Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
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.
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.
Before going further in this discussion I think I should clarify my position where homosexuality is concerned.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 .
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.
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 .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.
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.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.
REPORT: PEDOPHILIA MORE COMMON AMONG 'GAYS'
Homosexuals and the Pedophile Connection
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.
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 universeOriginally "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) “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’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.”
(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) “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.”
3) “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…”
4) “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.”
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?"
That declaration would be meaningful if it came from some significant source.Which is why I usually laugh when somebodys says a psychologists says....
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.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?
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 encyclopediaAnd why is it perfectly normal to be homosexual, supposedly from birth but deviant to be repulsed by it?
I agree. The hormonal imbalance which is believed to foster homosexual impulses occurs pre-natally: Prenatal hormones and sexual orientation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaAnd who says one can't be born that way? It's unintelligent and hypocritical.
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.
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.
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.
You breeders would say that.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.
I once asked a gay Christian why God made gays. He had to think about it and finally said "to keep other gays happy".
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.
to get my picture removed?
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.
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
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.
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.
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."
.... the gay community demands that the discussion end with, if you think sodomy is sinful, then you are a "homophobe," and hate gay people
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.
