that.


----------



## Chaussette

Iceweasel said:


> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... in nature there are a lot of cases of homosexuality. Now you know.
> 
> 
> 
> I've heard that but the examples given are inferior males in a Bonobo tribe or something with no chance for a mate. Are there examples where a male animal prefers sex with a male over a female?
Click to expand...


Yes.


----------



## GreenBean

Chaussette said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... in nature there are a lot of cases of homosexuality. Now you know.
> 
> 
> 
> I've heard that but the examples given are inferior males in a Bonobo tribe or something with no chance for a mate. Are there examples where a male animal prefers sex with a male over a female?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.
Click to expand...



LOL - a simple lonely yes needs a bit more dialogue and accompanying text that
paints a credible picture reinforcing  your declaration 

In other Words - *Prove it knucklehead *


----------



## Iceweasel

Chaussette said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... in nature there are a lot of cases of homosexuality. Now you know.
> 
> 
> 
> I've heard that but the examples given are inferior males in a Bonobo tribe or something with no chance for a mate. Are there examples where a male animal prefers sex with a male over a female?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.
Click to expand...

That's an evasion. I'm calling your bluff.


----------



## Chaussette

Iceweasel said:


> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've heard that but the examples given are inferior males in a Bonobo tribe or something with no chance for a mate. Are there examples where a male animal prefers sex with a male over a female?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's an evasion. I'm calling your bluff.
Click to expand...


They invented this new thing, it's called "google". Enjoy.


----------



## Iceweasel

Chaussette said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> That's an evasion. I'm calling your bluff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They invented this new thing, it's called "google". Enjoy.
Click to expand...

I prefer Duckduckgo. Also a recent invention. And bluffing has been around much longer.


----------



## Chaussette

Iceweasel said:


> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's an evasion. I'm calling your bluff.
> 
> 
> 
> They invented this new thing, it's called "google". Enjoy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I prefer Duckduckgo. Also a recent invention. And bluffing has been around much longer.
Click to expand...

Just for you, 

"found throughout the animal kingdom".

Homosexual behavior in animals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Iceweasel

Chaussette said:


> Just for you,
> 
> "found throughout the animal kingdom".
> 
> Homosexual behavior in animals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Post the portion you are referring to. Anyone can google and post a wikilink. Wikipedia is not a peer reviewed source, it's open to editing by anyone that cares to do so. We are discussing science, not opinion. And again, if you've lost focus, the question isn't that it occurs in the animal kingdom, but that it's a preference over the opposite gender.


----------



## Katzndogz

GreenBean said:


> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> People against homosexuals have a mental disorder. Like wtf is it of their business who's having sex with whom? Geez, really disturbed homophobes. Get a grip.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Further Proof of Homosexual Dementia*
> 
> Homosexual Serial Killers
> 
> Serial killers who are known to have been homosexual or bi-sexual is extremely high (over 43%), the total number of apprehended serial killers is too small to make 100% accurate statistically relevant statements , but homosexuals are certainly over represented
> 
> Many of the most famous serial killers (e.g., Jeffrey Dahmer, Andrew Cunanan, John Wayne Gacy, etc.) were homosexuals
> 
> Given that less than 2% of adults are homosexuals (plus 1 to 2% who are bisexual), there should not be that many homosexuals among the total number of serial killers.
> 
> Conclusion : Homosexuals are Mentally Unstable in many facets - in addition to Pedophilia and a multitude of perversions and dementias they are also over represented among serial killers.  Basically they have a total indifference to Human Life when it gets in the way of their getting their rocks off nothing else matters - Not their own well being, not the well being of their neighbors, Children, and certainly not Society.  The number one / numero uno driving force behind their demented existence is sexual gratification ....*NOTHING ELSE MATTERS *
Click to expand...


You should have mentioned William Bonin who raped and killed more than 30 boys and Luka Magnotta another gay serial killer.

It is worth mentioning that the incidence of cannibalism is also over represented among gays.  You mentioned Jeffrey Dahmer, but there is also Armin Meiwes and Luka Magnotta who also ate their victims.


----------



## GreenBean

Iceweasel said:


> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just for you,
> 
> "found throughout the animal kingdom".
> 
> Homosexual behavior in animals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Post the portion you are referring to. Anyone can google and post a wikilink. Wikipedia is not a peer reviewed source, it's open to editing by anyone that cares to do so. We are discussing science, not opinion. And again, if you've lost focus, the question isn't that it occurs in the animal kingdom, but that it's a preference over the opposite gender.
Click to expand...


His article is interesting but inconclusive and although some observations do tend tend to point to sexual perversion in some species it is far from a smoking gun

A majority of the research available concerning homosexual behavior in animals lacks specification between animals that exclusively exhibit same-sex tendencies and those that participate in heterosexual and homosexual mating activities interchangeably. *This lack of distinction has led to differing opinions and conflicting interpretations of collected data amongst scientists and researchers.* - As I stated - Inconclusive

In addition - it is a wll known fact that animals act based upon instinct, sometimes triggered by pheromones, or other factors - including lack of an available mate of the opposite sex or a times even the same species.   They lack the sentience that human beings are supposed to have and as demonstrated will boink just about anything when the urge arises.


----------



## GISMYS

Act like a animal or a human created in god's image!!! You chose!


----------



## Noomi

GISMYS said:


> Act like a animal or a human created in god's image!!! You chose!



How were women created in God's image, if God is a man? Should women act like men?


----------



## Politico

Sigh......


----------



## GreenBean

Noomi said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Act like a animal or a human created in god's image!!! You chose!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How were women created in God's image, if God is a man? Should women act like men?
Click to expand...


Who said he was a Man ?  Some Old Jewish Guy ?    .... and what exactly is your point ?


----------



## GISMYS

Noomi said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Act like a animal or a human created in god's image!!! You chose!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How were women created in God's image, if God is a man? Should women act like men?
Click to expand...


humans were created in God's image,don't women look human!!!!???


----------



## GreenBean

DGS49 said:


> As a footnote, I will say that in my totally uneducated opinion, homosexuality and lesbianism are totally different phenomena.  Lesbians are not sexually attracted to other women in the same way that homosexuals are attracted to men.  Most just crave affection and cannot relate to men, for one reason or another.



I missed that when yu first posted it - Well put DGS - I just repped you .


----------



## GreenBean

GISMYS said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Act like a animal or a human created in god's image!!! You chose!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How were women created in God's image, if God is a man? Should women act like men?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> humans were created in God's image,don't women look human!!!!???
Click to expand...


No to Noomi - they're just pieces of meat ... or sushi as the case may be.


----------



## GISMYS

GreenBean said:


> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a footnote, I will say that in my totally uneducated opinion, homosexuality and lesbianism are totally different phenomena.  Lesbians are not sexually attracted to other women in the same way that homosexuals are attracted to men.  Most just crave affection and cannot relate to men, for one reason or another.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I missed that when yu first posted it - Well put DGS - I just repped you .
Click to expand...


 Part of the price for sick sexual perversion=God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in [t]their own persons the due penalty of their error romans 1:26-27


----------



## Nosmo King

I always fear when those who claim Biblical jurisdiction over the greater society.  Because there are so many different interpretations to chose from, and one size never fits all.  Some Biblical adherents handle snakes and they believe they are right.  Some are Amish and refuse to mix with the greater world, and they believe they are right.  Some cling to the Genesis myth and believe that the Bible can serve as a geology or biology or astronomy text book, and they believe they are right.

But the societies they all champion are not the societies which serve all people all the time in all places.  And yet, they believe they are right.

Here in 21st century America, our secular society knows two things: we are in a constant state of flux, always evolving and striving to accommodate diverse thoughts and beliefs and, we don't want to devolve into a narrow template imposed by those who believe they are right in their own narrow interpretation of Biblical lessons.


----------



## GISMYS

Nosmo King said:


> I always fear when those who claim Biblical jurisdiction over the greater society.  Because there are so many different interpretations to chose from, and one size never fits all.  Some Biblical adherents handle snakes and they believe they are right.  Some are Amish and refuse to mix with the greater world, and they believe they are right.  Some cling to the Genesis myth and believe that the Bible can serve as a geology or biology or astronomy text book, and they believe they are right.
> 
> But the societies they all champion are not the societies which serve all people all the time in all places.  And yet, they believe they are right.
> 
> Here in 21st century America, our secular society knows two things: we are in a constant state of flux, always evolving and striving to accommodate diverse thoughts and beliefs and, we don't want to devolve into a narrow template imposed by those who believe they are right in their own narrow interpretation of Biblical lessons.



Yes!!! Almighty God makes the laws and rules for his creation humans and those rules and laws are found in the God inspired (God breathed) Holybible!!!


----------



## Nosmo King

GISMYS said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> I always fear when those who claim Biblical jurisdiction over the greater society.  Because there are so many different interpretations to chose from, and one size never fits all.  Some Biblical adherents handle snakes and they believe they are right.  Some are Amish and refuse to mix with the greater world, and they believe they are right.  Some cling to the Genesis myth and believe that the Bible can serve as a geology or biology or astronomy text book, and they believe they are right.
> 
> But the societies they all champion are not the societies which serve all people all the time in all places.  And yet, they believe they are right.
> 
> Here in 21st century America, our secular society knows two things: we are in a constant state of flux, always evolving and striving to accommodate diverse thoughts and beliefs and, we don't want to devolve into a narrow template imposed by those who believe they are right in their own narrow interpretation of Biblical lessons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes!!! Almighty God makes the laws and rules for his creation humans and those yrules and laws are found in the God inspired (God breathed) Holybible!!!
Click to expand...

Are we to follow each and every law in the Bible?  If I do not handle snakes, am I breaking the law?  If i do not move to a farm and live without electricity, am I breaking the law?  If I study science, am I breaking the law?  If I plant two different plants side by side in my garden, am I breaking the law?  If I have a ham and cheese sandwich, am I breaking the law?

If I accept my fellow man as my brother, even if that man is a homosexual, am I breaking the law?


----------



## GISMYS

nosmo king said:


> gismys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nosmo king said:
> 
> 
> 
> i always fear when those who claim biblical jurisdiction over the greater society.  Because there are so many different interpretations to chose from, and one size never fits all.  Some biblical adherents handle snakes and they believe they are right.  Some are amish and refuse to mix with the greater world, and they believe they are right.  Some cling to the genesis myth and believe that the bible can serve as a geology or biology or astronomy text book, and they believe they are right.
> 
> But the societies they all champion are not the societies which serve all people all the time in all places.  And yet, they believe they are right.
> 
> Here in 21st century america, our secular society knows two things: We are in a constant state of flux, always evolving and striving to accommodate diverse thoughts and beliefs and, we don't want to devolve into a narrow template imposed by those who believe they are right in their own narrow interpretation of biblical lessons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes!!! Almighty god makes the laws and rules for his creation humans and those yrules and laws are found in the god inspired (god breathed) holybible!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> are we to follow each and every law in the bible?  If i do not handle snakes, am i breaking the law?  If i do not move to a farm and live without electricity, am i breaking the law?  If i study science, am i breaking the law?  If i plant two different plants side by side in my garden, am i breaking the law?  If i have a ham and cheese sandwich, am i breaking the law?
> 
> If i accept my fellow man as my brother, even if that man is a homosexual, am i breaking the law?
Click to expand...


and what of other sinners?? Thieves and murderers??


----------



## Nosmo King

GISMYS said:


> nosmo king said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gismys said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes!!! Almighty god makes the laws and rules for his creation humans and those yrules and laws are found in the god inspired (god breathed) holybible!!!
> 
> 
> 
> are we to follow each and every law in the bible?  If i do not handle snakes, am i breaking the law?  If i do not move to a farm and live without electricity, am i breaking the law?  If i study science, am i breaking the law?  If i plant two different plants side by side in my garden, am i breaking the law?  If i have a ham and cheese sandwich, am i breaking the law?
> 
> If i accept my fellow man as my brother, even if that man is a homosexual, am i breaking the law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and what of other sinners?? Thieves and murderers??
Click to expand...

You could not answer my questions, yet you are so assured of the nature of sin.  How can this dichotomy exist?  What does the Bible say about judging others?  Is that a passage you can follow?


----------



## GISMYS

Nosmo King said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nosmo king said:
> 
> 
> 
> are we to follow each and every law in the bible?  If i do not handle snakes, am i breaking the law?  If i do not move to a farm and live without electricity, am i breaking the law?  If i study science, am i breaking the law?  If i plant two different plants side by side in my garden, am i breaking the law?  If i have a ham and cheese sandwich, am i breaking the law?
> 
> If i accept my fellow man as my brother, even if that man is a homosexual, am i breaking the law?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and what of other sinners?? Thieves and murderers??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You could not answer my questions, yet you are so assured of the nature of sin.  How can this dichotomy exist?  What does the Bible say about judging others?  Is that a passage you can follow?
Click to expand...


I need not judge sick sexual perversion as God HAS JUDGED IT ALREADY AND SAID SEXUAL PERVERSION IS AN ABOMINATION!!!


----------



## Nosmo King

GISMYS said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> and what of other sinners?? Thieves and murderers??
> 
> 
> 
> You could not answer my questions, yet you are so assured of the nature of sin.  How can this dichotomy exist?  What does the Bible say about judging others?  Is that a passage you can follow?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I need not judge sick sexual perversion as God HAS JUDGED IT ALREADY AND SAID SEXUAL PERVERSION IS AN ABOMINATION!!!
Click to expand...

Is this the only Biblical edict you subscribe to, or are all the laws written in the Bible to be obeyed?  Or are you cherry picking the laws that justify your fears and suspicions?


----------



## GISMYS

Nosmo King said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> You could not answer my questions, yet you are so assured of the nature of sin.  How can this dichotomy exist?  What does the Bible say about judging others?  Is that a passage you can follow?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I need not judge sick sexual perversion as God HAS JUDGED IT ALREADY AND SAID SEXUAL PERVERSION IS AN ABOMINATION!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is this the only Biblical edict you subscribe to, or are all the laws written in the Bible to be obeyed?  Or are you cherry picking the laws that justify your fears and suspicions?
Click to expand...


Every word of the Holybible is inspired by God(God breathed), believe and be born again into the forever family of God.


----------



## Nosmo King

GISMYS said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> I need not judge sick sexual perversion as God HAS JUDGED IT ALREADY AND SAID SEXUAL PERVERSION IS AN ABOMINATION!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Is this the only Biblical edict you subscribe to, or are all the laws written in the Bible to be obeyed?  Or are you cherry picking the laws that justify your fears and suspicions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every word of the Holybible is inspired by God(God breathed), believe and be born again into the forever family of God.
Click to expand...

Right now I'm breaking the Biblical law as interpreted by the Amish.  Right now I'm wearing a shirt made of two different threads and that means I'm breaking Biblical law.  For lunch, I ate both swine and dairy on the same plate, so I broke Biblical law.

Why are those laws ignored by you if each and every word is divine and sacred?  

Right now I accept my fellow man as my brother.  I insist on doing unto him as I would have him do unto me.  By following that commandment, am I also breaking Biblical law?  Should I condemn homosexuals?  Is that my duty unto God?  Should our laws follow all the dictates of the Bible?  How would that be different from Muslims calling for Sharia law?


----------



## GISMYS

Nosmo King said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this the only Biblical edict you subscribe to, or are all the laws written in the Bible to be obeyed?  Or are you cherry picking the laws that justify your fears and suspicions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every word of the Holybible is inspired by God(God breathed), believe and be born again into the forever family of God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right now I'm breaking the Biblical law as interpreted by the Amish.  Right now I'm wearing a shirt made of two different threads and that means I'm breaking Biblical law.  For lunch, I ate both swine and dairy on the same plate, so I broke Biblical law.
> 
> Why are those laws ignored by you if each and every word is divine and sacred?
> 
> Right now I accept my fellow man as my brother.  I insist on doing unto him as I would have him do unto me.  By following that commandment, am I also breaking Biblical law?  Should I condemn homosexuals?  Is that my duty unto God?  Should our laws follow all the dictates of the Bible?  How would that be different from Muslims calling for Sharia law?
Click to expand...


So you show us you have no understanding about laws God gave the Jewish people in early times. Believers cannot call those brothers that reject GOD AND CHOSE TO LIVE IN LIVES OF SIN REFUSING TO CONFESS AND REPENT,THOSE PEOPLE ARE CHILDREN OF THE DEVIL!!! AND YOU???


----------



## Nosmo King

GISMYS said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every word of the Holybible is inspired by God(God breathed), believe and be born again into the forever family of God.
> 
> 
> 
> Right now I'm breaking the Biblical law as interpreted by the Amish.  Right now I'm wearing a shirt made of two different threads and that means I'm breaking Biblical law.  For lunch, I ate both swine and dairy on the same plate, so I broke Biblical law.
> 
> Why are those laws ignored by you if each and every word is divine and sacred?
> 
> Right now I accept my fellow man as my brother.  I insist on doing unto him as I would have him do unto me.  By following that commandment, am I also breaking Biblical law?  Should I condemn homosexuals?  Is that my duty unto God?  Should our laws follow all the dictates of the Bible?  How would that be different from Muslims calling for Sharia law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you show us you have no understanding about laws God gave the Jewish people in early times. Believers cannot call those brothers that reject GOD AND CHOSE TO LIVE IN LIVES OF SIN REFUSING TO CONFESS AND REPENT,THOSE PEOPLE ARE CHILDREN OF THE DEVIL!!! AND YOU???
Click to expand...

Once you demonstrate the ability to answer my questions, I'll address this rant about children of the devil.  Please tell me which Biblical laws we can afford to ignore.


----------



## GISMYS

Nosmo King said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right now I'm breaking the Biblical law as interpreted by the Amish.  Right now I'm wearing a shirt made of two different threads and that means I'm breaking Biblical law.  For lunch, I ate both swine and dairy on the same plate, so I broke Biblical law.
> 
> Why are those laws ignored by you if each and every word is divine and sacred?
> 
> Right now I accept my fellow man as my brother.  I insist on doing unto him as I would have him do unto me.  By following that commandment, am I also breaking Biblical law?  Should I condemn homosexuals?  Is that my duty unto God?  Should our laws follow all the dictates of the Bible?  How would that be different from Muslims calling for Sharia law?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you show us you have no understanding about laws God gave the Jewish people in early times. Believers cannot call those brothers that reject GOD AND CHOSE TO LIVE IN LIVES OF SIN REFUSING TO CONFESS AND REPENT,THOSE PEOPLE ARE CHILDREN OF THE DEVIL!!! AND YOU???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once you demonstrate the ability to answer my questions, I'll address this rant about children of the devil.  Please tell me which Biblical laws we can afford to ignore.
Click to expand...


Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. 1 CORINTHIANS 6:9-11


----------



## Nosmo King

GISMYS said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you show us you have no understanding about laws God gave the Jewish people in early times. Believers cannot call those brothers that reject GOD AND CHOSE TO LIVE IN LIVES OF SIN REFUSING TO CONFESS AND REPENT,THOSE PEOPLE ARE CHILDREN OF THE DEVIL!!! AND YOU???
> 
> 
> 
> Once you demonstrate the ability to answer my questions, I'll address this rant about children of the devil.  Please tell me which Biblical laws we can afford to ignore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. 1 CORINTHIANS 6:9-11
Click to expand...

Has a homosexual done wrong to you, or are you just being a busybody?  Or do you believe yourself to be an instrument of God and His judgement?  And which Biblical laws can we afford to ignore?


----------



## bianco

Is Homosexuality a Mental Disorder ? 

#####

Nah, just a sexual preference.

No disorder in my gay friends' mental.


----------



## Political Junky

iamwhatiseem said:


> I do not believe it is a _mental_ disorder, but could be if a child was raised in a home where homosexuality is preferred or encouraged.
> Homosexuality, it it's purity, that is, someone who is specifically attracted to their own sex is, by definition, an abnormality. There is no serious argument that could be provided based on the obvious biological purpose of male/female genitalia. Therefore homosexuality is a _biological _disorder.
> To me, the question should be "is this abnormality unacceptable?" Should it be shunned or banned in some way. And my answer to that is no. It serves no purpose to punish people for something they cannot control, as long as it does no harm to others.


Funny, most homosexuals grew up with straight parents.


----------



## Politico

Doesn't matter where they grew up.


----------



## GreenBean

Political Junky said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not believe it is a _mental_ disorder, but could be if a child was raised in a home where homosexuality is preferred or encouraged.
> Homosexuality, it it's purity, that is, someone who is specifically attracted to their own sex is, by definition, an abnormality. There is no serious argument that could be provided based on the obvious biological purpose of male/female genitalia. Therefore homosexuality is a _biological _disorder.
> To me, the question should be "is this abnormality unacceptable?" Should it be shunned or banned in some way. And my answer to that is no. It serves no purpose to punish people for something they cannot control, as long as it does no harm to others.
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, most homosexuals grew up with straight parents.
Click to expand...


So too did many pedophiles { predominantly Gay}  as well as serial killers


----------



## GreenBean

Nosmo King said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this the only Biblical edict you subscribe to, or are all the laws written in the Bible to be obeyed?  Or are you cherry picking the laws that justify your fears and suspicions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every word of the Holybible is inspired by God(God breathed), believe and be born again into the forever family of God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right now I'm breaking the Biblical law as interpreted by the Amish.  Right now I'm wearing a shirt made of two different threads and that means I'm breaking Biblical law.  For lunch, I ate both swine and dairy on the same plate, so I broke Biblical law.
> 
> Why are those laws ignored by you if each and every word is divine and sacred?
> 
> Right now I accept my fellow man as my brother.  I insist on doing unto him as I would have him do unto me.  By following that commandment, am I also breaking Biblical law?  Should I condemn homosexuals?  Is that my duty unto God?  Should our laws follow all the dictates of the Bible?  How would that be different from Muslims calling for Sharia law?
Click to expand...


Most ancient scriptures , whether  divinely inspired or not are subject to a wide array of interpretation.  Christian scriptures, being the most widely disseminated have inspired so many bizarre cults and interpretations that it is near to impossible to track them all.

One theme remains constant and recurring , which is that scriptures written by the ancients were based on generations of observation and adherence to the best practices for the "tribe" involved.  *The Kosher Laws, for example * require sanitation when slaughtering and preparing food and also prohibits eating  of "unclean" animals - pork - which is known to carry many parasites and varying diseases, shellfish etc...  The Kosher Laws were a sane way for ancient Jews to avoid food borne diseases which were frequently deadly.

Scriptural prohibitions against Sodomy can be likened to the Kosher Laws as it has been clearly demonstrated the Homosexuality is  unclean  and unhealthy - both biologically and mentally, it is an act which breeds disease and death.

So basically Homosexuals can be compared to "Unclean Animals"












*This Pig Ain't Kosher !!!*


----------



## Nosmo King

GreenBean said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every word of the Holybible is inspired by God(God breathed), believe and be born again into the forever family of God.
> 
> 
> 
> Right now I'm breaking the Biblical law as interpreted by the Amish.  Right now I'm wearing a shirt made of two different threads and that means I'm breaking Biblical law.  For lunch, I ate both swine and dairy on the same plate, so I broke Biblical law.
> 
> Why are those laws ignored by you if each and every word is divine and sacred?
> 
> Right now I accept my fellow man as my brother.  I insist on doing unto him as I would have him do unto me.  By following that commandment, am I also breaking Biblical law?  Should I condemn homosexuals?  Is that my duty unto God?  Should our laws follow all the dictates of the Bible?  How would that be different from Muslims calling for Sharia law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most ancient scriptures , whether  divinely inspired or not are subject to a wide array of interpretation.  Christian scriptures, being the most widely disseminated have inspired so many bizarre cults and interpretations that it is near to impossible to track them all.
> 
> One theme remains constant and recurring , which is that scriptures written by the ancients were based on generations of observation and adherence to the best practices for the "tribe" involved.  *The Kosher Laws, for example * require sanitation when slaughtering and preparing food and also prohibits eating  of "unclean" animals - pork - which is known to carry many parasites and varying diseases, shellfish etc...  The Kosher Laws were a sane way for ancient Jews to avoid food borne diseases which were frequently deadly.
> 
> Scriptural prohibitions against Sodomy can be likened to the Kosher Laws as it has been clearly demonstrated the Homosexuality is  unclean  and unhealthy - both biologically and mentally, it is an act which breeds disease and death.
> 
> So basically Homosexuals can be compared to "Unclean Animals"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *This Pig Ain't Kosher !!!*
Click to expand...

And yet a plate of ribs is not a death defying stunt.  Bacon and eggs is a popular breakfast order.  

If fears of the unclean animal can be obliterated by knowledge...


----------



## Delta4Embassy

GreenBean said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not believe it is a _mental_ disorder, but could be if a child was raised in a home where homosexuality is preferred or encouraged.
> Homosexuality, it it's purity, that is, someone who is specifically attracted to their own sex is, by definition, an abnormality. There is no serious argument that could be provided based on the obvious biological purpose of male/female genitalia. Therefore homosexuality is a _biological _disorder.
> To me, the question should be "is this abnormality unacceptable?" Should it be shunned or banned in some way. And my answer to that is no. It serves no purpose to punish people for something they cannot control, as long as it does no harm to others.
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, most homosexuals grew up with straight parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So too did many pedophiles { predominantly Gay}  as well as serial killers
Click to expand...


By that logic, to prevent serial murderers (pref'd term,) we should make sure every child grows up with pet dogs and cats. Many serial murderers didn't have pets and so didn't bond emotionally to other people or animals nor develop that empathy.

As to pedophilia, I'd say there's much more basis to that being a proper mental disorder than homosexuality is. Being sexually attracted to a prepubescent child makes no biological sense.


----------



## GreenBean

Delta4Embassy said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, most homosexuals grew up with straight parents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So too did many pedophiles { predominantly Gay}  as well as serial killers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By that logic, to prevent serial murderers (pref'd term,) we should make sure every child grows up with pet dogs and cats. Many serial murderers didn't have pets and so didn't bond emotionally to other people or animals nor develop that empathy.
> 
> As to pedophilia, I'd say there's much more basis to that being a proper mental disorder than homosexuality is. Being sexually attracted to a prepubescent child makes no biological sense.
Click to expand...


I was not aware of the "pet factor"  that is very interesting 



> Being sexually attracted to a prepubescent child makes no biological sense.



And being attracted to the same sex also Makes no biological sense - so why do you continue to defend it ?


----------



## Delta4Embassy

GreenBean said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> So too did many pedophiles { predominantly Gay}  as well as serial killers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By that logic, to prevent serial murderers (pref'd term,) we should make sure every child grows up with pet dogs and cats. Many serial murderers didn't have pets and so didn't bond emotionally to other people or animals nor develop that empathy.
> 
> As to pedophilia, I'd say there's much more basis to that being a proper mental disorder than homosexuality is. Being sexually attracted to a prepubescent child makes no biological sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was not aware of the "pet factor"  that is very interesting
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being sexually attracted to a prepubescent child makes no biological sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And being attracted to the same sex also Makes no biological sense - so why do you continue to defend it ?
Click to expand...


Sexual behaviours don't have to be reproductive and orgasms is an end unto itself. Why non-human animals exhibit homosexual as well as masturbatory behaviours. 

But being sexually attracted to a prepubescnet child is being attracted to a non-sexual animal. Thus there's no reason to assign such younglings with sexual desires of their own. It's much more one-sided then. Not so with homosexuality among sexually mature animals however.


----------



## GreenBean

Nosmo King said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right now I'm breaking the Biblical law as interpreted by the Amish.  Right now I'm wearing a shirt made of two different threads and that means I'm breaking Biblical law.  For lunch, I ate both swine and dairy on the same plate, so I broke Biblical law.
> 
> Why are those laws ignored by you if each and every word is divine and sacred?
> 
> Right now I accept my fellow man as my brother.  I insist on doing unto him as I would have him do unto me.  By following that commandment, am I also breaking Biblical law?  Should I condemn homosexuals?  Is that my duty unto God?  Should our laws follow all the dictates of the Bible?  How would that be different from Muslims calling for Sharia law?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most ancient scriptures , whether  divinely inspired or not are subject to a wide array of interpretation.  Christian scriptures, being the most widely disseminated have inspired so many bizarre cults and interpretations that it is near to impossible to track them all.
> 
> One theme remains constant and recurring , which is that scriptures written by the ancients were based on generations of observation and adherence to the best practices for the "tribe" involved.  *The Kosher Laws, for example * require sanitation when slaughtering and preparing food and also prohibits eating  of "unclean" animals - pork - which is known to carry many parasites and varying diseases, shellfish etc...  The Kosher Laws were a sane way for ancient Jews to avoid food borne diseases which were frequently deadly.
> 
> Scriptural prohibitions against Sodomy can be likened to the Kosher Laws as it has been clearly demonstrated the Homosexuality is  unclean  and unhealthy - both biologically and mentally, it is an act which breeds disease and death.
> 
> So basically Homosexuals can be compared to "Unclean Animals"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *This Pig Ain't Kosher !!!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet a plate of ribs is not a death defying stunt.  Bacon and eggs is a popular breakfast order.
> 
> If fears of the unclean animal can be obliterated by knowledge...
Click to expand...


*Touche '   *

Actually, the Kosher Laws were rejected by Christians in Revelations, but it's only mildly relevant.

The analogy was intended to demonstrate the scriptural purpose for prohibition of unclean animals - that is was derived from a sane path of logic and not merely based on primitive superstitions.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Kosher restrictions don't apply to non-Jews. Were written LONG before Christianity even existed.


----------



## GreenBean

Delta4Embassy said:


> Kosher restrictions don't apply to non-Jews. Were written LONG before Christianity even existed.



Delta - you're reverting  back to your same Dopey old self -I thought we had made some progress here !    Read the post above this ....



> Actually, the *Kosher Laws were rejected by Christians in Revelations,* but it's only mildly relevant.
> 
> The *analogy was intended to demonstrate the scriptural purpose for prohibition* of unclean animals - that is was derived from a sane path of logic and not merely based on primitive superstitions.




Capisce ?


----------



## GreenBean

GreenBean said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most ancient scriptures , whether  divinely inspired or not are subject to a wide array of interpretation.  Christian scriptures, being the most widely disseminated have inspired so many bizarre cults and interpretations that it is near to impossible to track them all.
> 
> One theme remains constant and recurring , which is that scriptures written by the ancients were based on generations of observation and adherence to the best practices for the "tribe" involved.  *The Kosher Laws, for example * require sanitation when slaughtering and preparing food and also prohibits eating  of "unclean" animals - pork - which is known to carry many parasites and varying diseases, shellfish etc...  The Kosher Laws were a sane way for ancient Jews to avoid food borne diseases which were frequently deadly.
> 
> Scriptural prohibitions against Sodomy can be likened to the Kosher Laws as it has been clearly demonstrated the Homosexuality is  unclean  and unhealthy - both biologically and mentally, it is an act which breeds disease and death.
> 
> So basically Homosexuals can be compared to "Unclean Animals"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *This Pig Ain't Kosher !!!*
> 
> 
> 
> And yet a plate of ribs is not a death defying stunt.  Bacon and eggs is a popular breakfast order.
> 
> If fears of the unclean animalan be obliterated by knowledge...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Touche '   *
> 
> Actually, the Kosher Laws were rejected by Christians in Revelations, but it's only mildly relevant.
> 
> The analogy was intended to demonstrate the scriptural purpose for prohibition of unclean animals - that is was derived from a sane path of logic and not merely based on primitive superstitions.
Click to expand...


Getting back to the OP - Since not a single Fruit Cake or any of the Pansies who adore them have have been able to offer up a single viable argument to refute the assertion the Homosexuals are indeed Mentally iLL - I guess it's  settled then.   Gays are indeed Nut Jobs !   Any Objections ?


----------



## Chaussette

Beaner, I'm worried about you, you're way too obsessed with gays and what they do with their pants down. If you can't get the thought of two guys sweating under the sheet together out of your mind, you know what that probably means, don't you?


----------



## GreenBean

Chaussette said:


> Beaner, I'm worried about you, you're way too obsessed with gays and what they do with their pants down. If you can't get the thought of two guys sweating under the sheet together out of your mind, you know what that probably means, don't you?



Chausette   -  do you have anything intelligent to add , or just more of what you've been programmed to do - call all opponents Homophobes .

Can you cite ANYTHING that would support your belief that queers are not Mentally disturbed ... Come on now try and think outside the box ... you can do it ... don't worry about what Big Brother tells you ..... *MAN UP Bro ! *   .... Oh wait -I forgot ... you can't your not really a Man are you ?


----------



## Nosmo King

GreenBean said:


> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Beaner, I'm worried about you, you're way too obsessed with gays and what they do with their pants down. If you can't get the thought of two guys sweating under the sheet together out of your mind, you know what that probably means, don't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chausette   -  do you have anything intelligent to add , or just more of what you've been programmed to do - call all opponents Homophobes .
> 
> Can you cite ANYTHING that would support your belief that queers are not Mentally disturbed ... Come on now try and think outside the box ... you can do it ... don't worry about what Big Brother tells you ..... *MAN UP Bro ! *   .... Oh wait -I forgot ... you can't your not really a Man are you ?
Click to expand...

I'm wondering what your professional background is.  Are you a psychiatrist?   Are you involved in psychological studies?  Do you have any professional credentials to support scientific studies which might bolster your claims?


Or do you argue from genuine ignorance and personal animus and anecdote?

You demand everyone support their arguments against your unfounded position that homosexuality is a mental disorder.  It is apparant that the heavy lifting on the subject has been done by those qualified to make the call.  You, on the other hand, seem to be relying on opinion.


----------



## Chaussette

GreenBean said:


> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Beaner, I'm worried about you, you're way too obsessed with gays and what they do with their pants down. If you can't get the thought of two guys sweating under the sheet together out of your mind, you know what that probably means, don't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chausette   -  do you have anything intelligent to add , or just more of what you've been programmed to do - call all opponents Homophobes .
> 
> Can you cite ANYTHING that would support your belief that queers are not Mentally disturbed ... Come on now try and think outside the box ... you can do it ... don't worry about what Big Brother tells you ..... *MAN UP Bro ! *   .... Oh wait -I forgot ... you can't your not really a Man are you ?
Click to expand...

"Homosexuality is no longer considered a form of mental illness by mainstream psychologists and psychiatrists."
Homosexuality and Mental Health

Just google it, there are tons of links. Sorry, you lose, loser.


----------



## GreenBean

Chaussette said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Beaner, I'm worried about you, you're way too obsessed with gays and what they do with their pants down. If you can't get the thought of two guys sweating under the sheet together out of your mind, you know what that probably means, don't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chausette   -  do you have anything intelligent to add , or just more of what you've been programmed to do - call all opponents Homophobes .
> 
> Can you cite ANYTHING that would support your belief that queers are not Mentally disturbed ... Come on now try and think outside the box ... you can do it ... don't worry about what Big Brother tells you ..... *MAN UP Bro ! *   .... Oh wait -I forgot ... you can't your not really a Man are you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Homosexuality is no longer considered a form of mental illness by mainstream psychologists and psychiatrists."
> Homosexuality and Mental Health
> 
> Just google it, there are tons of links. Sorry, you lose, loser.
Click to expand...


I am familiar with the article you posted a link to , it has stated the following ...



> Although psychoanalytic theories of homosexuality once had considerable influence in psychiatry and in the larger culture, *they were not subjected to rigorous empirical testing.* Instead, they were based on analysts' clinical observations of patients already known by them to be homosexual.




It then goes on to cite the *Evelyn Hooker Study* 



> Hooker's (1957) study was innovative in several important respects. First, rather than simply accepting the predominant view of homosexuality as pathology, *she posed the question of whether homosexuals and heterosexuals differed in their psychological adjustment*. Second, rather than studying psychiatric patients, she recruited a sample of homosexual men who were functioning normally in society. Third, *she employed a procedure that asked experts to rate the adjustment of men without prior knowledge of their sexual orientation*.





> Hookers work has helped the homosexual movement in keeping with the Marxist theories from which it came - to convince judicial and legislative bodies such as the US Supreme Court that homosexuality comprises an oppressed "class" whose rights have been trampled by irrational prejudice. *Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth*




Here study was a Joke, it cannot be repeated using Scientific Objectivity, that is unbiased - not designed to arrive at a predetermined conclusion.   *Hookers "Study" was designed to arrive at a Predetermined result*

*Hookers Studies however were the product of a deliberate campaign by Gay activists to bring forward particular, pre-arranged outcomes*, an approach that ignores scientific objectivity.  

Objectivity is a basic philosophical concept, related to reality and truth.  Objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings. *Scientific Objectivity is a value that informs how scientific studies are conducted and how scientific truths are arrived at*. It is the idea that scientists, in attempting to uncover truths about the natural world, must aspire to eliminate personal biases, emotional involvement, etc ...   *Hookers Studies failed the most basic of Litmus tests regarding Objectivity*.  Hooker was an associate of the Mattachine Society and was lobbied and eventually convinced to conduct a research study of homosexuality for the sole purpose of advancing their Agenda.

The study, "The adjustment of the male overt homosexual", Hooker administered several standardized personality tests to two sets of men, *the first group of 30 was homosexual and heavily screened by the Mattachine Society and the other heterosexual. The whole purpose of the study was to examine the instances of mental instability in homosexuals, However, individuals who showed the slightest signs of mental instability were excluded , it was not a random test and was designed to arrive at predetermined results.*

The studies subjects were not randomly selected. on the contrary they were chosen and screened entirely by the Mattachine Society, an organization that Hooker herself admitted in the report had as its stated purpose " the development of a homosexual ethic in order to better integrate the homosexual into society."  The heterosexual subjects were obtained from "community organizations" which she refused to divulge. The inadequacy of her methodology was even acknowledged by the Journal that published it.

More recent Studies conducted with Scientific Objectivity have produced entirely different results than the Hooker Study

Sexual minority status and psychotic symptoms

Dr. Apu Chakraborty of University College London, UK.

*Hooker concluded her report by offering a set of "admissions" about the limitations of her study.  In this section she concedes the possibility that homosexuals are indeed pathological, a point conveniently overlooked by the Gay Activists*, but proven out by later and more reliable studies.  So even though Dr. Hooker prostituted herself to the Mattachine Society, some element of the scientist had to shine through.

*Dr. Evelyn Hooker - Prostituting Science for the Gay Agenda*


----------



## GreenBean

Nosmo King said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Beaner, I'm worried about you, you're way too obsessed with gays and what they do with their pants down. If you can't get the thought of two guys sweating under the sheet together out of your mind, you know what that probably means, don't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chausette   -  do you have anything intelligent to add , or just more of what you've been programmed to do - call all opponents Homophobes .
> 
> Can you cite ANYTHING that would support your belief that queers are not Mentally disturbed ... Come on now try and think outside the box ... you can do it ... don't worry about what Big Brother tells you ..... *MAN UP Bro ! *   .... Oh wait -I forgot ... you can't your not really a Man are you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm wondering what your professional background is.  Are you a psychiatrist?   Are you involved in psychological studies?  Do you have any professional credentials to support scientific studies which might bolster your claims?
> 
> 
> Or do you argue from genuine ignorance and personal animus and anecdote?
> 
> You demand everyone support their arguments against your unfounded position that homosexuality is a mental disorder.  It is apparant that the heavy lifting on the subject has been done by those qualified to make the call.  You, on the other hand, seem to be relying on opinion.
Click to expand...


My credentials will not be addressed here as they would lend a hand to those that wish to cause me harm in my field - The Liberal Socio-Facist and Queer Agenda has long tentacles.

I suggest you stick to addressing the facts, debating the OP  and not attempt to delve into the personal affairs of the debaters.




> You demand everyone support their arguments against your unfounded position that homosexuality is a mental disorder. It is apparant that the heavy lifting on the subject has been done by those qualified to make the call. You, on the other hand, seem to be relying on opinion.



AS for those courageous enough to make themselves known  and "those qualified to make the call" - I would like to salute Dr. Nicholas Cummings,  One of the Authors of the 70s APA motion to remove Homosexuality from the DSM - He is a Gay rights advocate but not indebted or "owned" by anyone.

*Former president of APA says organization controlled by &#8216;gay rights&#8217; movement*

A former president of the American Psychological Association (APA), who also introduced the motion to declassify homosexuality as a mental illness in 1975, says that the APA has been taken over by &#8220;ultraliberals&#8221; beholden to the &#8220;gay rights movement,&#8221; 

.... Cummings says that he personally is not in opposition to the homosexual movement, including gay &#8220;marriage,&#8221; pointing out that *he was the author of the motion to strike homosexuality from the APA&#8217;s list of mental illnesses.* However, he is distressed at the loss of scientific objectivity at the organization.

Cummings has also stated that most work derived from the APA and dealing with Homosexuals in recent years is heavily tainted - and devoid of Scientific Objectivity.

*I do not see eye to eye  with Dr. Cummings on all issues - but salute his bravery and lust for Truth*


----------



## Chaussette

GreenBean said:


> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chausette   -  do you have anything intelligent to add , or just more of what you've been programmed to do - call all opponents Homophobes .
> 
> Can you cite ANYTHING that would support your belief that queers are not Mentally disturbed ... Come on now try and think outside the box ... you can do it ... don't worry about what Big Brother tells you ..... *MAN UP Bro ! *   .... Oh wait -I forgot ... you can't your not really a Man are you ?
> 
> 
> 
> "Homosexuality is no longer considered a form of mental illness by mainstream psychologists and psychiatrists."
> Homosexuality and Mental Health
> 
> Just google it, there are tons of links. Sorry, you lose, loser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am familiar with the article you posted a link to , it has stated the following ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It then goes on to cite the *Evelyn Hooker Study*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hooker's (1957) study was innovative in several important respects. First, rather than simply accepting the predominant view of homosexuality as pathology, *she posed the question of whether homosexuals and heterosexuals differed in their psychological adjustment*. Second, rather than studying psychiatric patients, she recruited a sample of homosexual men who were functioning normally in society. Third, *she employed a procedure that asked experts to rate the adjustment of men without prior knowledge of their sexual orientation*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hookers work has helped the homosexual movement in keeping with the Marxist theories from which it came - to convince judicial and legislative bodies such as the US Supreme Court that homosexuality comprises an oppressed "class" whose rights have been trampled by irrational prejudice. *Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Here study was a Joke, it cannot be repeated using Scientific Objectivity, that is unbiased - not designed to arrive at a predetermined conclusion.   *Hookers "Study" was designed to arrive at a Predetermined result*
> 
> *Hookers Studies however were the product of a deliberate campaign by Gay activists to bring forward particular, pre-arranged outcomes*, an approach that ignores scientific objectivity.
> 
> Objectivity is a basic philosophical concept, related to reality and truth.  Objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings. *Scientific Objectivity is a value that informs how scientific studies are conducted and how scientific truths are arrived at*. It is the idea that scientists, in attempting to uncover truths about the natural world, must aspire to eliminate personal biases, emotional involvement, etc ...   *Hookers Studies failed the most basic of Litmus tests regarding Objectivity*.  Hooker was an associate of the Mattachine Society and was lobbied and eventually convinced to conduct a research study of homosexuality for the sole purpose of advancing their Agenda.
> 
> The study, "The adjustment of the male overt homosexual", Hooker administered several standardized personality tests to two sets of men, *the first group of 30 was homosexual and heavily screened by the Mattachine Society and the other heterosexual. The whole purpose of the study was to examine the instances of mental instability in homosexuals, However, individuals who showed the slightest signs of mental instability were excluded , it was not a random test and was designed to arrive at predetermined results.*
> 
> The studies subjects were not randomly selected. on the contrary they were chosen and screened entirely by the Mattachine Society, an organization that Hooker herself admitted in the report had as its stated purpose " the development of a homosexual ethic in order to better integrate the homosexual into society."  The heterosexual subjects were obtained from "community organizations" which she refused to divulge. The inadequacy of her methodology was even acknowledged by the Journal that published it.
> 
> More recent Studies conducted with Scientific Objectivity have produced entirely different results than the Hooker Study
> 
> Sexual minority status and psychotic symptoms
> 
> Dr. Apu Chakraborty of University College London, UK.
> 
> *Hooker concluded her report by offering a set of "admissions" about the limitations of her study.  In this section she concedes the possibility that homosexuals are indeed pathological, a point conveniently overlooked by the Gay Activists*, but proven out by later and more reliable studies.  So even though Dr. Hooker prostituted herself to the Mattachine Society, some element of the scientist had to shine through.
> 
> *Dr. Evelyn Hooker - Prostituting Science for the Gay Agenda*
Click to expand...

Until 1974, being gay was considered a mental disorder, but not since. Only you are stuck in the past.


----------



## GreenBean

Chaussette said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Homosexuality is no longer considered a form of mental illness by mainstream psychologists and psychiatrists."
> Homosexuality and Mental Health
> 
> Just google it, there are tons of links. Sorry, you lose, loser.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am familiar with the article you posted a link to , it has stated the following ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It then goes on to cite the *Evelyn Hooker Study*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hookers work has helped the homosexual movement in keeping with the Marxist theories from which it came - to convince judicial and legislative bodies such as the US Supreme Court that homosexuality comprises an oppressed "class" whose rights have been trampled by irrational prejudice. *Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Here study was a Joke, it cannot be repeated using Scientific Objectivity, that is unbiased - not designed to arrive at a predetermined conclusion.   *Hookers "Study" was designed to arrive at a Predetermined result*
> 
> *Hookers Studies however were the product of a deliberate campaign by Gay activists to bring forward particular, pre-arranged outcomes*, an approach that ignores scientific objectivity.
> 
> Objectivity is a basic philosophical concept, related to reality and truth.  Objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings. *Scientific Objectivity is a value that informs how scientific studies are conducted and how scientific truths are arrived at*. It is the idea that scientists, in attempting to uncover truths about the natural world, must aspire to eliminate personal biases, emotional involvement, etc ...   *Hookers Studies failed the most basic of Litmus tests regarding Objectivity*.  Hooker was an associate of the Mattachine Society and was lobbied and eventually convinced to conduct a research study of homosexuality for the sole purpose of advancing their Agenda.
> 
> The study, "The adjustment of the male overt homosexual", Hooker administered several standardized personality tests to two sets of men, *the first group of 30 was homosexual and heavily screened by the Mattachine Society and the other heterosexual. The whole purpose of the study was to examine the instances of mental instability in homosexuals, However, individuals who showed the slightest signs of mental instability were excluded , it was not a random test and was designed to arrive at predetermined results.*
> 
> The studies subjects were not randomly selected. on the contrary they were chosen and screened entirely by the Mattachine Society, an organization that Hooker herself admitted in the report had as its stated purpose " the development of a homosexual ethic in order to better integrate the homosexual into society."  The heterosexual subjects were obtained from "community organizations" which she refused to divulge. The inadequacy of her methodology was even acknowledged by the Journal that published it.
> 
> More recent Studies conducted with Scientific Objectivity have produced entirely different results than the Hooker Study
> 
> Sexual minority status and psychotic symptoms
> 
> Dr. Apu Chakraborty of University College London, UK.
> 
> *Hooker concluded her report by offering a set of "admissions" about the limitations of her study.  In this section she concedes the possibility that homosexuals are indeed pathological, a point conveniently overlooked by the Gay Activists*, but proven out by later and more reliable studies.  So even though Dr. Hooker prostituted herself to the Mattachine Society, some element of the scientist had to shine through.
> 
> *Dr. Evelyn Hooker - Prostituting Science for the Gay Agenda*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Until 1974, being gay was considered a mental disorder, but not since. Only you are stuck in the past.
Click to expand...


You obviously didn't read anything I posted , or , if you made the attempt, *it's probably beyond your level of comprehension.*  If you are incapable of thinking outside the box that the Socio-Fascist Liberal Mob has designed for you - *than why do you even bother ? * 

Do you ever have independent thoughts that are truly your own - not simply what you've been programmed to believe ? 

Do you know what Scientific Objectivity is ?

Do YOU have any scientific background ?  If you don't it doesn't mean you aren't qualified to debate here, but kindly refrain from posing blatant ignorance and please do attempt to refute using un-biased factual evidence.

I used to consider myself a Christian, till I got involved in researching the origins of the Bible and theological history, at which point I dropped my "Christian" moniker because I am able to *think outside the box *   CAN YOU ?

Sorry, Chaussy - but I am not going to stoop to your level of factual ignorance .


----------



## Chaussette

GreenBean said:


> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am familiar with the article you posted a link to , it has stated the following ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It then goes on to cite the *Evelyn Hooker Study*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here study was a Joke, it cannot be repeated using Scientific Objectivity, that is unbiased - not designed to arrive at a predetermined conclusion.   *Hookers "Study" was designed to arrive at a Predetermined result*
> 
> *Hookers Studies however were the product of a deliberate campaign by Gay activists to bring forward particular, pre-arranged outcomes*, an approach that ignores scientific objectivity.
> 
> Objectivity is a basic philosophical concept, related to reality and truth.  Objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings. *Scientific Objectivity is a value that informs how scientific studies are conducted and how scientific truths are arrived at*. It is the idea that scientists, in attempting to uncover truths about the natural world, must aspire to eliminate personal biases, emotional involvement, etc ...   *Hookers Studies failed the most basic of Litmus tests regarding Objectivity*.  Hooker was an associate of the Mattachine Society and was lobbied and eventually convinced to conduct a research study of homosexuality for the sole purpose of advancing their Agenda.
> 
> The study, "The adjustment of the male overt homosexual", Hooker administered several standardized personality tests to two sets of men, *the first group of 30 was homosexual and heavily screened by the Mattachine Society and the other heterosexual. The whole purpose of the study was to examine the instances of mental instability in homosexuals, However, individuals who showed the slightest signs of mental instability were excluded , it was not a random test and was designed to arrive at predetermined results.*
> 
> The studies subjects were not randomly selected. on the contrary they were chosen and screened entirely by the Mattachine Society, an organization that Hooker herself admitted in the report had as its stated purpose " the development of a homosexual ethic in order to better integrate the homosexual into society."  The heterosexual subjects were obtained from "community organizations" which she refused to divulge. The inadequacy of her methodology was even acknowledged by the Journal that published it.
> 
> More recent Studies conducted with Scientific Objectivity have produced entirely different results than the Hooker Study
> 
> Sexual minority status and psychotic symptoms
> 
> Dr. Apu Chakraborty of University College London, UK.
> 
> *Hooker concluded her report by offering a set of "admissions" about the limitations of her study.  In this section she concedes the possibility that homosexuals are indeed pathological, a point conveniently overlooked by the Gay Activists*, but proven out by later and more reliable studies.  So even though Dr. Hooker prostituted herself to the Mattachine Society, some element of the scientist had to shine through.
> 
> *Dr. Evelyn Hooker - Prostituting Science for the Gay Agenda*
> 
> 
> 
> Until 1974, being gay was considered a mental disorder, but not since. Only you are stuck in the past.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You obviously didn't read anything I posted , or , if you made the attempt, *it's probably beyond your level of comprehension.*  If you are incapable of thinking outside the box that the Socio-Fascist Liberal Mob has designed for you - *than why do you even bother ? *
> 
> Do you ever have independent thoughts that are truly your own - not simply what you've been programmed to believe ?
> 
> Do you know what Scientific Objectivity is ?
> 
> Do YOU have any scientific background ?  If you don't it doesn't mean you aren't qualified to debate here, but kindly refrain from posing blatant ignorance and please do attempt to refute using un-biased factual evidence.
> 
> I used to consider myself a Christian, till I got involved in researching the origins of the Bible and theological history, at which point I dropped my "Christian" moniker because I am able to *think outside the box *   CAN YOU ?
> 
> Sorry, Chaussy - but I am not going to stoop to your level of factual ignorance .
Click to expand...

Scientists have determined that being gay is not a mental disorder. Sorry, you lose again, loser.


----------



## GreenBean

Chaussette said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Until 1974, being gay was considered a mental disorder, but not since. Only you are stuck in the past.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously didn't read anything I posted , or , if you made the attempt, *it's probably beyond your level of comprehension.*  If you are incapable of thinking outside the box that the Socio-Fascist Liberal Mob has designed for you - *than why do you even bother ? *
> 
> Do you ever have independent thoughts that are truly your own - not simply what you've been programmed to believe ?
> 
> Do you know what Scientific Objectivity is ?
> 
> Do YOU have any scientific background ?  If you don't it doesn't mean you aren't qualified to debate here, but kindly refrain from posing blatant ignorance and please do attempt to refute using un-biased factual evidence.
> 
> I used to consider myself a Christian, till I got involved in researching the origins of the Bible and theological history, at which point I dropped my "Christian" moniker because I am able to *think outside the box *   CAN YOU ?
> 
> Sorry, Chaussy - but I am not going to stoop to your level of factual ignorance .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Scientists have determined that being gay is not a mental disorder. Sorry, you lose again, loser.
Click to expand...


No *SCIENTISTS* have not come to that conclusion - Once again your ignorance of reality is overwhelming .  *POLITICAL ACTIVISTS *have come to that conclusion but Never True Scientists.



> Our study confirms earlier work carried out in the UK, USA and Holland which suggests that non-heterosexual people are at higher risk of mental disorder, suicidal ideation, substance misuse and self-harm than heterosexual people.
> 
> *From a true and unbiased Scientist Dr. Apu Chakraborty of University College London, UK.*
> 
> Higher Risk of Mental Health Problems for Homosexuals | Psych Central


----------



## Chaussette

GreenBean said:


> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously didn't read anything I posted , or , if you made the attempt, *it's probably beyond your level of comprehension.*  If you are incapable of thinking outside the box that the Socio-Fascist Liberal Mob has designed for you - *than why do you even bother ? *
> 
> Do you ever have independent thoughts that are truly your own - not simply what you've been programmed to believe ?
> 
> Do you know what Scientific Objectivity is ?
> 
> Do YOU have any scientific background ?  If you don't it doesn't mean you aren't qualified to debate here, but kindly refrain from posing blatant ignorance and please do attempt to refute using un-biased factual evidence.
> 
> I used to consider myself a Christian, till I got involved in researching the origins of the Bible and theological history, at which point I dropped my "Christian" moniker because I am able to *think outside the box *   CAN YOU ?
> 
> Sorry, Chaussy - but I am not going to stoop to your level of factual ignorance .
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists have determined that being gay is not a mental disorder. Sorry, you lose again, loser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No *SCIENTISTS* have not come to that conclusion - Once again your ignorance of reality is overwhelming .  *POLITICAL ACTIVISTS *have come to that conclusion but Never True Scientists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> &#8220;Our study confirms earlier work carried out in the UK, USA and Holland which suggests that non-heterosexual people are at higher risk of mental disorder, suicidal ideation, substance misuse and self-harm than heterosexual people.&#8221;
> 
> *From a true and unbiased Scientist Dr. Apu Chakraborty of University College London, UK.*
> 
> Higher Risk of Mental Health Problems for Homosexuals | Psych Central
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Give it up you homophobic loser. Do you have any windows in your closet? Scientists think you should get some light.


----------



## GreenBean

Chaussette said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists have determined that being gay is not a mental disorder. Sorry, you lose again, loser.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No *SCIENTISTS* have not come to that conclusion - Once again your ignorance of reality is overwhelming .  *POLITICAL ACTIVISTS *have come to that conclusion but Never True Scientists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> &#8220;Our study confirms earlier work carried out in the UK, USA and Holland which suggests that non-heterosexual people are at higher risk of mental disorder, suicidal ideation, substance misuse and self-harm than heterosexual people.&#8221;
> 
> *From a true and unbiased Scientist Dr. Apu Chakraborty of University College London, UK.*
> 
> Higher Risk of Mental Health Problems for Homosexuals | Psych Central
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give it up you homophobic loser. Do you have any windows in your closet? Scientists think you should get some light.
Click to expand...


Rahl 

You can't address  the facts ?  Are you afraid of something, are you afraid that you might be a Mental Case / Fruit Cake 

*Your intellectual inferiority is evident -*LMFAO 

Please do prove your mental status as well --- please do keep keep posting


----------



## GISMYS

The body, however, is not meant for sexual immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14 By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also. 15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! 16 Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, The two will become one flesh. 17 But whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in spirit.

18 Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body. 19 Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies. SICK SEXUAL PERVERSION IS AN ABOMINATION!!
1 corinthians 6;13-20


----------



## GISMYS

GOD'S WORD SAYS===The unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. 1 Corinthians 6:911


----------



## GreenBean

Chaussette said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists have determined that being gay is not a mental disorder. Sorry, you lose again, loser.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No *SCIENTISTS* have not come to that conclusion - Once again your ignorance of reality is overwhelming .  *POLITICAL ACTIVISTS *have come to that conclusion but Never True Scientists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our study confirms earlier work carried out in the UK, USA and Holland which suggests that non-heterosexual people are at higher risk of mental disorder, suicidal ideation, substance misuse and self-harm than heterosexual people.
> 
> *From a true and unbiased Scientist Dr. Apu Chakraborty of University College London, UK.*
> 
> Higher Risk of Mental Health Problems for Homosexuals | Psych Central
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give it up you homophobic loser. Do you have any windows in your closet? Scientists think you should get some light.
Click to expand...


Homosexual people tend to experience more mental health problems than heterosexual people, research indicates. Discrimination may contribute to the higher risk, believes lead researcher Dr. Apu Chakraborty of University College London, UK.

His team looked at rates of mental disorder among 7,403 adults living in the UK, whose details were obtained from the Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey 2007. Rates of depression, anxiety, obsessive compulsive disorder, phobia, self-harm, suicidal thoughts, and alcohol and drug dependence were significantly higher in homosexual respondents.

*Truth Hurts doesn't it ?*

Let me throw a little more pain your way 

Overwhelming evidence supports the belief that homosexuality is a sexual deviancy often accompanied by disorders that have dire consequences for our culture, wrote Steve Baldwin in, Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement, soon to be published by the Regent University Law Review.

Baldwins research is substantiated in a recently completed body of work written by Dr. Judith Reisman, president of the Institute for Media Education and author of numerous authoritative books debunking sexual myths, including Kinsey, Crimes & Consequences.

In her thesis  also written for the Regent University Law Review  Reisman cited psychologist Eugene Abel, whose research found that *homosexuals sexually molest young boys with an incidence that is occurring from five times greater than the molestation of girls. *

Abel also found that non-incarcerated child molesters admitted from 23.4 to 281.7 acts per offender  whose targets were males.

*The rate of homosexual versus heterosexual child sexual abuse is staggering,* said Reisman, who was the principal investigator for an $800,000 Justice Department grant studying child pornography and violence. *Abels data of 150.2 boys abused per male homosexual offender finds no equal (yet) in heterosexual violations of 19.8 girls.*

Should I twist the knife a tad more, or perhaps I can rub some salt into your wounds for you


----------



## DriftingSand

GreenBean said:


> The American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973 only after years of political pressure from gay activists. The American Psychiatric association board of trustees passed this decision followed by a statement which listed among the reasons for their decision as changing social norms and growing gay rights activism . So basically, a scientific institution was coerced into changing a scientific opinion or classification due to political pressure !
> 
> Removing homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses was not triggered by some scientific breakthrough.  There was no new fact or set of facts that stimulated this major change.  Rather, it was the simple reality that gay people started to kick up a fuss.
> 
> In subsequent years the APA has become so politicized , that it has lost any credibility as a Scientific organization and in the words of one former APA President it is totally "Beholden to the Gay Rights Movement"
> 
> Myself and many others , who for fear of reprisals remain silent believe that Homosexuality is and always has been a Mental Disorder and Homosexuals should not be deterred from seeking Psychological / Psychiatric Help.



Homosexuality is certainly a disorder but I'm not certain if it's mental or spiritual (or a little of both). There may be several factors that might lead an otherwise normal young man to fall into the nightmarish trap of homosexuality.  

1) Peer pressure.
2) Absent father due to divorce or some other reason. A boy may be overly "mothered" and live his life without a good example set by a strong father figure.
3) Poor diet leading to a hormonal imbalance.
4) Lack of spiritual balance or training growing up. Public schools frown upon the Bible and prayer so a boy may never know what the consequences of unrepentant sin are.
5) Public misinformation concerning the homosexual disorder. "Progressive" school teachers and politicians coupled with a far left media love to extol the "virtues" of homosexuality in an attempt to make it appear "normal" and acceptable. Impressionable children who only hear one side of the argument can be easily duped into believing that lie.
6) I suppose that bullying and force may cause some young men to participate in homosexual activities while fear and shame keep them there.


----------



## Barb

> the Regent University Law Review.


----------



## Chaussette

DriftingSand said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> The American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973 only after years of political pressure from gay activists. The American Psychiatric association board of trustees passed this decision followed by a statement which listed among the reasons for their decision as changing social norms and growing gay rights activism . So basically, a scientific institution was coerced into changing a scientific opinion or classification due to political pressure !
> 
> Removing homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses was not triggered by some scientific breakthrough.  There was no new fact or set of facts that stimulated this major change.  Rather, it was the simple reality that gay people started to kick up a fuss.
> 
> In subsequent years the APA has become so politicized , that it has lost any credibility as a Scientific organization and in the words of one former APA President it is totally "Beholden to the Gay Rights Movement"
> 
> Myself and many others , who for fear of reprisals remain silent believe that Homosexuality is and always has been a Mental Disorder and Homosexuals should not be deterred from seeking Psychological / Psychiatric Help.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality is certainly a disorder but I'm not certain if it's mental or spiritual (or a little of both). There may be several factors that might lead an otherwise normal young man to fall into the nightmarish trap of homosexuality.
> 
> 1) Peer pressure.
> 2) Absent father due to divorce or some other reason. A boy may be overly "mothered" and live his life without a good example set by a strong father figure.
> 3) Poor diet leading to a hormonal imbalance.
> 4) Lack of spiritual balance or training growing up. Public schools frown upon the Bible and prayer so a boy may never know what the consequences of unrepentant sin are.
> 5) Public misinformation concerning the homosexual disorder. "Progressive" school teachers and politicians coupled with a far left media love to extol the "virtues" of homosexuality in an attempt to make it appear "normal" and acceptable. Impressionable children who only hear one side of the argument can be easily duped into believing that lie.
> 6) I suppose that bullying and force may cause some young men to participate in homosexual activities while fear and shame keep them there.
Click to expand...


But what makes YOU so obsessed with gays?

PS my fave: "poor diet".


----------



## DriftingSand

Chaussette said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> The American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973 only after years of political pressure from gay activists. The American Psychiatric association board of trustees passed this decision followed by a statement which listed among the reasons for their decision as changing social norms and growing gay rights activism . So basically, a scientific institution was coerced into changing a scientific opinion or classification due to political pressure !
> 
> Removing homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses was not triggered by some scientific breakthrough.  There was no new fact or set of facts that stimulated this major change.  Rather, it was the simple reality that gay people started to kick up a fuss.
> 
> In subsequent years the APA has become so politicized , that it has lost any credibility as a Scientific organization and in the words of one former APA President it is totally "Beholden to the Gay Rights Movement"
> 
> Myself and many others , who for fear of reprisals remain silent believe that Homosexuality is and always has been a Mental Disorder and Homosexuals should not be deterred from seeking Psychological / Psychiatric Help.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality is certainly a disorder but I'm not certain if it's mental or spiritual (or a little of both). There may be several factors that might lead an otherwise normal young man to fall into the nightmarish trap of homosexuality.
> 
> 1) Peer pressure.
> 2) Absent father due to divorce or some other reason. A boy may be overly "mothered" and live his life without a good example set by a strong father figure.
> 3) Poor diet leading to a hormonal imbalance.
> 4) Lack of spiritual balance or training growing up. Public schools frown upon the Bible and prayer so a boy may never know what the consequences of unrepentant sin are.
> 5) Public misinformation concerning the homosexual disorder. "Progressive" school teachers and politicians coupled with a far left media love to extol the "virtues" of homosexuality in an attempt to make it appear "normal" and acceptable. Impressionable children who only hear one side of the argument can be easily duped into believing that lie.
> 6) I suppose that bullying and force may cause some young men to participate in homosexual activities while fear and shame keep them there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But what makes YOU so obsessed with gays?
> 
> PS my fave: "poor diet".
Click to expand...


I'm not. Just feel sorry for anyone stuck in unrepentant sin. 

As for "poor diet?"  Read again what I said: *"... several factors that might lead ..."

*You have a tendency to misread folks posts and jump to your own conclusions.

Hormonal imbalance is quite common and can lead to depression; bipolar disorder; etc.  Doctors commonly prescribe medicines or suggest improved diets all the time to help curb that disorder. So, it's possible that diet could be a contributing factor where the homosexual disorder is concerned. However, diet may not have anything at all do with the homosexual disorder in every case or even in most cases. It could simply be a man's desire to sin as a result of his rejection of God and God's Word.


----------



## GreenBean

DriftingSand said:


> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality is certainly a disorder but I'm not certain if it's mental or spiritual (or a little of both). There may be several factors that might lead an otherwise normal young man to fall into the nightmarish trap of homosexuality.
> 
> 1) Peer pressure.
> 2) Absent father due to divorce or some other reason. A boy may be overly "mothered" and live his life without a good example set by a strong father figure.
> 3) Poor diet leading to a hormonal imbalance.
> 4) Lack of spiritual balance or training growing up. Public schools frown upon the Bible and prayer so a boy may never know what the consequences of unrepentant sin are.
> 5) Public misinformation concerning the homosexual disorder. "Progressive" school teachers and politicians coupled with a far left media love to extol the "virtues" of homosexuality in an attempt to make it appear "normal" and acceptable. Impressionable children who only hear one side of the argument can be easily duped into believing that lie.
> 6) I suppose that bullying and force may cause some young men to participate in homosexual activities while fear and shame keep them there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But what makes YOU so obsessed with gays?
> 
> PS my fave: "poor diet".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not. Just feel sorry for anyone stuck in unrepentant sin.
> 
> As for "poor diet?"  Read again what I said: *"... several factors that might lead ..."
> 
> *You have a tendency to misread folks posts and jump to your own conclusions.
> 
> Hormonal imbalance is quite common and can lead to depression; bipolar disorder; etc.  Doctors commonly prescribe medicines or suggest improved diets all the time to help curb that disorder. So, it's possible that diet could be a contributing factor where the homosexual disorder is concerned. However, diet may not have anything at all do with the homosexual disorder in every case or even in most cases. It could simply be a man's desire to sin as a result of his rejection of God and God's Word.
Click to expand...


DRIFTING : *Chausette is just a Troll*, he never has anything intelligent to add to any conversation, I wouldn't waste too much time with him.


----------



## Chaussette

GreenBean said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> But what makes YOU so obsessed with gays?
> 
> PS my fave: "poor diet".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not. Just feel sorry for anyone stuck in unrepentant sin.
> 
> As for "poor diet?"  Read again what I said: *"... several factors that might lead ..."
> 
> *You have a tendency to misread folks posts and jump to your own conclusions.
> 
> Hormonal imbalance is quite common and can lead to depression; bipolar disorder; etc.  Doctors commonly prescribe medicines or suggest improved diets all the time to help curb that disorder. So, it's possible that diet could be a contributing factor where the homosexual disorder is concerned. However, diet may not have anything at all do with the homosexual disorder in every case or even in most cases. It could simply be a man's desire to sin as a result of his rejection of God and God's Word.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DRIFTING : *Chausette is just a Troll*, he never has anything intelligent to add to any conversation, I wouldn't waste too much time with him.
Click to expand...


You mean I OWN YOU, that's why you can't counter my arguments. Now you know.


----------



## GreenBean

Chaussette said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not. Just feel sorry for anyone stuck in unrepentant sin.
> 
> As for "poor diet?"  Read again what I said: *"... several factors that might lead ..."
> 
> *You have a tendency to misread folks posts and jump to your own conclusions.
> 
> Hormonal imbalance is quite common and can lead to depression; bipolar disorder; etc.  Doctors commonly prescribe medicines or suggest improved diets all the time to help curb that disorder. So, it's possible that diet could be a contributing factor where the homosexual disorder is concerned. However, diet may not have anything at all do with the homosexual disorder in every case or even in most cases. It could simply be a man's desire to sin as a result of his rejection of God and God's Word.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DRIFTING : *Chausette is just a Troll*, he never has anything intelligent to add to any conversation, I wouldn't waste too much time with him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean I OWN YOU, that's why you can't counter my arguments. Now you know.
Click to expand...


Wow, you're a legend in your own Mind.. lets go back to the most recent posts  Shall we ?



Chaussette said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Beaner, I'm worried about you, you're way too obsessed with gays and what they do with their pants down. If you can't get the thought of two guys sweating under the sheet together out of your mind, you know what that probably means, don't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chausette   -  do you have anything intelligent to add , or just more of what you've been programmed to do - call all opponents Homophobes .
> 
> Can you cite ANYTHING that would support your belief that queers are not Mentally disturbed ... Come on now try and think outside the box ... you can do it ... don't worry about what Big Brother tells you ..... *MAN UP Bro ! *   .... Oh wait -I forgot ... you can't your not really a Man are you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Homosexuality is no longer considered a form of mental illness by mainstream psychologists and psychiatrists."
> Homosexuality and Mental Health
> 
> Just google it, there are tons of links. Sorry, you lose, loser.
Click to expand...


I am familiar with the article you posted a link to , it has stated the following ...



> Although psychoanalytic theories of homosexuality once had considerable influence in psychiatry and in the larger culture, *they were not subjected to rigorous empirical testing.* Instead, they were based on analysts' clinical observations of patients already known by them to be homosexual.




It then goes on to cite the *Evelyn Hooker Study* 



> Hooker's (1957) study was innovative in several important respects. First, rather than simply accepting the predominant view of homosexuality as pathology, *she posed the question of whether homosexuals and heterosexuals differed in their psychological adjustment*. Second, rather than studying psychiatric patients, she recruited a sample of homosexual men who were functioning normally in society. Third, *she employed a procedure that asked experts to rate the adjustment of men without prior knowledge of their sexual orientation*.





> Hookers work has helped the homosexual movement in keeping with the Marxist theories from which it came - to convince judicial and legislative bodies such as the US Supreme Court that homosexuality comprises an oppressed "class" whose rights have been trampled by irrational prejudice. *Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth*




Here study was a Joke, it cannot be repeated using Scientific Objectivity, that is unbiased - not designed to arrive at a predetermined conclusion.   *Hookers "Study" was designed to arrive at a Predetermined result*

*Hookers Studies however were the product of a deliberate campaign by Gay activists to bring forward particular, pre-arranged outcomes*, an approach that ignores scientific objectivity.  

Objectivity is a basic philosophical concept, related to reality and truth.  Objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings. *Scientific Objectivity is a value that informs how scientific studies are conducted and how scientific truths are arrived at*. It is the idea that scientists, in attempting to uncover truths about the natural world, must aspire to eliminate personal biases, emotional involvement, etc ...   *Hookers Studies failed the most basic of Litmus tests regarding Objectivity*.  Hooker was an associate of the Mattachine Society and was lobbied and eventually convinced to conduct a research study of homosexuality for the sole purpose of advancing their Agenda.

The study, "The adjustment of the male overt homosexual", Hooker administered several standardized personality tests to two sets of men, *the first group of 30 was homosexual and heavily screened by the Mattachine Society and the other heterosexual. The whole purpose of the study was to examine the instances of mental instability in homosexuals, However, individuals who showed the slightest signs of mental instability were excluded , it was not a random test and was designed to arrive at predetermined results.*

The studies subjects were not randomly selected. on the contrary they were chosen and screened entirely by the Mattachine Society, an organization that Hooker herself admitted in the report had as its stated purpose " the development of a homosexual ethic in order to better integrate the homosexual into society."  The heterosexual subjects were obtained from "community organizations" which she refused to divulge. The inadequacy of her methodology was even acknowledged by the Journal that published it.

More recent Studies conducted with Scientific Objectivity have produced entirely different results than the Hooker Study

Sexual minority status and psychotic symptoms

Dr. Apu Chakraborty of University College London, UK.

*Hooker concluded her report by offering a set of "admissions" about the limitations of her study.  In this section she concedes the possibility that homosexuals are indeed pathological, a point conveniently overlooked by the Gay Activists*, but proven out by later and more reliable studies.  So even though Dr. Hooker prostituted herself to the Mattachine Society, some element of the scientist had to shine through.

*Dr. Evelyn Hooker - Prostituting Science for the Gay Agenda*



YOU - have been unable to refute anything posted by Me  - No my warped little monkey friend 

*I OWN YOU !*

*Bitch *


----------



## Chaussette

GreenBean said:


> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> DRIFTING : *Chausette is just a Troll*, he never has anything intelligent to add to any conversation, I wouldn't waste too much time with him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean I OWN YOU, that's why you can't counter my arguments. Now you know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, you're a legend in your own Mind.. lets go back to the most recent posts  Shall we ?
> 
> 
> 
> I am familiar with the article you posted a link to , it has stated the following ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It then goes on to cite the *Evelyn Hooker Study*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hooker's (1957) study was innovative in several important respects. First, rather than simply accepting the predominant view of homosexuality as pathology, *she posed the question of whether homosexuals and heterosexuals differed in their psychological adjustment*. Second, rather than studying psychiatric patients, she recruited a sample of homosexual men who were functioning normally in society. Third, *she employed a procedure that asked experts to rate the adjustment of men without prior knowledge of their sexual orientation*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hookers work has helped the homosexual movement in keeping with the Marxist theories from which it came - to convince judicial and legislative bodies such as the US Supreme Court that homosexuality comprises an oppressed "class" whose rights have been trampled by irrational prejudice. *Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Here study was a Joke, it cannot be repeated using Scientific Objectivity, that is unbiased - not designed to arrive at a predetermined conclusion.   *Hookers "Study" was designed to arrive at a Predetermined result*
> 
> *Hookers Studies however were the product of a deliberate campaign by Gay activists to bring forward particular, pre-arranged outcomes*, an approach that ignores scientific objectivity.
> 
> Objectivity is a basic philosophical concept, related to reality and truth.  Objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings. *Scientific Objectivity is a value that informs how scientific studies are conducted and how scientific truths are arrived at*. It is the idea that scientists, in attempting to uncover truths about the natural world, must aspire to eliminate personal biases, emotional involvement, etc ...   *Hookers Studies failed the most basic of Litmus tests regarding Objectivity*.  Hooker was an associate of the Mattachine Society and was lobbied and eventually convinced to conduct a research study of homosexuality for the sole purpose of advancing their Agenda.
> 
> The study, "The adjustment of the male overt homosexual", Hooker administered several standardized personality tests to two sets of men, *the first group of 30 was homosexual and heavily screened by the Mattachine Society and the other heterosexual. The whole purpose of the study was to examine the instances of mental instability in homosexuals, However, individuals who showed the slightest signs of mental instability were excluded , it was not a random test and was designed to arrive at predetermined results.*
> 
> The studies subjects were not randomly selected. on the contrary they were chosen and screened entirely by the Mattachine Society, an organization that Hooker herself admitted in the report had as its stated purpose " the development of a homosexual ethic in order to better integrate the homosexual into society."  The heterosexual subjects were obtained from "community organizations" which she refused to divulge. The inadequacy of her methodology was even acknowledged by the Journal that published it.
> 
> More recent Studies conducted with Scientific Objectivity have produced entirely different results than the Hooker Study
> 
> Sexual minority status and psychotic symptoms
> 
> Dr. Apu Chakraborty of University College London, UK.
> 
> *Hooker concluded her report by offering a set of "admissions" about the limitations of her study.  In this section she concedes the possibility that homosexuals are indeed pathological, a point conveniently overlooked by the Gay Activists*, but proven out by later and more reliable studies.  So even though Dr. Hooker prostituted herself to the Mattachine Society, some element of the scientist had to shine through.
> 
> *Dr. Evelyn Hooker - Prostituting Science for the Gay Agenda*
> 
> 
> 
> YOU - have been unable to refute anything posted by Me  - No my warped little monkey friend
> 
> *YOU OWN ME !*
> 
> *Bitch *
Click to expand...

Mr copy&Paste, you posted that already, you forget?


----------



## GreenBean

Chaussette said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean I OWN YOU, that's why you can't counter my arguments. Now you know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you're a legend in your own Mind.. lets go back to the most recent posts  Shall we ?
> 
> 
> 
> I am familiar with the article you posted a link to , it has stated the following ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It then goes on to cite the *Evelyn Hooker Study*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hookers work has helped the homosexual movement in keeping with the Marxist theories from which it came - to convince judicial and legislative bodies such as the US Supreme Court that homosexuality comprises an oppressed "class" whose rights have been trampled by irrational prejudice. *Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Here study was a Joke, it cannot be repeated using Scientific Objectivity, that is unbiased - not designed to arrive at a predetermined conclusion.   *Hookers "Study" was designed to arrive at a Predetermined result*
> 
> *Hookers Studies however were the product of a deliberate campaign by Gay activists to bring forward particular, pre-arranged outcomes*, an approach that ignores scientific objectivity.
> 
> Objectivity is a basic philosophical concept, related to reality and truth.  Objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings. *Scientific Objectivity is a value that informs how scientific studies are conducted and how scientific truths are arrived at*. It is the idea that scientists, in attempting to uncover truths about the natural world, must aspire to eliminate personal biases, emotional involvement, etc ...   *Hookers Studies failed the most basic of Litmus tests regarding Objectivity*.  Hooker was an associate of the Mattachine Society and was lobbied and eventually convinced to conduct a research study of homosexuality for the sole purpose of advancing their Agenda.
> 
> The study, "The adjustment of the male overt homosexual", Hooker administered several standardized personality tests to two sets of men, *the first group of 30 was homosexual and heavily screened by the Mattachine Society and the other heterosexual. The whole purpose of the study was to examine the instances of mental instability in homosexuals, However, individuals who showed the slightest signs of mental instability were excluded , it was not a random test and was designed to arrive at predetermined results.*
> 
> The studies subjects were not randomly selected. on the contrary they were chosen and screened entirely by the Mattachine Society, an organization that Hooker herself admitted in the report had as its stated purpose " the development of a homosexual ethic in order to better integrate the homosexual into society."  The heterosexual subjects were obtained from "community organizations" which she refused to divulge. The inadequacy of her methodology was even acknowledged by the Journal that published it.
> 
> More recent Studies conducted with Scientific Objectivity have produced entirely different results than the Hooker Study
> 
> Sexual minority status and psychotic symptoms
> 
> Dr. Apu Chakraborty of University College London, UK.
> 
> *Hooker concluded her report by offering a set of "admissions" about the limitations of her study.  In this section she concedes the possibility that homosexuals are indeed pathological, a point conveniently overlooked by the Gay Activists*, but proven out by later and more reliable studies.  So even though Dr. Hooker prostituted herself to the Mattachine Society, some element of the scientist had to shine through.
> 
> *Dr. Evelyn Hooker - Prostituting Science for the Gay Agenda*
> 
> 
> 
> YOU - have been unable to refute anything posted by Me  - No my warped little monkey friend
> 
> *YOU OWN ME !*
> 
> *Bitch *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mr copy&Paste, you posted that already, you forget?
Click to expand...


Yes - I did - and you were unable to refute it , so you resorted to Childish antics and deflections in a weak attempt to cloak your ignorance .  The  fact of the matter is Chaussy- you little Moron, - If I post anything over a single paragraph - It's goes way over your head ,you have a mental meltdown.  

Apparently you have a low boiling point in relation to your mental melt downs- that's a sure sign of a weak mind .  Let me cut this short - as I wouldn't want to befuddle you again.


----------



## Chaussette

GreenBean said:


> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you're a legend in your own Mind.. lets go back to the most recent posts  Shall we ?
> 
> 
> 
> I am familiar with the article you posted a link to , it has stated the following ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It then goes on to cite the *Evelyn Hooker Study*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here study was a Joke, it cannot be repeated using Scientific Objectivity, that is unbiased - not designed to arrive at a predetermined conclusion.   *Hookers "Study" was designed to arrive at a Predetermined result*
> 
> *Hookers Studies however were the product of a deliberate campaign by Gay activists to bring forward particular, pre-arranged outcomes*, an approach that ignores scientific objectivity.
> 
> Objectivity is a basic philosophical concept, related to reality and truth.  Objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings. *Scientific Objectivity is a value that informs how scientific studies are conducted and how scientific truths are arrived at*. It is the idea that scientists, in attempting to uncover truths about the natural world, must aspire to eliminate personal biases, emotional involvement, etc ...   *Hookers Studies failed the most basic of Litmus tests regarding Objectivity*.  Hooker was an associate of the Mattachine Society and was lobbied and eventually convinced to conduct a research study of homosexuality for the sole purpose of advancing their Agenda.
> 
> The study, "The adjustment of the male overt homosexual", Hooker administered several standardized personality tests to two sets of men, *the first group of 30 was homosexual and heavily screened by the Mattachine Society and the other heterosexual. The whole purpose of the study was to examine the instances of mental instability in homosexuals, However, individuals who showed the slightest signs of mental instability were excluded , it was not a random test and was designed to arrive at predetermined results.*
> 
> The studies subjects were not randomly selected. on the contrary they were chosen and screened entirely by the Mattachine Society, an organization that Hooker herself admitted in the report had as its stated purpose " the development of a homosexual ethic in order to better integrate the homosexual into society."  The heterosexual subjects were obtained from "community organizations" which she refused to divulge. The inadequacy of her methodology was even acknowledged by the Journal that published it.
> 
> More recent Studies conducted with Scientific Objectivity have produced entirely different results than the Hooker Study
> 
> Sexual minority status and psychotic symptoms
> 
> Dr. Apu Chakraborty of University College London, UK.
> 
> *Hooker concluded her report by offering a set of "admissions" about the limitations of her study.  In this section she concedes the possibility that homosexuals are indeed pathological, a point conveniently overlooked by the Gay Activists*, but proven out by later and more reliable studies.  So even though Dr. Hooker prostituted herself to the Mattachine Society, some element of the scientist had to shine through.
> 
> *Dr. Evelyn Hooker - Prostituting Science for the Gay Agenda*
> 
> 
> 
> YOU - have been unable to refute anything posted by Me  - No my warped little monkey friend
> 
> *YOU OWN ME !*
> 
> *Bitch *
> 
> 
> 
> Mr copy&Paste, you posted that already, you forget?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes - I did - and you were unable to refute it , so you resorted to Childish antics and deflections in a weak attempt to cloak your ignorance .  The  fact of the matter is Chaussy- you little Moron, - If I post anything over a single paragraph - It's goes way over your head ,you have a mental meltdown.
> 
> Apparently you have a low boiling point in relation to your mental melt downs- that's a sure sign of a weak mind .  Let me cut this short - as I wouldn't want to befuddle you again.
Click to expand...

No, it's that if you can't make your point in a short-ish paragraph that isn't a bunch of copy&paste, then I won't read it.  Now you know. Please try again.


----------



## GreenBean

Chaussette said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr copy&Paste, you posted that already, you forget?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes - I did - and you were unable to refute it , so you resorted to Childish antics and deflections in a weak attempt to cloak your ignorance .  The  fact of the matter is Chaussy- you little Moron, - If I post anything over a single paragraph - It's goes way over your head ,you have a mental meltdown.
> 
> Apparently you have a low boiling point in relation to your mental melt downs- that's a sure sign of a weak mind .  Let me cut this short - as I wouldn't want to befuddle you again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it's that if you can't make your point in a short-ish paragraph that isn't a bunch of copy&paste, then I won't read it.  Now you know. Please try again.
Click to expand...


You just Clinched it Chausette - Way too complicated for you.  It's there for you, perhaps way over your head, but it's there.

*READ UP or SHUT UP *


----------



## Chaussette

GreenBean said:


> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes - I did - and you were unable to refute it , so you resorted to Childish antics and deflections in a weak attempt to cloak your ignorance .  The  fact of the matter is Chaussy- you little Moron, - If I post anything over a single paragraph - It's goes way over your head ,you have a mental meltdown.
> 
> Apparently you have a low boiling point in relation to your mental melt downs- that's a sure sign of a weak mind .  Let me cut this short - as I wouldn't want to befuddle you again.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's that if you can't make your point in a short-ish paragraph that isn't a bunch of copy&paste, then I won't read it.  Now you know. Please try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just Clinched it Chausette - Way too complicated for you.  It's there for you, perhaps way over your head, but it's there.
> 
> *READ UP or SHUT UP *
Click to expand...


You can't even make your own point and you expect me to read your copy&paste? You must be new here.


----------



## GreenBean

Chaussette said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's that if you can't make your point in a short-ish paragraph that isn't a bunch of copy&paste, then I won't read it.  Now you know. Please try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just Clinched it Chausette - Way too complicated for you.  It's there for you, perhaps way over your head, but it's there.
> 
> *READ UP or SHUT UP *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't even make your own point and you expect me to read your copy&paste? You must be new here.
Click to expand...


No actually you are your join date shows Feb. 2014 - So are you a banned sock puppet that got reincarnated ?   

*Hey CONNERY I think you need to check this avatar out*


----------



## DGS49

Really, lads, it is not necessary to copy every previous post to make your point.  Just say it and be done.


----------



## Barb

Chaussette said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean I OWN YOU, that's why you can't counter my arguments. Now you know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you're a legend in your own Mind.. lets go back to the most recent posts  Shall we ?
> 
> 
> 
> I am familiar with the article you posted a link to , it has stated the following ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It then goes on to cite the *Evelyn Hooker Study*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hookers work has helped the homosexual movement in keeping with the Marxist theories from which it came - to convince judicial and legislative bodies such as the US Supreme Court that homosexuality comprises an oppressed "class" whose rights have been trampled by irrational prejudice. *Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Here study was a Joke, it cannot be repeated using Scientific Objectivity, that is unbiased - not designed to arrive at a predetermined conclusion.   *Hookers "Study" was designed to arrive at a Predetermined result*
> 
> *Hookers Studies however were the product of a deliberate campaign by Gay activists to bring forward particular, pre-arranged outcomes*, an approach that ignores scientific objectivity.
> 
> Objectivity is a basic philosophical concept, related to reality and truth.  Objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings. *Scientific Objectivity is a value that informs how scientific studies are conducted and how scientific truths are arrived at*. It is the idea that scientists, in attempting to uncover truths about the natural world, must aspire to eliminate personal biases, emotional involvement, etc ...   *Hookers Studies failed the most basic of Litmus tests regarding Objectivity*.  Hooker was an associate of the Mattachine Society and was lobbied and eventually convinced to conduct a research study of homosexuality for the sole purpose of advancing their Agenda.
> 
> The study, "The adjustment of the male overt homosexual", Hooker administered several standardized personality tests to two sets of men, *the first group of 30 was homosexual and heavily screened by the Mattachine Society and the other heterosexual. The whole purpose of the study was to examine the instances of mental instability in homosexuals, However, individuals who showed the slightest signs of mental instability were excluded , it was not a random test and was designed to arrive at predetermined results.*
> 
> The studies subjects were not randomly selected. on the contrary they were chosen and screened entirely by the Mattachine Society, an organization that Hooker herself admitted in the report had as its stated purpose " the development of a homosexual ethic in order to better integrate the homosexual into society."  The heterosexual subjects were obtained from "community organizations" which she refused to divulge. The inadequacy of her methodology was even acknowledged by the Journal that published it.
> 
> More recent Studies conducted with Scientific Objectivity have produced entirely different results than the Hooker Study
> 
> Sexual minority status and psychotic symptoms
> 
> Dr. Apu Chakraborty of University College London, UK.
> 
> *Hooker concluded her report by offering a set of "admissions" about the limitations of her study.  In this section she concedes the possibility that homosexuals are indeed pathological, a point conveniently overlooked by the Gay Activists*, but proven out by later and more reliable studies.  So even though Dr. Hooker prostituted herself to the Mattachine Society, some element of the scientist had to shine through.
> 
> *Dr. Evelyn Hooker - Prostituting Science for the Gay Agenda*
> 
> 
> 
> YOU - have been unable to refute anything posted by Me  - No my warped little monkey friend
> 
> *YOU OWN ME !*
> 
> *Bitch *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mr copy&Paste, you posted that already, you forget?
Click to expand...


 He's getting in touch with his artistic side,


----------



## GreenBean

DGS49 said:


> Really, lads, it is not necessary to copy every previous post to make your point.  Just say it and be done.



Yes - you are correct


----------



## Barb

GreenBean said:


> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just Clinched it Chausette - Way too complicated for you.  It's there for you, perhaps way over your head, but it's there.
> 
> *READ UP or SHUT UP *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't even make your own point and you expect me to read your copy&paste? You must be new here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No actually you are your join date shows Feb. 2014 - So are you a banned sock puppet that got reincarnated ?
> 
> *Hey CONNERY I think you need to check this avatar out*
Click to expand...


Ohhh, he DOES have you peeved  - running and whining to the mods. Pathetic.


----------



## Victory67

DGS49 said:


> Psychology and Psychiatry are focused on what is "normal."
> 
> The historical reason why phychiatry cosidered homosexual orientation to be "abnormal" was that it flies in the face of biological reality.  In short, the penis, testes, and so on have a reproductive purpose, defined clearly in nature.  Semen has a natural purpose.
> 
> Homosexual acts use male reproductive organs (and mainly parts of the digestive system) in ways that are contrary to their obvious natural functions.  There is nothing normal about a man sticking his penis up another man's ass in a bizarre parody of sexual intercourse.  The that fact that it is physically possible does not make it "natural" or "normal"; it's possible to simulate sexual intercourse with a wide variety of animals and plants.  So what?  I've heard homosexuals make the argument that since it is (and I have to take this entirely on faith) "pleasant" to be the buggee, that means it must be normal to bugger.  Baloney.
> 
> Homosexuality is the inexplicable desire on the part of a man to "copulate" with other men.  Since this copulation is biologically abnormal, then by necessity the sexual urge to do it must be psychologically abnormal, and if it is abnormal then it should be treatable from a psychiatric standpoint.
> 
> But it is not difficult to see why the APA decided to "concede the point," so to speak.  Many, if not most homosexuals, do not consider themselves to be "flawed," and even if they do, they prefer their homosexual orientation.  *Consider: a homosexual can go out to any gay bar in the country and "get laid" on any night he chooses*.  What heterosexual can say the same?



so straight men and women who only engage in oral sex, are mentally ill and abnormal?

your prejudice against Gays is pretty clear.


----------



## DGS49

Dear Victory 67:

I am unaware of any male or female heterosexuals who exclusively engage in oral sex.  But if there were such people, they would be abnormal in the extreme.  And in fact, it does seem a little neurotic to me.

Are you truly so stupid that you cannot distinguish between finding certain behavior morally repugnant and hating the people who engage in it?

I know many people who are fornicators; some them are friends of mine.  I believe fornication is sinful.  Do you suppose that I hate these people?  I know many gluttons, people who abuse alcohol and/or prescription drugs, people who routinely cheat on their taxes, and people who have defrauded insurance companies.  I do not hate any of them because of their conduct, although I think their conduct is a negative reflection on their character.

I have a cornucopia of sinful behavior in my own background, which is why I am reluctant to "hate" anyone for their sins.

"Prejudice" implies a pre-judgment in the absence of rational cause.  If I am prejudiced against Croatians, I dislike them before I know anything about them.

If I meet someone whom I know to have been convicted to multiple instances of child sexual abuse, would it be OK with you if I were negatively inclined toward them before actually meeting them?  Or would that make me "prejudiced"?  Is my prejudice wrong?

If I am introduced to two guys who are "married" (and I have been), pardon me if I think it unlikely that I'm going to be lifelong friends with them.  Maybe I will, but there is, shall we say, one strike against it.

So flog me.


----------



## Victory67

DGS49 said:


> Dear Victory 67:
> 
> I am unaware of any male or female heterosexuals who exclusively engage in oral sex.  But if there were such people, they would be abnormal in the extreme.  And in fact, it does seem a little neurotic to me.
> 
> Are you truly so stupid that you cannot distinguish between finding certain behavior morally repugnant and hating the people who engage in it?



Immoral behavior is acts that hurt other people.  Anal sex doesn't hurt anyone especially when its consensual.  Many straight couples engage in anal sex.

Do you consider straight couples that engage in anal sex and oral sex, to be "immoral"?


----------



## cereal_killer

*Thread cleaned. Back on topic gents. Thank you!*


----------



## GreenBean

cereal_killer said:


> *Thread cleaned. Back on topic gents. Thank you!*



*BACK ON TOPIC*

The last firestorm started with the Topic of Evelyn Hookers long since debunked Study which attempted to prove that Homosexuals were , their sexual orientation aside, otherwise perfectly normal Human Beings. Science has proven this to be a baseless politically motivated fabrication.

*"The adjustment of the male overt homosexual"*



> Hookers Studies however were the product of a deliberate campaign by Gay activists to bring forward particular, pre-arranged outcomes, an approach that ignores scientific objectivity.  .... It is the idea that scientists, in attempting to uncover truths about the natural world, must aspire to eliminate personal biases, emotional involvement, etc ...   Hookers Studies failed the most basic of Litmus tests regarding Objectivity.  .....
> 
> The studies subjects were not randomly selected. on the contrary they were chosen and screened entirely by the Mattachine Society, an organization that Hooker herself admitted in the report had as its stated purpose " the development of a homosexual ethic in order to better integrate the homosexual into society."  ... The inadequacy of her methodology was even acknowledged by the Journal that published it.
> 
> Hooker concluded her report by offering a set of "admissions" about the limitations of her study.  In this section she concedes the possibility that homosexuals are indeed pathological
> 
> *Dr. Evelyn Hooker*



More recent, peer reviewed and objective Studies have clearly demonstrated that Homosexuals are indeed Psychologically disturbed to say the least.  Is there no one capable of refuting this {Of course NOT - because it's FACT.}


----------



## emilynghiem

Dear Drifting Sand:
I would make a distinction between people
who identify homosexually due to SPIRITUAL reasons, birth or conditioning or both,
and people who were abused sexually and became that way from unnatural causes.
This second type is the one where I know of people personally who help abuse victims to
heal after they resolved the abuse issues where some return to their natural state by birth.



DriftingSand said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> The American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973 only after years of political pressure from gay activists. The American Psychiatric association board of trustees passed this decision followed by a statement which listed among the reasons for their decision as changing social norms and growing gay rights activism . So basically, a scientific institution was coerced into changing a scientific opinion or classification due to political pressure !
> 
> Removing homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses was not triggered by some scientific breakthrough.  There was no new fact or set of facts that stimulated this major change.  Rather, it was the simple reality that gay people started to kick up a fuss.
> 
> In subsequent years the APA has become so politicized , that it has lost any credibility as a Scientific organization and in the words of one former APA President it is totally "Beholden to the Gay Rights Movement"
> 
> Myself and many others , who for fear of reprisals remain silent believe that Homosexuality is and always has been a Mental Disorder and Homosexuals should not be deterred from seeking Psychological / Psychiatric Help.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality is certainly a disorder but I'm not certain if it's mental or spiritual (or a little of both). There may be several factors that might lead an otherwise normal young man to fall into the nightmarish trap of homosexuality.
> 
> 1) Peer pressure.
> 2) Absent father due to divorce or some other reason. A boy may be overly "mothered" and live his life without a good example set by a strong father figure.
> 3) Poor diet leading to a hormonal imbalance.
> 4) Lack of spiritual balance or training growing up. Public schools frown upon the Bible and prayer so a boy may never know what the consequences of unrepentant sin are.
> 5) Public misinformation concerning the homosexual disorder. "Progressive" school teachers and politicians coupled with a far left media love to extol the "virtues" of homosexuality in an attempt to make it appear "normal" and acceptable. Impressionable children who only hear one side of the argument can be easily duped into believing that lie.
> 6) I suppose that bullying and force may cause some young men to participate in homosexual activities while fear and shame keep them there.
Click to expand...


----------



## DriftingSand

emilynghiem said:


> Dear Drifting Sand:
> I would make a distinction between people
> who identify homosexually due to SPIRITUAL reasons, birth or conditioning or both,
> and people who were abused sexually and became that way from unnatural causes.
> This second type is the one where I know of people personally who help abuse victims to
> heal after they resolved the abuse issues where some return to their natural state by birth.



It's good to know that there are caring folks in the world who are taking the time and effort to help them who are damaged. They, as well as the victims, need our fervent prayers. Perhaps someone who's healed of homosexuality can help the next person lost in that sin. Homosexuality is but one of America's national/social sins. Our nation, as a whole, needs our prayers for a bucket full of sins. Divorce, drug abuse, alcoholism, child abuse, general promiscuity, abortion, and the list goes on. May the Holy Spirit reach into the hearts and minds of His lost souls and bring them home.


----------



## DGS49

"Immorality" is not entirely determined by whether conduct harms someone.  That is a fatuous and empty view.

Lust harms no one.  Envy harms no one.  Gluttony harms no one other than oneself.  The same might be said for most forms of drug and substance abuse.  Greed harms no one, and in fact may be beneficial to society; many doctors practice their trade excessively (80 hrs/wk) largely out of greed.

Homosexual sodomy is has been almost universally condemned by every recognized religious community for eons, and remains "sinful" for most.  The fact that it arguably harms no one is no rebuttal to its immorality.

In my personal view, various forms of sodomy, in the context of a normal marriage relationship, are morally neutral.  My view is at odds with the teachings of my church.


----------



## GISMYS

DGS49 said:


> "Immorality" is not entirely determined by whether conduct harms someone.  That is a fatuous and empty view.
> 
> Lust harms no one.  Envy harms no one.  Gluttony harms no one other than oneself.  The same might be said for most forms of drug and substance abuse.  Greed harms no one, and in fact may be beneficial to society; many doctors practice their trade excessively (80 hrs/wk) largely out of greed.
> 
> Homosexual sodomy is has been almost universally condemned by every recognized religious community for eons, and remains "sinful" for most.  The fact that it arguably harms no one is no rebuttal to its immorality.
> 
> In my personal view, various forms of sodomy, in the context of a normal marriage relationship, are morally neutral.  My view is at odds with the teachings of my church.



Those that deny the truth of God's word about sick sexual perversion abomination or anything else are in BIG TROUBLE ON JUDGMENT DAY!!


----------



## Victory67

GISMYS said:


> Those that deny the truth of God's word about sick sexual perversion abomination or anything else are in BIG TROUBLE ON JUDGMENT DAY!!



I am less than frightened.


----------



## DGS49

"Sick, sexual perversion abomination"?

Where do I sign up?  Sounds like fun.


----------



## emilynghiem

DGS49 said:


> "Immorality" is not entirely determined by whether conduct harms someone.  That is a fatuous and empty view.
> 
> Lust harms no one.  Envy harms no one.  Gluttony harms no one other than oneself.  The same might be said for most forms of drug and substance abuse.  Greed harms no one, and in fact may be beneficial to society; many doctors practice their trade excessively (80 hrs/wk) largely out of greed.
> 
> Homosexual sodomy is has been almost universally condemned by every recognized religious community for eons, and remains "sinful" for most.  The fact that it arguably harms no one is no rebuttal to its immorality.
> 
> In my personal view, various forms of sodomy, in the context of a normal marriage relationship, are morally neutral.  My view is at odds with the teachings of my church.



Dear DGS:
Yes and no.
For those who take responsibility for these choices of actions, yes, they do not necessarily cause any harm to others.

For those whose drug addictions or poor health habits end up costing the public,
then it does become someone else's problem.

Especially if we are on the verge of putting deadlines on mandates for health care, while at the same time certain states are legalizing pot, we need to get this straight
WHO is willing to pay for the consequences of WHICH behavior.

* the prolife made it clear they don't want to pay for abortion, and keep counseling women destroyed by it.

* if people don't want the death penalty, such as the Catholic church, religious opponents need to pay for alternatives that prevent murder in the first place.

etc.

Why not reward all groups taxbreaks for setting up their own systems for paying for their health care under terms they agree to follow so other people don't have to pay for that who want other terms? Why not teach people self-government so they understand the system.

as for your views, it sounds like you are being more "forgiving and not judging" which is in keeping with scripture.
if all people were as forgiving, there would not be as much abuse or division creating these problems.

however, it is still our responsibility to make sure all problems or causes of problems are corrected.
so if people are still judging homosexuality as negative, then let's solve that problem.

just treating it as neutral is not enough to solve it. We need to use our
objectivity as an advantage in researching what is going on, where is the harm
or offense coming from, and how do we fix that problem regardless if it's coming from
the past or the present, the person or the perceiver. 

I think being able to view this objectively or neutral is a gift.
I encourage you to use your gift to make a difference in resolving the conflicts over these issues.

=====================================================
BTW DGS I'm not sure that doctors are better motivated to work overtime by greed.
I've heard horror stories of doctors pushed to addictions from working strenuous schedules, especially with surgeries that are high demand but which can cause fatal errors. The stress of this has pushed many professionals to abuse alcohol or harder drugs which is scary.

No, I disagree with that if it means putting patients at risk.

The doctors who DO work harder by "putting patients first" are likely motivated by the right reasons. Doctor Without Borders is not motivated by greed and have won the Nobel Prize for their outstanding heroic work, cultivating resources and services on a volunteer basis.

So that is the spirit that I believes drives the best doctors, and nurses, and teachers.

I believe compassion is more sustainable than greed, which burns people out.
======================================================

Another good example is Dr. Phillip Goldfedder who clearly could make more money as a neurosurgeon, before he discovered how spiritual healing worked as a natural process free for the asking. Because he was able to help more people, and cure problems permanently at the root (instead of placating symptoms with more expensive medications or surgery which doesn't cure the cause), he dropped his high profit surgery practice and does all his work by counseling and prayer therapy. He teaches people how to let go of all negativity by forgiving and dropping past patterns and agreeing to focus only on the positive will of God.
There are other neurosurgeons who practice both, who still rely on the surgery for helping patients and making their careers. But Dr. Goldfedder found spiritual healing was more effective. Healing Is Yours

Dr. Daniel Amen (author of "Change your Brain, Change your Life) is another doctor focused on mental therapy as the key to changing people's lives and health. He may be more motivated by profit, as critics claim he exaggerated or skewed how clearly brain scans show changes in brain patterns in patients from depression to positive thinking. If he is cheating on those scans, that is likely motivated by greed, to market his results more vigorously.

Comparing these two doctors, no, I do not think greed is a better motivating factor, where it diminishes the integrity and practice of good medicine.

if you compare Dr. Goldfedder with Dr. Francis and Judith MacNutt, they are even more focused on nonprofit education and free outreach to help more people receive the benefits of spiritual healing and knowledge how the process works with medicine and science.
Home - Christian Healing Ministries

What I found is the fewer conditions on the practice of spiritual healing, the more effective it is. True practitioners like MacNutt's ministry warn against attaching money or religion as conditions on the process, or it doesn't work naturally and freely.

I would rather encourage more people to work in the spirit of abundance, and good faith in serving others, rather than the scarcity mentality and being driven by selfish fear or greed.
From what I understand, the abundance mentality works better to attract more successful results, relationships and people in life; while the scarcity mentality attracts negativity.


----------



## emilynghiem

DGS49 said:


> "Sick, sexual perversion abomination"?
> 
> Where do I sign up?  Sounds like fun.



Depends which side you are on, on top or on the receiving end?


----------



## DriftingSand

DGS49 said:


> Dear Victory 67:
> 
> I am unaware of any male or female heterosexuals who exclusively engage in oral sex.  But if there were such people, they would be abnormal in the extreme.  And in fact, it does seem a little neurotic to me.
> 
> Are you truly so stupid that you cannot distinguish between finding certain behavior morally repugnant and hating the people who engage in it?
> 
> I know many people who are fornicators; some them are friends of mine.  I believe fornication is sinful.  Do you suppose that I hate these people?  I know many gluttons, people who abuse alcohol and/or prescription drugs, people who routinely cheat on their taxes, and people who have defrauded insurance companies.  I do not hate any of them because of their conduct, although I think their conduct is a negative reflection on their character.
> 
> I have a cornucopia of sinful behavior in my own background, which is why I am reluctant to "hate" anyone for their sins.
> 
> "Prejudice" implies a pre-judgment in the absence of rational cause.  If I am prejudiced against Croatians, I dislike them before I know anything about them.
> 
> If I meet someone whom I know to have been convicted to multiple instances of child sexual abuse, would it be OK with you if I were negatively inclined toward them before actually meeting them?  Or would that make me "prejudiced"?  Is my prejudice wrong?
> 
> If I am introduced to two guys who are "married" (and I have been), pardon me if I think it unlikely that I'm going to be lifelong friends with them.  Maybe I will, but there is, shall we say, one strike against it.
> 
> So flog me.



This is a very good post.  

These days, anytime a moral person disagrees with anything immoral someone comes out of the woodwork and screams "you're prejudice." It's getting tiresome.

It's OKAY to disagree with homosexuality. Everyone has a right to an opinion and it's my opinion that homosexuality is a disorder of some kind.  That doesn't make me "prejudiced."  It simply means that I've studied the various arguments pro and con and I've come to the conclusion that the normal way for the human race to continue to exist is for men and women to continue procreating like they've been doing for centuries.  If it were "normal" to be homosexual and if everyone were to embrace that life style then the human race would cease to exist. That would be societal suicide which is abnormal.


----------



## DriftingSand

DGS49 said:


> "Immorality" is not entirely determined by whether conduct harms someone.  That is a fatuous and empty view.
> 
> Lust harms no one.  Envy harms no one.  Gluttony harms no one other than oneself.  The same might be said for most forms of drug and substance abuse.  Greed harms no one, and in fact may be beneficial to society; many doctors practice their trade excessively (80 hrs/wk) largely out of greed.
> 
> Homosexual sodomy is has been almost universally condemned by every recognized religious community for eons, and remains "sinful" for most.  The fact that it arguably harms no one is no rebuttal to its immorality.
> 
> In my personal view, various forms of sodomy, in the context of a normal marriage relationship, are morally neutral.  My view is at odds with the teachings of my church.



Homosexuality (or homosexuals who openly practice that lifestyle) serves as a poor example to the younger generation as well.  Youngsters need to know the difference between right and wrong.  Openly living a "wrong" lifestyle (whether it be drug use; theft; animal abuse; homosexuality; wife-beating; etc., etc.) harms our future generations and, thus, society as a whole.


----------



## GreenBean

DriftingSand said:


> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Immorality" is not entirely determined by whether conduct harms someone.  That is a fatuous and empty view.
> 
> Lust harms no one.  Envy harms no one.  Gluttony harms no one other than oneself.  The same might be said for most forms of drug and substance abuse.  Greed harms no one, and in fact may be beneficial to society; many doctors practice their trade excessively (80 hrs/wk) largely out of greed.
> 
> Homosexual sodomy is has been almost universally condemned by every recognized religious community for eons, and remains "sinful" for most.  The fact that it arguably harms no one is no rebuttal to its immorality.
> 
> In my personal view, various forms of sodomy, in the context of a normal marriage relationship, are morally neutral.  My view is at odds with the teachings of my church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality (or homosexuals who openly practice that lifestyle) serves as a poor example to the younger generation as well.  Youngsters need to know the difference between right and wrong.  Openly living a "wrong" lifestyle (whether it be drug use; theft; animal abuse; homosexuality; wife-beating; etc., etc.) harms our future generations and, thus, society as a whole.
Click to expand...


 This is where my strongest hatred of the Gay Agenda comes in - The homosexual activist movement salivates at the thought of indoctrinating the Children of normal people - they work feverishly to get at everybody elses kids - *to mess with their heads using powerful techniques of deception incorporated from modern advertising and cognitive science*. 

Distortions of reality are drilled continuously overtly ,subliminally, quasi- subliminally into the minds of Children aimed at forced acceptance and indoctrination of their perverted deceptions.


----------



## MaryL

Of course Homosexuality is a mental disorder. As the kiddoes say:  NO  DUH!  Is this thread supposed to enlighten us? Or is it a  joke?  Homosexuals have always had the same rights as the rest of us bipolar schizoid manic depressive heterosexual breeders have. Sad fact here:  Blind people can't drive cars. Deaf people can't play musical instruments. They have rights just the same. Gays can't have children,  thus no need for marriage. They have all the same rights as the rest of us. Please don't ask me to respect people that have anal sex...I can't nor will I "accept" homosexuality as a alternative to heterosexuality. That isn't and shouldn't even be an issue. They have their "preferences", we have ours... I certainly dont like what amounts to gay party apparatchiks dictating what is "acceptable' and spouting propaganda. I want America back.


----------



## Barb

MaryL said:


> Of course Homosexuality is a mental disorder. As the kiddoes say:  NO  DUH!  Is this thread supposed to enlighten us? Or is it a  joke?  Homosexuals have always had the same rights as the rest of us bipolar schizoid manic depressive heterosexual breeders have. Sad fact here:  Blind people can't drive cars. Deaf people can't play musical instruments. They have rights just the same. Gays can't have children,  thus no need for marriage. They have all the same rights as the rest of us. Please don't ask me to respect people that have anal sex...I can't nor will I "accept" homosexuality as a alternative to heterosexuality. That isn't and shouldn't even be an issue. They have their "preferences", we have ours... I certainly dont like what amounts to gay party apparatchiks dictating what is "acceptable' and spouting propaganda. I want America back.



nobody's "asking" you to do anything but mind your own fucking business and keep your "religious" or "social" "sensibilities" out of government policy.


----------



## Barb

DriftingSand said:


> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Immorality" is not entirely determined by whether conduct harms someone.  That is a fatuous and empty view.
> 
> Lust harms no one.  Envy harms no one.  Gluttony harms no one other than oneself.  The same might be said for most forms of drug and substance abuse.  Greed harms no one, and in fact may be beneficial to society; many doctors practice their trade excessively (80 hrs/wk) largely out of greed.
> 
> Homosexual sodomy is has been almost universally condemned by every recognized religious community for eons, and remains "sinful" for most.  The fact that it arguably harms no one is no rebuttal to its immorality.
> 
> In my personal view, various forms of sodomy, in the context of a normal marriage relationship, are morally neutral.  My view is at odds with the teachings of my church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality (or homosexuals who openly practice that lifestyle) serves as a poor example to the younger generation as well.  Youngsters need to know the difference between right and wrong.  Openly living a "wrong" lifestyle (whether it be drug use; theft; animal abuse; homosexuality; wife-beating; etc., etc.) harms our future generations and, thus, society as a whole.
Click to expand...


everything you listed in parenthesis is a crime except one. I'd rather teach the kids ethical values, like not lying.


----------



## GreenBean

Barb said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course Homosexuality is a mental disorder. As the kiddoes say:  NO  DUH!  Is this thread supposed to enlighten us? Or is it a  joke?  Homosexuals have always had the same rights as the rest of us bipolar schizoid manic depressive heterosexual breeders have. Sad fact here:  Blind people can't drive cars. Deaf people can't play musical instruments. They have rights just the same. Gays can't have children,  thus no need for marriage. They have all the same rights as the rest of us. Please don't ask me to respect people that have anal sex...I can't nor will I "accept" homosexuality as a alternative to heterosexuality. That isn't and shouldn't even be an issue. They have their "preferences", we have ours... I certainly dont like what amounts to gay party apparatchiks dictating what is "acceptable' and spouting propaganda. I want America back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nobody's "asking" you to do anything but mind your own fucking business and keep your "religious" or "social" "sensibilities" out of government policy.
Click to expand...


How can you "mind your own business"  when the fruit cakes are pounding at the door incessantly ?  We "Breeders" have a right and obligation to nurture and defend what we have bred and love more than life itself - Our Children, the next generation are under attack by the advocates of sexual dementia - and hence the War Continues.


----------



## Iceweasel

Barb said:


> nobody's "asking" you to do anything but mind your own fucking business and keep your "religious" or "social" "sensibilities" out of government policy.


That's dishonest. Your side is demanding that there heterosexual community, which is about 97% of the population, no longer has the right to define marriage. And businesses must pretend there is no difference in gay and traditional relationships. Lies, lies and more lies. With the media and liberal politicians covering for you.


----------



## DGS49

Barb, sweetie, do you really believe that, "...nobody's 'asking' you to do anything..."?

How about helping to celebrate a relationship that you personally find abhorrent and sinful?  Isn't that what a Christian photographer who is asked to record a "gay" wedding is being asked to do? Shouldn't he have the right to say, "No, thanks.  Find another photographer"?  Apparently not.

Aren't our kids being indoctrinated to believe that their parents are bigots?  To reject the moral teachings of the church that they attend on Sundays?

Are we being forced to accept as "normal," relationships that are based on a biological absurdity?

Are companies being forced to pay for, as one example, medical benefits for "friends" of employees, when the historical justification for spouses and children simply does not apply to gay partners?

And when it comes to minding one's own business, I've been sexually active for 45 years and not once has my sexual activity been made public.  Why is it necessary for this tiny sliver of humanity to publicize their sexual activities and demand that everyone else accept them?

You are delusional.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Iceweasel said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> nobody's "asking" you to do anything but mind your own fucking business and keep your "religious" or "social" "sensibilities" out of government policy.
> 
> 
> 
> That's dishonest. Your side is demanding that there heterosexual community, which is about 97% of the population, no longer has the right to define marriage. And businesses must pretend there is no difference in gay and traditional relationships. Lies, lies and more lies. With the media and liberal politicians covering for you.
Click to expand...


You can define marriage as one man one woman.  Pass that constitutional amendment that does so.


----------



## NYcarbineer

DGS49 said:


> Barb, sweetie, do you really believe that, "...nobody's 'asking' you to do anything..."?
> 
> How about helping to celebrate a relationship that you personally find abhorrent and sinful?  Isn't that what a Christian photographer who is asked to record a "gay" wedding is being asked to do? Shouldn't he have the right to say, "No, thanks.  Find another photographer"?  Apparently not.
> 
> Aren't our kids being indoctrinated to believe that their parents are bigots?  To reject the moral teachings of the church that they attend on Sundays?
> 
> Are we being forced to accept as "normal," relationships that are based on a biological absurdity?
> 
> Are companies being forced to pay for, as one example, medical benefits for "friends" of employees, when the historical justification for spouses and children simply does not apply to gay partners?
> 
> And when it comes to minding one's own business, I've been sexually active for 45 years and not once has my sexual activity been made public.  Why is it necessary for this tiny sliver of humanity to publicize their sexual activities and demand that everyone else accept them?
> 
> You are delusional.



So why does a gay man like yourself oppose gay rights?  Weird.


----------



## DriftingSand

Barb said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course Homosexuality is a mental disorder. As the kiddoes say:  NO  DUH!  Is this thread supposed to enlighten us? Or is it a  joke?  Homosexuals have always had the same rights as the rest of us bipolar schizoid manic depressive heterosexual breeders have. Sad fact here:  Blind people can't drive cars. Deaf people can't play musical instruments. They have rights just the same. Gays can't have children,  thus no need for marriage. They have all the same rights as the rest of us. Please don't ask me to respect people that have anal sex...I can't nor will I "accept" homosexuality as a alternative to heterosexuality. That isn't and shouldn't even be an issue. They have their "preferences", we have ours... I certainly dont like what amounts to gay party apparatchiks dictating what is "acceptable' and spouting propaganda. I want America back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nobody's "asking" you to do anything but mind your own fucking business and keep your "religious" or "social" "sensibilities" out of government policy.
Click to expand...


May we ask that you keep your non-biblical and non-religious "sensibilities" out of government policy or are you a proponent of double standards?  The majority of America's founders were Christians and the Constitution was written with biblical standards in mind.


----------



## DriftingSand

The vast majority of "gays" can thank a heterosexual couple for their existence.  There wouldn't be "gay" activism if there weren't "gays" and there wouldn't be any "gays" unless straight folks practiced procreation. 

If "gay" folks want so stray from the norm then so be it but stop trying to force normal folks to accept abnormal behavior.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

In a word, no.


----------



## MikeK

GreenBean said:


> The American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973 only after years of political pressure from gay activists. The American Psychiatric association board of trustees passed this decision followed by a statement which listed among the reasons for their decision as changing social norms and growing gay rights activism . So basically, a scientific institution was coerced into changing a scientific opinion or classification due to political pressure !
> 
> Removing homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses was not triggered by some scientific breakthrough.  There was no new fact or set of facts that stimulated this major change.  Rather, it was the simple reality that gay people started to kick up a fuss.
> 
> In subsequent years the APA has become so politicized , that it has lost any credibility as a Scientific organization and in the words of one former APA President it is totally "Beholden to the Gay Rights Movement"
> 
> Myself and many others , who for fear of reprisals remain silent believe that Homosexuality is and always has been a Mental Disorder and Homosexuals should not be deterred from seeking Psychological / Psychiatric Help.


Sexual impulses are produced by hormonal influence on the brain.  Homosexuality is the result of hormonal imbalance.  Prenatal hormones and sexual orientation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## GISMYS

Sick sexual perversion is an abomination =a choice to live in sin and reject GOD!!! BEST YOU COUNT THE COST!


----------



## Noomi

GISMYS said:


> Sick sexual perversion is an abomination =a choice to live in sin and reject GOD!!! BEST YOU COUNT THE COST!



How can people reject someone who hasn't been proven to exist?


----------



## Iceweasel

NYcarbineer said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> nobody's "asking" you to do anything but mind your own fucking business and keep your "religious" or "social" "sensibilities" out of government policy.
> 
> 
> 
> That's dishonest. Your side is demanding that there heterosexual community, which is about 97% of the population, no longer has the right to define marriage. And businesses must pretend there is no difference in gay and traditional relationships. Lies, lies and more lies. With the media and liberal politicians covering for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can define marriage as one man one woman.  Pass that constitutional amendment that does so.
Click to expand...

Learn to read. It's a state issue.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Iceweasel said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's dishonest. Your side is demanding that there heterosexual community, which is about 97% of the population, no longer has the right to define marriage. And businesses must pretend there is no difference in gay and traditional relationships. Lies, lies and more lies. With the media and liberal politicians covering for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can define marriage as one man one woman.  Pass that constitutional amendment that does so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Learn to read. It's a state issue.
Click to expand...


It's not a state issue when equal protection issues are involved.  That makes it a constitutional issue,

and the state laws are subject to constitutional scrutiny.


----------



## NYcarbineer

DGS49 said:


> Psychology and Psychiatry are focused on what is "normal."
> 
> The historical reason why phychiatry cosidered homosexual orientation to be "abnormal" was that it flies in the face of biological reality.  In short, the penis, testes, and so on have a reproductive purpose, defined clearly in nature.  Semen has a natural purpose.
> 
> Homosexual acts use male reproductive organs (and mainly parts of the digestive system) in ways that are contrary to their obvious natural functions.  There is nothing normal about a man sticking his penis up another man's ass in a bizarre parody of sexual intercourse.  The that fact that it is physically possible does not make it "natural" or "normal"; it's possible to simulate sexual intercourse with a wide variety of animals and plants.  So what?  I've heard homosexuals make the argument that since it is (and I have to take this entirely on faith) "pleasant" to be the buggee, that means it must be normal to bugger.  Baloney.
> 
> Homosexuality is the inexplicable desire on the part of a man to "copulate" with other men.  Since this copulation is biologically abnormal, then by necessity the sexual urge to do it must be psychologically abnormal, and if it is abnormal then it should be treatable from a psychiatric standpoint.
> 
> But it is not difficult to see why the APA decided to "concede the point," so to speak.  Many, if not most homosexuals, do not consider themselves to be "flawed," and even if they do, they prefer their homosexual orientation.  Consider: a homosexual can go out to any gay bar in the country and "get laid" on any night he chooses.  What heterosexual can say the same?



99% or more of _heterosexual _sex occurs for a purpose other than reproduction.

Therefore you cannot classify any sex act, gay or straight, as abnormal simply because it is non-reproductive by nature or by choice.

Non-reproductive sex is normal in humans.


----------



## DriftingSand

NYcarbineer said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can define marriage as one man one woman.  Pass that constitutional amendment that does so.
> 
> 
> 
> Learn to read. It's a state issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not a state issue when equal protection issues are involved.  That makes it a constitutional issue,
> 
> and the state laws are subject to constitutional scrutiny.
Click to expand...


Are you for "equal protection" for members of NAMBLA? Would you be for "equal protection" for a man-and-his-goat? What about a 35 year old man and his consenting 14 year old girlfriend - equal protection?  

It all boils down to where the line should be drawn.  You want it drawn at a point that makes some sinful behavior "acceptable" while we believe in keeping it where it has always been.


----------



## Iceweasel

NYcarbineer said:


> It's not a state issue when equal protection issues are involved.  That makes it a constitutional issue,
> 
> and the state laws are subject to constitutional scrutiny.


But gay marriage isn't the law of the land so obviously you are full of it.


----------



## Geaux4it

A mental disorder?

Well I don't know.....

This guy seems mentally legit to me..

-Geaux


----------



## DriftingSand

NYcarbineer said:


> 99% or more of _heterosexual _sex occurs for a purpose other than reproduction.
> 
> Therefore you cannot classify any sex act, gay or straight, as abnormal simply because it is non-reproductive by nature or by choice.
> 
> Non-reproductive sex is normal in humans.



Outside of a very miniscule percentage, the animal kingdom reflects what is considered "normal" where the use of the reproductive organs are concerned. 99.9999999999% of all members of the animal kingdom reflect partnerships between males and females.  It's natural and normal.  The vast majority of humans agree.


----------



## GreenBean

MikeK said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> The American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973 only after years of political pressure from gay activists. The American Psychiatric association board of trustees passed this decision followed by a statement which listed among the reasons for their decision as changing social norms and growing gay rights activism . So basically, a scientific institution was coerced into changing a scientific opinion or classification due to political pressure !
> 
> Removing homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses was not triggered by some scientific breakthrough.  There was no new fact or set of facts that stimulated this major change.  Rather, it was the simple reality that gay people started to kick up a fuss.
> 
> In subsequent years the APA has become so politicized , that it has lost any credibility as a Scientific organization and in the words of one former APA President it is totally "Beholden to the Gay Rights Movement"
> 
> Myself and many others , who for fear of reprisals remain silent believe that Homosexuality is and always has been a Mental Disorder and Homosexuals should not be deterred from seeking Psychological / Psychiatric Help.
> 
> 
> 
> Sexual impulses are produced by hormonal influence on the brain.  Homosexuality is the result of hormonal imbalance.  Prenatal hormones and sexual orientation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


The hormonal enzyme imbalance you refer to has only been proven in about 30% of homos, and even than there wasn't a sufficient control group to ascertain with 100% certainty that the enzyme/hormones present were the cause of the sexual dementia, although it is likely true in about 30% of the cases.


----------



## MaryL

I have a lot of phobias.  Spiders, heights, public places...I know a phobia when I see one. That is not rational behavior, either. I understand that. Is that a forgivable  human disorder? But is  &#8220;Homophobia&#8221; even a real thing? { Spiders are disgusting, and they can be poisonous. Falling from a height, that can hurt or kill. I have epilepsy, and the oncoming aura preceding a seizure was fear, being in public basically triggered seizures, Quite an ugly vicious cycle. I can assure some of you people, fear hurts. A lot.} Homophobia&#8230;Really? Gays are harmless, so I don&#8217;t buy the PHOBIA angle. Disgust,  that is another issue.  People actually eat feces, torture ( or are tortured) to attain sexual satisfaction.  Sexual fetishism. Fear is one thing, disgust another. Try as I may, I am disgusted with homosexuality.  I accept homosexuality the same way I accept  spiders, heights or  Epilepsy. Does that mean respect? Not in a million years. Beside, gays have all the requisite rights as anyone else, that isn&#8217;t enough?


----------



## GISMYS

MaryL said:


> I have a lot of phobias.  Spiders, heights, public places...I know a phobia when I see one. That is not rational behavior, either. I understand that. Is That a forgivable  human disorder? But is  Homophobia even a real thing? { Spiders are disgusting, and they can be poisonous. Falling from a height, than can hurt or kill. I have epilepsy, and the oncoming aura preceding a seizure was fear, being in public basically triggered seizures, Quite an ugly vicious cycle. I can assure some of you people, fear hurts. A lot.} HomophobiaReally? Gays are harmless, so I dont buy the PHOBIA angle. Disgust,  that is another issue.  People actually eat feces, torture ( or are tortured) to attain sexual satisfaction.  Sexual fetishism. Fear is one thing, disgust another. Try as I may, I am disgusted with homosexuality.  I accept homosexuality the same way I accept rainy days, NAZIS or Epilepsy. Does that mean respect? Not in a million years. Beside, gays have all the requisite rights as anyone else, that isnt enough?



SIN is never "harmless" it took just one sin to bring ruin,sickness,pain and death to all mankind!!! THINK!


----------



## Iceweasel

GISMYS said:


> SIN is never "harmless" it took just one sin to bring ruin,sickness,pain and death to all mankind!!! THINK!


That's a belief, quite the opposite of thinking.


----------



## GISMYS

iceweasel said:


> gismys said:
> 
> 
> 
> sin is never "harmless" it took just one sin to bring ruin,sickness,pain and death to all mankind!!! Think!
> 
> 
> 
> that's a belief, quite the opposite of thinking.
Click to expand...


yes!!! A true belief and the holy inspired(god breathed) word of god!!!


----------



## MaryL

I will come out of the closet, I am an epileptic. I used to be ashamed of that. BUT... At least I am not asking for special rights, as a  &#8220;Epileptic American&#8220;. Oh, brother, that sounds so lame. I am just an American, I don&#8217;t care what people think, nor  do I ask for anything.  Then there is Homosexuality: "Gay Rights". Come on now, folks, get real.  &#8220;Gays&#8221; &#8230;are a  newfound class of people? Umm&#8230;no, not really. They are sexually dysfunctional fetishists that  have a high income level and can buy enough media and lawyers to effect popular opinion. Nobody wants to hurt them or advocates harming &#8220;them&#8220;.  The thing is: you can lead a horse to water&#8230;You can&#8217;t buy acceptance, kids.


----------



## MikeK

GreenBean said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> The American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973 only after years of political pressure from gay activists. The American Psychiatric association board of trustees passed this decision followed by a statement which listed among the reasons for their decision as changing social norms and growing gay rights activism . So basically, a scientific institution was coerced into changing a scientific opinion or classification due to political pressure !
> 
> Removing homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses was not triggered by some scientific breakthrough.  There was no new fact or set of facts that stimulated this major change.  Rather, it was the simple reality that gay people started to kick up a fuss.
> 
> In subsequent years the APA has become so politicized , that it has lost any credibility as a Scientific organization and in the words of one former APA President it is totally "Beholden to the Gay Rights Movement"
> 
> Myself and many others , who for fear of reprisals remain silent believe that Homosexuality is and always has been a Mental Disorder and Homosexuals should not be deterred from seeking Psychological / Psychiatric Help.
> 
> 
> 
> Sexual impulses are produced by hormonal influence on the brain.  Homosexuality is the result of hormonal imbalance.  Prenatal hormones and sexual orientation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The hormonal enzyme imbalance you refer to has only been proven in about 30% of homos, and even than there wasn't a sufficient control group to ascertain with 100% certainty that the enzyme/hormones present were the cause of the sexual dementia, although it is likely true in about 30% of the cases.
Click to expand...

Inasmuch as the behavioral profession no longer accepts the idea that homosexuality is a form of "dementia," what would you suggest is the motivation for one to behave in a manner which provokes hatred, derision, and exclusion?  And while homosexuality is not a normal condition do you accept that it is a _natural_ behavior?  Homosexual behavior in animals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## GreenBean

MikeK said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sexual impulses are produced by hormonal influence on the brain.  Homosexuality is the result of hormonal imbalance.  Prenatal hormones and sexual orientation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The hormonal enzyme imbalance you refer to has only been proven in about 30% of homos, and even than there wasn't a sufficient control group to ascertain with 100% certainty that the enzyme/hormones present were the cause of the sexual dementia, although it is likely true in about 30% of the cases.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Inasmuch as the behavioral profession no longer accepts the idea that homosexuality is a form of "dementia," what would you suggest is the motivation for one to behave in a manner which provokes hatred, derision, and exclusion?  And while homosexuality is not a normal condition do you accept that it is a _natural_ behavior?  Homosexual behavior in animals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...




> Inasmuch as the behavioral profession no longer accepts the idea that homosexuality is a form of "dementia,"



This is not really true, the voices of the opposition have been stifled.  *Homosexuality is and always has been a dementia. * If by the "behavioral profession" you are referring to the American Psychological Association {APA}  - They are no longer a scientific organization and have abandoned all hope of ever regaining credibility.  Even the man who authored the motion to remove Homosexuality from the DSM has attested to this.

As per Dr. Nicholas Cummings, he man who authored the motion to remove Homosexuality from the DSM



> A former president of the American Psychological Association (APA), who also introduced the motion to declassify homosexuality as a mental illness in 1975, says that the APA has been taken over by ultraliberals beholden to the gay rights movement, who refuse to allow an open debate on reparative therapy for homosexuality.
> LifeSiteNews Mobile | Former president of APA says organization controlled by ?gay rights? movement





> what would you suggest is the motivation for one to behave in a manner which provokes hatred, derision, and exclusion?



Please elaborate - Are referring to the behavior displayed by myself and my colleagues and allies in opposing the "Gay Agenda" 

*Or* are you referring to the behavior displayed by gays and advocates of perversion who attract this hatred, derision and exclusion ? 



> And while homosexuality is not a normal condition do you accept that it is a _natural_ behavior?



Dementia is never natural .


----------



## GreenBean

MaryL said:


> I will come out of the closet, I am an epileptic. I used to be ashamed of that. BUT... At least I am not asking for special rights, as a  Epileptic American. Oh, brother, that sounds so lame. I am just an American, I dont care what people think, nor  do I ask for anything.  Then there is Homosexuality: "Gay Rights". Come on now, folks, get real.  Gays are a  newfound class of people? Ummno, not really. They are sexually dysfunctional fetishists that  have a high income level and can buy enough media and lawyers to effect popular opinion. Nobody wants to hurt them or advocates harming them.  The thing is: you can lead a horse to waterYou cant buy acceptance, kids.



Mary - I have to applaud your ability to have your say without pissing off either side in a debate.


----------



## Barb

DriftingSand said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course Homosexuality is a mental disorder. As the kiddoes say:  NO  DUH!  Is this thread supposed to enlighten us? Or is it a  joke?  Homosexuals have always had the same rights as the rest of us bipolar schizoid manic depressive heterosexual breeders have. Sad fact here:  Blind people can't drive cars. Deaf people can't play musical instruments. They have rights just the same. Gays can't have children,  thus no need for marriage. They have all the same rights as the rest of us. Please don't ask me to respect people that have anal sex...I can't nor will I "accept" homosexuality as a alternative to heterosexuality. That isn't and shouldn't even be an issue. They have their "preferences", we have ours... I certainly dont like what amounts to gay party apparatchiks dictating what is "acceptable' and spouting propaganda. I want America back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nobody's "asking" you to do anything but mind your own fucking business and keep your "religious" or "social" "sensibilities" out of government policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> May we ask that you keep your non-biblical and non-religious "sensibilities" out of government policy or are you a proponent of double standards?  The majority of America's founders were Christians and the Constitution was written with biblical standards in mind.
Click to expand...


No, you may not. The founders overwhelmingly advanced secular LAW. Additionally, you might want to research that last supposition.


----------



## GreenBean

Barb said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> nobody's "asking" you to do anything but mind your own fucking business and keep your "religious" or "social" "sensibilities" out of government policy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> May we ask that you keep your non-biblical and non-religious "sensibilities" out of government policy or are you a proponent of double standards?  The majority of America's founders were Christians and the Constitution was written with biblical standards in mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you may not. The founders overwhelmingly advanced secular LAW. Additionally, you might want to research that last supposition.
Click to expand...


One Nation *Under God*

 The constitutional framers built their structure upon the *foundation of Natural Law* &#8212; a God-centered world view. On this the founders were in agreement. But "Natural Law" to the entire founding generation was defined as the "laws of the Creator." In a 1794 letter to the Massachusetts Legislature, Samuel Adams wrote, "In the supposed state of nature, all men are equally bound by the laws of nature, or to speak more properly, the laws of the Creator." 

Second, it is interesting that *the founders relied most heavily upon the Bible for their political justification for the Constitution.* Theorists who believed that God's laws undergird civil law were most frequently cited. But the founders quoted another volume much more prolifically than any other. *Biblical quotations comprise 34 percent of all the source material offered by the founders!*

*Over the past 2 + Centuries the Constitution has evolved, actually the interpretation of it has *- the separation of Church and State remain a fundamental principle - the seperation of the power structures of the priesthood, the clergy from governmental process was the intent.   

I  personally am not a Christian or a Bible Thumper but it is undeniable that the Founders were, and that the Constitution, based  on Natural Laws, was not written with the intent of excluding God.


----------



## Montrovant

MikeK said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sexual impulses are produced by hormonal influence on the brain.  Homosexuality is the result of hormonal imbalance.  Prenatal hormones and sexual orientation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The hormonal enzyme imbalance you refer to has only been proven in about 30% of homos, and even than there wasn't a sufficient control group to ascertain with 100% certainty that the enzyme/hormones present were the cause of the sexual dementia, although it is likely true in about 30% of the cases.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Inasmuch as the behavioral profession no longer accepts the idea that homosexuality is a form of "dementia," what would you suggest is the motivation for one to behave in a manner which provokes hatred, derision, and exclusion?  And while homosexuality is not a normal condition do you accept that it is a _natural_ behavior?  Homosexual behavior in animals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


People have acted in ways that provoke hatred, derision and exclusion throughout history.  There have been myriad ways this has happened.  Rebellion in one form or another is probably the most prevalent reason.

Gays are far from the only people to engender hatred, derision or exclusion through their actions or attitudes.


----------



## GISMYS

montrovant said:


> mikek said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> greenbean said:
> 
> 
> 
> the hormonal enzyme imbalance you refer to has only been proven in about 30% of homos, and even than there wasn't a sufficient control group to ascertain with 100% certainty that the enzyme/hormones present were the cause of the sexual dementia, although it is likely true in about 30% of the cases.
> 
> 
> 
> inasmuch as the behavioral profession no longer accepts the idea that homosexuality is a form of "dementia," what would you suggest is the motivation for one to behave in a manner which provokes hatred, derision, and exclusion?  And while homosexuality is not a normal condition do you accept that it is a _natural_ behavior?  homosexual behavior in animals - wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> people have acted in ways that provoke hatred, derision and exclusion throughout history.  There have been myriad ways this has happened.  Rebellion in one form or another is probably the most prevalent reason.
> 
> Gays are far from the only people to engender hatred, derision or exclusion through their actions or attitudes.
Click to expand...


many people don't like the sins of unnatural sick sexual perversion, murder and stealing either.


----------



## DriftingSand

Barb said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> nobody's "asking" you to do anything but mind your own fucking business and keep your "religious" or "social" "sensibilities" out of government policy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> May we ask that you keep your non-biblical and non-religious "sensibilities" out of government policy or are you a proponent of double standards?  The majority of America's founders were Christians and the Constitution was written with biblical standards in mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you may not. The founders overwhelmingly advanced secular LAW. Additionally, you might want to research that last supposition.
Click to expand...


I'll allow the facts to speak for themselves:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwvkcXBNm3Q]Mike Huckabee David Barton Founders of the Constitution 080109.flv - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeIMmXJets0]The U.S. Capitol tour with David Barton - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## GreenBean

GISMYS said:


> montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikek said:
> 
> 
> 
> inasmuch as the behavioral profession no longer accepts the idea that homosexuality is a form of "dementia," what would you suggest is the motivation for one to behave in a manner which provokes hatred, derision, and exclusion?  And while homosexuality is not a normal condition do you accept that it is a _natural_ behavior?  homosexual behavior in animals - wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> people have acted in ways that provoke hatred, derision and exclusion throughout history.  There have been myriad ways this has happened.  Rebellion in one form or another is probably the most prevalent reason.
> 
> Gays are far from the only people to engender hatred, derision or exclusion through their actions or attitudes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> many people don't like the sins of unnatural sick sexual perversion, murder and stealing either.
Click to expand...


It goes far beyond their sick, degenerate and unhealthy activities.  It goes in recent years into the vile activities of Gay Activism - in particular their salivatious attempts to get at the Children , get into their heads and mold their World perceptions to suit the sick desires of their twisted little faggot minds .


----------



## GISMYS

NOTE WHERE THE SIN OF HOMOSEXUAL SEXUAL PERVERSION IS LISTED BY GOD'S WORD!!==Dont you know that those doing such things have no share in the Kingdom of God? Dont fool yourselves. Those who live immoral lives, who are idol worshipers, adulterers or homosexualswill have no share in his Kingdom. Neither will thieves or greedy people, drunkards, slanderers, or robbers. 1 CORINTHIANS 6:9


----------



## DriftingSand

Montrovant said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> The hormonal enzyme imbalance you refer to has only been proven in about 30% of homos, and even than there wasn't a sufficient control group to ascertain with 100% certainty that the enzyme/hormones present were the cause of the sexual dementia, although it is likely true in about 30% of the cases.
> 
> 
> 
> Inasmuch as the behavioral profession no longer accepts the idea that homosexuality is a form of "dementia," what would you suggest is the motivation for one to behave in a manner which provokes hatred, derision, and exclusion?  And while homosexuality is not a normal condition do you accept that it is a _natural_ behavior?  Homosexual behavior in animals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People have acted in ways that provoke hatred, derision and exclusion throughout history.  There have been myriad ways this has happened.  Rebellion in one form or another is probably the most prevalent reason.
> 
> Gays are far from the only people to engender hatred, derision or exclusion through their actions or attitudes.
Click to expand...


True. Traditional Christians engender hatred from the Christophobic, "gay" community simply because they believe in living by a higher, moral standard.  

*Matthew 10:22*_*, "And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved."*_

Ain't THAT the truth! ^^^


----------



## Montrovant

To be clear, I don't believe in any of the anti-gay vitriol spewed by various posters here.  I was merely making the point that some people absolutely will choose to do things that cause them some degree of disdain or persecution.


----------



## MaryL

I had to practicaly jump though hoops for five years just to obtain a driver's licence. With good reason, I deserved to be treated with concern . I never asked for this petty issue. I am an epileptic.  I am   not proud of that, but I am not feeling gay's pain here.  We all have the same rights here as any other Americans, without lables or excuses. Get over it.


----------



## MikeK

GreenBean said:


> It goes far beyond their sick, degenerate and unhealthy activities.  It goes in recent years into the vile activities of Gay Activism - in particular their salivatious attempts to get at the Children , get into their heads and mold their World perceptions to suit the sick desires of their twisted little faggot minds .


Before going further in this discussion I think I should clarify my position where homosexuality is concerned.  

There is a type of sexually aggressive, flamboyant, in-your-face homosexual, often referred to as _"swish faggots,"_ whom I find annoyingly repulsive and whom I avoid whenever possible.  Aside from that category I have absolutely nothing against ordinary people who happen to be homosexual and who aside from that circumstance are perfectly normal human beings.  I have known several such individuals all of whom I found to be exceptionally intelligent and creative and not at all deserving of the kind of persecution these people often are subjected to.  

As far as the sexual preference of homosexuals is concerned, it simply is none of my business.  And as far as the rather common misconception that homosexuality is linked to pedophilia, the statistical reality is the vast majority of pedophiles are otherwise ordinary heterosexual males, many of whom are married and some of whom molest their own children.  

My late wife was a clinical psychologist who, along with the vast majority of her colleagues, believed that innate homophobic disposition and intolerance often reveals anger toward one's own latent homosexual tendencies.


----------



## NYcarbineer

DriftingSand said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Learn to read. It's a state issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a state issue when equal protection issues are involved.  That makes it a constitutional issue,
> 
> and the state laws are subject to constitutional scrutiny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you for "equal protection" for members of NAMBLA? Would you be for "equal protection" for a man-and-his-goat? What about a 35 year old man and his consenting 14 year old girlfriend - equal protection?
> 
> It all boils down to where the line should be drawn.  You want it drawn at a point that makes some sinful behavior "acceptable" while we believe in keeping it where it has always been.
Click to expand...


That's a circular argument.  All sex outside of marriage, gay or straight, is considered 'sinful' by Christian measures of sin.

Heterosexual 'sinful' sex only becomes 'acceptable', as you call it, by marriage.  But since you want to deny same sex couples the right to marriage,

you want to keep their sex 'sinful', and then, in circular fashion, you turn around and characterize proponents of same sex marriage as wanting to make 'sinful behaviour acceptable'.


----------



## MaryL

Life is weird. My mother died shortly after 9/11/01 . My dad died of cancer on the anniversary of  JFK's assassination  in 1974.. Dad and mom lived through the depression. After dad dies, mother cropped her hair and  dated other women. All the young girls love Alice...Nobody in my family has said anything about MOM. I loved her so much, my heart almost burst. I  never ever understood  her, either. Like all gays,  you leave me cold and alone with out a clue.


----------



## DriftingSand

MikeK said:


> My late wife was a clinical psychologist who, along with the vast majority of her colleagues, believed that innate homophobic disposition and intolerance often reveals anger toward one's own latent homosexual tendencies.



Does that mean that folks who openly deny the tenets of Christianity are actually "closet Christians?"  That is -- if we use your wife's logic.


----------



## DriftingSand

NYcarbineer said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a state issue when equal protection issues are involved.  That makes it a constitutional issue,
> 
> and the state laws are subject to constitutional scrutiny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you for "equal protection" for members of NAMBLA? Would you be for "equal protection" for a man-and-his-goat? What about a 35 year old man and his consenting 14 year old girlfriend - equal protection?
> 
> It all boils down to where the line should be drawn.  You want it drawn at a point that makes some sinful behavior "acceptable" while we believe in keeping it where it has always been.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a circular argument.  All sex outside of marriage, gay or straight, is considered 'sinful' by Christian measures of sin.
> 
> Heterosexual 'sinful' sex only becomes 'acceptable', as you call it, by marriage.  But since you want to deny same sex couples the right to marriage,
> 
> you want to keep their sex 'sinful', and then, in circular fashion, you turn around and characterize proponents of same sex marriage as wanting to make 'sinful behaviour acceptable'.
Click to expand...


Speaking from a biblical point of view, God specifically told mankind to "be fruitful and multiply" and He also made it clear that a man was to leave his parents and "cleave to his wife."  He set the standard when he formed Eve to be Adam's wife.  

So ... I'm simply following the basic tenets of the foundational portions of the written Word of God. As far as I know there were no regulations placed on how a man and his wife should express their affection for each other.  The Bible does state that believers should do all things in moderation; with a sense of humility; and a sense of morality.  The Apostle Paul stated that we should follow our conscience and to abstain from all appearance of evil.

The bottom line is that the historical definition of marriage has ALWAYS been between a man and a woman for the main purpose of creating families via procreation.  The Bible also states that sexual relations between two men is "unnatural." I can only assume that it's considered unnatural because procreation isn't possible.  It's also a great way to create and spread diseases considering the fact that certain bodily waste is literally nasty and full of harmful bacteria.

One thing's for certain: there wouldn't be any "gays" on earth if not for the procreative actions of a man and a woman.


----------



## Samson

Queers are no less able to control their behaviour than Dwarves can control their height.

Happily, both groups can find jobs in the entertainment industry.


----------



## GISMYS

DriftingSand said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you for "equal protection" for members of NAMBLA? Would you be for "equal protection" for a man-and-his-goat? What about a 35 year old man and his consenting 14 year old girlfriend - equal protection?
> 
> It all boils down to where the line should be drawn.  You want it drawn at a point that makes some sinful behavior "acceptable" while we believe in keeping it where it has always been.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a circular argument.  All sex outside of marriage, gay or straight, is considered 'sinful' by Christian measures of sin.
> 
> Heterosexual 'sinful' sex only becomes 'acceptable', as you call it, by marriage.  But since you want to deny same sex couples the right to marriage,
> 
> you want to keep their sex 'sinful', and then, in circular fashion, you turn around and characterize proponents of same sex marriage as wanting to make 'sinful behaviour acceptable'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speaking from a biblical point of view, God specifically told mankind to "be fruitful and multiply" and He also made it clear that a man was to leave his parents and "cleave to his wife."  He set the standard when he formed Eve to be Adam's wife.
> 
> So ... I'm simply following the basic tenets of the foundational portions of the written Word of God. As far as I know there were no regulations placed on how a man and his wife should express their affection for each other.  The Bible does state that believers should do all things in moderation; with a sense of humility; and a sense of morality.  The Apostle Paul stated that we should follow our conscience and to abstain from all appearance of evil.
> 
> The bottom line is that the historical definition of marriage has ALWAYS been between a man and a woman for the main purpose of creating families via procreation.  The Bible also states that sexual relations between two men is "unnatural." I can only assume that it's considered unnatural because procreation isn't possible.  It's also a great way to create and spread diseases considering the fact that certain bodily waste is literally nasty and full of harmful bacteria.
Click to expand...


So God let them go ahead into every sort of sex sin, and do whatever they wanted toyes, vile and sinful things with each others bodies. 25 Instead of believing what they knew was the truth about God, they deliberately chose to believe lies. So they prayed to the things God made, but wouldnt obey the blessed God who made these things.

26 That is why God let go of them and let them do all these evil things, so that even their women turned against Gods natural plan for them and indulged in sex sin with each other. 27 And the men, instead of having normal sex relationships with women, burned with lust for each other, men doing shameful things with other men and, as a result, getting paid within their own souls with the penalty they so richly deserved.

28 So it was that when they gave God up and would not even acknowledge him, God gave them up to doing everything their evil minds could think of. 29 Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness and sin, of greed and hate, envy, murder, fighting, lying, bitterness, and gossip.

30 They were backbiters, haters of God, insolent, proud, braggarts, always thinking of new ways of sinning and continually being disobedient to their parents. 31 They tried to misunderstand, broke their promises, and were heartlesswithout pity. 32 They were fully aware of Gods death penalty for these crimes, yet they went right ahead and did them anyway and encouraged others to do them, too.
Romans 1:24-32


----------



## Iceweasel

MikeK said:


> My late wife was a clinical psychologist who, along with the vast majority of her colleagues, believed that innate homophobic disposition and intolerance often reveals anger toward one's own latent homosexual tendencies.


Which is why I usually laugh when somebodys says a psychologists says....

So a homobobe has homophobic tendencies? How much do they charge for that pearl of wisdom? It would be a better case study to figure out why so many label those who don't accept homosexuality as normal are phobic?

And why is it perfectly normal to be homosexual, supposedly from birth but deviant to be repulsed by it? And who says one can't be born that way? It's unintelligent and hypocritical.


----------



## DriftingSand

Samson said:


> Queers are no less able to control their behaviour than Dwarves can control their height.
> 
> Happily, both groups can find jobs in the entertainment industry.



LOL. I find your post amusing. 

However, I do believe that folks can control their behavior.  A straight man can control his urge to take a mistress; and alcoholic can avoid "taking that first drink"; and a homo can curb his actions where his particular sin is concerned.


----------



## GISMYS

Iceweasel said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> My late wife was a clinical psychologist who, along with the vast majority of her colleagues, believed that innate homophobic disposition and intolerance often reveals anger toward one's own latent homosexual tendencies.
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why I usually laugh when somebodys says a psychologists says....
> 
> So a homobobe has homophobic tendencies? How much do they charge for that pearl of wisdom? It would be a better case study to figure out why so many label those who don't accept homosexuality as normal are phobic?
> 
> And why is it perfectly normal to be homosexual, supposedly from birth but deviant to be repulsed by it? And who says one can't be born that way? It's unintelligent and hypocritical.
Click to expand...


To live in Sick sexial perversion is a choice, a bad choice!=============So God let them go ahead into every sort of sex sin, and do whatever they wanted toyes, vile and sinful things with each others bodies. 25 Instead of believing what they knew was the truth about God, they deliberately chose to believe lies. So they prayed to the things God made, but wouldnt obey the blessed God who made these things.

26 That is why God let go of them and let them do all these evil things, so that even their women turned against Gods natural plan for them and indulged in sex sin with each other. 27 And the men, instead of having normal sex relationships with women, burned with lust for each other, men doing shameful things with other men and, as a result, getting paid within their own souls with the penalty they so richly deserved.

28 So it was that when they gave God up and would not even acknowledge him, God gave them up to doing everything their evil minds could think of. 29 Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness and sin, of greed and hate, envy, murder, fighting, lying, bitterness, and gossip.

30 They were backbiters, haters of God, insolent, proud, braggarts, always thinking of new ways of sinning and continually being disobedient to their parents. 31 They tried to misunderstand, broke their promises, and were heartlesswithout pity. 32 They were fully aware of Gods death penalty for these crimes, yet they went right ahead and did them anyway and encouraged others to do them, too.
romans 1:24-32


----------



## Iceweasel

DriftingSand said:


> One thing's for certain: there wouldn't be any "gays" on earth if not for the procreative actions of a man and a woman.


You breeders would say that. 

I once asked a gay Christian why God made gays. He had to think about it and finally said "to keep other gays happy".


----------



## GreenBean

MikeK said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> It goes far beyond their sick, degenerate and unhealthy activities.  It goes in recent years into the vile activities of Gay Activism - in particular their salivatious attempts to get at the Children , get into their heads and mold their World perceptions to suit the sick desires of their twisted little faggot minds .
> 
> 
> 
> Before going further in this discussion I think I should clarify my position where homosexuality is concerned.
> 
> There is a type of sexually aggressive, flamboyant, in-your-face homosexual, often referred to as _"swish faggots,"_ whom I find annoyingly repulsive and whom I avoid whenever possible.  Aside from that category I have absolutely nothing against ordinary people who happen to be homosexual and who aside from that circumstance are perfectly normal human beings.  I have known several such individuals all of whom I found to be exceptionally intelligent and creative and not at all deserving of the kind of persecution these people often are subjected to.
> 
> As far as the sexual preference of homosexuals is concerned, it simply is none of my business.  And as far as the rather common misconception that homosexuality is linked to pedophilia, the statistical reality is the vast majority of pedophiles are otherwise ordinary heterosexual males, many of whom are married and some of whom molest their own children.
> 
> My late wife was a clinical psychologist who, along with the vast majority of her colleagues, believed that innate homophobic disposition and intolerance often reveals anger toward one's own latent homosexual tendencies.
Click to expand...




> There is a type of sexually aggressive, flamboyant, in-your-face homosexual, often referred to as _"swish faggots,"_ whom I find annoyingly repulsive and whom I avoid whenever possible.  Aside from that category I have absolutely nothing against ordinary people who happen to be homosexual and who aside from that circumstance are perfectly normal human beings.



The type of queer you are referring to deserves  not to be persecuted, perhaps enlightened somewhat beyond what the Church of LGBT has drilled into their heads re: they can't change and so forth .  



> And as far as the rather common misconception that homosexuality is linked to pedophilia, the statistical reality is the vast majority of pedophiles are otherwise ordinary heterosexual males, many of whom are married and some of whom molest their own children.



Heterosexuals comprise aprox. 95% of the population. So in terms of sheer numbers, your assertion may be true. But in terms of numbers of children abused per offender, *homosexuals abuse with far greater frequency; and boys, research shows, are the much-preferred target.*

REPORT: PEDOPHILIA MORE COMMON AMONG 'GAYS'

Homosexuals and the Pedophile Connection


----------



## Samson

DriftingSand said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Queers are no less able to control their behaviour than Dwarves can control their height.
> 
> Happily, both groups can find jobs in the entertainment industry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL. I find your post amusing.
> 
> However, I do believe that folks can control their behavior.  A straight man can control his urge to take a mistress; and alcoholic can avoid "taking that first drink"; and a homo can curb his actions where his particular sin is concerned.
Click to expand...


Well, I can sympathize with someone who likes to drink.

It is much more difficult to sympathize with someone who likes to ejaculate into another man's rectum.

Frankly, I'd rather believe they just cannot control themselves.


----------



## Samson

Iceweasel said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> One thing's for certain: there wouldn't be any "gays" on earth if not for the procreative actions of a man and a woman.
> 
> 
> 
> You breeders would say that.
> 
> I once asked a gay Christian why God made gays. He had to think about it and finally said "to keep other gays happy".
Click to expand...


As a confirmed Breeder and Pagan, I like to believe the Gods made Queers to level the Heterosexual Playing Field for Men-That-Women-Would-Otherwise-Ignore.


----------



## Barb

GreenBean said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> May we ask that you keep your non-biblical and non-religious "sensibilities" out of government policy or are you a proponent of double standards?  The majority of America's founders were Christians and the Constitution was written with biblical standards in mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you may not. The founders overwhelmingly advanced secular LAW. Additionally, you might want to research that last supposition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One Nation *Under God*
> 
> The constitutional framers built their structure upon the *foundation of Natural Law*  a God-centered world view. On this the founders were in agreement. But "Natural Law" to the entire founding generation was defined as the "laws of the Creator." In a 1794 letter to the Massachusetts Legislature, Samuel Adams wrote, "In the supposed state of nature, all men are equally bound by the laws of nature, or to speak more properly, the laws of the Creator."
> 
> Second, it is interesting that *the founders relied most heavily upon the Bible for their political justification for the Constitution.* Theorists who believed that God's laws undergird civil law were most frequently cited. But the founders quoted another volume much more prolifically than any other. *Biblical quotations comprise 34 percent of all the source material offered by the founders!*
> 
> *Over the past 2 + Centuries the Constitution has evolved, actually the interpretation of it has *- the separation of Church and State remain a fundamental principle - the seperation of the power structures of the priesthood, the clergy from governmental process was the intent.
> 
> I  personally am not a Christian or a Bible Thumper but it is undeniable that the Founders were, and that the Constitution, based  on Natural Laws, was not written with the intent of excluding God.
Click to expand...


Originally *"One nation, indivisible." *

That under gawd shit was inserted in the 1950s.

The "laws of the creator" left free definition OF that creator. It didn't have to be YOURS. They specifically denied the creation of a favored religion to let everyone worship, or not, as they saw fit, and to leave our LAWS secular, so as not to interfere with individual liberty by imposing a state sanctioned religious authority.


----------



## DriftingSand

GreenBean said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> It goes far beyond their sick, degenerate and unhealthy activities.  It goes in recent years into the vile activities of Gay Activism - in particular their salivatious attempts to get at the Children , get into their heads and mold their World perceptions to suit the sick desires of their twisted little faggot minds .
> 
> 
> 
> Before going further in this discussion I think I should clarify my position where homosexuality is concerned.
> 
> There is a type of sexually aggressive, flamboyant, in-your-face homosexual, often referred to as _"swish faggots,"_ whom I find annoyingly repulsive and whom I avoid whenever possible.  Aside from that category I have absolutely nothing against ordinary people who happen to be homosexual and who aside from that circumstance are perfectly normal human beings.  I have known several such individuals all of whom I found to be exceptionally intelligent and creative and not at all deserving of the kind of persecution these people often are subjected to.
> 
> As far as the sexual preference of homosexuals is concerned, it simply is none of my business.  And as far as the rather common misconception that homosexuality is linked to pedophilia, the statistical reality is the vast majority of pedophiles are otherwise ordinary heterosexual males, many of whom are married and some of whom molest their own children.
> 
> My late wife was a clinical psychologist who, along with the vast majority of her colleagues, believed that innate homophobic disposition and intolerance often reveals anger toward one's own latent homosexual tendencies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a type of sexually aggressive, flamboyant, in-your-face homosexual, often referred to as _"swish faggots,"_ whom I find annoyingly repulsive and whom I avoid whenever possible.  Aside from that category I have absolutely nothing against ordinary people who happen to be homosexual and who aside from that circumstance are perfectly normal human beings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The type of queer you are referring to deserves  not to be persecuted, perhaps enlightened somewhat beyond what the Church of LGBT has drilled into their heads re: they can't change and so forth .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And as far as the rather common misconception that homosexuality is linked to pedophilia, the statistical reality is the vast majority of pedophiles are otherwise ordinary heterosexual males, many of whom are married and some of whom molest their own children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Heterosexuals comprise aprox. 95% of the population. So in terms of sheer numbers, your assertion may be true. But in terms of numbers of children abused per offender, *homosexuals abuse with far greater frequency; and boys, research shows, are the much-preferred target.*
> 
> REPORT: PEDOPHILIA MORE COMMON AMONG 'GAYS'
> 
> Homosexuals and the Pedophile Connection
Click to expand...



Good points.  

I was "born an alcoholic" (from AA's point of view) but I literally chose to stop drinking.  My whole outlook on life changed after about two years of abstinence.  When we stop feeding our particular, individual addictions the addictions fade away.


----------



## DriftingSand

Barb said:


> Originally *"One nation, indivisible." *
> 
> That under gawd shit was inserted in the 1950s.
> 
> The "laws of the creator" left free definition OF that creator. It didn't have to be YOURS. They specifically denied the creation of a favored religion to let everyone worship, or not, as they saw fit, and to leave our LAWS secular, so as not to interfere with individual liberty by imposing a state sanctioned religious authority.



From: Five References to God in the Declaration of Independence | Liberty Under Fire

*"Five References to God in the Declaration of Independence"*

1) &#8220;When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people  to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another  and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal  station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature&#8217;s *God* entitle them, a  decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should  declare the causes which impel them to the separation.&#8221;

(The author of this article considers "Laws of Nature" to be a reference to God. I don't see it so I believe that there are 4 specific references to God).

2) &#8220;We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created  equal, that they are endowed by their *Creator* with certain unalienable  Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of  Happiness.&#8221;

3) &#8220;We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in  General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the *Supreme Judge* of the world  for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority  of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That  these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and  Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the  British Crown&#8230;&#8221;

4) &#8220;And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the  protection of *Divine Providence*, we mutually pledge to each other our  Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.&#8221;

In other words, the founders believed that we were then (and are now) under the "divine providence" of "God" Who is our "Creator" and "Supreme Judge."  Was all that "added in the 1950s?"


----------



## Political Junky

DriftingSand said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally *"One nation, indivisible." *
> 
> That under gawd shit was inserted in the 1950s.
> 
> The "laws of the creator" left free definition OF that creator. It didn't have to be YOURS. They specifically denied the creation of a favored religion to let everyone worship, or not, as they saw fit, and to leave our LAWS secular, so as not to interfere with individual liberty by imposing a state sanctioned religious authority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Five References to God in the Declaration of Independence | Liberty Under Fire
> 
> *"Five References to God in the Declaration of Independence"*
> 
> 1) &#8220;When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people  to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another  and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal  station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature&#8217;s *God* entitle them, a  decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should  declare the causes which impel them to the separation.&#8221;
> 
> (The author of this article considers "Laws of Nature" to be a reference to God. I don't see it so I believe that there are 4 specific references to God).
> 
> 2) &#8220;We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created  equal, that they are endowed by their *Creator* with certain unalienable  Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of  Happiness.&#8221;
> 
> 3) &#8220;We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in  General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the *Supreme Judge* of the world  for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority  of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That  these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and  Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the  British Crown&#8230;&#8221;
> 
> 4) &#8220;And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the  protection of *Divine Providence*, we mutually pledge to each other our  Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.&#8221;
> 
> In other words, the founders believed that we were then (and are now) under the "divine providence" of "God" Who is our "Creator" and "Supreme Judge."  Was all that "added in the 1950s?"
Click to expand...

The writer of the Declaration of Independence was Thomas Jefferson, a Deist = a movement or system of thought *advocating natural religion, emphasizing morality, and in the 18th century denying the interference of the Creator with the laws of the universe
* .. hence the allusion to Nature's God.


----------



## MikeK

Iceweasel said:


> Which is why I usually laugh when somebodys says a psychologists says....


That declaration would be meaningful if it came from some significant source.  



> So a homobobe has homophobic tendencies? How much do they charge for that pearl of wisdom?


I don't know what a "homobobe" is.  But homophobia is irrational fear of or hatred of homosexuality.  And most behaviorists believe homophobic expression to be masked repudiation of one's latent homosexual impulses.   



> It would be a better case study to figure out why so many label those who don't accept homosexuality as normal are phobic?


???



> And why is it perfectly normal to be homosexual, supposedly from birth but deviant to be repulsed by it?


Homosexuality is not normal (meaning _usual_). It is abnormal (meaning _unusual_).  But it is quite natural and has been observed in many species other than human: Homosexual behavior in animals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 



> And who says one can't be born that way? It's unintelligent and hypocritical.


I agree.  The hormonal imbalance which is believed to foster homosexual impulses occurs pre-natally:  Prenatal hormones and sexual orientation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## GreenBean

Barb said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you may not. The founders overwhelmingly advanced secular LAW. Additionally, you might want to research that last supposition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One Nation *Under God*
> 
> The constitutional framers built their structure upon the *foundation of Natural Law*  a God-centered world view. On this the founders were in agreement. But "Natural Law" to the entire founding generation was defined as the "laws of the Creator." In a 1794 letter to the Massachusetts Legislature, Samuel Adams wrote, "In the supposed state of nature, all men are equally bound by the laws of nature, or to speak more properly, the laws of the Creator."
> 
> Second, it is interesting that *the founders relied most heavily upon the Bible for their political justification for the Constitution.* Theorists who believed that God's laws undergird civil law were most frequently cited. But the founders quoted another volume much more prolifically than any other. *Biblical quotations comprise 34 percent of all the source material offered by the founders!*
> 
> *Over the past 2 + Centuries the Constitution has evolved, actually the interpretation of it has *- the separation of Church and State remain a fundamental principle - the seperation of the power structures of the priesthood, the clergy from governmental process was the intent.
> 
> I  personally am not a Christian or a Bible Thumper but it is undeniable that the Founders were, and that the Constitution, based  on Natural Laws, was not written with the intent of excluding God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Originally *"One nation, indivisible." *
> 
> That under gawd shit was inserted in the 1950s.
> 
> The "laws of the creator" left free definition OF that creator. It didn't have to be YOURS. They specifically denied the creation of a favored religion to let everyone worship, or not, as they saw fit, and to leave our LAWS secular, so as not to interfere with individual liberty by imposing a state sanctioned religious authority.
Click to expand...


Not mine - I'm not Christian.  But everything you stated is reworded and in agreement with what I said - so what's your point - you just like to argue for arguments sake ?


----------



## GreenBean

Samson said:


> Queers are no less able to control their behaviour than Dwarves can control their height.
> 
> Happily, both groups can find jobs in the entertainment industry.



Not entirely true, you can't put a Dwarf  on a rack and stretch him out.  But you can put a faggot in therapy[y and make a sane healthy person - don't believe  the BS the Gay Agenda is spouting Ex-Gay therapy works in a reasonable percentage  of cases.


----------



## GreenBean

Samson said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> One thing's for certain: there wouldn't be any "gays" on earth if not for the procreative actions of a man and a woman.
> 
> 
> 
> You breeders would say that.
> 
> I once asked a gay Christian why God made gays. He had to think about it and finally said "to keep other gays happy".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As a confirmed Breeder and Pagan, I like to believe the Gods made Queers to level the Heterosexual Playing Field for Men-That-Women-Would-Otherwise-Ignore.
Click to expand...


Why did he make pedophiles, serial killers, mongoloids, dwarfs and people like Barb ?


----------



## GISMYS

Who dare say sick sexual perversion is love? Your choice makes you a pervert not God =================Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness;
Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes,
And prudent in their own sight!
ISAIAH 5:20-21


----------



## Barb




----------



## GreenBean

Barb said:


>


----------



## Barb

GreenBean said:


> Barb said:
Click to expand...


You thought the lures and calls they use are telling them the chicken dinner is done?


----------



## Barb

Which one of you sad sacks  to get my picture removed?


----------



## protectionist

iamwhatiseem said:


> I do not believe it is a _mental_ disorder, but could be if a child was raised in a home where homosexuality is preferred or encouraged.
> Homosexuality, it it's purity, that is, someone who is specifically attracted to their own sex is, by definition, an abnormality. There is no serious argument that could be provided based on the obvious biological purpose of male/female genitalia. Therefore homosexuality is a _biological _disorder.
> To me, the question should be "is this abnormality unacceptable?" Should it be shunned or banned in some way. And my answer to that is no. It serves no purpose to punish people for something they cannot control, as long as it does no harm to others.



Few posts in the history of this forum have been more ridiculous than this.  The obvious biological purpose of male/female genitalia,is exactly WHY there IS a serious argument that someone who is specifically attracted to their own sex is, by definition, an abnormality.   It's abnormal because they are doing what is not normally done, and what is directly contrary to nature's design.  You can't fool mother nature.

Should this abnormal practice be shunned or banned in some ways ?  Of course it should, and it is said to see sellouts like Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer caving in to business interests, instead of meeting her # 1 obligation in govt service >> to PROTECT the people from great levels of harm.  Especially children.


----------



## protectionist

MikeK said:


> Homosexuality is not normal (meaning _usual_). It is abnormal (meaning _unusual_).  But it is quite natural and has been observed in many species other than human: Homosexual behavior in animals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Did you have some reason to think that other animal species are somehow immune to abnormality ? The obvious proof that homosexuality is unnatural, is that it is in contradiction to nature's design.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

protectionist said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality is not normal (meaning _usual_). It is abnormal (meaning _unusual_).  But it is quite natural and has been observed in many species other than human: Homosexual behavior in animals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you have some reason to think that other animal species are somehow immune to abnormality ? The obvious proof that homosexuality is unnatural, is that it is in contradiction to nature's design.
Click to expand...


Used to think you were reasonably intelligent. Anything other animals do is by definition 'natural.' It may not be a majority action, but it remains a natural variation. And simply because it isn't how sexual reproduction works is no reason to believe it's unnatural, deviant, or harmful. 

Just because YOU have a problem with sex doesn't mean science and sexology agrees with you.


----------



## DGS49

On the contrary, "...it isn't how sexual reproduction works..." is EXACTLY why it is unnatural and deviant.  Harmful is another question, one that the gay community is reluctant to address with any comprehensive studies. Certainly, the spread of AIDS, which was and remains primarily through male-on-male anal intercourse, is an argument for it being "harmful" to society.  Other physical issues later in life due to decades of anal penetration?  I have no idea.

But there is no rational basis on which to understand why one male human would be sexually driven to bugger another male human, while the remaining 98% of the male population is sexually driven to copulate with Scarlett Johansen.  Perhaps it is a poorly-understood conditioned response, as with Pavlov's dogs salivating at the sound of a bell.

One disturbing aspect of the whole public dialog on homosexuality, gay marriage, and related topics is how the Gay Advocacy Community has sought to close down discussion of certain topics because that community finds them unacceptable (even if true).

For example, it is an "article of faith" in that community that a person's sexual orientation is fixed and immutable.  "No one can change his or her sexual orientation."

It is imperative to that community that this be true, because if one's sexual orientation can be changed, then "the 98%" would quickly move to have all gays "treated," to make them normal.  But the fact is that many "gay" people are able to adjust their sexual orientation, and live simple, well-adjusted lives outside the gay community.  Sometimes this is done with the assistance of a therapist (using the term generically), and sometimes not, but it does happen.  No one can know how often it happens, for obvious reasons.

But you cannot discuss "conversion" in the public sphere without being attacked as a "homophobic bigot."

Shouting down and demonizing those who disagree with you is not "discussion," or "debate."

Also, I've written in this forum before about the distinction between hating sodomy and hating homosexuals.  They are two different things, but the gay community DEMANDS that you treat them as the same:  "If you think sodomy is sinful or evil, then you necessarily must hate gay people."

Which is bullshit.  Obvious bullshit.  But again, the gay community demands that the discussion end with, if you think sodomy is sinful, then you are a "homophobe," and hate gay people.


----------



## GreenBean

protectionist said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not believe it is a _mental_ disorder, but could be if a child was raised in a home where homosexuality is preferred or encouraged.
> Homosexuality, it it's purity, that is, someone who is specifically attracted to their own sex is, by definition, an abnormality. There is no serious argument that could be provided based on the obvious biological purpose of male/female genitalia. Therefore homosexuality is a _biological _disorder.
> To me, the question should be "is this abnormality unacceptable?" Should it be shunned or banned in some way. And my answer to that is no. It serves no purpose to punish people for something they cannot control, as long as it does no harm to others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Few posts in the history of this forum have been more ridiculous than this.  The obvious biological purpose of male/female genitalia,is exactly WHY there IS a serious argument that someone who is specifically attracted to their own sex is, by definition, an abnormality.   It's abnormal because they are doing what is not normally done, and what is directly contrary to nature's design.  You can't fool mother nature.
> 
> Should this abnormal practice be shunned or banned in some ways ?  Of course it should, and it is said to see sellouts like Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer caving in to business interests, instead of meeting her # 1 obligation in govt service >> to PROTECT the people from great levels of harm.  Especially children.
Click to expand...




DGS49 said:


> On the contrary, "...it isn't how sexual reproduction works..." is EXACTLY why it is unnatural and deviant.  Harmful is another question, one that the gay community is reluctant to address with any comprehensive studies. Certainly, the spread of AIDS, which was and remains primarily through male-on-male anal intercourse, is an argument for it being "harmful" to society.  Other physical issues later in life due to decades of anal penetration?  I have no idea.
> 
> But there is no rational basis on which to understand why one male human would be sexually driven to bugger another male human, while the remaining 98% of the male population is sexually driven to copulate with Scarlett Johansen.  Perhaps it is a poorly-understood conditioned response, as with Pavlov's dogs salivating at the sound of a bell.
> 
> One disturbing aspect of the whole public dialog on homosexuality, gay marriage, and related topics is how the Gay Advocacy Community has sought to close down discussion of certain topics because that community finds them unacceptable (even if true).
> 
> For example, it is an "article of faith" in that community that a person's sexual orientation is fixed and immutable.  "No one can change his or her sexual orientation."
> 
> It is imperative to that community that this be true, because if one's sexual orientation can be changed, then "the 98%" would quickly move to have all gays "treated," to make them normal.  But the fact is that many "gay" people are able to adjust their sexual orientation, and live simple, well-adjusted lives outside the gay community.  Sometimes this is done with the assistance of a therapist (using the term generically), and sometimes not, but it does happen.  No one can know how often it happens, for obvious reasons.
> 
> But you cannot discuss "conversion" in the public sphere without being attacked as a "homophobic bigot."
> 
> Shouting down and demonizing those who disagree with you is not "discussion," or "debate."
> 
> Also, I've written in this forum before about the distinction between hating sodomy and hating homosexuals.  They are two different things, but the gay community DEMANDS that you treat them as the same:  "If you think sodomy is sinful or evil, then you necessarily must hate gay people."
> 
> Which is bullshit.  Obvious bullshit.  But again, the gay community demands that the discussion end with, if you think sodomy is sinful, then you are a "homophobe," and hate gay people.





> Shouting down and demonizing those who disagree with you is not "discussion," or "debate."



No it's not honest debate or discussion, but liberals and Gay activist are incapable of honesty - they are living a lie and preaching one.  "Shouting Down" is a tactic employed by the left extensively over the years




> .... the gay community demands that the discussion end with, if you think sodomy is sinful, then you are a "homophobe," and hate gay people



That's a strategy that was outlined a few decades back and has been enforced and employed ever since.

After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90's **by Marshall Kirk, a researcher in neuropsychiatry and Hunter Madsen.

This powerfully persuasive, perverse and popular book within the gay community presents an impassioned plea, a call to arms if you will for homosexual activists to implement an aggressive, concerted and organized campaign to mold public perceptions. The  book further lays out a blueprint, a methodology that has been rigidly implemented and enforced over the past 2 decades .  Their rationalization for launching such a campaign is that people who do not agree with, or adhere to the Gay Agenda are "bigots, haters, or ignorants". The book further attempts to justify gay activists use of unscrupulous tactics , mass deceit, brainwashing, lying and malicious slander, blackmail, intimidation and violence. Kirk and Madsens book states the following ....

"All sexual morality should be abolished" (pages 64 to 67)

Homosexual agenda can succeed by "jamming" and "confusing" adversaries, so as to block or counteract the "rewarding of prejudice" (page 153);

*All opposing disagreements to homosexual behavior is rooted in "Homophobia, Homohatred, and Prejudice"* (page 112)

A media campaign should portray only the most favorable side of gays (page 170);

* Discourage anti-gay harassment by linking and calling all those that have opposing opinions to latent homosexuality *(i.e., call people homophobic) (page 227)

*It is acceptable to call people "Homophobic" or "Haters" if they do not agree 100% with the gay agenda views, opinions, or behavior*. (page 23)

http://loonybird.com/gay_media.htm


----------



## HUGGY

iamwhatiseem said:


> I do not believe it is a _mental_ disorder, but could be if a child was raised in a home where homosexuality is preferred or encouraged.
> Homosexuality, it it's purity, that is, someone who is specifically attracted to their own sex is, by definition, an abnormality. There is no serious argument that could be provided based on the obvious biological purpose of male/female genitalia. Therefore homosexuality is a _biological _disorder.
> To me, the question should be "is this abnormality unacceptable?" Should it be shunned or banned in some way. And my answer to that is no. It serves no purpose to punish people for something they cannot control, as long as it does no harm to others.



I've never looked at any scientific evidense but my gut reaction is that you are correct.  Homosexuality specifically in males is a flaw of nature similar to any other birth defect and should be accepted as such as long as it does no harm to anyone else.  

I think prison behavior contradicts the myth that homosexuals don't force themselves on anyone.  Based on that subset of the homosexual population I believe that homosexualism does present a potential threat to hetrosexual society.


----------



## GISMYS

Sexual perversion is an abomination=a sick choice with a very high cost!!!


----------



## DriftingSand

> =MikeK;8710875]I don't know what a "homobobe" is.  But homophobia is irrational fear of or hatred of homosexuality.  And most behaviorists believe homophobic expression to be masked repudiation of one's latent homosexual impulses.


Disagreeing with the "gay" agenda doesn't make someone "fear or hate homosexuals." If we use your logic conversely then we have every right to call queers "normalphobes" or "straightphobes" or "Christophobes" simply because they disagree with the lifestyles of normal folks. We could also assume that since they disagree with the normal lifestyle that they have "masked, latent straight impulses."  Am I right?



> Homosexuality is not normal (meaning _usual_). It is abnormal (meaning _unusual_).  But it is quite natural and has been observed in many species other than human: Homosexual behavior in animals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Using the argument that homosexual behavior has been observed in the animal kingdom actually works against the "gay" agenda in that the percentage of animals that have been observed participating in that sort of activity are rare (comparatively speaking), thus vastly abnormal.  If one believes in the idea of "natural selection" then one must conclude that nature will ultimately weed out "gay" organisms (considering the fact that they can't reproduce).


> I agree.  The hormonal imbalance which is believed to foster homosexual impulses occurs pre-natally:  Prenatal hormones and sexual orientation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


From a Christian's perspective, you've hit the nail on the head. We're all "born" with sin nature. You, me, and the rest of mankind! It's our job to overcome our sinful tendencies by repenting of our sins and praying to the Holy Spirit for wisdom, strength, and guidance.  

From a more secular standpoint we could also claim that Jeffry Dahmer and Charles Manson were "born" to be a murderers but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't have learned to overcome their natural, "prenatal" tendency to murder.


----------



## ABikerSailor

You know.....................actual doctors and scientists have taken pictures of the brains of both gays and straights.

Guess what?  They've found that the structure of the gay brain is different than the structure of the brains of straights.



> What makes people gay? Biologists may never get a complete answer to that question, but researchers in Sweden have found one more sign that the answer lies in the structure of the brain.
> 
> Scientists at the Karolinska Institute studied brain scans of 90 gay and straight men and women, and found that the size of the two symmetrical halves of the brains of gay men more closely resembled those of straight women than they did straight men. In heterosexual women, the two halves of the brain are more or less the same size. In heterosexual men, the right hemisphere is slightly larger. Scans of the brains of gay men in the study, however, showed that their hemispheres were relatively symmetrical, like those of straight women, while the brains of homosexual women were asymmetrical like those of straight men. The number of nerves connecting the two sides of the brains of gay men were also more like the number in heterosexual women than in straight men.
> 
> 
> Read more: What the Gay Brain Looks Like - TIME What the Gay Brain Looks Like - TIME



Sorry, but gays are born that way, and no amount of therapy is going to be able to restructure their brain to be straight.


----------



## DriftingSand

ABikerSailor said:


> You know.....................actual doctors and scientists have taken pictures of the brains of both gays and straights.
> 
> Guess what?  They've found that the structure of the gay brain is different than the structure of the brains of straights.
> 
> Sorry, but gays are born that way, and no amount of therapy is going to be able to restructure their brain to be straight.



No two brains are alike. I'm sure that if someone took a picture of a murderer's brain and compared it to Mother Teresa's brain they would look different but that doesn't mean that murder should be excused.


----------



## ABikerSailor

DriftingSand said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know.....................actual doctors and scientists have taken pictures of the brains of both gays and straights.
> 
> Guess what?  They've found that the structure of the gay brain is different than the structure of the brains of straights.
> 
> Sorry, but gays are born that way, and no amount of therapy is going to be able to restructure their brain to be straight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No two brains are alike. I'm sure that if someone took a picture of a murderer's brain and compared it to Mother Teresa's brain they would look different but that doesn't mean that murder should be excused.
Click to expand...


Nope, the difference is in the part of the brain that defines sexuality.

Try again.


----------



## DriftingSand

ABikerSailor said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know.....................actual doctors and scientists have taken pictures of the brains of both gays and straights.
> 
> Guess what?  They've found that the structure of the gay brain is different than the structure of the brains of straights.
> 
> Sorry, but gays are born that way, and no amount of therapy is going to be able to restructure their brain to be straight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No two brains are alike. I'm sure that if someone took a picture of a murderer's brain and compared it to Mother Teresa's brain they would look different but that doesn't mean that murder should be excused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, the difference is in the part of the brain that defines sexuality.
> 
> Try again.
Click to expand...


So does that excuse a pedophile who's brain points his sexual urges towards children? What about someone who's attracted to goats -- does the the shape of their brain excuse their behavior?


----------



## ABikerSailor

DriftingSand said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> No two brains are alike. I'm sure that if someone took a picture of a murderer's brain and compared it to Mother Teresa's brain they would look different but that doesn't mean that murder should be excused.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, the difference is in the part of the brain that defines sexuality.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So does that excuse a pedophile who's brain points his sexual urges towards children? What about someone who's attracted to goats -- does the the shape of their brain excuse their behavior?
Click to expand...


Those behaviors weren't studied.  However, it would be interesting to see what the structure is of people like that.

I'd be willing to bet they'd be closer to hetero brains than gay ones though.

Nice hyperbole on the slippery slope argument by the way.


----------



## DriftingSand

ABikerSailor said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, the difference is in the part of the brain that defines sexuality.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So does that excuse a pedophile who's brain points his sexual urges towards children? What about someone who's attracted to goats -- does the the shape of their brain excuse their behavior?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those behaviors weren't studied.  However, it would be interesting to see what the structure is of people like that.
> 
> I'd be willing to bet they'd be closer to hetero brains than gay ones though.
> 
> Nice hyperbole on the slippery slope argument by the way.
Click to expand...


Excellent sidestep! Kudos.

A healthy heterosexual is a normal woman attracted to a normal man and a normal man attracted to a normal woman.

By the way ... members of NAMBLA are male adults who are attracted to male adolescents.  I would put them in the "homosexual" AND "pedophile" AND "LGBT" categories.


----------



## GreenBean

ABikerSailor said:


> You know.....................actual doctors and scientists have taken pictures of the brains of both gays and straights.
> 
> Guess what?  They've found that the structure of the gay brain is different than the structure of the brains of straights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What makes people gay? Biologists may never get a complete answer to that question, but researchers in Sweden have found one more sign that the answer lies in the structure of the brain.
> 
> Scientists at the Karolinska Institute studied brain scans of 90 gay and straight men and women, and found that the size of the two symmetrical halves of the brains of gay men more closely resembled those of straight women than they did straight men. In heterosexual women, the two halves of the brain are more or less the same size. In heterosexual men, the right hemisphere is slightly larger. Scans of the brains of gay men in the study, however, showed that their hemispheres were relatively symmetrical, like those of straight women, while the brains of homosexual women were asymmetrical like those of straight men. The number of nerves connecting the two sides of the brains of gay men were also more like the number in heterosexual women than in straight men.
> 
> 
> Read more: What the Gay Brain Looks Like - TIME What the Gay Brain Looks Like - TIME
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but gays are born that way, and no amount of therapy is going to be able to restructure their brain to be straight.
Click to expand...


*Interesting ... berry berry interesting ... but stewpit*

Actually I don't have the time to go over the article right now, but it is of interest and will address it later .


----------



## Uncensored2008

ABikerSailor said:


> Nope, the difference is in the part of the brain that defines sexuality.
> 
> Try again.



The pituitary gland?

The "gay brain" is just a little less credible than the claim that humans and dinosaurs walked together before the flood.


----------



## RKMBrown

GreenBean said:


> The American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973 only after years of political pressure from gay activists. The American Psychiatric association board of trustees passed this decision followed by a statement which listed among the reasons for their decision as changing social norms and growing gay rights activism . So basically, a scientific institution was coerced into changing a scientific opinion or classification due to political pressure !
> 
> Removing homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses was not triggered by some scientific breakthrough.  There was no new fact or set of facts that stimulated this major change.  Rather, it was the simple reality that gay people started to kick up a fuss.
> 
> In subsequent years the APA has become so politicized , that it has lost any credibility as a Scientific organization and in the words of one former APA President it is totally "Beholden to the Gay Rights Movement"
> 
> Myself and many others , who for fear of reprisals remain silent believe that Homosexuality is and always has been a Mental Disorder and Homosexuals should not be deterred from seeking Psychological / Psychiatric Help.



One man's mental disorder is another man's norm.


----------



## GISMYS

Uncensored2008 said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, the difference is in the part of the brain that defines sexuality.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The pituitary gland?
> 
> The "gay brain" is just a little less credible than the claim that humans and dinosaurs walked together before the flood.
Click to expand...


YES!! SOUTH AMERICAN INDIAN DINO POTTERY ===http://www.bible.ca/tracks/peru-tomb-art.htm


----------



## Uncensored2008

GISMYS said:


> YES!! SOUTH AMERICAN INDIAN DINO POTTERY ===http://www.bible.ca/tracks/peru-tomb-art.htm



Yes, you're as crazy a AGaySailor; that's the point!


----------



## GreenBean

GreenBean said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know.....................actual doctors and scientists have taken pictures of the brains of both gays and straights.
> 
> Guess what?  They've found that the structure of the gay brain is different than the structure of the brains of straights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What makes people gay? Biologists may never get a complete answer to that question, but researchers in Sweden have found one more sign that the answer lies in the structure of the brain.
> 
> Scientists at the Karolinska Institute studied brain scans of 90 gay and straight men and women, and found that the size of the two symmetrical halves of the brains of gay men more closely resembled those of straight women than they did straight men. In heterosexual women, the two halves of the brain are more or less the same size. In heterosexual men, the right hemisphere is slightly larger. Scans of the brains of gay men in the study, however, showed that their hemispheres were relatively symmetrical, like those of straight women, while the brains of homosexual women were asymmetrical like those of straight men. The number of nerves connecting the two sides of the brains of gay men were also more like the number in heterosexual women than in straight men.
> 
> 
> Read more: What the Gay Brain Looks Like - TIME What the Gay Brain Looks Like - TIME
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but gays are born that way, and no amount of therapy is going to be able to restructure their brain to be straight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Interesting ... berry berry interesting ... but stewpit*
> 
> Actually I don't have the time to go over the article right now, but it is of interest and will address it later .
Click to expand...


Very Interesting study , from a small test group, with a small control group, but entirely inconclusive and not peer reviewed - yet.   

Dr. Eric Vilain does have an excellent reputation, what I did discover however is that his findings are *ALWAYS - Without Exception*  in favor of the Gay Agenda - which shed doubt of his credibility.  I would definitely stop short of calling the good doctor another Evelyn Hooker who manipulated test results in order to obtain results favorable to her ideology.   I would however await further critique of his work , assuming that unfavorable criticism is not suppressed as is so often the case.

Nice Post - BikerFaggot


----------



## protectionist

Delta4Embassy said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality is not normal (meaning _usual_). It is abnormal (meaning _unusual_).  But it is quite natural and has been observed in many species other than human: Homosexual behavior in animals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you have some reason to think that other animal species are somehow immune to abnormality ? The obvious proof that homosexuality is unnatural, is that it is in contradiction to nature's design.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Used to think you were reasonably intelligent. Anything other animals do is by definition 'natural.' It may not be a majority action, but it remains a natural variation. And simply because it isn't how sexual reproduction works is no reason to believe it's unnatural, deviant, or harmful.
> 
> Just because YOU have a problem with sex doesn't mean science and sexology agrees with you.
Click to expand...


1.  I have no problem with sex, and you don't think I do.
2.  Of course, it is unnatural for any animal to have sex with one of its own sex.  Nature is designed for animals to have heterosexual sex, not homosexual.    If any animal does what nature does not design it to do, that is unnatural.
3.  Saying >> _"Anything other animals do is by definition 'natural."_ is one of he dumbest things I've ever seen in a forum.  

What you just said is equivalent to saying it would be natural for fish to try to walk across the desert.  Or natural for horses to jump off cliffs to fly across the ocean.  Or dogs to climb trees.   You do a better job of refuting your post than I do.


----------



## protectionist

HUGGY said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not believe it is a _mental_ disorder, but could be if a child was raised in a home where homosexuality is preferred or encouraged.
> Homosexuality, it it's purity, that is, someone who is specifically attracted to their own sex is, by definition, an abnormality. There is no serious argument that could be provided based on the obvious biological purpose of male/female genitalia. Therefore homosexuality is a _biological _disorder.
> To me, the question should be "is this abnormality unacceptable?" Should it be shunned or banned in some way. And my answer to that is no. It serves no purpose to punish people for something they cannot control, as long as it does no harm to others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never looked at any scientific evidense but my gut reaction is that you are correct.  Homosexuality specifically in males is a flaw of nature similar to any other birth defect and should be accepted as such as long as it does no harm to anyone else.
> 
> I think prison behavior contradicts the myth that homosexuals don't force themselves on anyone.  Based on that subset of the homosexual population I believe that homosexualism does present a potential threat to hetrosexual society.
Click to expand...


Prison behavior is a small part of it all.  The major part is just queers attempting to legitimize their perversion, and make it acceptable by law, as they have succeeded in doing in some states and localities.  The harm of this is massive, especially to children.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

protectionist said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you have some reason to think that other animal species are somehow immune to abnormality ? The obvious proof that homosexuality is unnatural, is that it is in contradiction to nature's design.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Used to think you were reasonably intelligent. Anything other animals do is by definition 'natural.' It may not be a majority action, but it remains a natural variation. And simply because it isn't how sexual reproduction works is no reason to believe it's unnatural, deviant, or harmful.
> 
> Just because YOU have a problem with sex doesn't mean science and sexology agrees with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.  I have no problem with sex, and you don't think I do.
> 2.  Of course, it is unnatural for any animal to have sex with one of its own sex.  Nature is designed for animals to have heterosexual sex, not homosexual.    If any animal does what nature does not design it to do, that is unnatural.
> 3.  Saying >> _"Anything other animals do is by definition 'natural."_ is one of he dumbest things I've ever seen in a forum.
> 
> What you just said is equivalent to saying it would be natural for fish to try to walk across the desert.  Or natural for horses to jump off cliffs to fly across the ocean.  Or dogs to climb trees.   You do a better job of refuting your post than I do.
Click to expand...


Unfortunately, I can post videos of all three of those things happening. Some fish do walk on land (well, 'waddle' might be more accurate,) horses do jump off cliffs (albeit into water,) and dogs climb trees routinely. 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvRtOYGMWV8]Fish walking on land! - YouTube[/ame]
Walking fish - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

dog climbs tree - Google Search
'Dogs climb trees'

Are pics n videos of horses jumping and being riden off cliffs but it seems unethical so not gonna post it. Can google if curious.

Over 1500 animals besides people exhibit homosexuality. It's a natural variation to sexuality. While I wouldn't go as far as to anthropomorphisize that as being 'preferential homosexuality' the behaviours exist naturally. 

Homo/Heterosexuality are just words we invented to describe sexual behaviours. The obejctive reality though is because sex feels good and can result in orgasm, humans and other animals will seek it from any willing partner. And because animals don't have a big ol' stck up their butts about sex, they'll have 'homosexual' sex too.


----------



## MikeK

DriftingSand said:


> =MikeK;8710875]I don't know what a "homobobe" is.  But homophobia is irrational fear of or hatred of homosexuality.  And most behaviorists believe homophobic expression to be masked repudiation of one's latent homosexual impulses.
> 
> 
> 
> Disagreeing with the "gay" agenda doesn't make someone "fear or hate homosexuals." If we use your logic conversely then we have every right to call queers "normalphobes" or "straightphobes" or "Christophobes" simply because they disagree with the lifestyles of normal folks. We could also assume that since they disagree with the normal lifestyle that they have "masked, latent straight impulses."  Am I right?
Click to expand...

No.  You're quite wrong.

I didn't say "disagreeing" with the gay agenda makes someone fear or hate homosexuals.  I said homophobia is an *irrational fear or hatred,* not simply a "disagreement."  So if I were you I would give a lot of thought to why you find it necessary to re-shape the meaning of my comments to conform with your beliefs.


----------



## MikeK

DriftingSand said:


> Using the argument that homosexual behavior has been observed in the animal kingdom actually works against the "gay" agenda in that the percentage of animals that have been observed participating in that sort of activity are rare (comparatively speaking), thus vastly abnormal.  If one believes in the idea of "natural selection" then one must conclude that nature will ultimately weed out "gay" organisms (considering the fact that they can't reproduce).


That reasoning presumes Natural process is flawless, but the fact is Nature is replete with exceptions and imperfections -- which includes humans with limited ability for abstract reasoning.


----------



## Uncensored2008

MikeK said:


> That reasoning presumes Natural process is flawless, but the fact is Nature is replete with exceptions and imperfections -- which includes humans with limited ability for abstract reasoning.



Homosexuality may well be a natural process to remove faulty genes from the pool.


----------



## MikeK

DriftingSand said:


> So does that excuse a pedophile who's brain points his sexual urges towards children? What about someone who's attracted to goats -- does the the shape of their brain excuse their behavior?


Your question suggests explaining something also excuses it.  Please explain how you arrived at that conclusion.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Uncensored2008 said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, the difference is in the part of the brain that defines sexuality.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The pituitary gland?
> 
> The "gay brain" is just a little less credible than the claim that humans and dinosaurs walked together before the flood.
Click to expand...


Actually, it's not pointed to one particular piece of the brain, it's more like the structure of the region that controls sexuality.

And..................based on my experiences in life, as well as all the gay people that I've known over the years, I'd be willing to bet that the scientists are right on this.  Most gays react to thinking about having sex with someone of the opposite gender as what most straights do when they think about having sex with someone of the same gender.


----------



## Uncensored2008

ABikerSailor said:


> Actually, it's not pointed to one particular piece of the brain, it's more like the structure of the region that controls sexuality.




Actually, it's a pile of complete bullshit that has ZERO supporting evidence and has been refuted by medical science every time some fraud floats it.



> And..................based on my experiences in life, as well as all the gay people that I've known over the years, I'd be willing to bet that the scientists are right on this.  Most gays react to thinking about having sex with someone of the opposite gender as what most straights do when they think about having sex with someone of the same gender.



Oh, scientist ARE right, the "gay brain" is a complete fraud. Who was that fucker with his lies about hypothalamus size?  Oh yeah, Simon LeVay - proven a complete and utter fraud. Actually falsified photographs in his desperation to provide a physical link, where none exists.


----------



## DGS49

There is no bioligical or genetic cause for "gay" inclinations.  The gay community has been searching in vain for one for generations but it is a preposterous idea to start with.  Essentially all gays are descended from heterosexuals.  Done.  Case closed.

Gay behaviour in animals is aberrant, and in almost all cases the result of a lack of females available to copulate with.  Analogous to heterosexual men buggering each other in prison, or in the English navy.

Absent some deformity (e.g., hermaphroditism) there is no ambiguity about human sexuality.  The sex organs have obvious purposes and to use them overwise is a perversion.  The fact that they can be stimulated by abnormal means (masturbation, oral sex, anal sex, vibrators) does not render the abnormal normal, any more than carving statues out of treetrunks with a chainsaw makes that a normal use of the saw.


----------



## JakeStarkey

heterofascism and homophobia are certainly mental disorders


----------



## MikeK

DriftingSand said:


> So does that *excuse* a pedophile who's brain points his sexual urges towards children? What about someone who's attracted to goats -- does the the shape of their brain *excuse* their behavior?


"Excuse?"  Again you conflate _understanding_ with _approval_ 

Pedophilia seems to combine the normal affection for children with erotic impulses, which, in the simplest terms, is an example of neurological malfunction -- crossed wires, as it were.  I would suggest the same circumstance applies to bestiality or any form of sexual _deviance._

Understanding the essential cause of certain sexual compulsions, such as pedophilia, does not mean I approve of (excuse) its exercise or consider it socially acceptable.  Every example of pedophilic contact necessarily involves a victim, meaning it is a criminal exercise and should be treated as such.  But as far as your reference to goats, in order to offer an opinion on that sort of sexual activity I would need to know how the goats feel about it.


----------



## MikeK

DriftingSand said:


> No two brains are alike. I'm sure that if someone took a picture of a murderer's brain and compared it to Mother Teresa's brain they would look different but that doesn't mean that murder should be excused.


The same may be said for any organ.  A leg, for example.  But a trained professional will recognize an abnormal shape or size of some part, such as the knee, or shin, or femur, in relation to the other parts.  

I recently had an MRI.  When I saw the pictures my cervical spine looked to me like an ordinary cervical spine.  But the orthopedist who diagnosed my condition showed me the subtle, pain-inducing deformity of one vertebra called _stenosis._


----------



## MikeK

DGS49 said:


> There is no bioligical or genetic cause for "gay" inclinations.


I don't know about _genetic,_ but I am absolutely convinced that homosexuality, like heterosexuality, has a biological (hormonal) cause.  



> The gay community has been searching in vain for one for generations but it is a preposterous idea to start with.  Essentially all gays are descended from heterosexuals.


If there is a genetic factor in one's homosexual orientation the simplest explanation for its progressive transmission would be bisexual forebears somewhere along the line.  



> Gay behaviour in animals is aberrant, and in almost all cases the result of a lack of females available to copulate with.


_Aberrant_ and _abnormal_ as in _unusual,_ yes.  But quite natural.  List of animals displaying homosexual behavior - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> Analogous to heterosexual men buggering each other in prison, or in the English navy.


One either is heterosexual, homosexual, or bi-sexual.  One who engages in homosexual activity is either homosexual or bi-sexual.  If one has latent bi-sexual tendencies being in prison will cause them to manifest.  

Only a small percentage of prison inmates engage in homosexual activity.  Lack of access to females will not induce compensatory, or "temporary," homosexual behavior.  One either _is_ or _is not._ 



> Absent some deformity (e.g., hermaphroditism) there is no ambiguity about human sexuality.  The sex organs have obvious purposes and to use them overwise is a perversion.  The fact that they can be stimulated by abnormal means (masturbation, oral sex, anal sex, vibrators) does not render the abnormal normal, any more than carving statues out of treetrunks with a chainsaw makes that a normal use of the saw.


There is nothing abnormal about masturbation, oral sex, or the use of masturbatory aids (vibrators).  And using a chain saw to carve statues is not at all abnormal if that is all a given chain saw is used for.  But if all you normally do with a chain saw is cut down and trim trees, then you suddenly start carving statues with your saw, that would be abnormal.


----------



## Montrovant

DGS49 said:


> There is no bioligical or genetic cause for "gay" inclinations.  The gay community has been searching in vain for one for generations but it is a preposterous idea to start with.  Essentially all gays are descended from heterosexuals.  Done.  Case closed.
> 
> Gay behaviour in animals is aberrant, and in almost all cases the result of a lack of females available to copulate with.  Analogous to heterosexual men buggering each other in prison, or in the English navy.
> 
> Absent some deformity (e.g., hermaphroditism) there is no ambiguity about human sexuality.  The sex organs have obvious purposes and to use them overwise is a perversion.  The fact that they can be stimulated by abnormal means (masturbation, oral sex, anal sex, vibrators) does not render the abnormal normal, any more than carving statues out of treetrunks with a chainsaw makes that a normal use of the saw.



I was going to comment more on this, but then you went and called masturbation abnormal, losing all credibility.


----------



## MisterBeale

Delta4Embassy said:


> I don't believe homosexuality even exists. It's a made-up term used to persecute those who display a simple natural variation of sexuality. I don't believe in hetereosexuality either. There's just 'sexuality.' Males and females who prefer romantic and sexual relationships with their own sex have occured throughout human history. The terms though are relatively new. One of the less noble accomplishments of human beings is the inclination to categorize everything. For whatever reason, rather than viewing ourselves as one species, we seem to need to break ourselves up into categories. Free/Oppressed, rich/poor, democrat/republican, straight/gay are just a few examples. But these are all just ideas as concrete as fairy dust but not as pretty.



It doesn't matter what you choose to believe, homosexuality does exist.  In most cases, it is the cause of a hormone imbalance.  Scientists have done CAT scans/ MRI's on the brains of homosexuals and heterosexuals, the physical make up of their brains ARE in fact, different.
Gay brains structured like those of the opposite sex
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html#.Uxp8iYUz16A


> Brain scans have provided the most compelling evidence yet that being gay or straight is a biologically fixed trait.
> 
> The scans reveal that in gay people, key structures of the brain governing emotion, mood, anxiety and aggressiveness resemble those in straight people of the opposite sex.
> 
> The differences are likely to have been forged in the womb or in early infancy, says Ivanka Savic, who conducted the study at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden.
> 
> "This is the most robust measure so far of cerebral differences between homosexual and heterosexual subjects," she says.





Gracie said:


> Who actually CHOOSES to become a homosexual? They were born that way. Has nothing to do with mental illness. Not a shrink and not a doc, but that is what I believe.  Who would want the shunning, the ridicule, the hate by CHOICE? Nobody.



Absolutely nobody.  That is why it is surprising that the diagnosis of Gender confusion, or more properly, Gender Dimorphism has been taken out, or has never been put in the DSM at all.  We now know, and there is more evidence that this is a legitimate hormonally caused abnormality that no one would ever consciously choose for their offspring.  There seem to be multiple causes for this abnormal hormonal development syndrome. 

A Review of Scientific Research on Homosexuality






http://www.viewzone.com/homosexual.html


> In 1959 a report was published with the title, "Organizing action of prenatally administered testosterone propionate on the tissues mediating mating behavior in the female guinea pig" by Charles H. Phoenix, Robert W. Goy, Arnold A. Gerall, and William C. Young [6]. This was one of those "animal studies" -- of interest only to psychologists and neurologists. In 1991, the popular journal, Science, published a paper that revisited the 1959 report and included many more recent studies. Their paper came to the conclusion:
> 
> "This finding indicates that INAH [part of the hypothalamus] is dimorphic with sexual orientation, at least in men, and suggests that sexual orientation has a biological substrate." [4]
> 
> Ever since Science published the article, I've been waiting for the big changes. But they have been slow. Public opinion still maintains that homosexuals have chosen to live a deviant lifestyle. Some of the worst hate towards homosexuals -- from an anti-homosexual religious group that targets veteran's funerals [below] -- comes from the belief that it is a chosen lifestyle.
> 
> Ignorance about the cause of homosexuality has been responsible for many teen suicides as well as violence against teens who are perceived as different by their classmates. School officials, even parents of homosexual children, do little to clarify this condition and seem often to turn away from the issue all together.



. . .     . . .



> Homosexuality is a congenital condition much like being "left handed". Before you dismiss the analogy remember there were times in history when being left-handed (the archaic meaning of "sinister") meant you were possessed by evil. You could have been hanged, burned, stoned to death or buried alive. Having personally lived in an Arab country, I can assure you that being left-handed was something that I did my best to hide. Today we know that left handedness is the result of excess testosterone slowing the growth of the left-hemisphere in the developing fetal brain.[2] It's not a choice. It's a condition.
> 
> Ironically, homosexuality is caused much the same way as being left-handed. Instead of excess testosterone, the developing male fetus receives too little, often too late.
> 
> Researchers naturally focus on an organ in the brain called the hypothalamus because it is known to be responsible for gender preference. It is also what is called dimorphic, meaning its structure is different in males and females. There's also differences in the hypothalamus between homosexuals and heterosexuals. Recent studies of the different sections or nuclei have revealed much that was not known before. And there have also been some surprises.
> 
> With advances in laboratory technology, a specific region of the hypothalamus, called the sexually dimorphic nucleus (SDN), has been the focus of some interesting research. The SDN is the most conspicuous anatomical male/female difference in the mammalian brain. The nuclei is 3 to 8 times larger in males than in females. Another nuclei of the hypothalamus, INAH-3, reveals that heterosexual males have double the volume of both homosexual and female subjects.



. . .    . . .



> In 1972, Dr. Ward had no idea that androstendione in male pregnancies would prevent or inhibit the hypothalamus to develop into a healthy male brain, but this stress-related hormone now appears to do just that. The brain makes its gender commitment very early in development and, once committed to either male or female, it can not change.
> 
> The interference with environmental testosterone in the later stages of pregnancy does little or nothing to inhibit gender development of the body. By mid-pregnancy, the gonads can produce enough systemic testosterone to develop the body along male plans; however, problems do happen in these later stages [11]. Sometimes the receptors which receive testosterone are defective or greatly reduced in number. This is generally seen as a defect resulting from the initial blocking of testosterone by the presence of other androgens [7]. This can inhibit the effectiveness of testosterone and cause a less effective defeminization.
> 
> In Doctor Ward's own words:
> 
> "...The present data support the hypothesis that exposure of pregnant rats to environmental stressors modifies the normal process of sexual behavior differentiation in male fetuses by decreasing functional testosterone and elevating androstenedione levels during prenatal development. During stress conditions plasma testosterone emanating from the gonads decreases while adrenal androstenedione rises. The molecular structure of the two androgens, being very similar, it is postulated that the two hormones compete for the same receptor sites. Since androstenedione is a less potent androgen than testosterone, the decrease in male copulatory ability and increased lordotic potential seen in the prenatally stressed animals of the present study would be expected. The relative difference in potency between testosterone and androstendione has been repeatedly demonstrated. [Ibid.]



There is much, much more at this site.  Also, it gives a great explanation as to the evolutionary role of homosexuality, as it has clearly been with mankind for eons.

The point here, is that this condition has been more widely studied than the mysterious condition of ADHD, or even Autism, which both have prevalence in the DSM.

What is the purpose of Homosexuality?  If it has a biological component, then it must have an evolutionary meaning, it didn't arise by chance.  Sure, it is an abnormality, but one would assume that all abnormalities would be selected out by environmental and social pressures.

Likewise, what is the chemical and biological reason for the seeming rise in rate of homosexuality in the industrialized world?  One possibly hypothesis is chemical pollution.  (Others of course, have mentioned childhood sexual trauma and abuse.)  

Chemical Pollution Linked to Upsurge in Homosexuality Transgenderism
http://www.worldissues360.com/index.php/chemical-pollution-linked-to-upsurge-in-homosexuality-transgenderism-3906/


> Another study, published by the International Journal of Andrology, zeroes in on an environmental pollutant and shows how it can mutate key areas of the brain affecting the tendency towards sexual preference.
> 
> In conjunction with other studies revealing links between environmental toxins that affect the development of the amygdala in fetuses and infants, questions raising about the possibility that certain pollutants are impacting sexuality during early childhood.



It is important that we study science objectively and understand that people may have no choice in who they are and how they feel, when making policy decisions.  

On the other hand, we should also listen to other interested parties in society who have, for centuries instinctively known when a condition that has been exhibited in humanity is a sign of illness and societal decay above a certain percentage of the population.

Like all things, balance should be sought.


----------



## protectionist

Delta4Embassy said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Used to think you were reasonably intelligent. Anything other animals do is by definition 'natural.' It may not be a majority action, but it remains a natural variation. And simply because it isn't how sexual reproduction works is no reason to believe it's unnatural, deviant, or harmful.
> 
> Just because YOU have a problem with sex doesn't mean science and sexology agrees with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  I have no problem with sex, and you don't think I do.
> 2.  Of course, it is unnatural for any animal to have sex with one of its own sex.  Nature is designed for animals to have heterosexual sex, not homosexual.    If any animal does what nature does not design it to do, that is unnatural.
> 3.  Saying >> _"Anything other animals do is by definition 'natural."_ is one of he dumbest things I've ever seen in a forum.
> 
> What you just said is equivalent to saying it would be natural for fish to try to walk across the desert.  Or natural for horses to jump off cliffs to fly across the ocean.  Or dogs to climb trees.   You do a better job of refuting your post than I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, I can post videos of all three of those things happening. Some fish do walk on land (well, 'waddle' might be more accurate,) horses do jump off cliffs (albeit into water,) and dogs climb trees routinely.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvRtOYGMWV8]Fish walking on land! - YouTube[/ame]
> Walking fish - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> dog climbs tree - Google Search
> 'Dogs climb trees'
> 
> Are pics n videos of horses jumping and being riden off cliffs but it seems unethical so not gonna post it. Can google if curious.
> 
> Over 1500 animals besides people exhibit homosexuality. It's a natural variation to sexuality. While I wouldn't go as far as to anthropomorphisize that as being 'preferential homosexuality' the behaviours exist naturally.
> 
> Homo/Heterosexuality are just words we invented to describe sexual behaviours. The obejctive reality though is because sex feels good and can result in orgasm, humans and other animals will seek it from any willing partner. And because animals don't have a big ol' stck up their butts about sex, they'll have 'homosexual' sex too.
Click to expand...


I don't have to make an assclown out of your posts.  You are doing a class A job of that your self.  Pheeeeeeww!!  (high-pitched whistle)  Just another idiotic example of those who go around telling us that up is down, black is white, and cold is hot.   

These moronic attempts at legitimizing an obvious mental aberration, is why queers will NEVER be accepted in society (except in idiot states > California, New York, etc), and the more they try to pass it off as normal, the more repressed they will be.  For every unit of effort they expend to legitimize, there should and will be 10 units of effort to present the truth.


----------



## protectionist

MikeK said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> Using the argument that homosexual behavior has been observed in the animal kingdom actually works against the "gay" agenda in that the percentage of animals that have been observed participating in that sort of activity are rare (comparatively speaking), thus vastly abnormal.  If one believes in the idea of "natural selection" then one must conclude that nature will ultimately weed out "gay" organisms (considering the fact that they can't reproduce).
> 
> 
> 
> That reasoning presumes Natural process is flawless, but the fact is Nature is replete with exceptions and imperfections -- which includes humans with limited ability for abstract reasoning.
Click to expand...


And one example of those exceptions and imperfections (AKA abnormalities) is homosexuality.


----------



## protectionist

Uncensored2008 said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it's not pointed to one particular piece of the brain, it's more like the structure of the region that controls sexuality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it's a pile of complete bullshit that has ZERO supporting evidence and has been refuted by medical science every time some fraud floats it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And..................based on my experiences in life, as well as all the gay people that I've known over the years, I'd be willing to bet that the scientists are right on this.  Most gays react to thinking about having sex with someone of the opposite gender as what most straights do when they think about having sex with someone of the same gender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, scientist ARE right, the "gay brain" is a complete fraud. Who was that fucker with his lies about hypothalamus size?  Oh yeah, Simon LeVay - proven a complete and utter fraud. Actually falsified photographs in his desperation to provide a physical link, where none exists.
Click to expand...


As the Rock of WWE fame would say >> *IT DOESN'T MATTER* what the frauds of scientists or authors say.
All that is necessary is that we don't do the same STUPID thing that idiot states like California and New York have done > to legitimize this lunacy, by making its marriages legal, allowing queers to be teachers, etc.


----------



## protectionist

DGS49 said:


> There is no bioligical or genetic cause for "gay" inclinations.  The gay community has been searching in vain for one for generations but it is a preposterous idea to start with.  Essentially all gays are descended from heterosexuals.  Done.  Case closed.
> 
> Gay behaviour in animals is aberrant, and in almost all cases the result of a lack of females available to copulate with.  Analogous to heterosexual men buggering each other in prison, or in the English navy.
> 
> Absent some deformity (e.g., hermaphroditism) there is no ambiguity about human sexuality.  The sex organs have obvious purposes and to use them overwise is a perversion.  The fact that they can be stimulated by abnormal means (masturbation, oral sex, anal sex, vibrators) does not render the abnormal normal, any more than carving statues out of treetrunks with a chainsaw makes that a normal use of the saw.



For this post, 2 words come to mind >> * OF COURSE!!!*

Or one word >>  *ABSOLUTELY!!!*


----------



## protectionist

JakeStarkey said:


> heterofascism and homophobia are certainly mental disorders



 Switching the truth, and turning it backwards, means nothing, except to expose the switcher as a fool.


----------



## protectionist

MikeK said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> So does that *excuse* a pedophile who's brain points his sexual urges towards children? What about someone who's attracted to goats -- does the the shape of their brain *excuse* their behavior?
> 
> 
> 
> "Excuse?"  Again you conflate _understanding_ with _approval_
> 
> Pedophilia seems to combine the normal affection for children with erotic impulses, which, in the simplest terms, is an example of neurological malfunction -- crossed wires, as it were.  I would suggest the same circumstance applies to bestiality or any form of sexual _deviance._
> 
> Understanding the essential cause of certain sexual compulsions, such as pedophilia, does not mean I approve of (excuse) its exercise or consider it socially acceptable.  Every example of pedophilic contact necessarily involves a victim, meaning it is a criminal exercise and should be treated as such.  But as far as your reference to goats, in order to offer an opinion on that sort of sexual activity I would need to know how the goats feel about it.
Click to expand...


WHO CARES what the causal reason is for homosexuality ?  All that really is needed to be known is that this abnormality must not be allowed to be accepted by society.


----------



## frigidweirdo

protectionist said:


> As the Rock of WWE fame would say >> *IT DOESN'T MATTER* what the frauds of scientists or authors say.
> All that is necessary is that we don't do the same STUPID thing that idiot states like California and New York have done > to legitimize this lunacy, by making its marriages legal, allowing queers to be teachers, etc.



To be honest, it doesn't matter what the scientists say. There's a constitution, the courts have interpreted a right to privacy, they have also upheld other rights. 

Otherwise there'd be slaves, or segregation or things like that, oh, wait, the conservatives managed to keep each of those for 90 years or so each, and now this one has been there for a long time.

Who supports the US constitution huh?


----------



## frigidweirdo

repost!


----------



## protectionist

MikeK said:


> I don't know about _genetic,_ but I am absolutely convinced that homosexuality, like heterosexuality, has a biological (hormonal) cause.



Irrelevant.  Stopping the loon cancer from spreading is all that really matters (especially with regard to children and education)



MikeK said:


> _Aberrant_ and _abnormal_ as in _unusual,_ yes.  But quite natural.  List of animals displaying homosexual behavior - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Homosexuality, whether done by humans or any other members of the animal kingdom, is a deviation from the natural order, and so is NOT natural.  It is 100% contrary to nature.  Just because a rare few animals do something doesn't make it "natural".  I recall a 19th century case of a man who had an obsession with eating nails.  To no one's surprise, he didn't live long after acquiring this unusual abnormality. To call this "natural" is beyond ridiculous.  Same thing with any animal, human or otherwise, engaging in sex contrary to their body parts.  It is isn't the physical damage of the nails that makes it unnatural.  It, like homosexuality, is the *non-conformance with the intent of the body parts*, that does.


----------



## protectionist

frigidweirdo said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> As the Rock of WWE fame would say >> *IT DOESN'T MATTER* what the frauds of scientists or authors say.
> All that is necessary is that we don't do the same STUPID thing that idiot states like California and New York have done > to legitimize this lunacy, by making its marriages legal, allowing queers to be teachers, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be honest, it doesn't matter what the scientists say. There's a constitution, the courts have interpreted a right to privacy, they have also upheld other rights.
> 
> Otherwise there'd be slaves, or segregation or things like that, oh, wait, the conservatives managed to keep each of those for 90 years or so each, and now this one has been there for a long time.
> 
> Who supports the US constitution huh?
Click to expand...


Stop beating around the bush. What's your point (specifically) ???


----------



## frigidweirdo

protectionist said:


> Stop beating around the bush. What's your point (specifically) ???



Hmm, it seemed to be quite simple.

There's a US constitution, it protects the right of individuals from US federal and state interference. 

It protects the right to privacy. How can people demand smaller government (ie keep out of people's lives) and then demand that they prevent gay people marrying? Or as was suggested, not be able to work in schools and other such jobs?


----------



## protectionist

frigidweirdo said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop beating around the bush. What's your point (specifically) ???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm, it seemed to be quite simple.
> 
> There's a US constitution, it protects the right of individuals from US federal and state interference.
> 
> It protects the right to privacy. How can people demand smaller government (ie keep out of people's lives) and then demand that they prevent gay people marrying? Or as was suggested, not be able to work in schools and other such jobs?
Click to expand...


Since I am not a proponent of smaller govt, I won't comment on that. I'll just say that the people can demand that society be structured according to how they want it to be.  Govt of the people, by the people, for the people.  If/whenever they decide that homosexual marriage is a bad thing (damage to mental health), and queers teaching in schools (danger to kids), then they have the right to PROTECT themselves from that.

Thus, in (IMO) stupid societies (ex. New York, California), queer marriage is legal.  In (IMO) smart societies (ex. Florida, Georgia, Alabama), it is banned.


----------



## frigidweirdo

protectionist said:


> Since I am not a proponent of smaller govt, I won't comment on that. I'll just say that the people can demand that society be structured according to how they want it to be.  Govt of the people, by the people, for the people.  If/whenever they decide that homosexual marriage is a bad thing (damage to mental health), and queers teaching in schools (danger to kids), then they have the right to PROTECT themselves from that.
> 
> Thus, in (IMO) stupid societies (ex. New York, California), queer marriage is legal.  In (IMO) smart societies (ex. Florida, Georgia, Alabama), it is banned.



And surely that "demand that society be structured" lark is THE US CONSTITUTION which most people seem to claim to support, and which gives individuals the right of protection from the US govt. 

You're trying to claim mob rule, even after 223 years after the Bill or Rights was put into the constitution to stop MOB RULE over individuals. 

And, to go to your argument, if they decide black people voting is dangerous, then they have "right to PROTECT themselves from that".

Right? hey, I have the right to protect myself from you? So I can ban you? You're dangerous, what with all that stuff talking about fluffy bunnies and all that, right? (Okay, I made that up about the bunnies, but whatever you get the point, I hope.). 

I'd also say, your "right to PROTECT yourself" from anything you deem dangerous is not how the theory of rights actually works. 

In all my time looking at politics, the one thing seems to be a constant. People do not have any single damn clue about what rights mean. 

Get this. You can do whatever you like as long as it does not hurt others.

1) You can say what you like, as long as it does not hurt others. Ie, treason, libel or causing physical harm, and a few other things.

This is part of the 1st Amendment, right? The right is not absolute, and it protects you from the govt, however, it doesn't protect you to tread down on people. 

So, you have a right to privacy, as long as you're not using it to tread down on people. 

You have the right to own weapons, but not a right to kill people unless they are attacking you. 

I could go on. 

But it seems VERY CLEAR to me, that the govt does not have a place in telling people who they can marry, UNLESS it causes a danger. 

Now, the danger is this. Firstly incest, it can cause medical issues. Secondly in minors because the rights theory says that minors don't actually have full rights or full responsibilities, and they therefore can consent. Others who can't consent are also in this category. 

If you're going to ban "abnormal" people from marrying, then it wouldn't be that hard to come up with a list of about 300 million Americans who fit the term "abnormal".


----------



## Penrod

GreenBean said:


> The American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973 only after years of political pressure from gay activists. The American Psychiatric association board of trustees passed this decision followed by a statement which listed among the reasons for their decision as changing social norms and growing gay rights activism . So basically, a scientific institution was coerced into changing a scientific opinion or classification due to political pressure !
> 
> Removing homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses was not triggered by some scientific breakthrough.  There was no new fact or set of facts that stimulated this major change.  Rather, it was the simple reality that gay people started to kick up a fuss.
> 
> In subsequent years the APA has become so politicized , that it has lost any credibility as a Scientific organization and in the words of one former APA President it is totally "Beholden to the Gay Rights Movement"
> 
> Myself and many others , who for fear of reprisals remain silent believe that Homosexuality is and always has been a Mental Disorder and Homosexuals should not be deterred from seeking Psychological / Psychiatric Help.



I feel your pain. Even mentioning you think its a mental disease will cause people to call you an uneducated bigot. What has the US come to. If you are religious your a bigot and if your gay you ra moral stand up person.


----------



## GISMYS

Penrod said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> The American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973 only after years of political pressure from gay activists. The American Psychiatric association board of trustees passed this decision followed by a statement which listed among the reasons for their decision as changing social norms and growing gay rights activism . So basically, a scientific institution was coerced into changing a scientific opinion or classification due to political pressure !
> 
> Removing homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses was not triggered by some scientific breakthrough.  There was no new fact or set of facts that stimulated this major change.  Rather, it was the simple reality that gay people started to kick up a fuss.
> 
> In subsequent years the APA has become so politicized , that it has lost any credibility as a Scientific organization and in the words of one former APA President it is totally "Beholden to the Gay Rights Movement"
> 
> Myself and many others , who for fear of reprisals remain silent believe that Homosexuality is and always has been a Mental Disorder and Homosexuals should not be deterred from seeking Psychological / Psychiatric Help.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I feel your pain. Even mentioning you think its a mental disease will cause people to call you an uneducated bigot. What has the US come to. If you are religious your a bigot and if your gay you ra moral stand up person.
Click to expand...


20 Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! 21Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes And clever in their own sight!isaiah 5:20


----------



## MikeK

protectionist said:


> I don't have to make an assclown out of your posts.  You are doing a class A job of that your self.  Pheeeeeeww!!  (high-pitched whistle)  Just another idiotic example of those who go around telling us that up is down, black is white, and cold is hot.
> 
> These moronic attempts at legitimizing an obvious mental aberration, is why queers will NEVER be accepted in society (except in idiot states > California, New York, etc), and the more they try to pass it off as normal, the more repressed they will be.  For every unit of effort they expend to legitimize, there should and will be 10 units of effort to present the truth.


By now it is obvious your feelings in this matter are inflexible, so let's move to the next obvious consideration.  Assume for the sake of discussion there has been a political revolution in America and you have been declared primal dictator.  Your word is Law.  

Specifically how would you deal with homosexuals and the issue of homosexuality?


----------



## MaryL

A bigger question is growing out of this; Why can't we question aberrant sexual behavior? WHY NOT? What is so threatening  about that?


----------



## GISMYS

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness;
Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes,
And prudent in their own sight!
isaiah 5:20


----------



## JakeStarkey

protectionist said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> heterofascism and homophobia are certainly mental disorders
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Switching the truth, and turning it backwards, means nothing, except to expose the switcher as a fool.
Click to expand...


The truth is this: you are emotionally and mentally turned around for sure.

Even in the last days, the very elect will be fooled as were the crusaders, the conquistadores, and the Puritans.

Step along, protectionist.


----------



## Montrovant

MaryL said:


> A bigger question is growing out of this; Why can't we question aberrant sexual behavior? WHY NOT? What is so threatening  about that?



As far as I'm concerned, question away.  

However, that doesn't mean I or anyone else should refrain from questioning your judgement based on how or why you question the aberrant sexual behavior.  Nor does it mean that I or anyone else should accept public policy based on a sexual behavior being abnormal.


----------



## GreenBean

MaryL said:


> A bigger question is growing out of this; Why can't we question aberrant sexual behavior? WHY NOT? What is so threatening  about that?



Homosexual behavior is un-natural and abnormal , heterosexual behavior practiced by somewhere around 95% of the Human Population is the only acceptable and biologically useful purpose of sex.  Procreation - Breeding

*The only thing Homosexual activity breeds is decadence and disease.*  HIV being the most well known of these, but queers are also carriers and breeders of a host of abhorrent plagues all relevant to their perverted practices.

So far as the argument that it's no one else's business what faggots do amongst themselves - Well try telling that to the innocent victims of the plagues spread by homosexual depravity.  The hemophiliacs, the babies born HIV positive because some one somewhere had sex with a 1/2 Fag {Bi} and infected someone else and so on  down the line.  How many have lost their lives because some faggot needed to get his rocks off ?

How much more must we normal , mentally independently thinking people who  are not the mindless products of Liberal Big Brother indoctrination tolerate ?  How many more outlandish lies and factual distortions must we endure by the Gay Activists and Liberal Media  - You faggots who can't control your insatiable promiscuity have inflicted upon society untold damages - If you can't keep it zipped - perhaps a Leper colony is where you belong .


----------



## GreenBean

MaryL said:


> A bigger question is growing out of this; Why can't we question aberrant sexual behavior? WHY NOT? What is so threatening  about that?



As per the Lords of Political Correctness

*Thou Shalt not question the Gay Agenda*

To question it leads one to think and explore the facts about a particular issue- to rationalize about these facts in an unbiased manner , particularly by free thinkers who are *not* under the hypnotic subliminal control of the Lords of Liberalism leads to discovery of Truths which the Queer Militia would rather have  kept quiet. 

*No, you are not permitted to question or contradict the Gay Newspeak.*

Got It !!??


----------



## frigidweirdo

MaryL said:


> A bigger question is growing out of this; Why can't we question aberrant sexual behavior? WHY NOT? What is so threatening  about that?



You can, and you are doing this. 

What you CAN'T do is to kill people because they are gay, or beat them up, or slander them, or cause them any harm. You can't prevent them having the same rights as anyone else, and the Constitution prevents the government from stopping them having the same rights as anyone else.


----------



## frigidweirdo

GreenBean said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> A bigger question is growing out of this; Why can't we question aberrant sexual behavior? WHY NOT? What is so threatening  about that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As per the Lords of Political Correctness
> 
> *Thou Shalt not question the Gay Agenda*
> 
> To question it leads one to think and explore the facts about a particular issue- to rationalize about these facts in an unbiased manner , particularly by free thinkers who are *not* under the hypnotic subliminal control of the Lords of Liberalism leads to discovery of Truths which the Queer Militia would rather have  kept quiet.
> 
> *No, you are not permitted to question or contradict the Gay Newspeak.*
> 
> Got It !!??
Click to expand...


So, how many of you have been arrested so far? Wait, none of you? How's that? You are questioning this, and you're not being locked up, so..... it means you CAN question this.


----------



## frigidweirdo

GreenBean said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> A bigger question is growing out of this; Why can't we question aberrant sexual behavior? WHY NOT? What is so threatening  about that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexual behavior is un-natural and abnormal , heterosexual behavior practiced by somewhere around 95% of the Human Population is the only acceptable and biologically useful purpose of sex.  Procreation - Breeding
> 
> *The only thing Homosexual activity breeds is decadence and disease.*  HIV being the most well known of these, but queers are also carriers and breeders of a host of abhorrent plagues all relevant to their perverted practices.
> 
> So far as the argument that it's no one else's business what faggots do amongst themselves - Well try telling that to the innocent victims of the plagues spread by homosexual depravity.  The hemophiliacs, the babies born HIV positive because some one somewhere had sex with a 1/2 Fag {Bi} and infected someone else and so on  down the line.  How many have lost their lives because some faggot needed to get his rocks off ?
> 
> How much more must we normal , mentally independently thinking people who  are not the mindless products of Liberal Big Brother indoctrination tolerate ?  How many more outlandish lies and factual distortions must we endure by the Gay Activists and Liberal Media  - You faggots who can't control your insatiable promiscuity have inflicted upon society untold damages - If you can't keep it zipped - perhaps a Leper colony is where you belong .
Click to expand...


I've made these points before.

Okay, sex is for breeding. We have a 7 billion population, TOO MANY people on earth, and you're worried about people having sex and not having children.

Are you going to stop ALL individuals who want to marry who have sex not to produce children from marrying? Or just the ones you don't like? 

How does this fit into the US constitution exactly?

HIV can be passed from straight and gay people, this is a total non-issue, unless you want to prevent people who can have sex from marrying because they could pass on HIV/AIDS. 

Also, a gay person isn't going to stop having sex with another person of he same sex because they can't marry. Think about it.

Also, insulting people won't change things. Using derogative words because you don't like something is really childish and petty. Do you want a debate, or do you just want to pound down on people?


----------



## MikeK

GreenBean said:


> Homosexual behavior is un-natural and abnormal , heterosexual behavior practiced by somewhere around 95% of the Human Population is the only acceptable and biologically useful purpose of sex.  Procreation - Breeding
> 
> *The only thing Homosexual activity breeds is decadence and disease.*  HIV being the most well known of these, but queers are also carriers and breeders of a host of abhorrent plagues all relevant to their perverted practices.
> 
> So far as the argument that it's no one else's business what faggots do amongst themselves - Well try telling that to the innocent victims of the plagues spread by homosexual depravity.  The hemophiliacs, the babies born HIV positive because some one somewhere had sex with a 1/2 Fag {Bi} and infected someone else and so on  down the line.  How many have lost their lives because some faggot needed to get his rocks off ?
> 
> How much more must we normal , mentally independently thinking people who  are not the mindless products of Liberal Big Brother indoctrination tolerate ?  How many more outlandish lies and factual distortions must we endure by the Gay Activists and Liberal Media  - You faggots who can't control your insatiable promiscuity have inflicted upon society untold damages - If you can't keep it zipped - perhaps a Leper colony is where you belong .


Inasmuch as you clearly are among those who are inflexibly intolerant of homosexuality, and inasmuch as there seems to be a hell of a lot of homosexuals at large in our society, what would you recommend as an effective means of controlling or eliminating their presence?


----------



## MisterBeale

frigidweirdo said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> A bigger question is growing out of this; Why can't we question aberrant sexual behavior? WHY NOT? What is so threatening  about that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As per the Lords of Political Correctness
> 
> *Thou Shalt not question the Gay Agenda*
> 
> To question it leads one to think and explore the facts about a particular issue- to rationalize about these facts in an unbiased manner , particularly by free thinkers who are *not* under the hypnotic subliminal control of the Lords of Liberalism leads to discovery of Truths which the Queer Militia would rather have  kept quiet.
> 
> *No, you are not permitted to question or contradict the Gay Newspeak.*
> 
> Got It !!??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, how many of you have been arrested so far? Wait, none of you? How's that? You are questioning this, and you're not being locked up, so..... it means you CAN question this.
Click to expand...


Well, I think it's more than that.  It's almost like post 389 POST #389 never even occured.

Why is that?  I think it is because it made both ideological sides of this debate are uncomfortable with the truth.  Neither side has a very open and accommodating mind.  Both are shut down to solving the issue and evolving this nation to a rational and equitable state of existence.

First to address the side that is against the LGBT agenda, they don't want to face up to the fact that there is a biological and evolutionary component to being gay.  That is hard to face in the political arena.  Yes, being gay is not a choice.  Not anymore than having Down's syndrome, ADHD, autism, left-handedness, or MS.  So to create a political atmosphere hostile to those members of our population afflicted with this malady is not just cruel, it is backwards, and ignorant.

Secondly to those members of the LGBT community that are open-minded enough to read up on the scientific data on their condition, they have to face up to the fact that their condition is not normal, it is an abnormality, an illness, like any other person that suffers from a disability that evolution has allowed to continue into the gene pool.

It is much easier to organize politically and try to normalize your perversion, to try to change society, even if it means destroying society, rather than to face up to your illness.

What would facing up to the abnormality mean?  It would mean finding a special place in our society for these members of our society.  From the research I have done, I believe the ADA would already accommodate some in LGBT community, seriously.  Or it would mean reducing the chance that someone is born with this affliction.  It would mean de-stigmatizing this abnormality among all segments of society, while at the same time, teaching those who have it healthy ways to deal with it.  Perhaps even medications could be developed.  

I think the SCIENCE behind it is very important.  But it seems no one is interested in the facts, research, and knowledge gained through SCIENTIFIC research.  The only thing that seems to be important are the politics, dogma, and the social engineering aspects involved with the issue.


----------



## protectionist

frigidweirdo said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since I am not a proponent of smaller govt, I won't comment on that. I'll just say that the people can demand that society be structured according to how they want it to be.  Govt of the people, by the people, for the people.  If/whenever they decide that homosexual marriage is a bad thing (damage to mental health), and queers teaching in schools (danger to kids), then they have the right to PROTECT themselves from that.
> 
> Thus, in (IMO) stupid societies (ex. New York, California), queer marriage is legal.  In (IMO) smart societies (ex. Florida, Georgia, Alabama), it is banned.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And surely that "demand that society be structured" lark is THE US CONSTITUTION which most people seem to claim to support, and which gives individuals the right of protection from the US govt.
> 
> You're trying to claim mob rule, even after 223 years after the Bill or Rights was put into the constitution to stop MOB RULE over individuals.
> 
> And, to go to your argument, if they decide black people voting is dangerous, then they have "right to PROTECT themselves from that".
> 
> Right? hey, I have the right to protect myself from you? So I can ban you? You're dangerous, what with all that stuff talking about fluffy bunnies and all that, right? (Okay, I made that up about the bunnies, but whatever you get the point, I hope.).
> 
> I'd also say, your "right to PROTECT yourself" from anything you deem dangerous is not how the theory of rights actually works.
> 
> In all my time looking at politics, the one thing seems to be a constant. People do not have any single damn clue about what rights mean.
> 
> Get this. You can do whatever you like as long as it does not hurt others.
> 
> 1) You can say what you like, as long as it does not hurt others. Ie, treason, libel or causing physical harm, and a few other things.
> 
> This is part of the 1st Amendment, right? The right is not absolute, and it protects you from the govt, however, it doesn't protect you to tread down on people.
> 
> So, you have a right to privacy, as long as you're not using it to tread down on people.
> 
> You have the right to own weapons, but not a right to kill people unless they are attacking you.
> 
> I could go on.
> 
> But it seems VERY CLEAR to me, that the govt does not have a place in telling people who they can marry, UNLESS it causes a danger.
> 
> Now, the danger is this. Firstly incest, it can cause medical issues. Secondly in minors because the rights theory says that minors don't actually have full rights or full responsibilities, and they therefore can consent. Others who can't consent are also in this category.
> 
> If you're going to ban "abnormal" people from marrying, then it wouldn't be that hard to come up with a list of about 300 million Americans who fit the term "abnormal".
Click to expand...


Pretty shallow retort to try to equate govt of the people, by the people, for the people, with MOB RULE.  Retort unaccepted. Strike 1.

They would not have the right to protect themselves from black people voting because black people (by race) are a protected group (homosexuals are not)  Strike 2.

30 states don't ban abnormal people from marrying. Strike 3.  Plenty of people who are abnormal still marry.  They ban homosexuals (who happen to be abnormal) from marrying, because this poses a cultural harm to society, which those stated define that to be THE DANGER that it causes.  Especially in the bad example it would set (especially to minors)


----------



## protectionist

Penrod said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> The American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973 only after years of political pressure from gay activists. The American Psychiatric association board of trustees passed this decision followed by a statement which listed among the reasons for their decision as changing social norms and growing gay rights activism . So basically, a scientific institution was coerced into changing a scientific opinion or classification due to political pressure !
> 
> Removing homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses was not triggered by some scientific breakthrough.  There was no new fact or set of facts that stimulated this major change.  Rather, it was the simple reality that gay people started to kick up a fuss.
> 
> In subsequent years the APA has become so politicized , that it has lost any credibility as a Scientific organization and in the words of one former APA President it is totally "Beholden to the Gay Rights Movement"
> 
> Myself and many others , who for fear of reprisals remain silent believe that Homosexuality is and always has been a Mental Disorder and Homosexuals should not be deterred from seeking Psychological / Psychiatric Help.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I feel your pain. Even mentioning you think its a mental disease will cause people to call you an uneducated bigot. What has the US come to. If you are religious your a bigot and if your gay you ra moral stand up person.
Click to expand...


Depending on who is using the word "bigot", and how it's being used (or abused), the word bigot could be either a condemnation, or a badge of honor.


----------



## protectionist

MikeK said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to make an assclown out of your posts.  You are doing a class A job of that your self.  Pheeeeeeww!!  (high-pitched whistle)  Just another idiotic example of those who go around telling us that up is down, black is white, and cold is hot.
> 
> These moronic attempts at legitimizing an obvious mental aberration, is why queers will NEVER be accepted in society (except in idiot states > California, New York, etc), and the more they try to pass it off as normal, the more repressed they will be.  For every unit of effort they expend to legitimize, there should and will be 10 units of effort to present the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> By now it is obvious your feelings in this matter are inflexible, so let's move to the next obvious consideration.  Assume for the sake of discussion there has been a political revolution in America and you have been declared primal dictator.  Your word is Law.
> 
> Specifically how would you deal with homosexuals and the issue of homosexuality?
Click to expand...


1.  The same way the US govt has dealt with them for half a century, by denying them protection under the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

2.  The same way 30 states have dealt with them for decades by denying them the right to marry one another.

3.  The same way many states are dealing with them right now by enacting legislation similar to the recently defeated Arizona SB 1062.

4.  By denying hem access to the military.

5.  By denying them access to the NFL (as a player), or any sport involving physical contact.

6.  By denying them the right to be teachers, counselors, coaches, clergy, or any occupation dealing with children.

7.  By banning open/public displays of homosexuality (ex. 2  guys kissing on the lips or some other sexual contact)


----------



## protectionist

MaryL said:


> A bigger question is growing out of this; Why can't we question aberrant sexual behavior? WHY NOT? What is so threatening  about that?



Who says we can't question it. ?  We do >> 24/7.


----------



## protectionist

JakeStarkey said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> heterofascism and homophobia are certainly mental disorders
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Switching the truth, and turning it backwards, means nothing, except to expose the switcher as a fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The truth is this: you are emotionally and mentally turned around for sure.
> 
> Even in the last days, the very elect will be fooled as were the crusaders, the conquistadores, and the Puritans.
> 
> Step along, protectionist.
Click to expand...


----------



## protectionist

frigidweirdo said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> A bigger question is growing out of this; Why can't we question aberrant sexual behavior? WHY NOT? What is so threatening  about that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can, and you are doing this.
> 
> What you CAN'T do is to kill people because they are gay, or beat them up, or slander them, or cause them any harm. You can't prevent them having the same rights as anyone else, and the Constitution prevents the government from stopping them having the same rights as anyone else.
Click to expand...


I'm tired of people coming in here and waving the Constitution around, but not SHOWING where in the Constitution they are talking about.  OK.  So there's your challenge.  You want to hide behind the Constitution ?  You have to SHOW where in it is the protection for queers you refer to, and HOW can this be ?


----------



## protectionist

MikeK said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexual behavior is un-natural and abnormal , heterosexual behavior practiced by somewhere around 95% of the Human Population is the only acceptable and biologically useful purpose of sex.  Procreation - Breeding
> 
> *The only thing Homosexual activity breeds is decadence and disease.*  HIV being the most well known of these, but queers are also carriers and breeders of a host of abhorrent plagues all relevant to their perverted practices.
> 
> So far as the argument that it's no one else's business what faggots do amongst themselves - Well try telling that to the innocent victims of the plagues spread by homosexual depravity.  The hemophiliacs, the babies born HIV positive because some one somewhere had sex with a 1/2 Fag {Bi} and infected someone else and so on  down the line.  How many have lost their lives because some faggot needed to get his rocks off ?
> 
> How much more must we normal , mentally independently thinking people who  are not the mindless products of Liberal Big Brother indoctrination tolerate ?  How many more outlandish lies and factual distortions must we endure by the Gay Activists and Liberal Media  - You faggots who can't control your insatiable promiscuity have inflicted upon society untold damages - If you can't keep it zipped - perhaps a Leper colony is where you belong .
> 
> 
> 
> Inasmuch as you clearly are among those who are inflexibly intolerant of homosexuality, and inasmuch as there seems to be a hell of a lot of homosexuals at large in our society, what would you recommend as an effective means of controlling or eliminating their presence?
Click to expand...


How about paying their passage to another country ?  And some extra money to help them along once they get there.  

PS - ONE WAY ticket.


----------



## protectionist

MisterBeale said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> As per the Lords of Political Correctness
> 
> *Thou Shalt not question the Gay Agenda*
> 
> To question it leads one to think and explore the facts about a particular issue- to rationalize about these facts in an unbiased manner , particularly by free thinkers who are *not* under the hypnotic subliminal control of the Lords of Liberalism leads to discovery of Truths which the Queer Militia would rather have  kept quiet.
> 
> *No, you are not permitted to question or contradict the Gay Newspeak.*
> 
> Got It !!??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, how many of you have been arrested so far? Wait, none of you? How's that? You are questioning this, and you're not being locked up, so..... it means you CAN question this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I think it's more than that.  It's almost like post 389 POST #389 never even occured.
> 
> Why is that?  I think it is because it made both ideological sides of this debate are uncomfortable with the truth.  Neither side has a very open and accommodating mind.  Both are shut down to solving the issue and evolving this nation to a rational and equitable state of existence.
> 
> First to address the side that is against the LGBT agenda, they don't want to face up to the fact that there is a biological and evolutionary component to being gay.  That is hard to face in the political arena.  Yes, being gay is not a choice.  Not anymore than having Down's syndrome, ADHD, autism, left-handedness, or MS.  So to create a political atmosphere hostile to those members of our population afflicted with this malady is not just cruel, it is backwards, and ignorant.
> 
> Secondly to those members of the LGBT community that are open-minded enough to read up on the scientific data on their condition, they have to face up to the fact that their condition is not normal, it is an abnormality, an illness, like any other person that suffers from a disability that evolution has allowed to continue into the gene pool.
> 
> It is much easier to organize politically and try to normalize your perversion, to try to change society, even if it means destroying society, rather than to face up to your illness.
> 
> What would facing up to the abnormality mean?  It would mean finding a special place in our society for these members of our society.  From the research I have done, I believe the ADA would already accommodate some in LGBT community, seriously.  Or it would mean reducing the chance that someone is born with this affliction.  It would mean de-stigmatizing this abnormality among all segments of society, while at the same time, teaching those who have it healthy ways to deal with it.  Perhaps even medications could be developed.
> 
> I think the SCIENCE behind it is very important.  But it seems no one is interested in the facts, research, and knowledge gained through SCIENTIFIC research.  The only thing that seems to be important are the politics, dogma, and the social engineering aspects involved with the issue.
Click to expand...


*What* are you saying is >> _"a political atmosphere hostile to those members of our population afflicted with this malady"_  ???


----------



## MisterBeale

protectionist said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, how many of you have been arrested so far? Wait, none of you? How's that? You are questioning this, and you're not being locked up, so..... it means you CAN question this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I think it's more than that.  It's almost like post 389 POST #389 never even occured.
> 
> Why is that?  I think it is because it made both ideological sides of this debate are uncomfortable with the truth.  Neither side has a very open and accommodating mind.  Both are shut down to solving the issue and evolving this nation to a rational and equitable state of existence.
> 
> First to address the side that is against the LGBT agenda, they don't want to face up to the fact that there is a biological and evolutionary component to being gay.  That is hard to face in the political arena.  Yes, being gay is not a choice.  Not anymore than having Down's syndrome, ADHD, autism, left-handedness, or MS.  So to create a political atmosphere hostile to those members of our population afflicted with this malady is not just cruel, it is backwards, and ignorant.
> 
> Secondly to those members of the LGBT community that are open-minded enough to read up on the scientific data on their condition, they have to face up to the fact that their condition is not normal, it is an abnormality, an illness, like any other person that suffers from a disability that evolution has allowed to continue into the gene pool.
> 
> It is much easier to organize politically and try to normalize your perversion, to try to change society, even if it means destroying society, rather than to face up to your illness.
> 
> What would facing up to the abnormality mean?  It would mean finding a special place in our society for these members of our society.  From the research I have done, I believe the ADA would already accommodate some in LGBT community, seriously.  Or it would mean reducing the chance that someone is born with this affliction.  It would mean de-stigmatizing this abnormality among all segments of society, while at the same time, teaching those who have it healthy ways to deal with it.  Perhaps even medications could be developed.
> 
> I think the SCIENCE behind it is very important.  But it seems no one is interested in the facts, research, and knowledge gained through SCIENTIFIC research.  The only thing that seems to be important are the politics, dogma, and the social engineering aspects involved with the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *What* are you saying is >> _"a political atmosphere hostile to those members of our population afflicted with this malady"_  ???
Click to expand...


Indeed.  So if we study the causes, and possible treatments, should we not make a political atmosphere more accommodating to the LGBT community?  

I don't see so much hostility toward those with breast cancer, MS or autism, so why all the hostility toward the LGBT community?  Is it because they refuse to get treatment?  Or is it because they refuse to acknowledge that theirs is an illness? 

Bear in mind, the title of this thread is, "Is Homosexuality a Mental Disorder" and I have posted ample scientific studies, proof, and articles with links to studies that prove it is a biological condition, not so much a "mental disorder", but a genetic disorder, specifically, a _hormonal disorder_.  So, should society treat it any differently than any other genetic disorder?


----------



## MisterBeale

After all, what would you want society to do if you child had it, or your grand child had it?


----------



## frigidweirdo

protectionist said:


> Pretty shallow retort to try to equate govt of the people, by the people, for the people, with MOB RULE.  Retort unaccepted. Strike 1.
> 
> They would not have the right to protect themselves from black people voting because black people (by race) are a protected group (homosexuals are not)  Strike 2.
> 
> 30 states don't ban abnormal people from marrying. Strike 3.  Plenty of people who are abnormal still marry.  They ban homosexuals (who happen to be abnormal) from marrying, because this poses a cultural harm to society, which those stated define that to be THE DANGER that it causes.  Especially in the bad example it would set (especially to minors)



Okay, let's stop with the silly "strike 1" nonsense. 

Mob rule is when the people can act like a mob, and individuals don't stand a chance. 

Do you agree or disagree that an individual in the US has protections against the wishes of the majority? 
If the majority said "no guns" what would say?
If the majority said "you can't talk about basketball" what would you say?
If the majority said "everyone has to be practicing Muslim" what would you say?
If the majority said "only white people can marry" what would you say?

Would you say that the majority, the mob, can't do this? Or would you roll over and accept what you get? 

Why are black people a protected group? Why not gay people? Seems a little unfair for one group to be protected? In fact it seems a little silly on your part to see one group as protected and not another. 
How are they protected exactly? By the constitution? Then why not the other one?

As for calling people "abnormal", what is normal exactly? You tell me, I really, really want to know what you think "normal" and "abnormal" are. Like a definition that I can use when you write these words so I know what you mean.

And, when you say "abnormal people can't marry" i'm going to assume EVERYONE under "abnormal" can't marry too. Just because sometimes I like being pedantic to make a point.


----------



## MisterBeale

frigidweirdo said:


> As for calling people "abnormal", what is normal exactly? You tell me, I really, really want to know what you think "normal" and "abnormal" are. Like a definition that I can use when you write these words so I know what you mean.
> 
> And, when you say "abnormal people can't marry" i'm going to assume EVERYONE under "abnormal" can't marry too. Just because sometimes I like being pedantic to make a point.



I can answer these questions.  The rest of your post was mostly drivel.  If you look at people with an LGBT condition as just regular people, then they are already protected by the constitution the same as any one else.

As far as what make them "abnormal," it is their brains silly.  

Gay brains structured like those of the opposite sex
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html#.UxwRD4Uz16A


> The scans reveal that in gay people, key structures of the brain governing emotion, mood, anxiety and aggressiveness resemble those in straight people of the opposite sex.
> 
> The differences are likely to have been forged in the womb or in early infancy, says Ivanka Savic, who conducted the study at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden.
> 
> "This is the most robust measure so far of cerebral differences between homosexual and heterosexual subjects," she says.



What this means, is that you need to prevent a person with an abnormal brain from being in a position of influence in society.  Children are impressionable, they can get the idea that being abnormal, being sick, or not think right, is healthy.  This is corrupt for society.

Should we let them get "married?"  I don't really know.  What I do know is that we shouldn't elevate and legitimize their relationships in the minds of children to a level of normalcy that is the same as healthy adults.  These relationships are dysfunctional.  We know that through scientific study.  Now, I have already posted that link, and many others.  If you refuse to read the scientific evidence I've posted, and do not do the thinking, I cannot do the thinking for you.

Cancer is becoming epidemic in our society because we live among so many chemicals, EM radiation, and our food system is so compromised and filthy with so many artificial chemicals.  Should we try to normalize cancer now?  Or should we give up finding a cure and treatments?


----------



## protectionist

MisterBeale said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I think it's more than that.  It's almost like post 389 POST #389 never even occured.
> 
> Why is that?  I think it is because it made both ideological sides of this debate are uncomfortable with the truth.  Neither side has a very open and accommodating mind.  Both are shut down to solving the issue and evolving this nation to a rational and equitable state of existence.
> 
> First to address the side that is against the LGBT agenda, they don't want to face up to the fact that there is a biological and evolutionary component to being gay.  That is hard to face in the political arena.  Yes, being gay is not a choice.  Not anymore than having Down's syndrome, ADHD, autism, left-handedness, or MS.  So to create a political atmosphere hostile to those members of our population afflicted with this malady is not just cruel, it is backwards, and ignorant.
> 
> Secondly to those members of the LGBT community that are open-minded enough to read up on the scientific data on their condition, they have to face up to the fact that their condition is not normal, it is an abnormality, an illness, like any other person that suffers from a disability that evolution has allowed to continue into the gene pool.
> 
> It is much easier to organize politically and try to normalize your perversion, to try to change society, even if it means destroying society, rather than to face up to your illness.
> 
> What would facing up to the abnormality mean?  It would mean finding a special place in our society for these members of our society.  From the research I have done, I believe the ADA would already accommodate some in LGBT community, seriously.  Or it would mean reducing the chance that someone is born with this affliction.  It would mean de-stigmatizing this abnormality among all segments of society, while at the same time, teaching those who have it healthy ways to deal with it.  Perhaps even medications could be developed.
> 
> I think the SCIENCE behind it is very important.  But it seems no one is interested in the facts, research, and knowledge gained through SCIENTIFIC research.  The only thing that seems to be important are the politics, dogma, and the social engineering aspects involved with the issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What* are you saying is >> _"a political atmosphere hostile to those members of our population afflicted with this malady"_  ???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed.  So if we study the causes, and possible treatments, should we not make a political atmosphere more accommodating to the LGBT community?
> 
> I don't see so much hostility toward those with breast cancer, MS or autism, so why all the hostility toward the LGBT community?  Is it because they refuse to get treatment?  Or is it because they refuse to acknowledge that theirs is an illness?
> 
> Bear in mind, the title of this thread is, "Is Homosexuality a Mental Disorder" and I have posted ample scientific studies, proof, and articles with links to studies that prove it is a biological condition, not so much a "mental disorder", but a genetic disorder, specifically, a _hormonal disorder_.  So, should society treat it any differently than any other genetic disorder?
Click to expand...


I asked you tell me WHAT you are talking about when you said there is >>_ "a political atmosphere hostile to those members of our population afflicted with this malady"_

You posted something, but it wasn't an answer to my question, so I ask again.   WHAT are you talking about ?  What hostility ?  How ?


----------



## protectionist

frigidweirdo said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty shallow retort to try to equate govt of the people, by the people, for the people, with MOB RULE.  Retort unaccepted. Strike 1.
> 
> They would not have the right to protect themselves from black people voting because black people (by race) are a protected group (homosexuals are not)  Strike 2.
> 
> 30 states don't ban abnormal people from marrying. Strike 3.  Plenty of people who are abnormal still marry.  They ban homosexuals (who happen to be abnormal) from marrying, because this poses a cultural harm to society, which those stated define that to be THE DANGER that it causes.  Especially in the bad example it would set (especially to minors)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, let's stop with the silly "strike 1" nonsense.
> 
> Mob rule is when the people can act like a mob, and individuals don't stand a chance.
> 
> Do you agree or disagree that an individual in the US has protections against the wishes of the majority?
> If the majority said "no guns" what would say?
> If the majority said "you can't talk about basketball" what would you say?
> If the majority said "everyone has to be practicing Muslim" what would you say?
> If the majority said "only white people can marry" what would you say?
> 
> Would you say that the majority, the mob, can't do this? Or would you roll over and accept what you get?
> 
> Why are black people a protected group? Why not gay people? Seems a little unfair for one group to be protected? In fact it seems a little silly on your part to see one group as protected and not another.
> How are they protected exactly? By the constitution? Then why not the other one?
> 
> As for calling people "abnormal", what is normal exactly? You tell me, I really, really want to know what you think "normal" and "abnormal" are. Like a definition that I can use when you write these words so I know what you mean.
> 
> And, when you say "abnormal people can't marry" i'm going to assume EVERYONE under "abnormal" can't marry too. Just because sometimes I like being pedantic to make a point.
Click to expand...


1.     You seem to be putting a very low value on the wishes of the majority.  Not very American of you.  We value majority rule quite highly. It's called democracy, not mob rule. We are a democratic republic.  You need to get that straight.

2.  Sure individuals have protections against the majority.  Ex. > Currently, 76% of the American people oppose affirmative action, yet we still have it.

3.  Sure I would say the majority can't do this if it was unconstitutional or otherwise illegal.  We are a nation of laws.  But our laws can be changed also, to reflect the wishes of the majority.

4.  The reason why blacks are protected is because they (race) is mentioned in the 1964 Civil Rights Act and that is because their status (race) is involuntary.  Sexual orientation is voluntary, and homosexuality is a perverse mental aberration, which is to be discouraged, not encouraged.

5.  I've defined what I mean by normal and abnormal *100 FUCKING TIMES* in this thread.  Read it!!

6.  I didn't say abnormal people shouldn't marry.  I do say people with the abnormality of homosexuality shouldn't marry someone of their same sex.

7.  You seem to be having trouble understanding simple things.  Maybe you should *read the thread* instead of skipping over it, and read it a bit more slowly.


----------



## frigidweirdo

protectionist said:


> Okay, so now we're getting to meat of things. I've been on this forum like a day. I've been on plenty of forums over plenty of issues where I show stats and facts etc and all I get is people ignoring them.
> 
> So. The deal is, I present this stuff, you acknowledge it. I don't care if you an argument to back up your side, but you're going to have to go to a higher level than swearing in giant red words, or insulting. Okay?
> (I don't do insults, it's showing someone's lack of an argument, and I get really tired of people who do that).
> 
> So, here's your facts.
> 
> Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)
> 
> The first case to make an explicit interpretation of the US Constitution that there is a right to privacy. And to make it smooth, it claimed a "right to marital privacy".
> 
> Where does it day it explicitly? It doesn't.
> 
> However, there is the 9th Amendment:
> 
> "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
> 
> This was made by the founding fathers to basically say that there are lots of rights, the specifically protected some they thought were extremely important, but they didn't want to limit rights to those that had protected.
> 
> The US Constitution is a living document, living in the sense it can be changed, and living in the sense it can be interpreted. At the present time the Supreme Court upholds the precedent set in Griswold, therefore it is the Constitution.
> 
> They used Griswold is Roe v. Wade and other such cases.
> 
> This is your right to privacy.
> 
> Now, you might argue that this is just the unelected US Supreme Court. They did vote 7-2 on this matter and two did say basically that there was no explicit right to privacy.
> However in the US is matters that a majority say that it does exist and is protected by the US Constitution, therefore it is.
> 
> It was also used in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) to get rid of laws against sodomy, hence why gay sex is now legal in every part of the USA. This therefore upholds sexual privacy, on top of marriage privacy.
> 
> They have also used the 14th Amendment in the Griswold case. It's interesting because the 14A says:
> 
> "1:  All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.  No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
> 
> What are the privileges of people?
> What are the immunities of people?
> What is the liberty of people?
> And what does "equal protection of the laws" mean?
> 
> The last point, the equal protection of the laws, came about in 1866 with the Civil Rights Act and then followed 2 years later by this amendment.
> 
> It has been used in Brown v. Board of Education, one of the most known and famous of all cases that ended segregation in the US. Ie, they ruled that separate is not equal and cannot be.
> So, You look at marriage, how is it equal if some can marry and others cant marry based on something as arbitrary as the way they were born? The answer is quite simple.
> 
> The privileges and immunities clause of the amendment is, well, almost non-existant, its simply not used in constitutional law right now.
> As for liberty, this is the due process clause.
> Heres a quote "Although the Court has not assumed to define 'liberty' with any great precision, that term is not confined to mere freedom from bodily restraint. Liberty under law extends to the full range of conduct which the individual is free to pursue, and it cannot be restricted except for a proper governmental objective." Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954)
> 
> Basically, an individual cannot be stopped from doing things unless there is a proper governmental objective. I really dont think gay marriage, or gay sex falls under that.
> 
> All in all the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment were designed to stop government interference in peoples lives when doing what they want to do that doesnt hurt other people, or doesnt have a negative impact on people. Gay marriage doesnt have a negative impact on your life, it makes no difference whether two men are married or not to your life, nor to the US constitution.
> However, laws which give benefits to married couples that cannot be had by people who are not allowed to marry their choice of consenting adult, are having their rights and their equal protections of the law infringed upon, and in a very, very unfair way.


----------



## Infidel

protectionist said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty shallow retort to try to equate govt of the people, by the people, for the people, with MOB RULE.  Retort unaccepted. Strike 1.
> 
> They would not have the right to protect themselves from black people voting because black people (by race) are a protected group (homosexuals are not)  Strike 2.
> 
> 30 states don't ban abnormal people from marrying. Strike 3.  Plenty of people who are abnormal still marry.  They ban homosexuals (who happen to be abnormal) from marrying, because this poses a cultural harm to society, which those stated define that to be THE DANGER that it causes.  Especially in the bad example it would set (especially to minors)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, let's stop with the silly "strike 1" nonsense.
> 
> Mob rule is when the people can act like a mob, and individuals don't stand a chance.
> 
> Do you agree or disagree that an individual in the US has protections against the wishes of the majority?
> If the majority said "no guns" what would say?
> If the majority said "you can't talk about basketball" what would you say?
> If the majority said "everyone has to be practicing Muslim" what would you say?
> If the majority said "only white people can marry" what would you say?
> 
> Would you say that the majority, the mob, can't do this? Or would you roll over and accept what you get?
> 
> Why are black people a protected group? Why not gay people? Seems a little unfair for one group to be protected? In fact it seems a little silly on your part to see one group as protected and not another.
> How are they protected exactly? By the constitution? Then why not the other one?
> 
> As for calling people "abnormal", what is normal exactly? You tell me, I really, really want to know what you think "normal" and "abnormal" are. Like a definition that I can use when you write these words so I know what you mean.
> 
> And, when you say "abnormal people can't marry" i'm going to assume EVERYONE under "abnormal" can't marry too. Just because sometimes I like being pedantic to make a point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.     You seem to be putting a very low value on the wishes of the majority.  Not very American of you.  We value majority rule quite highly. It's called democracy, not mob rule. We are a democratic republic.  You need to get that straight.
> 
> 2.  Sure individuals have protections against the majority.  Ex. > Currently, 76% of the American people oppose affirmative action, yet we still have it.
> 
> 3.  Sure I would say the majority can't do this if it was unconstitutional or otherwise illegal.  We are a nation of laws.  But our laws can be changed also, to reflect the wishes of the majority.
> 
> 4.  The reason why blacks are protected is because they (race) is mentioned in the 1964 Civil Rights Act and that is because their status (race) is involuntary.  Sexual orientation is voluntary, and homosexuality is a perverse mental aberration, which is to be discouraged, not encouraged.
> 
> 5.  I've defined what I mean by normal and abnormal *100 FUCKING TIMES* in this thread.  Read it!!
> 
> 6.  I didn't say abnormal people shouldn't marry.  I do say people with the abnormality of homosexuality shouldn't marry someone of their same sex.
> 
> 7.  You seem to be having trouble understanding simple things.  Maybe you should *read the thread* instead of skipping over it, and read it a bit more slowly.
Click to expand...


Your homophobia has been duly noted. Just try not to think of hard cocks too much, that's a tad gay.


----------



## frigidweirdo

protectionist said:


> 1.     You seem to be putting a very low value on the wishes of the majority.  Not very American of you.  We value majority rule quite highly. It's called democracy, not mob rule. We are a democratic republic.  You need to get that straight.
> 
> 2.  Sure individuals have protections against the majority.  Ex. > Currently, 76% of the American people oppose affirmative action, yet we still have it.
> 
> 3.  Sure I would say the majority can't do this if it was unconstitutional or otherwise illegal.  We are a nation of laws.  But our laws can be changed also, to reflect the wishes of the majority.
> 
> 4.  The reason why blacks are protected is because they (race) is mentioned in the 1964 Civil Rights Act and that is because their status (race) is involuntary.  Sexual orientation is voluntary, and homosexuality is a perverse mental aberration, which is to be discouraged, not encouraged.
> 
> 5.  I've defined what I mean by normal and abnormal *100 FUCKING TIMES* in this thread.  Read it!!
> 
> 6.  I didn't say abnormal people shouldn't marry.  I do say people with the abnormality of homosexuality shouldn't marry someone of their same sex.
> 
> 7.  You seem to be having trouble understanding simple things.  Maybe you should *read the thread* instead of skipping over it, and read it a bit more slowly.



Firstly. Stop it with the giant swearing. It's not smart or clever. 
Secondly, I wasn't replying to you, so, you go about swearing about how you've done something a million times. Whatever, I've not read it, and I've been on this board a day and I am not reading every post you've ever written to find it out. 

1) Yes, I put a very low value on the wishes of the majority. Just like the founding fathers. You have a problem with the founding fathers? 
The US has a kind of democracy.  There is no Proportional Representation for Congress or for the President, that's the wishes of the majority. 
The Senate is based on the wishes of the state. The house is closer, but still, it's FPTP for each member. 
Let's try the House elections 2010 (because it was the last year they had an election without the presidential election), there was a turn out of 40.9% of those who could vote. 
The Republicans got 51.7% of those votes but had far more than 51.7% of the seats.
Senate election, well, it's hard to really estimate because not everyone votes at the same time, hardly the will of the people there.

Presidential election 2012, 58.2% of people voted, of these 51.1% voted for the president. Ie, most people DIDN'T vote for him. He got something like 30% of all eligable votes. The will of the people? I don't think so. 

Also, in history, the will of the majority has meant the death of the minority. I can point to plenty of places, like Thailand, Chechnya, Kosovo among many where minorities are or have been pounded on by the desire of the majority. 

2) People might oppose, but to be honest, most of the people probably don't have much of a clue about what it means or doesn't mean. 
You have votes, you vote in politicians, if so many people didn't want it, why hasn't it changed?

3) You talk now about the constitution and a nation of laws. The laws say Gay Marriage should be constitution. But then you oppose it. Even if you don't like gay sex, and why the hell you're thinking about gay sex I don't know, why do you want to stop people marrying? 
I don't even agree with marriage or basketball. Hate them both. But I wouldn't want to stop someone having the choice to do either if they choose. 

Your laws can be changed. So you could change the laws to make sure black people don't vote. 
However most people say they support the constitution, they support the Bill of Rights, and then they turn around and cough and say "but not this bit"

You want rights or you don't want rights. There is no middle ground. You really, REALLY have to understand this. You take rights away from one, and you take them away from all and you make them mere privileges. And when the govt decides you're next, my god you are in for it. 

4) The Civil Rights Act is an act of Congress. 

Actually it outlawed discrimination on "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin"

How did Congress have the power to make such a law? They only have powers from the Constitution after all. 
They used the 14th Amendment, which I spoke about in my previous post. Equal protection of the laws. 
Now, times change. Back in 1964 blacks were being treated like dirt, gay civil rights simply wasn't an issue, morality at the time hadn't opened up as much as it has now. The 60s let to the 70s and 80s and then it seemed to go more sensible in the 90s and onwards. 

Do you really think that "equal protection of the laws" used in this act would now not meet the requirement of gay marriage? 

5) I've done this. However, I would still like a strict definition of what you believe it is. Maybe you've said it here and there but nothing concrete, nothing I can pin on you and quote you from. 

6) Oh, so you're going to define to a very, very strict statement who can and cannot marry. This doesn't work. Like I've mentioned with equal protection of the laws. You can't single people out. 
How about we ban marriage for black men between the ages of 31 and 33 with moles on their left cheek. You think this is going to last long?

So can I marry someone of the same sex? I'm not gay. 

7) I don't have problem reading simple things. I just might not be saying what you want me to say, or I might actually want you to clarify something you have said. 

8) You might want to sort out your anger issues.


----------



## RKMBrown

frigidweirdo said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.     You seem to be putting a very low value on the wishes of the majority.  Not very American of you.  We value majority rule quite highly. It's called democracy, not mob rule. We are a democratic republic.  You need to get that straight.
> 
> 2.  Sure individuals have protections against the majority.  Ex. > Currently, 76% of the American people oppose affirmative action, yet we still have it.
> 
> 3.  Sure I would say the majority can't do this if it was unconstitutional or otherwise illegal.  We are a nation of laws.  But our laws can be changed also, to reflect the wishes of the majority.
> 
> 4.  The reason why blacks are protected is because they (race) is mentioned in the 1964 Civil Rights Act and that is because their status (race) is involuntary.  Sexual orientation is voluntary, and homosexuality is a perverse mental aberration, which is to be discouraged, not encouraged.
> 
> 5.  I've defined what I mean by normal and abnormal *100 FUCKING TIMES* in this thread.  Read it!!
> 
> 6.  I didn't say abnormal people shouldn't marry.  I do say people with the abnormality of homosexuality shouldn't marry someone of their same sex.
> 
> 7.  You seem to be having trouble understanding simple things.  Maybe you should *read the thread* instead of skipping over it, and read it a bit more slowly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly. Stop it with the giant swearing. It's not smart or clever.
> Secondly, I wasn't replying to you, so, you go about swearing about how you've done something a million times. Whatever, I've not read it, and I've been on this board a day and I am not reading every post you've ever written to find it out.
> 
> 1) Yes, I put a very low value on the wishes of the majority. Just like the founding fathers. You have a problem with the founding fathers?
> The US has a kind of democracy.  There is no Proportional Representation for Congress or for the President, that's the wishes of the majority.
> The Senate is based on the wishes of the state. The house is closer, but still, it's FPTP for each member.
> Let's try the House elections 2010 (because it was the last year they had an election without the presidential election), there was a turn out of 40.9% of those who could vote.
> The Republicans got 51.7% of those votes but had far more than 51.7% of the seats.
> Senate election, well, it's hard to really estimate because not everyone votes at the same time, hardly the will of the people there.
> 
> Presidential election 2012, 58.2% of people voted, of these 51.1% voted for the president. Ie, most people DIDN'T vote for him. He got something like 30% of all eligable votes. The will of the people? I don't think so.
> 
> Also, in history, the will of the majority has meant the death of the minority. I can point to plenty of places, like Thailand, Chechnya, Kosovo among many where minorities are or have been pounded on by the desire of the majority.
> 
> 2) People might oppose, but to be honest, most of the people probably don't have much of a clue about what it means or doesn't mean.
> You have votes, you vote in politicians, if so many people didn't want it, why hasn't it changed?
> 
> 3) You talk now about the constitution and a nation of laws. The laws say Gay Marriage should be constitution. But then you oppose it. Even if you don't like gay sex, and why the hell you're thinking about gay sex I don't know, why do you want to stop people marrying?
> I don't even agree with marriage or basketball. Hate them both. But I wouldn't want to stop someone having the choice to do either if they choose.
> 
> Your laws can be changed. So you could change the laws to make sure black people don't vote.
> However most people say they support the constitution, they support the Bill of Rights, and then they turn around and cough and say "but not this bit"
> 
> You want rights or you don't want rights. There is no middle ground. You really, REALLY have to understand this. You take rights away from one, and you take them away from all and you make them mere privileges. And when the govt decides you're next, my god you are in for it.
> 
> 4) The Civil Rights Act is an act of Congress.
> 
> Actually it outlawed discrimination on "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin"
> 
> How did Congress have the power to make such a law? They only have powers from the Constitution after all.
> They used the 14th Amendment, which I spoke about in my previous post. Equal protection of the laws.
> Now, times change. Back in 1964 blacks were being treated like dirt, gay civil rights simply wasn't an issue, morality at the time hadn't opened up as much as it has now. The 60s let to the 70s and 80s and then it seemed to go more sensible in the 90s and onwards.
> 
> Do you really think that "equal protection of the laws" used in this act would now not meet the requirement of gay marriage?
> 
> 5) I've done this. However, I would still like a strict definition of what you believe it is. Maybe you've said it here and there but nothing concrete, nothing I can pin on you and quote you from.
> 
> 6) Oh, so you're going to define to a very, very strict statement who can and cannot marry. This doesn't work. Like I've mentioned with equal protection of the laws. You can't single people out.
> How about we ban marriage for black men between the ages of 31 and 33 with moles on their left cheek. You think this is going to last long?
> 
> So can I marry someone of the same sex? I'm not gay.
> 
> 7) I don't have problem reading simple things. I just might not be saying what you want me to say, or I might actually want you to clarify something you have said.
> 
> 8) You might want to sort out your anger issues.
Click to expand...


He's a retard.  You're better off just ignoring him.


----------



## JakeStarkey

protectionist said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Switching the truth, and turning it backwards, means nothing, except to expose the switcher as a fool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is this: you are emotionally and mentally turned around for sure.
> 
> Even in the last days, the very elect will be fooled as were the crusaders, the conquistadores, and the Puritans.
> 
> Step along, protectionist.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


 Yours is the response of a cornered conspiracy nut.


----------



## JakeStarkey

protectionist said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> A bigger question is growing out of this; Why can't we question aberrant sexual behavior? WHY NOT? What is so threatening  about that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can, and you are doing this.
> 
> What you CAN'T do is to kill people because they are gay, or beat them up, or slander them, or cause them any harm. You can't prevent them having the same rights as anyone else, and the Constitution prevents the government from stopping them having the same rights as anyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm tired of people coming in here and waving the Constitution around, but not SHOWING where in the Constitution they are talking about.  OK.  So there's your challenge.  You want to hide behind the Constitution ?  You have to SHOW where in it is the protection for queers you refer to, and HOW can this be ?
Click to expand...


Better go talk to SCOTUS.


----------



## JakeStarkey

OK, I understand now.

Protectionist wants his views accepted as constitutional.

He wants those he opposes not accepted as constitutional.

And he believes the majoritarian democratic will trumps the Constitution.

Let's move on.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

"The Lebanese Psychiatric Society has declared homosexuality is not a mental illness."
Lebanese Psychiatric Society declares being homosexual is not a mental illness | Gay Star News

"MUMBAI: Homosexuality is not a mental illness or disease, the country's psychiatrists said in a joint statement on Thursday.
The Indian Psychiatric Society (IPS), an umbrella body for psychiatrists across the country, said this in response to the furore over its former president Dr Indira Sharma's statement on homosexuality last month."
Homosexuality is not a disease, psychiatrists say - The Times of India

"The Chinese Psychiatric Association decided that being gay is no longer a disease in the third edition of its new diagnostic guidelines published on April 20th this year."
Chinese Society More Tolerant of Homosexuality

And of course the American Psychiatric Association quit calling it a mental disorder in 1973.


----------



## GISMYS

You who reject GOD and God's Word===Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.


----------



## frigidweirdo

GISMYS said:


> You who reject GOD and God's Word===Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.



Wait, are you discussing this topic or just vomiting all over the page? 

So, wait, let's stop fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, homosexuals, sodomites, thieves, drunkards, revilers, extortioners etc from marrying. Wait, that might be most people. Who's never, ever stolen anything in their life from anyone?


----------



## GreenBean

MisterBeale said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I think it's more than that.  It's almost like post 389 POST #389 never even occured.
> 
> Why is that?  I think it is because it made both ideological sides of this debate are uncomfortable with the truth.  Neither side has a very open and accommodating mind.  Both are shut down to solving the issue and evolving this nation to a rational and equitable state of existence.
> 
> First to address the side that is against the LGBT agenda, they don't want to face up to the fact that there is a biological and evolutionary component to being gay.  That is hard to face in the political arena.  Yes, being gay is not a choice.  Not anymore than having Down's syndrome, ADHD, autism, left-handedness, or MS.  So to create a political atmosphere hostile to those members of our population afflicted with this malady is not just cruel, it is backwards, and ignorant.
> 
> Secondly to those members of the LGBT community that are open-minded enough to read up on the scientific data on their condition, they have to face up to the fact that their condition is not normal, it is an abnormality, an illness, like any other person that suffers from a disability that evolution has allowed to continue into the gene pool.
> 
> It is much easier to organize politically and try to normalize your perversion, to try to change society, even if it means destroying society, rather than to face up to your illness.
> 
> What would facing up to the abnormality mean?  It would mean finding a special place in our society for these members of our society.  From the research I have done, I believe the ADA would already accommodate some in LGBT community, seriously.  Or it would mean reducing the chance that someone is born with this affliction.  It would mean de-stigmatizing this abnormality among all segments of society, while at the same time, teaching those who have it healthy ways to deal with it.  Perhaps even medications could be developed.
> 
> I think the SCIENCE behind it is very important.  But it seems no one is interested in the facts, research, and knowledge gained through SCIENTIFIC research.  The only thing that seems to be important are the politics, dogma, and the social engineering aspects involved with the issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What* are you saying is >> _"a political atmosphere hostile to those members of our population afflicted with this malady"_  ???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed.  So if we study the causes, and possible treatments, should we not make a political atmosphere more accommodating to the LGBT community?
> 
> I don't see so much hostility toward those with breast cancer, MS or autism, so why all the hostility toward the LGBT community?  Is it because they refuse to get treatment?  Or is it because they refuse to acknowledge that theirs is an illness?
> 
> Bear in mind, the title of this thread is, "Is Homosexuality a Mental Disorder" and I have posted ample scientific studies, proof, and articles with links to studies that prove it is a biological condition, not so much a "mental disorder", but a genetic disorder, specifically, a _hormonal disorder_.  So, should society treat it any differently than any other genetic disorder?
Click to expand...


*



			Indeed.  So if we study the causes, and possible treatments, should we not make a political atmosphere more accommodating to the LGBT community?
		
Click to expand...

*
*Are you out of your fucking mind !?*

HOW MUCH MORE ACCOMMODATING COULD IT POSSIBLY BE !!!???


----------



## GreenBean

protectionist said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, how many of you have been arrested so far? Wait, none of you? How's that? You are questioning this, and you're not being locked up, so..... it means you CAN question this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I think it's more than that.  It's almost like post 389 POST #389 never even occured.
> 
> Why is that?  I think it is because it made both ideological sides of this debate are uncomfortable with the truth.  Neither side has a very open and accommodating mind.  Both are shut down to solving the issue and evolving this nation to a rational and equitable state of existence.
> 
> First to address the side that is against the LGBT agenda, they don't want to face up to the fact that there is a biological and evolutionary component to being gay.  That is hard to face in the political arena.  Yes, being gay is not a choice.  Not anymore than having Down's syndrome, ADHD, autism, left-handedness, or MS.  So to create a political atmosphere hostile to those members of our population afflicted with this malady is not just cruel, it is backwards, and ignorant.
> 
> Secondly to those members of the LGBT community that are open-minded enough to read up on the scientific data on their condition, they have to face up to the fact that their condition is not normal, it is an abnormality, an illness, like any other person that suffers from a disability that evolution has allowed to continue into the gene pool.
> 
> It is much easier to organize politically and try to normalize your perversion, to try to change society, even if it means destroying society, rather than to face up to your illness.
> 
> What would facing up to the abnormality mean?  It would mean finding a special place in our society for these members of our society.  From the research I have done, I believe the ADA would already accommodate some in LGBT community, seriously.  Or it would mean reducing the chance that someone is born with this affliction.  It would mean de-stigmatizing this abnormality among all segments of society, while at the same time, teaching those who have it healthy ways to deal with it.  Perhaps even medications could be developed.
> 
> I think the SCIENCE behind it is very important.  But it seems no one is interested in the facts, research, and knowledge gained through SCIENTIFIC research.  The only thing that seems to be important are the politics, dogma, and the social engineering aspects involved with the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *What* are you saying is >> _"a political atmosphere hostile to those members of our population afflicted with this malady"_  ???
Click to expand...




> What would facing up to the abnormality mean? It would mean finding a special place in our society for these members of our society.



Agreed ... A leper Colony perhaps ?



> It would mean de-stigmatizing this abnormality among all segments of society, while at the same time,



That's already been done 
Gay and Lesbian Media influences



> teaching those who have it healthy ways to deal with it. Perhaps even medications could be developed.



Uncertain about medications, do you know of any in  trial or proposed - not likely.  Ex-Gay therapy, despite what the Queer Militia preaches is somewhat successful



> I think the SCIENCE behind it is very important. But it seems no one is interested in the facts, research, and knowledge gained through SCIENTIFIC research. The only thing that seems to be important are the politics, dogma, and the social engineering aspects involved with the issue.



There is  quite a bit of credible science and even more based on dogma - flip back a few pages on this thread for an article which deals with a study on homosexual brain structure posted by  ABikerSailor  - which although interesting and quite possibly factual - it is not yet  proven out.

Also see 

Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Studies  Sexual minority status and psychotic symptoms Jan. 2014

The aim of this study was to examine whether sexual minorities are at increased risk for psychotic symptoms and to explore mediating pathways. The study concluded that homosexual orientation is most definitely associated with psychotic symptoms and further states that the study adds to the growing body of literature linking minority status with psychosis and other mental health problems. In an effort to remain politically correct the paper presented goes on to suggest that their findings are possibly due to experiences of discrimination and social exclusion.

The risk of psychotic symptoms is two to three times greater among homosexual participants in the study than among heterosexual participants. The researchers found this result using data from the Netherlands Mental Health and Incidence Studies (NEMESIS-1 and NEMESIS-2), two large-scale epidemiological studies which aim to investigate how often mental health problems occur in the general population.   Sexual minority status and psychotic symptoms



2.} Dr. Apu Chakraborty of University College London, UK.

This Study explored the rates of mental disorder among 7,403 adults living in the UK, whose details were obtained from the Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey 2007. Rates of depression, anxiety, obsessive compulsive disorder, phobia, self-harm, suicidal thoughts, and alcohol and drug dependence were significantly higher in homosexual respondents.  Hookers "study" only used two groups of 30 men each, and the homosexual respondents were hand picked, where as in the University College Study they were not.  Higher Risk of Mental Health Problems for Homosexuals

Elevated levels of psychiatric problems in nonheterosexual people are "very worrying and call not only for a response by professionals in primary care and mental health services but also efforts at prevention," Apu Chakraborty, PhD, MSc, MRCPsych, of the Department of Mental Health Sciences, University College London, United Kingdom, and colleagues conclude.  Medscape.com

*Evelyn Hooker Study Flawed*


----------



## MikeK

protectionist said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexual behavior is un-natural and abnormal , heterosexual behavior practiced by somewhere around 95% of the Human Population is the only acceptable and biologically useful purpose of sex.  Procreation - Breeding
> 
> *The only thing Homosexual activity breeds is decadence and disease.*  HIV being the most well known of these, but queers are also carriers and breeders of a host of abhorrent plagues all relevant to their perverted practices.
> 
> So far as the argument that it's no one else's business what faggots do amongst themselves - Well try telling that to the innocent victims of the plagues spread by homosexual depravity.  The hemophiliacs, the babies born HIV positive because some one somewhere had sex with a 1/2 Fag {Bi} and infected someone else and so on  down the line.  How many have lost their lives because some faggot needed to get his rocks off ?
> 
> How much more must we normal , mentally independently thinking people who  are not the mindless products of Liberal Big Brother indoctrination tolerate ?  How many more outlandish lies and factual distortions must we endure by the Gay Activists and Liberal Media  - You faggots who can't control your insatiable promiscuity have inflicted upon society untold damages - If you can't keep it zipped - perhaps a Leper colony is where you belong .
> 
> 
> 
> Inasmuch as you clearly are among those who are inflexibly intolerant of homosexuality, and inasmuch as there seems to be a hell of a lot of homosexuals at large in our society, what would you recommend as an effective means of controlling or eliminating their presence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about paying their passage to another country ?  And some extra money to help them along once they get there.
> 
> PS - ONE WAY ticket.
Click to expand...

And how many rational, level-headed Americans do you suppose would go along with that idea?  Do you know that is exactly what Hitler first proposed as a solution to the Nazi's "Jewish problem?"  In fact they tried to do exactly that but it failed when the first boatload of Jewish refugees was turned away from intended ports.


----------



## GISMYS

MikeK said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Inasmuch as you clearly are among those who are inflexibly intolerant of homosexuality, and inasmuch as there seems to be a hell of a lot of homosexuals at large in our society, what would you recommend as an effective means of controlling or eliminating their presence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about paying their passage to another country ?  And some extra money to help them along once they get there.
> 
> PS - ONE WAY ticket.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And how many rational, level-headed Americans do you suppose would go along with that idea?  Do you know that is exactly what Hitler first proposed as a solution to the Nazi's "Jewish problem?"  In fact they tried to do exactly that but it failed when the first boatload of Jewish refugees was turned away from intended ports.
Click to expand...


How about the sick sexual perverts confessing and repenting of their abominations and God will wash them clean and forgive them!


----------



## GreenBean

MikeK said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Inasmuch as you clearly are among those who are inflexibly intolerant of homosexuality, and inasmuch as there seems to be a hell of a lot of homosexuals at large in our society, what would you recommend as an effective means of controlling or eliminating their presence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about paying their passage to another country ?  And some extra money to help them along once they get there.
> 
> PS - ONE WAY ticket.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And how many rational, level-headed Americans do you suppose would go along with that idea?  Do you know that is exactly what Hitler first proposed as a solution to the Nazi's "Jewish problem?"  In fact they tried to do exactly that but it failed when the first boatload of Jewish refugees was turned away from intended ports.
Click to expand...


We can give them a whole continent for themselves - Hows about Antarctica ?


----------



## DriftingSand

Delta4Embassy said:


> "The Lebanese Psychiatric Society has declared homosexuality is not a mental illness."
> Lebanese Psychiatric Society declares being homosexual is not a mental illness | Gay Star News
> 
> "MUMBAI: Homosexuality is not a mental illness or disease, the country's psychiatrists said in a joint statement on Thursday.
> The Indian Psychiatric Society (IPS), an umbrella body for psychiatrists across the country, said this in response to the furore over its former president Dr Indira Sharma's statement on homosexuality last month."
> Homosexuality is not a disease, psychiatrists say - The Times of India
> 
> "The Chinese Psychiatric Association decided that being gay is no longer a disease in the third edition of its new diagnostic guidelines published on April 20th this year."
> Chinese Society More Tolerant of Homosexuality
> 
> And of course the American Psychiatric Association quit calling it a mental disorder in 1973.



I wonder how many "gays" (closeted perhaps?) are sitting members of the above boards?!

Regardless, homosexuality is certainly a disorder of some sort.  Spiritual? Sexual? Mental? Sheer ignorance? Lack of proper training/upbringing? All the above? Some of the above?  Who can say for sure but the bottom line is that it's totally unnatural for men to "sleep" with men.  Gay activism is a social cancer that's attempting to convince the overall social organism to believe it "belongs" but I can't help but see a malignant lump.


----------



## DriftingSand

GreenBean said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about paying their passage to another country ?  And some extra money to help them along once they get there.
> 
> PS - ONE WAY ticket.
> 
> 
> 
> And how many rational, level-headed Americans do you suppose would go along with that idea?  Do you know that is exactly what Hitler first proposed as a solution to the Nazi's "Jewish problem?"  In fact they tried to do exactly that but it failed when the first boatload of Jewish refugees was turned away from intended ports.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We can give them a whole continent for themselves - Hows about Antarctica ?
Click to expand...


That would certainly cool down those fleshly desires -- somewhat equivalent to a "cold shower."


----------



## Infidel

DriftingSand said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> And how many rational, level-headed Americans do you suppose would go along with that idea?  Do you know that is exactly what Hitler first proposed as a solution to the Nazi's "Jewish problem?"  In fact they tried to do exactly that but it failed when the first boatload of Jewish refugees was turned away from intended ports.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We can give them a whole continent for themselves - Hows about Antarctica ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would certainly cool down those fleshly desires -- somewhat equivalent to a "cold shower."
Click to expand...

You so called anti-gay peeps sure do spend a lot of time thinking about guys gysm spurting in your faces.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The millenials overwhelmingly dislike homophobia and hetero-fascism.

They dislke the "breeder" syndrome of the homo-fascists as well.

This will be all worked out and over in a generation, as the haters on both sides die out.


----------



## Victory67

If homosexuality is a mental disorder, its illegal under Federal law to discriminate against them in housing, employment, and commerce.


----------



## Autodidact_33

It just seems to be a fact that some are born with the inclination to be attracted to their own gender. Though I think nothing is wrong with that, I do not respect someone who makes their sexual characteristics the primary attribute of themselves in life. Keep it to yourself since I believe such personal issues should not be spoken of publicly.


----------



## MikeK

Autodidact_33 said:


> It just seems to be a fact that some are born with the inclination to be attracted to their own gender. Though I think nothing is wrong with that, I do not respect someone who makes their sexual characteristics the primary attribute of themselves in life. Keep it to yourself since I believe such personal issues should not be spoken of publicly.



I fully agree and will repeat that I find the homosexual category commonly referred to as _in-your-face flamboyant faggots_ to be extremely annoying.  But I should add that the tendency of many homosexuals to, as you've best said it, make their sexual characteristic into a primary attribute, could be the result of the long history of suppression and would diminish along with the novelty of being "out of the closet."  But that remains to be seen and I believe the element of simple human decency calls for putting it to the test.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Autodidact_33 said:


> It just seems to be a fact that some are born with the inclination to be attracted to their own gender. Though I think nothing is wrong with that, I do not respect someone who makes their sexual characteristics the primary attribute of themselves in life. Keep it to yourself since I believe such personal issues should not be spoken of publicly.



But then they will do this only when they are accepted as normal within society. 

When people have to fight for their rights, they have a tendency of getting in people's faces. So the sooner they can marry and do what they like the same as everyone else, the sooner this goes away from your face.


----------



## GreenBean

Infidel said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can give them a whole continent for themselves - Hows about Antarctica ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would certainly cool down those fleshly desires -- somewhat equivalent to a "cold shower."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You so called anti-gay peeps sure do spend a lot of time thinking about guys gysm spurting in your faces.
Click to expand...


  Chausette - is that you again ?


----------



## GreenBean

DriftingSand said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The Lebanese Psychiatric Society has declared homosexuality is not a mental illness."
> Lebanese Psychiatric Society declares being homosexual is not a mental illness | Gay Star News
> 
> "MUMBAI: Homosexuality is not a mental illness or disease, the country's psychiatrists said in a joint statement on Thursday.
> The Indian Psychiatric Society (IPS), an umbrella body for psychiatrists across the country, said this in response to the furore over its former president Dr Indira Sharma's statement on homosexuality last month."
> Homosexuality is not a disease, psychiatrists say - The Times of India
> 
> "The Chinese Psychiatric Association decided that being gay is no longer a disease in the third edition of its new diagnostic guidelines published on April 20th this year."
> Chinese Society More Tolerant of Homosexuality
> 
> And of course the American Psychiatric Association quit calling it a mental disorder in 1973.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder how many "gays" (closeted perhaps?) are sitting members of the above boards?!
> 
> Regardless, homosexuality is certainly a disorder of some sort.  Spiritual? Sexual? Mental? Sheer ignorance? Lack of proper training/upbringing? All the above? Some of the above?  Who can say for sure but the bottom line is that it's totally unnatural for men to "sleep" with men.  Gay activism is a social cancer that's attempting to convince the overall social organism to believe it "belongs" but I can't help but see a malignant lump.
Click to expand...




Victory67 said:


> If homosexuality is a mental disorder, its illegal under Federal law to discriminate against them in housing, employment, and commerce.



Really ?  LMAO
Is it  illegal to discriminate against pedophiles , rapists ?
Queers are just another variety of Pervert - it  might be illegal to castrate or shoot the dirty buggers but thats about it


----------



## frigidweirdo

GreenBean said:


> Really ?  LMAO
> Is it  illegal to discriminate against pedophiles , rapists ?
> Queers are just another variety of Pervert - it  might be illegal to castrate or shoot the dirty buggers but thats about it



Minors cannot consent to sex legally. Therefore having sex against minors is committing a crime because there is no consent. 

Rapists don't get the consent of the people they are raping, clearly.

Gay consenting adults do get consent. 

You see the difference?

As for perverts. Well, this depends what you think is perverted. Straight men will stick things in holes other than the one meant for peeing, you get my drift? You want to stop them from marrying?


----------



## protectionist

frigidweirdo said:


> Basically, an individual cannot be stopped from doing things unless there is a proper governmental objective. I really dont think gay marriage, or gay sex falls under that.
> 
> All in all the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment were designed to stop government interference in peoples lives when doing what they want to do that doesnt hurt other people, or doesnt have a negative impact on people. Gay marriage doesnt have a negative impact on your life, it makes no difference whether two men are married or not to your life, nor to the US constitution.
> However, laws which give benefits to married couples that cannot be had by people who are not allowed to marry their choice of consenting adult, are having their rights and their equal protections of the law infringed upon, and in a very, very unfair way.



I've already answered this in another thread but that's OK.  Once again, I totally disagree with you about queer marriage not hurting people or having a negative impact on people.  It does just that to ALL the American people by setting a cultural standard based on a mentally deranged sexual perversion.  This is grossly harmful to the whole nation, and especially to children, who thereby would be (and in 20 states ARE) wrongfully influenced to accept this lunacy.  Of course it's harmful.

  There is a not an infringement of equal protections of the law, because we're not talking about people who are equal.  They are NOT EQUAL.  One group are normal heterosexuals.  The other are abnormal homosexuals.  Unequal groups = unequal protection of the law.

  It's similar to many other groups who also are unequal, and thereby don't get equal protection of the law either.  Nothing unusual about that.  People who are classified as insane are not allowed to adopt children (and may not even be free to walk the streets).   Some people are not allowed to buy guns.  Some are  restricted from having drivers' licenses.   Many are restricted from serving in the military.  There are hundreds of examples of deprivation of rights, of which same sex marriage is only one in a long list.  So what else is new ?


----------



## protectionist

JakeStarkey said:


> The millenials overwhelmingly dislike homophobia and hetero-fascism.
> 
> They dislke the "breeder" syndrome of the homo-fascists as well.
> 
> This will be all worked out and over in a generation, as the haters on both sides die out.



When I was young I was a socialist revolutionary.  I supported a litany of ultra-left wing causes that i now oppose.  I find many of my age group (60s & 70s) to be the same.

You may find that as the haters of perversion die out, they will be replaced by former queer backers who then age/evolve into perversion haters, just as they evolve from supporters of such things as affirmative action and immigration, into haters of those things too.


----------



## Barb




----------



## protectionist

MikeK said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Inasmuch as you clearly are among those who are inflexibly intolerant of homosexuality, and inasmuch as there seems to be a hell of a lot of homosexuals at large in our society, what would you recommend as an effective means of controlling or eliminating their presence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about paying their passage to another country ?  And some extra money to help them along once they get there.
> 
> PS - ONE WAY ticket.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And how many rational, level-headed Americans do you suppose would go along with that idea?  Do you know that is exactly what Hitler first proposed as a solution to the Nazi's "Jewish problem?"  In fact they tried to do exactly that but it failed when the first boatload of Jewish refugees was turned away from intended ports.
Click to expand...


1.  I think millions of rational, level-headed Americans would not only go along with the idea, they would chip in to help get it going.

2.  Attempting to villify an idea by showing a villain having done it, is a silly approach to debating.  The fallacy there is that your basis for argument is that if Hitler had done something, then it must be bad.  Well, Hitler did oil paintings.  Should we now villify all those people who do oil paintings ?  Hitler, like ex- President Eisenhower, created a national highway network (the autobahn). Should we condemn Eisenhower for creating the US interstate highway system (one of his great achievements), because it's like something Hitler had done ?

 I could go on and on with this, but the post is so ridiculous, it probably shouldn't have even gotten the dignity of a response.


----------



## protectionist

Delta4Embassy said:


> "The Lebanese Psychiatric Society has declared homosexuality is not a mental illness."
> Lebanese Psychiatric Society declares being homosexual is not a mental illness | Gay Star News
> 
> "MUMBAI: Homosexuality is not a mental illness or disease, the country's psychiatrists said in a joint statement on Thursday.
> The Indian Psychiatric Society (IPS), an umbrella body for psychiatrists across the country, said this in response to the furore over its former president Dr Indira Sharma's statement on homosexuality last month."
> Homosexuality is not a disease, psychiatrists say - The Times of India
> 
> "The Chinese Psychiatric Association decided that being gay is no longer a disease in the third edition of its new diagnostic guidelines published on April 20th this year."
> Chinese Society More Tolerant of Homosexuality
> 
> And of course the American Psychiatric Association quit calling it a mental disorder in 1973.



EARTH TO D4E:  Nobody cares what these paid-off, wimped-out phony excuses for professionalism have to say, and nobody has cared about their pathetic, openly admitted capitulations to the queer activist movement, for decades now.  They are a joke every one of them.  To even mention these moldy, fools in this forum is a laughingstock.


----------



## protectionist

JakeStarkey said:


> OK, I understand now.
> 
> Protectionist wants his views accepted as constitutional.He wants those he opposes not accepted as constitutional.And he believes the majoritarian democratic will trumps the Constitution.Let's move on.



  I never said _"the majoritarian democratic will trumps the Constitution"_  YOU said that.

Yes, let's move on, ........on the basis of knowing that one of your tactics to is try to put words in people's mouths.  Nice try.


----------



## protectionist

JakeStarkey said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can, and you are doing this.
> 
> What you CAN'T do is to kill people because they are gay, or beat them up, or slander them, or cause them any harm. You can't prevent them having the same rights as anyone else, and the Constitution prevents the government from stopping them having the same rights as anyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm tired of people coming in here and waving the Constitution around, but not SHOWING where in the Constitution they are talking about.  OK.  So there's your challenge.  You want to hide behind the Constitution ?  You have to SHOW where in it is the protection for queers you refer to, and HOW can this be ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Better go talk to SCOTUS.
Click to expand...


If you have an answer, let's hear it.


----------



## protectionist

Infidel said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, let's stop with the silly "strike 1" nonsense.
> 
> Mob rule is when the people can act like a mob, and individuals don't stand a chance.
> 
> Do you agree or disagree that an individual in the US has protections against the wishes of the majority?
> If the majority said "no guns" what would say?
> If the majority said "you can't talk about basketball" what would you say?
> If the majority said "everyone has to be practicing Muslim" what would you say?
> If the majority said "only white people can marry" what would you say?
> 
> Would you say that the majority, the mob, can't do this? Or would you roll over and accept what you get?
> 
> Why are black people a protected group? Why not gay people? Seems a little unfair for one group to be protected? In fact it seems a little silly on your part to see one group as protected and not another.
> How are they protected exactly? By the constitution? Then why not the other one?
> 
> As for calling people "abnormal", what is normal exactly? You tell me, I really, really want to know what you think "normal" and "abnormal" are. Like a definition that I can use when you write these words so I know what you mean.
> 
> And, when you say "abnormal people can't marry" i'm going to assume EVERYONE under "abnormal" can't marry too. Just because sometimes I like being pedantic to make a point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.     You seem to be putting a very low value on the wishes of the majority.  Not very American of you.  We value majority rule quite highly. It's called democracy, not mob rule. We are a democratic republic.  You need to get that straight.
> 
> 2.  Sure individuals have protections against the majority.  Ex. > Currently, 76% of the American people oppose affirmative action, yet we still have it.
> 
> 3.  Sure I would say the majority can't do this if it was unconstitutional or otherwise illegal.  We are a nation of laws.  But our laws can be changed also, to reflect the wishes of the majority.
> 
> 4.  The reason why blacks are protected is because they (race) is mentioned in the 1964 Civil Rights Act and that is because their status (race) is involuntary.  Sexual orientation is voluntary, and homosexuality is a perverse mental aberration, which is to be discouraged, not encouraged.
> 
> 5.  I've defined what I mean by normal and abnormal *100 FUCKING TIMES* in this thread.  Read it!!
> 
> 6.  I didn't say abnormal people shouldn't marry.  I do say people with the abnormality of homosexuality shouldn't marry someone of their same sex.
> 
> 7.  You seem to be having trouble understanding simple things.  Maybe you should *read the thread* instead of skipping over it, and read it a bit more slowly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your homophobia has been duly noted. Just try not to think of hard cocks too much, that's a tad gay.
Click to expand...


No it hasn't. Because there is NO SUCH THING as "homophobia"..  This is a* FALSE* word devised by the queer community to twist public thought around from normal common sense, to the deranged fallacy of their perverted lifestyle/movement.

  A phobia is an irrational fear of something.  But fear of homosexuality is not irrational.
In America, queers have a well organized, well-financed movement to spread their lunacy and impose it on America.  Use of the word "phobia" is a despicable shot against those, like myself, who suffer from a true phobia (Agoraphobia), and really makes a laughingstock out of those who use this phony, idiotic word > "homophobia"


----------



## protectionist

frigidweirdo said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.     You seem to be putting a very low value on the wishes of the majority.  Not very American of you.  We value majority rule quite highly. It's called democracy, not mob rule. We are a democratic republic.  You need to get that straight.
> 
> 2.  Sure individuals have protections against the majority.  Ex. > Currently, 76% of the American people oppose affirmative action, yet we still have it.
> 
> 3.  Sure I would say the majority can't do this if it was unconstitutional or otherwise illegal.  We are a nation of laws.  But our laws can be changed also, to reflect the wishes of the majority.
> 
> 4.  The reason why blacks are protected is because they (race) is mentioned in the 1964 Civil Rights Act and that is because their status (race) is involuntary.  Sexual orientation is voluntary, and homosexuality is a perverse mental aberration, which is to be discouraged, not encouraged.
> 
> 5.  I've defined what I mean by normal and abnormal *100 FUCKING TIMES* in this thread.  Read it!!
> 
> 6.  I didn't say abnormal people shouldn't marry.  I do say people with the abnormality of homosexuality shouldn't marry someone of their same sex.
> 
> 7.  You seem to be having trouble understanding simple things.  Maybe you should *read the thread* instead of skipping over it, and read it a bit more slowly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly. Stop it with the giant swearing. It's not smart or clever.
> Secondly, I wasn't replying to you, so, you go about swearing about how you've done something a million times. Whatever, I've not read it, and I've been on this board a day and I am not reading every post you've ever written to find it out.
> 
> 1) Yes, I put a very low value on the wishes of the majority. Just like the founding fathers. You have a problem with the founding fathers?
> The US has a kind of democracy.  There is no Proportional Representation for Congress or for the President, that's the wishes of the majority.
> The Senate is based on the wishes of the state. The house is closer, but still, it's FPTP for each member.
> Let's try the House elections 2010 (because it was the last year they had an election without the presidential election), there was a turn out of 40.9% of those who could vote.
> The Republicans got 51.7% of those votes but had far more than 51.7% of the seats.
> Senate election, well, it's hard to really estimate because not everyone votes at the same time, hardly the will of the people there.
> 
> Presidential election 2012, 58.2% of people voted, of these 51.1% voted for the president. Ie, most people DIDN'T vote for him. He got something like 30% of all eligable votes. The will of the people? I don't think so.
> 
> Also, in history, the will of the majority has meant the death of the minority. I can point to plenty of places, like Thailand, Chechnya, Kosovo among many where minorities are or have been pounded on by the desire of the majority.
> 
> 2) People might oppose, but to be honest, most of the people probably don't have much of a clue about what it means or doesn't mean.
> You have votes, you vote in politicians, if so many people didn't want it, why hasn't it changed?
> 
> 3) You talk now about the constitution and a nation of laws. The laws say Gay Marriage should be constitution. But then you oppose it. Even if you don't like gay sex, and why the hell you're thinking about gay sex I don't know, why do you want to stop people marrying?
> I don't even agree with marriage or basketball. Hate them both. But I wouldn't want to stop someone having the choice to do either if they choose.
> 
> Your laws can be changed. So you could change the laws to make sure black people don't vote.
> However most people say they support the constitution, they support the Bill of Rights, and then they turn around and cough and say "but not this bit"
> 
> You want rights or you don't want rights. There is no middle ground. You really, REALLY have to understand this. You take rights away from one, and you take them away from all and you make them mere privileges. And when the govt decides you're next, my god you are in for it.
> 
> 4) The Civil Rights Act is an act of Congress.
> 
> Actually it outlawed discrimination on "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin"
> 
> How did Congress have the power to make such a law? They only have powers from the Constitution after all.
> They used the 14th Amendment, which I spoke about in my previous post. Equal protection of the laws.
> Now, times change. Back in 1964 blacks were being treated like dirt, gay civil rights simply wasn't an issue, morality at the time hadn't opened up as much as it has now. The 60s let to the 70s and 80s and then it seemed to go more sensible in the 90s and onwards.
> 
> Do you really think that "equal protection of the laws" used in this act would now not meet the requirement of gay marriage?
> 
> 5) I've done this. However, I would still like a strict definition of what you believe it is. Maybe you've said it here and there but nothing concrete, nothing I can pin on you and quote you from.
> 
> 6) Oh, so you're going to define to a very, very strict statement who can and cannot marry. This doesn't work. Like I've mentioned with equal protection of the laws. You can't single people out.
> How about we ban marriage for black men between the ages of 31 and 33 with moles on their left cheek. You think this is going to last long?
> 
> So can I marry someone of the same sex? I'm not gay.
> 
> 7) I don't have problem reading simple things. I just might not be saying what you want me to say, or I might actually want you to clarify something you have said.
> 
> 8) You might want to sort out your anger issues.
Click to expand...


1.  US = democratic republic.  If you can't handle that, why are you here ? OPlenty of options elsewhere.

3..  THE LAWS say gay marriage should be constitutional ?  Correction:  laws in 20 states say that.  And in 30 other states they say just the opposite.  Queers shou dbe stopped from marrying because it is a sick, perversion, and degrades the national culture. to allow it.  Taking rights from queers takes rights from queers, not everyone.

4.  Of course homo marriage does not meet the requirements of equal protection of the laws" .  Queers and straights are not equals.  Straight are m=normal. Queers are abnormal.  There is no equality.

5.  Heterosexuality is normal - it conforms to the design of nature whereby body parts are desined for heterosexual sex, not some deranged alternative.

6.  Of course you can single people out.  People are singled out for driver;s licenses, buying guns, adorpting kids, etc

7.  I'm a little bit angry.  But with good reason. Nothing to sort.


----------



## protectionist

RKMBrown said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.     You seem to be putting a very low value on the wishes of the majority.  Not very American of you.  We value majority rule quite highly. It's called democracy, not mob rule. We are a democratic republic.  You need to get that straight.
> 
> 2.  Sure individuals have protections against the majority.  Ex. > Currently, 76% of the American people oppose affirmative action, yet we still have it.
> 
> 3.  Sure I would say the majority can't do this if it was unconstitutional or otherwise illegal.  We are a nation of laws.  But our laws can be changed also, to reflect the wishes of the majority.
> 
> 4.  The reason why blacks are protected is because they (race) is mentioned in the 1964 Civil Rights Act and that is because their status (race) is involuntary.  Sexual orientation is voluntary, and homosexuality is a perverse mental aberration, which is to be discouraged, not encouraged.
> 
> 5.  I've defined what I mean by normal and abnormal *100 FUCKING TIMES* in this thread.  Read it!!
> 
> 6.  I didn't say abnormal people shouldn't marry.  I do say people with the abnormality of homosexuality shouldn't marry someone of their same sex.
> 
> 7.  You seem to be having trouble understanding simple things.  Maybe you should *read the thread* instead of skipping over it, and read it a bit more slowly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly. Stop it with the giant swearing. It's not smart or clever.
> Secondly, I wasn't replying to you, so, you go about swearing about how you've done something a million times. Whatever, I've not read it, and I've been on this board a day and I am not reading every post you've ever written to find it out.
> 
> 1) Yes, I put a very low value on the wishes of the majority. Just like the founding fathers. You have a problem with the founding fathers?
> The US has a kind of democracy.  There is no Proportional Representation for Congress or for the President, that's the wishes of the majority.
> The Senate is based on the wishes of the state. The house is closer, but still, it's FPTP for each member.
> Let's try the House elections 2010 (because it was the last year they had an election without the presidential election), there was a turn out of 40.9% of those who could vote.
> The Republicans got 51.7% of those votes but had far more than 51.7% of the seats.
> Senate election, well, it's hard to really estimate because not everyone votes at the same time, hardly the will of the people there.
> 
> Presidential election 2012, 58.2% of people voted, of these 51.1% voted for the president. Ie, most people DIDN'T vote for him. He got something like 30% of all eligable votes. The will of the people? I don't think so.
> 
> Also, in history, the will of the majority has meant the death of the minority. I can point to plenty of places, like Thailand, Chechnya, Kosovo among many where minorities are or have been pounded on by the desire of the majority.
> 
> 2) People might oppose, but to be honest, most of the people probably don't have much of a clue about what it means or doesn't mean.
> You have votes, you vote in politicians, if so many people didn't want it, why hasn't it changed?
> 
> 3) You talk now about the constitution and a nation of laws. The laws say Gay Marriage should be constitution. But then you oppose it. Even if you don't like gay sex, and why the hell you're thinking about gay sex I don't know, why do you want to stop people marrying?
> I don't even agree with marriage or basketball. Hate them both. But I wouldn't want to stop someone having the choice to do either if they choose.
> 
> Your laws can be changed. So you could change the laws to make sure black people don't vote.
> However most people say they support the constitution, they support the Bill of Rights, and then they turn around and cough and say "but not this bit"
> 
> You want rights or you don't want rights. There is no middle ground. You really, REALLY have to understand this. You take rights away from one, and you take them away from all and you make them mere privileges. And when the govt decides you're next, my god you are in for it.
> 
> 4) The Civil Rights Act is an act of Congress.
> 
> Actually it outlawed discrimination on "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin"
> 
> How did Congress have the power to make such a law? They only have powers from the Constitution after all.
> They used the 14th Amendment, which I spoke about in my previous post. Equal protection of the laws.
> Now, times change. Back in 1964 blacks were being treated like dirt, gay civil rights simply wasn't an issue, morality at the time hadn't opened up as much as it has now. The 60s let to the 70s and 80s and then it seemed to go more sensible in the 90s and onwards.
> 
> Do you really think that "equal protection of the laws" used in this act would now not meet the requirement of gay marriage?
> 
> 5) I've done this. However, I would still like a strict definition of what you believe it is. Maybe you've said it here and there but nothing concrete, nothing I can pin on you and quote you from.
> 
> 6) Oh, so you're going to define to a very, very strict statement who can and cannot marry. This doesn't work. Like I've mentioned with equal protection of the laws. You can't single people out.
> How about we ban marriage for black men between the ages of 31 and 33 with moles on their left cheek. You think this is going to last long?
> 
> So can I marry someone of the same sex? I'm not gay.
> 
> 7) I don't have problem reading simple things. I just might not be saying what you want me to say, or I might actually want you to clarify something you have said.
> 
> 8) You might want to sort out your anger issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's a retard.  You're better off just ignoring him.
Click to expand...


Words of a pathetic, bitter poster who has had his ass handed to him by me repeatedly.    He just can't handle it.  Oh well.


----------



## protectionist

JakeStarkey said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is this: you are emotionally and mentally turned around for sure.
> 
> Even in the last days, the very elect will be fooled as were the crusaders, the conquistadores, and the Puritans.
> 
> Step along, protectionist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yours is the response of a cornered conspiracy nut.
Click to expand...


Yours is the response of........well, actually, you have no response, do you ?


----------



## GreenBean

protectionist said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The Lebanese Psychiatric Society has declared homosexuality is not a mental illness."
> Lebanese Psychiatric Society declares being homosexual is not a mental illness | Gay Star News
> 
> "MUMBAI: Homosexuality is not a mental illness or disease, the country's psychiatrists said in a joint statement on Thursday.
> The Indian Psychiatric Society (IPS), an umbrella body for psychiatrists across the country, said this in response to the furore over its former president Dr Indira Sharma's statement on homosexuality last month."
> Homosexuality is not a disease, psychiatrists say - The Times of India
> 
> "The Chinese Psychiatric Association decided that being gay is no longer a disease in the third edition of its new diagnostic guidelines published on April 20th this year."
> Chinese Society More Tolerant of Homosexuality
> 
> And of course the American Psychiatric Association quit calling it a mental disorder in 1973.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EARTH TO D4E:  Nobody cares what these paid-off, wimped-out phony excuses for professionalism have to say, and nobody has cared about their pathetic, openly admitted capitulations to the queer activist movement, for decades now.  They are a joke every one of them.  To even mention these moldy, fools in this forum is a laughingstock.
Click to expand...


June 6, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A former president of the American Psychological Association (APA), who also introduced the motion to declassify homosexuality as a mental illness in 1975, says that the APA has been taken over by ultraliberals beholden to the gay rights movement, .........

LifeSiteNews Mobile | Former president of APA says organization controlled by ?gay rights? movement


----------



## Geaux4it

I think gays should get SS disability payments 

-Geaux


----------



## Infidel

Are you closet boys still talking about gays?


----------



## Delta4Embassy

DriftingSand said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The Lebanese Psychiatric Society has declared homosexuality is not a mental illness."
> Lebanese Psychiatric Society declares being homosexual is not a mental illness | Gay Star News
> 
> "MUMBAI: Homosexuality is not a mental illness or disease, the country's psychiatrists said in a joint statement on Thursday.
> The Indian Psychiatric Society (IPS), an umbrella body for psychiatrists across the country, said this in response to the furore over its former president Dr Indira Sharma's statement on homosexuality last month."
> Homosexuality is not a disease, psychiatrists say - The Times of India
> 
> "The Chinese Psychiatric Association decided that being gay is no longer a disease in the third edition of its new diagnostic guidelines published on April 20th this year."
> Chinese Society More Tolerant of Homosexuality
> 
> And of course the American Psychiatric Association quit calling it a mental disorder in 1973.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder how many "gays" (closeted perhaps?) are sitting members of the above boards?!
> 
> Regardless, homosexuality is certainly a disorder of some sort.  Spiritual? Sexual? Mental? Sheer ignorance? Lack of proper training/upbringing? All the above? Some of the above?  Who can say for sure but the bottom line is that it's totally unnatural for men to "sleep" with men.  Gay activism is a social cancer that's attempting to convince the overall social organism to believe it "belongs" but I can't help but see a malignant lump.
Click to expand...


Ever consider that without gays, religious minorities, ethnic minorities, or someone else acting as scapegoat, you'd just turn in on yourself? Ok you've gotten rid of all the gays. Now who will you blame? Guys who let their women be on top during sex, that 'unnatural too?' You'd miss us if we left.


----------



## GISMYS

THINK! YOU NEED NOT LIVE YOUR LIFE IN THE ABOMINATION OF SICK MINDED SEXUAL PERVERSION,CONFESS AND REPENT AND GOD WILL FORGIVE AND WASH YOU CLEAN.==Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. 1 CORINTHIANS 6:9-11


----------



## Infidel

GISMYS said:


> THINK! YOU NEED NOT LIVE YOUR LIFE IN THE ABOMINATION OF SICK MINDED SEXUAL PERVERSION,CONFESS AND REPENT AND GOD WILL FORGIVE AND WASH YOU CLEAN.==Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. 1 CORINTHIANS 6:9-11



Stop being a Christian faker, you want a well armed US army to kick some ass. See you in Hell.


----------



## GISMYS

RE-READ MY POST VERY SLOWLY!!!===THINK! YOU NEED NOT LIVE YOUR LIFE IN THE ABOMINATION OF SICK MINDED SEXUAL PERVERSION,CONFESS AND REPENT AND GOD WILL FORGIVE AND WASH YOU CLEAN.==Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. 1 CORINTHIANS 6:9-11


----------



## JakeStarkey

protectionist said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, I understand now.
> 
> Protectionist wants his views accepted as constitutional.He wants those he opposes not accepted as constitutional.And he *believes *the majoritarian democratic will trumps the Constitution.Let's move on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said _"the majoritarian democratic will trumps the Constitution"_  YOU said that.
> 
> Yes, let's move on, ........on the basis of knowing that *one of your tactics to is try to put words in people's mouths*.  Nice try.
Click to expand...


I said *believes*, kiddo, which is what you said.  You want the majority to override the minority.

*one of your tactics to is try to put words in people's mouths*.  

Now try being more honest, please.


----------



## JakeStarkey

protectionist said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yours is the response of a cornered conspiracy nut.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yours is the response of........well, actually, you have no response, do you ?
Click to expand...


My response was quite appropriate for those like you.


----------



## JakeStarkey

protectionist said:


> No it hasn't. Because there is NO SUCH THING as "homophobia"..  This is a* FALSE* word devised by the queer community to twist public thought around from normal common sense, to the deranged fallacy of their perverted lifestyle/movement.
> 
> A phobia is an irrational fear of something.  But fear of homosexuality is not irrational.
> In America, queers have a well organized, well-financed movement to spread their lunacy and impose it on America.  Use of the word "phobia" is a despicable shot against those, like myself, who suffer from a true phobia (Agoraphobia), and really makes a laughingstock out of those who use this phony, idiotic word > "homophobia"



Yes, homophobia is irrational, because there is nothing to fear.

When homophobes are manipulated by hetero-fascists, then the system gets ugly.


----------



## JakeStarkey

protectionist said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm tired of people coming in here and waving the Constitution around, but not SHOWING where in the Constitution they are talking about.  OK.  So there's your challenge.  You want to hide behind the Constitution ?  You have to SHOW where in it is the protection for queers you refer to, and HOW can this be ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Better go talk to SCOTUS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you have an answer, let's hear it.
Click to expand...


The answer is that SCOTUS will decide this, not you.


----------



## JakeStarkey

protectionist said:


> When I was young I was a socialist revolutionary.  I supported a litany of ultra-left wing causes that i now oppose.  I find many of my age group (60s & 70s) to be the same.
> 
> You may find that as the haters of perversion die out, they will be replaced by former queer backers who then age/evolve into perversion haters, just as they evolve from supporters of such things as affirmative action and immigration, into haters of those things too.



Convoluted and illogical.


----------



## Infidel

GISMYS said:


> RE-READ MY POST VERY SLOWLY!!!===THINK! YOU NEED NOT LIVE YOUR LIFE IN THE ABOMINATION OF SICK MINDED SEXUAL PERVERSION,CONFESS AND REPENT AND GOD WILL FORGIVE AND WASH YOU CLEAN.==Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. 1 CORINTHIANS 6:9-11



Stop being a Christian faker, you want a well armed US army to kick some ass. See you in Hell.


----------



## GreenBean

Infidel said:


> Are you closet boys still talking about gays?



No chausette , we're talking about you


----------



## GISMYS

Infidel said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE-READ MY POST VERY SLOWLY!!!===THINK! YOU NEED NOT LIVE YOUR LIFE IN THE ABOMINATION OF SICK MINDED SEXUAL PERVERSION,CONFESS AND REPENT AND GOD WILL FORGIVE AND WASH YOU CLEAN.==Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. 1 CORINTHIANS 6:9-11
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop being a Christian faker, you want a well armed US army to kick some ass. See you in Hell.
Click to expand...


LOL!!!What does your choice to reject God and live in the sick abomination of sexual perversion have to do with the usa army?


----------



## GreenBean

Geaux4it said:


> I think gays should get SS disability payments
> 
> -Geaux



Faggots are lacking in many areas of Human decency, but the ability to contribute to society and earn a good living are not one of the areas they a deficient in.

Gay People More Financially Secure Despite Unique Barriers: Study


----------



## Infidel

GreenBean said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think gays should get SS disability payments
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faggots are lacking in many areas of Human decency, but the ability to contribute to society and earn a good living are not one of the areas they a deficient in.
> 
> Gay People More Financially Secure Despite Unique Barriers: Study
Click to expand...


The closet queens are talking and thinking about hard cocks again.


----------



## Infidel

GISMYS said:


> Infidel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE-READ MY POST VERY SLOWLY!!!===THINK! YOU NEED NOT LIVE YOUR LIFE IN THE ABOMINATION OF SICK MINDED SEXUAL PERVERSION,CONFESS AND REPENT AND GOD WILL FORGIVE AND WASH YOU CLEAN.==Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. 1 CORINTHIANS 6:9-11
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop being a Christian faker, you want a well armed US army to kick some ass. See you in Hell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!!!What does your choice to reject God and live in the sick abomination of sexual perversion have to do with the usa army?
Click to expand...


You quote the bible and hope the army attacks people you think are evil doers. Which makes you a fake Christian. Jesus never preached annihilation by war.


----------



## GreenBean

Infidel said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think gays should get SS disability payments
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faggots are lacking in many areas of Human decency, but the ability to contribute to society and earn a good living are not one of the areas they a deficient in.
> 
> Gay People More Financially Secure Despite Unique Barriers: Study
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The closet queens are talking and thinking about hard cocks again.
Click to expand...


Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 83
Thanks: 10
Thanked 10 Times in 9 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
*Rep Power: 0*
Infidel can't leave home without a security blanket and pacifier


----------



## Infidel

GreenBean said:


> Infidel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Faggots are lacking in many areas of Human decency, but the ability to contribute to society and earn a good living are not one of the areas they a deficient in.
> 
> Gay People More Financially Secure Despite Unique Barriers: Study
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The closet queens are talking and thinking about hard cocks again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Join Date: Mar 2014
> Posts: 83
> Thanks: 10
> Thanked 10 Times in 9 Posts
> Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
> Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
> *Rep Power: 0*
> Infidel can't leave home without a security blanket and pacifier
Click to expand...


But you didn't dispute being a closet queen.


----------



## protectionist

JakeStarkey said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I was young I was a socialist revolutionary.  I supported a litany of ultra-left wing causes that i now oppose.  I find many of my age group (60s & 70s) to be the same.
> 
> You may find that as the haters of perversion die out, they will be replaced by former queer backers who then age/evolve into perversion haters, just as they evolve from supporters of such things as affirmative action and immigration, into haters of those things too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Convoluted and illogical.
Click to expand...


Yeah ?  How ?  Sounds logical to me.  Make a charge ?  Support it.


----------



## protectionist

JakeStarkey said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Better go talk to SCOTUS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you have an answer, let's hear it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The answer is that SCOTUS will decide this, not you.
Click to expand...


The answer is that the SCOTUS has already decided, and they decided that states may discriminate against a particular classification (ex. queers) if they find a _*"compelling interest"*_ to do so.  Well, it looks like 30 states have found there compelling interest, because they sure are discriminating against a certain "classification" >> queers. (and thereby all have bans on same sex marriage).

And the compelling interest ?  That's an easy one >>  to not allow nutjobs to set the standards of American culture, thereby changing it from an American culture, to an American NUTJOB culture.


----------



## GISMYS

For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality. ROMANS 1:26-28


----------



## protectionist

GreenBean said:


> Infidel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Faggots are lacking in many areas of Human decency, but the ability to contribute to society and earn a good living are not one of the areas they a deficient in.
> 
> Gay People More Financially Secure Despite Unique Barriers: Study
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The closet queens are talking and thinking about hard cocks again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Join Date: Mar 2014
> Posts: 83
> Thanks: 10
> Thanked 10 Times in 9 Posts
> Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
> Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
> *Rep Power: 0*
> Infidel can't leave home without a security blanket and pacifier
Click to expand...


You recognize his existence ?


----------



## protectionist

JakeStarkey said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, I understand now.
> 
> Protectionist wants his views accepted as constitutional.He wants those he opposes not accepted as constitutional.And he *believes *the majoritarian democratic will trumps the Constitution.Let's move on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said _"the majoritarian democratic will trumps the Constitution"_  YOU said that.
> 
> Yes, let's move on, ........on the basis of knowing that *one of your tactics to is try to put words in people's mouths*.  Nice try.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said *believes*, kiddo, which is what you said.  You want the majority to override the minority.
> 
> *one of your tactics to is try to put words in people's mouths*.
> 
> Now try being more honest, please.
Click to expand...


So you said "believes".  So what ?  That doesn't change anything.  You still tried to put words in my mouth.  I didn't say or indicate I believe _"the majoritarian democratic will trumps the Constitution"_.  That whole notion came from YOU,.... KIDDO.

Now try being more honest, please.


----------



## protectionist

JakeStarkey said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yours is the response of a cornered conspiracy nut.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yours is the response of........well, actually, you have no response, do you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My response was quite appropriate for those like you.
Click to expand...


Within your mentality of "appropriate" (which I shudder to think of the roster of that)


----------



## protectionist

JakeStarkey said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it hasn't. Because there is NO SUCH THING as "homophobia"..  This is a* FALSE* word devised by the queer community to twist public thought around from normal common sense, to the deranged fallacy of their perverted lifestyle/movement.
> 
> A phobia is an irrational fear of something.  But fear of homosexuality is not irrational.
> In America, queers have a well organized, well-financed movement to spread their lunacy and impose it on America.  Use of the word "phobia" is a despicable shot against those, like myself, who suffer from a true phobia (Agoraphobia), and really makes a laughingstock out of those who use this phony, idiotic word > "homophobia"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, homophobia is irrational, because there is nothing to fear.
> 
> When homophobes are manipulated by hetero-fascists, then the system gets ugly.
Click to expand...


What there is to fear is well stated in the post you quoted.  It stands true and unchallenged.  What is ugly is the well organized, well-financed movement to spread their lunacy and impose it on America, that queers have.


----------



## GreenBean

protectionist said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it hasn't. Because there is NO SUCH THING as "homophobia"..  This is a* FALSE* word devised by the queer community to twist public thought around from normal common sense, to the deranged fallacy of their perverted lifestyle/movement.
> 
> A phobia is an irrational fear of something.  But fear of homosexuality is not irrational.
> In America, queers have a well organized, well-financed movement to spread their lunacy and impose it on America.  Use of the word "phobia" is a despicable shot against those, like myself, who suffer from a true phobia (Agoraphobia), and really makes a laughingstock out of those who use this phony, idiotic word > "homophobia"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, homophobia is irrational, because there is nothing to fear.
> 
> When homophobes are manipulated by hetero-fascists, then the system gets ugly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What there is to fear is well stated in the post you quoted.  It stands true and unchallenged.  What is ugly is the well organized, well-financed movement to spread their lunacy and impose it on America, that queers have.
Click to expand...


The Queer Militias have  been salivating at the thought of taking over Public Education, their Liberal Brethren have been holding the door open wide for them as they tediously strive to manipulate the minds of OUR young. 



> In 2009, Obama nominated homosexual propagandist Kevin Jennings as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Education he was in charge of overseeing the Safe and Drug-Free Schools program. Now the drug education programs I personally have no problem with, but the lefts manipulation of the term safe is where the flakiness comes in.
> 
> *Jennings was in charge of making public schools safe for leftists and homosexuals and to disseminate pro-homosexual propaganda and indoctrination to Americas school children.*
> 
> Jennings, an accused but never convicted pedophilia promoter {2}, was a founder of  the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network {GLSEN}. The same group that gave courses on Fisting and Spit or swallow Is it rude?
> 
> Jennings writings include
> 
> Becoming Visible: A Reader in Gay and Lesbian History for High School and College Students
> 
> One Teacher in Ten: Gay and Lesbian Educators Tell Their Stories
> 
> Telling Tales Out of School: Gays, Lesbians, and Bisexuals Revisit Their School Days
> 
> Always My Child: A Parent's Guide to Understanding Your Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgendered, or Questioning Son or Daughter
> 
> Mama's Boy, Preacher's Son: A Memoir of Growing Up, Coming Out, and Changing America's Schools





*The Gay Agenda in Public Schools*


----------



## ABikerSailor

Quick question.........................who do you think has more guns, the "gay militia" or the right wing assholes who support white power?

I'll give you a hint...................it's the white power assholes and those elected officials that support them.


----------



## protectionist

GreenBean said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, homophobia is irrational, because there is nothing to fear.
> 
> When homophobes are manipulated by hetero-fascists, then the system gets ugly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What there is to fear is well stated in the post you quoted.  It stands true and unchallenged.  What is ugly is the well organized, well-financed movement to spread their lunacy and impose it on America, that queers have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Queer Militias have  been salivating at the thought of taking over Public Education, their Liberal Brethren have been holding the door open wide for them as they tediously strive to manipulate the minds of OUR young.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 2009, Obama nominated homosexual propagandist Kevin Jennings as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Education he was in charge of overseeing the Safe and Drug-Free Schools program. Now the drug education programs I personally have no problem with, but the lefts manipulation of the term safe is where the flakiness comes in.
> 
> *Jennings was in charge of making public schools safe for leftists and homosexuals and to disseminate pro-homosexual propaganda and indoctrination to Americas school children.*
> 
> Jennings, an accused but never convicted pedophilia promoter {2}, was a founder of  the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network {GLSEN}. The same group that gave courses on Fisting and Spit or swallow Is it rude?
> 
> Jennings writings include
> 
> Becoming Visible: A Reader in Gay and Lesbian History for High School and College Students
> 
> One Teacher in Ten: Gay and Lesbian Educators Tell Their Stories
> 
> Telling Tales Out of School: Gays, Lesbians, and Bisexuals Revisit Their School Days
> 
> Always My Child: A Parent's Guide to Understanding Your Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgendered, or Questioning Son or Daughter
> 
> Mama's Boy, Preacher's Son: A Memoir of Growing Up, Coming Out, and Changing America's Schools
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Gay Agenda in Public Schools*
Click to expand...


Well if he can put all the Muslim Brotherhood seditionists into top jobs in the federal govt (from his perspective), why not a gooneybird like Jennings ?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...ma-administration-the-muslim-brotherhood.html


----------



## GreenBean

protectionist said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> What there is to fear is well stated in the post you quoted.  It stands true and unchallenged.  What is ugly is the well organized, well-financed movement to spread their lunacy and impose it on America, that queers have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Queer Militias have  been salivating at the thought of taking over Public Education, their Liberal Brethren have been holding the door open wide for them as they tediously strive to manipulate the minds of OUR young.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 2009, Obama nominated homosexual propagandist Kevin Jennings as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Education he was in charge of overseeing the Safe and Drug-Free Schools program. Now the drug education programs I personally have no problem with, but the lefts manipulation of the term safe is where the flakiness comes in.
> 
> *Jennings was in charge of making public schools safe for leftists and homosexuals and to disseminate pro-homosexual propaganda and indoctrination to Americas school children.*
> 
> Jennings, an accused but never convicted pedophilia promoter {2}, was a founder of  the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network {GLSEN}. The same group that gave courses on Fisting and Spit or swallow Is it rude?
> 
> Jennings writings include
> 
> Becoming Visible: A Reader in Gay and Lesbian History for High School and College Students
> 
> One Teacher in Ten: Gay and Lesbian Educators Tell Their Stories
> 
> Telling Tales Out of School: Gays, Lesbians, and Bisexuals Revisit Their School Days
> 
> Always My Child: A Parent's Guide to Understanding Your Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgendered, or Questioning Son or Daughter
> 
> Mama's Boy, Preacher's Son: A Memoir of Growing Up, Coming Out, and Changing America's Schools
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Gay Agenda in Public Schools*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well if he can put all the Muslim Brotherhood seditionists into top jobs in the federal govt (from his perspective), why not a gooneybird like Jennings ?
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...ma-administration-the-muslim-brotherhood.html
Click to expand...


.... children who attended Kevin Jennnings&#8217; GLSEN 2005 Conference also left with their own &#8220;Little Black Book &#8211; Queer in the 21st Century&#8221;.

This book exposes the young teens to&#8211;
Rimming &#8211; Fisting &#8211; Water Sports (Pi$$ Play) &#8211; Toys
It&#8217;s what every teen needs to know&#8230;

After a two year stint, Obama&#8217;s Safe School&#8217;s czar Kevin Jennings has resigned from his position with the Obama Administration.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...amas-Radical-Safe-Schools-Czar-Hits-the-Skids


----------



## frigidweirdo

GreenBean said:


> Faggots are lacking in many areas of Human decency, but the ability to contribute to society and earn a good living are not one of the areas they a deficient in.
> 
> Gay People More Financially Secure Despite Unique Barriers: Study



So how much are people who insult other people with terms like "queer" and "faggots" promoting human decency?


----------



## frigidweirdo

protectionist said:


> The answer is that SCOTUS will decide this, not you.



The answer is that the SCOTUS has already decided, and they decided that states may discriminate against a particular classification (ex. queers) if they find a _*"compelling interest"*_ to do so.  Well, it looks like 30 states have found there compelling interest, because they sure are discriminating against a certain "classification" >> queers. (and thereby all have bans on same sex marriage).

And the compelling interest ?  That's an easy one >>  to not allow nutjobs to set the standards of American culture, thereby changing it from an American culture, to an American NUTJOB culture.[/QUOTE]

Compelling interest huh? What exactly did they say their compelling interest was when they prevented gay people from marrying? Or didn't they say there was one? 

People tried to find ways to stop black people from being free. Then they tried to find ways to stop people from being treated equally, then even when they had got rid of segregation people STILL tried to find ways to keep black people down. 

And isn't this just history repeating itself?

Blacks were called "n*ggers", gay people are called "queers", much difference? No, they both used slurs to try to demean a group they were attempting to use the law to stop them having the same rights as everyone else. 

Was it right back in the day? No, but it happened, is it right now? No, but it still happens.

"All men are created equal" said some supposed great men in 1776, in 2014 some other people are saying that this isn't the case. Hmmmm.


----------



## frigidweirdo

protectionist said:


> I've already answered this in another thread but that's OK.  Once again, I totally disagree with you about queer marriage not hurting people or having a negative impact on people.  It does just that to ALL the American people by setting a cultural standard based on a mentally deranged sexual perversion.  This is grossly harmful to the whole nation, and especially to children, who thereby would be (and in 20 states ARE) wrongfully influenced to accept this lunacy.  Of course it's harmful.
> 
> There is a not an infringement of equal protections of the law, because we're not talking about people who are equal.  They are NOT EQUAL.  One group are normal heterosexuals.  The other are abnormal homosexuals.  Unequal groups = unequal protection of the law.
> 
> It's similar to many other groups who also are unequal, and thereby don't get equal protection of the law either.  Nothing unusual about that.  People who are classified as insane are not allowed to adopt children (and may not even be free to walk the streets).   Some people are not allowed to buy guns.  Some are  restricted from having drivers' licenses.   Many are restricted from serving in the military.  There are hundreds of examples of deprivation of rights, of which same sex marriage is only one in a long list.  So what else is new ?



Okay, here's where I have a problem.

Firstly, we're dealing with the law. 

Does the law say that gay people are about sexual perversion? No. So you don't have much ground to stand on there.

Second. Gay people have gay sex whether they are married or not married. You appear to be calling for a return to anti-sodomy laws.

Thirdly, how many STRAIGHT couples have anal sex and can still marry? 

Fourthly, are you going to ask all people who want to get married if they have ever had anal sex before, or not?

Fifthly, you want a cultural standard. Is the US Constitution and Bill of Rights not a part of your cultural standard? Do you want the US to become more like Iran in terms of freedom and liberty?

Sixthly, you say they are not equal, well under the law they HAVE TO BE because there's a CONSTITUTION. 

You're going for really, REALLY dangerous arguments, you know that.

Black people clearly aren't equal in the US, seeing as 25% are in poverty compared to 7% for white people. Does this mean you can treat them unequally as happened in the US for 90 years before 14A and 90 years after the 14A?

Do you really want archaic views of treatment of people to trump the US constitution? If so, can I suggest Saudi Arabia where women, clearly not equal as they have breasts, are not treated equally and "God's law" or whatever the sheeite they go on about over there is followed strictly?

The other groups you refer to are the insane, who are found insane in a court of law and by DUE PROCESS are not allowed to do certain things.
Children don't have full rights and nor do they have full responsibilities because they are learning about how society works and are often not able to comprehend what is going on. However as they get older they get more rights and more responsibilities and more freedom. 

Some people can't buy guns, yeah, people who have been found guilty, or incapable, under DUE PROCESS. 
The same for driving licenses, or those who have proven they can't drive. But they can continue to take tests, though they CAN DRIVE on their own land, or on private land without the govt being able to do squat. 

Those who can't serve in the military, which is a job, not a right so this is not eve valid. The valid point would be to serve in the militia, which IS a right under the 2A, ie, bear arms, and most men are already in the unorganised militia which was made in the Dick Act. Woman can choose to join. 
So.........
Also the right is for the feds to not stop people before due process, and not for the states who should be able to stop people.

So, not of those groups you mentioned are anything like gay people who clearly haven't been found gay by due process and there is no law to make people guilty of being gay under due process anyway, so all of your groups are meaningless and you can't stop gay people that way.

So that's what's new, for you at least.


----------



## frigidweirdo

protectionist said:


> No it hasn't. Because there is NO SUCH THING as "homophobia"..  This is a* FALSE* word devised by the queer community to twist public thought around from normal common sense, to the deranged fallacy of their perverted lifestyle/movement.
> 
> A phobia is an irrational fear of something.  But fear of homosexuality is not irrational.
> In America, queers have a well organized, well-financed movement to spread their lunacy and impose it on America.  Use of the word "phobia" is a despicable shot against those, like myself, who suffer from a true phobia (Agoraphobia), and really makes a laughingstock out of those who use this phony, idiotic word > "homophobia"



And arachnophobia doesn't exist either, it was made by spiders who are peed off at people getting all pissy about them in their house, right? Damn the spider community. 

Oh, come off it with "homophobia" doesn't exist and it was made in some kind of conspiracy. I suppose racism doesn't exist either, just some angry bloody slaves who weren't grateful for a good old beating now and then made it up, right? 

How is being scared of gay people being able to marry not an irrational fear? What do you think they're going to do to you if they can marry? Get divorced like exists massively now with one divorce for every 2 marriages in the US.


----------



## frigidweirdo

protectionist said:


> 1.  US = democratic republic.  If you can't handle that, why are you here ? OPlenty of options elsewhere.
> 
> 3..  THE LAWS say gay marriage should be constitutional ?  Correction:  laws in 20 states say that.  And in 30 other states they say just the opposite.  Queers shou dbe stopped from marrying because it is a sick, perversion, and degrades the national culture. to allow it.  Taking rights from queers takes rights from queers, not everyone.
> 
> 4.  Of course homo marriage does not meet the requirements of equal protection of the laws" .  Queers and straights are not equals.  Straight are m=normal. Queers are abnormal.  There is no equality.
> 
> 5.  Heterosexuality is normal - it conforms to the design of nature whereby body parts are desined for heterosexual sex, not some deranged alternative.
> 
> 6.  Of course you can single people out.  People are singled out for driver;s licenses, buying guns, adorpting kids, etc
> 
> 7.  I'm a little bit angry.  But with good reason. Nothing to sort.



Well according to wikipedia the US is a "Federal presidential constitutional republic"

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html

The CIA calls it a "Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition"

So, both use the term "Constitution" in their definition. This means the constitution plays a big part. 

Also, neither of them use the term "democratic", the US isn't pure democracy, and isn't anywhere close. The President is not elected based on the will of the people, he's elected based on the will of the states, you know, the whole electoral college thing, people don't vote for a president, they vote for a person who goes to the electoral college. 

The Senate certainly isn't democratic, it's based on the will of the states. 

So, any law that passes has to go through two of three bodies which simply aren't based on democracy. The Supreme Court also isn't democratic and they can get rid of laws too. 

So..... you're wrong about that one. 

3) Well you make some argument then you just turn back to the same old same old "you think it's sick". I think basketball is sick, so everyone should stop playing because I don't like it? Wait, no, that's what the Bill of Rights was made for to stop MOB RULE. 

4) You say gay people aren't equal, doesn't matter, the US is a constitutional republic (if you don't like it, leave sort of thing) and the constitution says they are equal, until proven otherwise in a court of law. 

5) design of nature huh? You believe in evolution? Well 1 million or more years ago a THUMB was not normal and not part of the design of nature. Holy shi'ite. 
Maybe, just maybe, with 7 billion people on this planet, being gay is actually a NATURAL way of reducing population growth. 

6) I've gone over your list already, and it's about people who are stopped for reasons of due process.

7) You're a bit angry, but why? You think something is wrong, had you been brought up in another country, or another place in the US, you might not think so. 
Some call this brainwashing, others call it just how people learn, from those around them. 

Many people are stuck in the past. Look at Saudi Arabia, it's stuck so far in the past they haven't invented the wheel yet, but they have oil, so they just bought it off the US. 

Rights have been around for hundreds of years, many people can't accept rights because they want power over other people's lives.
I'm not right wing, i'm not far left, more center based, I don't support libertarianism, but I have a lot of respect for them, because they believe in govt leaving people alone to get on with their lives the way they want to.


----------



## DGS49

The only constitutional questions the Supreme Court is concerned with are (1) must other states recognize marriages that are legal in the state where they created? (Yes) and (2) may the Federal Government refuse, in its own administration, to recognize legally married people as such? (No).  Details to be worked out.

The USSC has never ruled on whether the failure of any state to allow a person to "marry" someone of their own gender is denial of "...equal protection of the laws."  Until very recently, every person had an identical right  under state laws to marry someone of a different gender (but not minors, incompetents, relatives, etc). which would seem to put to bed the "equal protection" complaint.

"Equal protection" does not mean that all people must be treated identically. 

"Gay" is not equivalent to gender or race.  No government has any jurisdiction over, or concern with, what you like or prefer, but only what you DO.  There is not now, nor has there ever been any law that punishes people for "being gay."  Indeed, there is no way anyone in law enforcement would have any knowledge of whether someone is "gay," other than by their actions.

No Constitutional right has ever been conferred on a "couple," except to the extent that groups of people must be allowed to peaceably assemble under the First Amendment.  Thus, there is no "constitutional" right of two people to marry each other, regardless of gender, though the legal right may exist, with limitations as mentioned above.


----------



## frigidweirdo

DGS49 said:


> No Constitutional right has ever been conferred on a "couple," except to the extent that groups of people must be allowed to peaceably assemble under the First Amendment.  Thus, there is no "constitutional" right of two people to marry each other, regardless of gender, though the legal right may exist, with limitations as mentioned above.



It's not a "couple right", it's the right of a person to choose who they marry as long as that person is a consenting adult and it doesn't harm others (ie, adultery).

Where polygamy fits into this, I don't know.


----------



## GreenBean

frigidweirdo said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Faggots are lacking in many areas of Human decency, but the ability to contribute to society and earn a good living are not one of the areas they a deficient in.
> 
> Gay People More Financially Secure Despite Unique Barriers: Study
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So how much are people who insult other people with terms like "queer" and "faggots" promoting human decency?
Click to expand...


If you're a queer - the lords of political correctness dictate you should be proud of that fact , but fail to explain why being a mentally diseased , sexual pervert and God knows what else is something to have pride in.

So hence if you're a homosexual - you're a Dyke, a queer, a faggot - I don't believe in catering to, assisting, condoning or contributing to the deviancy of another Human Being by lending some form of decent accolade to their disease - they have no right to feel good about themselves !


----------



## frigidweirdo

GreenBean said:


> If you're a queer - the lords of political correctness dictate you should be proud of that fact , but fail to explain why being a mentally diseased , sexual pervert and God knows what else is something to have pride in.
> 
> So hence if you're a homosexual - you're a Dyke, a queer, a faggot - I don't believe in catering to, assisting, condoning or contributing to the deviancy of another Human Being by lending some form of decent accolade to their disease - they have no right to feel good about themselves !



I guess if you like insulting people because of the way they are born, you're supposed to be proud of that, right? 

You don't condone "deviancy"? No one is asking you to do anything, or even like people, they're asking you to butt out of their lives. 

Can't be that hard, especially if you don't like what they do. Surely if they can marry, then you won't have to talk about them marrying all day, it'd remove this weight from your shoulders and you could concentrate on insulting others.


----------



## GreenBean

frigidweirdo said:


> I guess if you like insulting people because of the way they are born, you're supposed to be proud of that, right?
> 
> You don't condone "deviancy"? No one is asking you to do anything, or even like people, they're asking you to butt out of their lives.
> 
> Can't be that hard, especially if you don't like what they do. Surely if they can marry, then you won't have to talk about them marrying all day, it'd remove this weight from your shoulders and you could concentrate on insulting others.





GreenBean said:


> If you're a queer - the lords of political correctness dictate you should be proud of that fact , but fail to explain why being a mentally diseased , sexual pervert and God knows what else is something to have pride in.
> 
> So hence if you're a homosexual - you're a Dyke, a queer, a faggot - I don't believe in catering to, assisting, condoning or contributing to the deviancy of another Human Being by lending some form of decent accolade to their disease - they have no right to feel good about themselves !





> I guess if you like insulting people because of the way they are born, you're supposed to be proud of that, right?


There is minimal evidence to suggest that anyone is "born" a faggot, the predominant evidence suggests otherwise. Although listening and being hypnotized and brainwashed by Liberal propaganda all your life I would see where you could get easily get that impression.



> You don't condone "deviancy"? No one is asking you to do anything, or even like people, they're asking you to butt out of their lives.



At one time, that was my philosophy as well, *live and let live* untill I began researching what these perverts are inflicting on society , and in particular our youth . It's truly mind boggling - The Gay Agenda, is a sick warped and dangerous ideology being force fed upon society.   In the 1930s  many people preached a policy of tolerance towards the NAZI movement - look what happened there.  When someone is vicously assaulting the foundations of Human society and social evolution to suit their warped agenda - the philosophy of LIVE AND LET LIVE is ... Out the fucking window!!!



> Surely if they can marry, then you won't have to talk about them marrying all day, it'd remove this weight from your shoulders and you could concentrate on insulting others.



I have no problem with faggots and dykes getting married, I personally find it detestable, but my personal opinions on that issue should not interfere with their rights - which IMO should be equal to that of normal people in that respect.  Once you delve into adoption and child rearing ... well that's an entirely diff. issue.


----------



## frigidweirdo

GreenBean said:


> There is minimal evidence to suggest that anyone is "born" a faggot, the predominant evidence suggests otherwise. Although listening and being hypnotized and brainwashed by Liberal propaganda all your life I would see where you could get easily get that impression.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't condone "deviancy"? No one is asking you to do anything, or even like people, they're asking you to butt out of their lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At one time, that was my philosophy as well, *live and let live* untill I began researching what these perverts are inflicting on society , and in particular our youth . It's truly mind boggling - The Gay Agenda, is a sick warped and dangerous ideology being force fed upon society.   In the 1930s  many people preached a policy of tolerance towards the NAZI movement - look what happened there.  When someone is vicously assaulting the foundations of Human society and social evolution to suit their warped agenda - the philosophy of LIVE AND LET LIVE is ... Out the fucking window!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Surely if they can marry, then you won't have to talk about them marrying all day, it'd remove this weight from your shoulders and you could concentrate on insulting others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no problem with faggots and dykes getting married, I personally find it detestable, but my personal opinions on that issue should not interfere with their rights - which IMO should be equal to that of normal people in that respect.  Once you delve into adoption and child rearing ... well that's an entirely diff. issue.
Click to expand...


First, you continue to insult, why? Makes you feel powerful? Makes you feel right? Come off it.

Second, minimal evidence. So..... how could two twins be of different sexuality? 

Gay-Straight Identical Twin Study Seeks to Find Gay Genes

You'd assume they have had very similar experiences, especially at home, they were brought up the same, probably went to the same school and hung around with similar people. Why would one be gay and the other straight?

But, it actually makes no difference here. A person is free to choose things in their life, like what type of phone they have etc. They are also free to choose who they sleep with as long as it's consenting adults. 

So you used to preach live and let live, now you want to tell people what to do because you think you see a problem.

So, how exactly is the "Gay Agenda" sick and all the other terms you use? Because one guy who was the first person to get into office was accused of something? 

How many STRAIGHT politicians have been accused of things sexual? Loads.

Once you get into adopting, well, your prejudices are going to come to fore and you're going to ignore things from straight people and pin anything bad on all gay people, right?

I find a lot of rhetoric in what you say, and not much actual substance.


----------



## GISMYS

SICK SEXUAL PERVERSION IS A CHOICE, A VERY SICK CHOICE!!!===God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each others bodies. 25 They traded the truth about God for a lie. So they worshiped and served the things God created instead of the Creator himself, who is worthy of eternal praise! Amen. 26 That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. 27 And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved.

28 Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their foolish thinking and let them do things that should never be done. 
Romans 1:24-28


----------



## frigidweirdo

GISMYS said:


> SICK SEXUAL PERVERSION IS A CHOICE, A VERY SICK CHOICE!!!===God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each others bodies. 25 They traded the truth about God for a lie. So they worshiped and served the things God created instead of the Creator himself, who is worthy of eternal praise! Amen. 26 That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. 27 And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved.
> 
> 28 Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their foolish thinking and let them do things that should never be done.
> Romans 1:24-28



This isn't about religion. You can have your religion, but others don't agree with you, and the constitution allows them to do what they want as long as they don't hurt others. Get over it.


----------



## GISMYS

frigidweirdo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> SICK SEXUAL PERVERSION IS A CHOICE, A VERY SICK CHOICE!!!===God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each others bodies. 25 They traded the truth about God for a lie. So they worshiped and served the things God created instead of the Creator himself, who is worthy of eternal praise! Amen. 26 That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. 27 And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved.
> 
> 28 Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their foolish thinking and let them do things that should never be done.
> Romans 1:24-28
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't about religion. You can have your religion, but others don't agree with you, and the constitution allows them to do what they want as long as they don't hurt others. Get over it.
Click to expand...


God makes the rules not silly perverted little man!!! WISE UP!!  40 MILLION ALREADY FROM AIDS ANOTHER 40 MILLION HIV POSITIVE and millions more with other std's and ruined lives of shame and guilt!!!and you???


----------



## GreenBean

frigidweirdo said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is minimal evidence to suggest that anyone is "born" a faggot, the predominant evidence suggests otherwise. Although listening and being hypnotized and brainwashed by Liberal propaganda all your life I would see where you could get easily get that impression.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't condone "deviancy"? No one is asking you to do anything, or even like people, they're asking you to butt out of their lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At one time, that was my philosophy as well, *live and let live* untill I began researching what these perverts are inflicting on society , and in particular our youth . It's truly mind boggling - The Gay Agenda, is a sick warped and dangerous ideology being force fed upon society.   In the 1930s  many people preached a policy of tolerance towards the NAZI movement - look what happened there.  When someone is vicously assaulting the foundations of Human society and social evolution to suit their warped agenda - the philosophy of LIVE AND LET LIVE is ... Out the fucking window!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Surely if they can marry, then you won't have to talk about them marrying all day, it'd remove this weight from your shoulders and you could concentrate on insulting others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no problem with faggots and dykes getting married, I personally find it detestable, but my personal opinions on that issue should not interfere with their rights - which IMO should be equal to that of normal people in that respect.  Once you delve into adoption and child rearing ... well that's an entirely diff. issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, you continue to insult, why? Makes you feel powerful? Makes you feel right? Come off it.
> 
> Second, minimal evidence. So..... how could two twins be of different sexuality?
> 
> Gay-Straight Identical Twin Study Seeks to Find Gay Genes
> 
> You'd assume they have had very similar experiences, especially at home, they were brought up the same, probably went to the same school and hung around with similar people. Why would one be gay and the other straight?
> 
> But, it actually makes no difference here. A person is free to choose things in their life, like what type of phone they have etc. They are also free to choose who they sleep with as long as it's consenting adults.
> 
> So you used to preach live and let live, now you want to tell people what to do because you think you see a problem.
> 
> So, how exactly is the "Gay Agenda" sick and all the other terms you use? Because one guy who was the first person to get into office was accused of something?
> 
> How many STRAIGHT politicians have been accused of things sexual? Loads.
> 
> Once you get into adopting, well, your prejudices are going to come to fore and you're going to ignore things from straight people and pin anything bad on all gay people, right?
> 
> I find a lot of rhetoric in what you say, and not much actual substance.
Click to expand...


*Yo Frigginweirdo ...
*  Hello ... anybody home ... the lights on but it seems no one is there !




> First, you continue to insult, why? Makes you feel powerful? Makes you feel right? Come off it.



Why .. It makes *them* - {the faggots, queers, homos, dykes, cum guzzlers, sword swallowers, turd burglars, baby boinkers  you know basic LGBTperverts}  feel bad about themselves , which is a good thing - there is no pride in being mentally ill, there is disgrace in flaunting it.



> Second, minimal evidence. So..... how could two twins be of different sexuality?
> 
> Gay-Straight Identical Twin Study Seeks to Find Gay Genes



LMAO - this is where you turned the lights out , right frigginweirdo ??

If two twins , who are genetically identical have diff. sexual orientations that indicates that their sexuality is not an inherited defect .



> You'd assume they have had very similar experiences, especially at home, they were brought up the same, probably went to the same school and hung around with similar people. Why would one be gay and the other straight?



Twins do not necc. have identical experiences, they have similar ones.  There is frequently a dominating twin and a recessive one,  personalities are never identical. 

So far as the remainder of your rant, it's not worthy of a reply - go get an education, read a few books - if you can find any not products of Big Brother Liberal societal manipulators come back once you've acquired some knowledge - if that's at all possible, then perhaps we can have an intelligent conversation.... just perhaps ..... in the meantime your worth here is limited to pure entertainment . 


*Asshole*


----------



## frigidweirdo

GISMYS said:


> God makes the rules not silly perverted little man!!! WISE UP!!  40 MILLION ALREADY FROM AIDS ANOTHER 40 MILLION HIV POSITIVE and millions more with other std's and ruined lives of shame and guilt!!!and you???



Prove it. Prove God makes the rules. 

Prove God made the US Constitution and not the Founding Fathers.


----------



## frigidweirdo

GreenBean said:


> *Yo Frigginweirdo ...
> *  Hello ... anybody home ... the lights on but it seems no one is there !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why .. It makes *them* - {the faggots, queers, homos, dykes, cum guzzlers, sword swallowers, turd burglars, baby boinkers  you know basic LGBTperverts}  feel bad about themselves , which is a good thing - there is no pride in being mentally ill, there is disgrace in flaunting it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Second, minimal evidence. So..... how could two twins be of different sexuality?
> 
> Gay-Straight Identical Twin Study Seeks to Find Gay Genes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO - this is where you turned the lights out , right frigginweirdo ??
> 
> If two twins , who are genetically identical have diff. sexual orientations that indicates that their sexuality is not an inherited defect .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'd assume they have had very similar experiences, especially at home, they were brought up the same, probably went to the same school and hung around with similar people. Why would one be gay and the other straight?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Twins do not necc. have identical experiences, they have similar ones.  There is frequently a dominating twin and a recessive one,  personalities are never identical.
> 
> So far as the remainder of your rant, it's not worthy of a reply - go get an education, read a few books - if you can find any not products of Big Brother Liberal societal manipulators come back once you've acquired some knowledge - if that's at all possible, then perhaps we can have an intelligent conversation.... just perhaps ..... in the meantime your worth here is limited to pure entertainment .
> 
> 
> *Asshole*
Click to expand...


Well done on your attempted insult, it makes me think you're so much better than you actually are.  

Sigh. 

Second, you insult because you think it makes people feel bad about themselves. So you're a peddler of hate, and you wouldn't think twice about hurting people.
From someone who claims to be interested in the children, but then doesn't give a damn about adults, it seems to be a typical view point: pro-life and then supporting executions. Doesn't make sense. 

So you think that bullying is the answer to your problems? Not much I can really say about that, I think I'll leave it to your conscience and if you ever hope to go anywhere good on your deathbed, well.....

Twins have almost identical genes, not identical, no one has identical, are born under the SAME ENVIRONMENT, why do you think one is gay and the other isn't. Is it the environment? 

Er.....

You want me to be educated and half your argument is insulting people. I'll think I'll pass on your "advice" for now.

If you have a point to make, MAKE IT, if you have an insult to make, KEEP IT TO YOURSELF.


----------



## GreenBean

frigidweirdo said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Yo Frigginweirdo ...
> *  Hello ... anybody home ... the lights on but it seems no one is there !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why .. It makes *them* - {the faggots, queers, homos, dykes, cum guzzlers, sword swallowers, turd burglars, baby boinkers  you know basic LGBTperverts}  feel bad about themselves , which is a good thing - there is no pride in being mentally ill, there is disgrace in flaunting it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Second, minimal evidence. So..... how could two twins be of different sexuality?
> 
> Gay-Straight Identical Twin Study Seeks to Find Gay Genes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO - this is where you turned the lights out , right frigginweirdo ??
> 
> If two twins , who are genetically identical have diff. sexual orientations that indicates that their sexuality is not an inherited defect .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'd assume they have had very similar experiences, especially at home, they were brought up the same, probably went to the same school and hung around with similar people. Why would one be gay and the other straight?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Twins do not necc. have identical experiences, they have similar ones.  There is frequently a dominating twin and a recessive one,  personalities are never identical.
> 
> So far as the remainder of your rant, it's not worthy of a reply - go get an education, read a few books - if you can find any not products of Big Brother Liberal societal manipulators come back once you've acquired some knowledge - if that's at all possible, then perhaps we can have an intelligent conversation.... just perhaps ..... in the meantime your worth here is limited to pure entertainment .
> 
> 
> *Asshole*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well done on your attempted insult, it makes me think you're so much better than you actually are.
> 
> Sigh.
> 
> Second, you insult because you think it makes people feel bad about themselves. So you're a peddler of hate, and you wouldn't think twice about hurting people.
> From someone who claims to be interested in the children, but then doesn't give a damn about adults, it seems to be a typical view point: pro-life and then supporting executions. Doesn't make sense.
> 
> So you think that bullying is the answer to your problems? Not much I can really say about that, I think I'll leave it to your conscience and if you ever hope to go anywhere good on your deathbed, well.....
> 
> Twins have almost identical genes, not identical, no one has identical, are born under the SAME ENVIRONMENT, why do you think one is gay and the other isn't. Is it the environment?
> 
> Er.....
> 
> You want me to be educated and half your argument is insulting people. I'll think I'll pass on your "advice" for now.
> 
> If you have a point to make, MAKE IT, if you have an insult to make, KEEP IT TO YOURSELF.
Click to expand...




> So you think that bullying is the answer to your problems? Not much I can really say about that, I think I'll leave it to your conscience and.
Click to expand...


Comer here dumbass - let me smack you up da side ya head 




> Twins have almost identical genes, not identical, no one has identical, are born under the SAME ENVIRONMENT, why do you think one is gay and the other isn't. Is it the environment?



In some instances  - and there is some evidence indicative of there being a biological reason , outside of genetics, that could cause faggots to be faggots - but that is somewhat sketchy and even if correct, only applies to a small percentage of Queers.   Dykes are another story altogether.   *Does that answer your  question faggot ?* ... what you're not a faggot ... then I guess you just have latent homosexuai tendencies, is that correct fruitcake ?


----------



## frigidweirdo

GreenBean said:


> Comer here dumbass - let me smack you up da side ya head
> 
> 
> 
> In some instances  - and there is some evidence indicative of there being a biological reason , outside of genetics, that could cause faggots to be faggots - but that is somewhat sketchy and even if correct, only applies to a small percentage of Queers.   Dykes are another story altogether.   *Does that answer your  question faggot ?* ... what you're not a faggot ... then I guess you just have latent homosexuai tendencies, is that correct fruitcake ?



What the feck is wrong with you? Seriously? 

Do you actually want to be taken seriously? Or do you just come on here to up your ego by bullying.

There's no real point in talking to people like you, you don't have much of an opinion, and all that comes out of your mouth is just insults. Like I've told other people on this board recently, unless you change and become a decent human being, i won't waste my time with you.

Isn't it funny how many people who oppose gay people are also the small minded people who have to insult and pass it off as an argument?


----------



## GISMYS

GOD'S WORDS ON SICK SEXUAL PERVERSION. IT IS A CHOICE, A VERY SICK CHOICE!!!===God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each others bodies. 25 They traded the truth about God for a lie. So they worshiped and served the things God created instead of the Creator himself, who is worthy of eternal praise! Amen. 26 That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. 27 And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved.

28 Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their foolish thinking and let them do things that should never be done. 
Romans 1:24-28

God makes the rules not silly perverted little man!!! WISE UP!! 40 MILLION ALREADY FROM AIDS ANOTHER 40 MILLION HIV POSITIVE and millions more with other std's and ruined lives of shame and guilt!!!and you???


----------



## JakeStarkey

Above we see the desires of the hetero-fascists and homophobes regardless of either the law or the facts


----------



## peach174

Homosexuality is not a mental disorder.
It's a temptation just like all of the other sins, like drinking and drugs.


----------



## frigidweirdo

peach174 said:


> Homosexuality is not a mental disorder.
> It's a temptation just like all of the other sins, like drinking and drugs.



All the other sins, like having fun and living life, you mean?


----------



## GreenBean

frigidweirdo said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Comer here dumbass - let me smack you up da side ya head
> 
> 
> 
> In some instances  - and there is some evidence indicative of there being a biological reason , outside of genetics, that could cause faggots to be faggots - but that is somewhat sketchy and even if correct, only applies to a small percentage of Queers.   Dykes are another story altogether.   *Does that answer your  question faggot ?* ... what you're not a faggot ... then I guess you just have latent homosexuai tendencies, is that correct fruitcake ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the feck is wrong with you? Seriously?
> 
> Do you actually want to be taken seriously? Or do you just come on here to up your ego by bullying.
> 
> There's no real point in talking to people like you, you don't have much of an opinion, and all that comes out of your mouth is just insults. Like I've told other people on this board recently, unless you change and become a decent human being, i won't waste my time with you.
> 
> Isn't it funny how many people who oppose gay people are also the small minded people who have to insult and pass it off as an argument?
Click to expand...




Yup, you've been here a whole couple of days now , and you're another *know* nothing - *no* it all blow hard [pun intended]


----------



## GreenBean

peach174 said:


> Homosexuality is not a mental disorder.
> It's a temptation just like all of the other sins, like drinking and drugs.



I guess you could stretch it by equating sticking a needle in your arm for shits n giggles to sticking your schwanz up another mans butt for shits n giggles ... oy!


----------



## Barb

The Gay Marriage Joke That Instantly Made This Guy One Of My Favorite Comedians

succinct.


----------



## protectionist

Barb said:


> The Gay Marriage Joke That Instantly Made This Guy One Of My Favorite Comedians
> 
> succinct.



succinctly idiotic.   There were a few nice-looking chicks in the audience, though.  Trouble is, the video spent too much time on the clown on the stage.


----------



## protectionist

frigidweirdo said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Faggots are lacking in many areas of Human decency, but the ability to contribute to society and earn a good living are not one of the areas they a deficient in.
> 
> Gay People More Financially Secure Despite Unique Barriers: Study
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So how much are people who insult other people with terms like "queer" and "faggots" promoting human decency?
Click to expand...


Since when is a word that queers call themselves, an insult ?

Queer Nation NY

And even if there were no queers calling themselves that, what's wrong with using a word that accurately describes people by what they do ? (which in this case, happens to be "queer")  At least it is a correct designation, which is not the case with the word "gay".


----------



## KevinWestern

GISMYS said:


> GOD'S WORDS ON SICK SEXUAL PERVERSION. IT IS A CHOICE, A VERY SICK CHOICE!!!===God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other&#8217;s bodies. 25 They traded the truth about God for a lie. So they worshiped and served the things God created instead of the Creator himself, who is worthy of eternal praise! Amen. 26 That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. 27 And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved.
> 
> 28 Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their foolish thinking and let them do things that should never be done.
> Romans 1:24-28
> 
> God makes the rules not silly perverted little man!!! WISE UP!! 40 MILLION ALREADY FROM AIDS ANOTHER 40 MILLION HIV POSITIVE and millions more with other std's and ruined lives of shame and guilt!!!and you???



Let's not use the Bible as "evidence" in these sorts of discussions. Its simply a collection of stories written by man after years of passing down info via word of mouth. It's been revised, changed, and structured to serve the countless leaders who used the text to benefit their own needs. 

Not saying that God doesn't exist, or that Jesus absolutely wasn't his son, I'm just saying that using the text as "evidence" in a debate to prove that an activity is wrong is inherently flawed. 

I would not refer to a book written in 1600 to learn more about black culture, just as I would not refer to a book recorded thousands of years ago to learn how to approach gays.


----------



## beagle9

peach174 said:


> Homosexuality is not a mental disorder.
> It's a temptation just like all of the other sins, like drinking and drugs.


Ok so it's a temptation according to you, otherwise absent of a mental disorder, but isn't there something wrong if a person engages in these temptations that are known to be sin ? 

Now if there is something wrong, then what is it, a mental disorder ? Where does this mental disorder develope from, and why did it develope ?  Many events and happenings create mental disorders in people's lives (PTSD) for example is just one, where as it then leads people to many avenues that otherwise normal thinking people would not have been lead to within what is to be deemed normal situations.  There are triggers that create disorders, and many in America are now afflicted with many disorders sadly enough.   Many need help, but the author of confusion (the evil one), wishes to keep them in confusion all the days of their lives. It is his will and his wish to destroy mankind as much as possible, and he has an arsenal of weapons in his tool pouch in which he uses to do so. People must resist him at every turn, as he awaits them at every turn. He never tires until his time is at hand, then he will count up his souls collected, and will attempt to leave with them.   Don't be on that bus or get off at the nearest exit quick.


----------



## GISMYS

You deny and ignore God's Word at your own peril,God always knew what the sin of sexual perversion would cost man=40 million + dead of aids another 40 million hiv positive,millions more with other std's =ruined lives of shame and guilt!!! ALL YOUR CHOICE!!


----------



## beagle9

KevinWestern said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> GOD'S WORDS ON SICK SEXUAL PERVERSION. IT IS A CHOICE, A VERY SICK CHOICE!!!===God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other&#8217;s bodies. 25 They traded the truth about God for a lie. So they worshiped and served the things God created instead of the Creator himself, who is worthy of eternal praise! Amen. 26 That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. 27 And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved.
> 
> 28 Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their foolish thinking and let them do things that should never be done.
> Romans 1:24-28
> 
> God makes the rules not silly perverted little man!!! WISE UP!! 40 MILLION ALREADY FROM AIDS ANOTHER 40 MILLION HIV POSITIVE and millions more with other std's and ruined lives of shame and guilt!!!and you???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's not use the Bible as "evidence" in these sorts of discussions. Its simply a collection of stories written by man after years of passing down info via word of mouth. It's been revised, changed, and structured to serve the countless leaders who used the text to benefit their own needs.
> 
> Not saying that God doesn't exist, or that Jesus absolutely wasn't his son, I'm just saying that using the text as "evidence" in a debate to prove that an activity is wrong is inherently flawed.
> 
> I would not refer to a book written in 1600 to learn more about black culture, just as I would not refer to a book recorded thousands of years ago to learn how to approach gays.
Click to expand...

Then you are an intelect who see's only words without substance, and therefore you speak words without substance or meaning as a result of. 

You sir undoubtedly do not know the meanings and/or the importance of words as they are spoken by those who have come before you, nor do you understand their revelations as found in the aftermath of what is now known to be their actions in which had been spoken over time, nor do you understand their consequences that bring about their revelations in which we are now in the midst of as we speak. It is an epic on going struggle between man and his own spirit, and said man must finally understand before it is to late for him as an individual, that he battles against principalities and evil spirits in which he can not grasp nor battle in his life all by himself.  Now if you did, then you would not have wrote what you just wrote I would assure you of that.


----------



## beagle9

It is that we have a nation that is consumed in sin now, and the tresspasser has stolen the show temporarily, but there is hope for those who are still strong & humble enough in their lives to turn, and it is always this hope that leads one to do so for which he (God) has given unto us as his creation.  Hopefully they will soon do the right thing in their lives (all who have sinned or do sin), as it is never to late to repent & to truly turn while the breath is still found within the body. To say that it can't be done is a lie straight out of Hell.  It is a lie in which the evil one wants you to except and to believe, but don't do it. Begin to rebuke him in the name of Jesus Christ every time he attacks you. This can be done silently as it needs no showing.  Begin to pray about it, and that needs no showing also.

Never let "man" try and make anyone think that it is to late, for man hath no power to save nor to give one life after death. Only one has that power, and we shall all meet him one day soon. Amen!


----------



## frigidweirdo

protectionist said:


> Since when is a word that queers call themselves, an insult ?
> 
> Queer Nation NY
> 
> And even if there were no queers calling themselves that, what's wrong with using a word that accurately describes people by what they do ? (which in this case, happens to be "queer")  At least it is a correct designation, which is not the case with the word "gay".



Since when has the word "n*gger", that black people will sometimes call themselves, been a insult?

Er.....


----------



## GreenBean

frigidweirdo said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since when is a word that queers call themselves, an insult ?
> 
> Queer Nation NY
> 
> And even if there were no queers calling themselves that, what's wrong with using a word that accurately describes people by what they do ? (which in this case, happens to be "queer")  At least it is a correct designation, which is not the case with the word "gay".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since when has the word "n*gger", that black people will sometimes call themselves, been a insult?
> 
> Er.....
Click to expand...


Unbelievable, I read through the last six posts on this board , all from articulate and intelligent people.  KevinWestern, beagle9, protectionist and end up with this claptrap from some from cretin half wit using the moniker "frigginweirdo" ,  total waste case  ... holy shit!

Yo weirdo !  Stop trying  to equate an honorable race of Human beings with your demented perversions - stop trying to hide behind Black people in your insatiable drive to lend credence and respectability to your mental disease.  You sir are are Queer,  "*******" as you like to refer to them as, are respectable Human Beings ...Queers are not worthy of much respect at all.    ....  *Big Difference ... GOT IT* !?


----------



## protectionist

frigidweirdo said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since when is a word that queers call themselves, an insult ?
> 
> Queer Nation NY
> 
> And even if there were no queers calling themselves that, what's wrong with using a word that accurately describes people by what they do ? (which in this case, happens to be "queer")  At least it is a correct designation, which is not the case with the word "gay".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since when has the word "n*gger", that black people will sometimes call themselves, been a insult?.
Click to expand...


That wasn't the question.


----------



## frigidweirdo

protectionist said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since when is a word that queers call themselves, an insult ?
> 
> Queer Nation NY
> 
> And even if there were no queers calling themselves that, what's wrong with using a word that accurately describes people by what they do ? (which in this case, happens to be "queer")  At least it is a correct designation, which is not the case with the word "gay".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since when has the word "n*gger", that black people will sometimes call themselves, been a insult?.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That wasn't the question.
Click to expand...


And that certainly isn't the answer.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

"Historically, some cultures and religions accommodated, institutionalized, or revered, same-sex love and sexuality;[1][2] such mythologies and traditions can be found around the world.[3] For example, Hinduism does not view homosexuality as a religious sin.[4] In 2009, the Hindu Council UK became one of the first major religious organizations to support LGBT rights when they issued a statement "Hinduism does not condemn homosexuality"."

Various major religions position(s) on homosexuality.
Religion and homosexuality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One can't help but notice though, absent religion, condemnation of homosexuality is impossible.


----------



## editec

If caring about other people's SEX LIVES a mental illness?

Or is it just SIN?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Delta4Embassy said:


> "Historically, some cultures and religions accommodated, institutionalized, or revered, same-sex love and sexuality;[1][2] such mythologies and traditions can be found around the world.[3] For example, Hinduism does not view homosexuality as a religious sin.[4] In 2009, the Hindu Council UK became one of the first major religious organizations to support LGBT rights when they issued a statement "Hinduism does not condemn homosexuality"."
> 
> Various major religions position(s) on homosexuality.
> Religion and homosexuality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> One can't help but notice though, absent religion, condemnation of homosexuality is impossible.



Homosexuality is natures way of filtering the gene pool - who am I to interfere with the removal of bad genes?


----------



## GISMYS

homosexuality is a set  trap and lie by satan. homosexuality is a sick choice=an abomination before God!!!


----------



## frigidweirdo

Uncensored2008 said:


> Homosexuality is natures way of filtering the gene pool - who am I to interfere with the removal of bad genes?



Maybe it's nature's way of telling us there are too many people on this planet.


----------



## Noomi

GISMYS said:


> You deny and ignore God's Word at your own peril,God always knew what the sin of sexual perversion would cost man=40 million + dead of aids another 40 million hiv positive,millions more with other std's =ruined lives of shame and guilt!!! ALL YOUR CHOICE!!



Okay, Shirley Phelps - Roper, go back under your rock, please.


----------



## GISMYS

Noomi said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> You deny and ignore God's Word at your own peril,God always knew what the sin of sexual perversion would cost man=40 million + dead of aids another 40 million hiv positive,millions more with other std's =ruined lives of shame and guilt!!! ALL YOUR CHOICE!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, Shirley Phelps - Roper, go back under your rock, please.
Click to expand...


confess,repent and God will forgive you and wash you clean!! God wants you to live and not die in sin.


----------



## frigidweirdo

GISMYS said:


> confess,repent and God will forgive you and wash you clean!! God wants you to live and not die in sin.



Yeah, how do you know? Oh, wait, someone claiming to have the word of God said so. Well I am God, and I say you're wrong, so there.


----------



## GISMYS

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,nor sodomites,  10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 1 corinthians 6:9-10


----------



## Political Junky

GISMYS said:


> Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,nor sodomites,  10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 1 corinthians 6:9-10


Psychological experts ruled that homosexuality is not a mental disorder some 40 years ago. You're citing rules that are some 4,000 years old.


----------



## GISMYS

Political Junky said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,nor sodomites,  10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 1 corinthians 6:9-10
> 
> 
> 
> Psychological experts ruled that homosexuality is not a mental disorder some 40 years ago. You're citing rules that are some 4,000 years old.
Click to expand...


WISE UP!!! GOD makes the rules not little man!!! God says sick sexual perversion is an abomination!!! confess,repent and ask God to forgive you and wash you clean,He will!!


----------



## GISMYS

God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves,  25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature.  27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting;  29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers,  30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,  31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving,unmerciful;  32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.
Romans 1:24-32   confess and repent God would forgive and wash you clean,God wants you to live and not die sick sexual perversion.


----------



## frigidweirdo

GISMYS said:


> Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,nor sodomites,  10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 1 corinthians 6:9-10




Oh no, what will I do if I don't inherit the kingdom of God, doesn't he need to die before I can inherit? But seeing as he's not alive in the first place, this might be rather difficult.


----------



## frigidweirdo

GISMYS said:


> WISE UP!!! GOD makes the rules not little man!!! God says sick sexual perversion is an abomination!!! confess,repent and ask God to forgive you and wash you clean,He will!!



Only God made "sick abomination" apparently.


----------

