Is LGBT Functioning as a Cult Under the Guise of "A Civil Rights Movement"?

[Silhouette]

There's no doubt about it. LGBT/NAMBLA is a cult of the worst kind (save Jim Jones but they're probably not far from that).

Fun fact. LGBT icon and messiah Harvey Milk loved to sodomize teen boys. He was an avid defender of Jim Jones back when all that was going down..you know...just before they all drank the Koolaide...

60+ LGBT groups from Mexico, the US & Canada recently lobbied hard [knowing Milk's past and sex partners as teen boys] to get this stamp commemorated of him as representative of themselves [see the rainbow "USA" at the top]. Just look at his lurker pose. It makes your flesh crawl. You can picture this guy sitting in a panel van just outside the elementary school with a bowl of candy inside...

 

[JakeStarkey]

Is LGBT Functioning as a Cult Under the Guise of "A Civil Rights Movement"? Nope, Christians don't get to decide what is cultic, considering our past.

 

[Silhouette]

Is LGBT Functioning as a Cult Under the Guise of "A Civil Rights Movement"? Nope, Christians don't get to decide what is cultic, considering our past.

Maybe that's true. But given the escalating fascist-tactics being employed by LGBT mafiosos and organized militants, even as far as unseating the first sitting Pope in 700 years via blackmail, the CIA or the FBI or PSYOPS may "get to decide what is cultic"...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Is LGBT Functioning as a Cult Under the Guise of "A Civil Rights Movement"?

No.

Gay Americans seeking their comprehensive civil liberties does not constitute a ‘cult.’

The 5th Amendment’s Liberty Clause guarantees each American the right to self-determination, to express himself as an individual absent interference by the state.

The 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause guarantees each American the right to access all of a state’s laws, including marriage law that same-sex couples are eligible to participate in.

There is no rational basis upon which to deny gay Americans their civil liberties, there is no documented, objective evidence in support, and to seek to do so does not pursue a proper legislative end – which is why the courts have invalidated measures hostile to gay Americans’ civil liberties.

You and others on the right seek only to disadvantage gay Americans motivated by fear and hate.

 

[Silhouette]

In order to argue what you just did, your premise that's assumed [but not proven against the mountain of evidence against it] would have to be sound. It isn't. There are scores upon scores of hard data showing deviant sexual orientations/fetishes are learned behaviors.

Under the premise of "gay is a learned behavior", the rest of your entire argument falls to pieces. Behaviors don't have civil rights unless they're a recognized religion.

The act of falling in "sexual love" with a member of your same gender is a behavior and not an intrinsic state of being. It is an acquired behavior; a skewed manifestation of a normal sexual drive that was warped in childhood/adolescence. Or "tampered with" as the gays say...

Bulimia is similar. Do we reward bulimics by saying to the general public, "we are now recognizing bulimia as a perfectly equal and normal eating behavior" so that bulimics don't have to feel weird, in the closet etc? No, aberrent behaviors no matter how organized and delusional as such do not get deemed "normal" just because they are becoming more and more aggressively evangelical...

 

[JakeStarkey]

Is LGBT Functioning as a Cult Under the Guise of "A Civil Rights Movement"? Nope, Christians don't get to decide what is cultic, considering our past.

Maybe that's true. But given the escalating fascist-tactics being employed by LGBT mafiosos and organized militants, even as far as unseating the first sitting Pope in 700 years via blackmail, the CIA or the FBI or PSYOPS may "get to decide what is cultic"...

Maybe that's true but we have escalating hetero-fascist tactic (your OP, for instance) trying to deny civil rights.

The Pope thing above is one of the all time craziest, funniest deflections the Board has ever witnessed.

Bravo!

 

[JakeStarkey]

In order to argue what you just did, your premise that's assumed [but not proven against the mountain of evidence against it] would have to be sound. It isn't. There are scores upon scores of hard data showing deviant sexual orientations/fetishes are learned behaviors.

Under the premise of "gay is a learned behavior", the rest of your entire argument falls to pieces. Behaviors don't have civil rights unless they're a recognized religion.

The act of falling in "sexual love" with a member of your same gender is a behavior and not an intrinsic state of being. It is an acquired behavior; a skewed manifestation of a normal sexual drive that was warped in childhood/adolescence. Or "tampered with" as the gays say...

Bulimia is similar. Do we reward bulimics by saying to the general public, "we are now recognizing bulimia as a perfectly equal and normal eating behavior" so that bulimics don't have to feel weird, in the closet etc? No, aberrent behaviors no matter how organized and delusional as such do not get deemed "normal" just because they are becoming more and more aggressively evangelical...

Under the failure of the premise of "gay is a learned behavior", the rest of Sil's entire argument falls to pieces

 

[Asclepias]

In order to argue what you just did, your premise that's assumed [but not proven against the mountain of evidence against it] would have to be sound. It isn't. There are scores upon scores of hard data showing deviant sexual orientations/fetishes are learned behaviors.

Under the premise of "gay is a learned behavior", the rest of your entire argument falls to pieces. Behaviors don't have civil rights unless they're a recognized religion.

The act of falling in "sexual love" with a member of your same gender is a behavior and not an intrinsic state of being. It is an acquired behavior; a skewed manifestation of a normal sexual drive that was warped in childhood/adolescence. Or "tampered with" as the gays say...

Bulimia is similar. Do we reward bulimics by saying to the general public, "we are now recognizing bulimia as a perfectly equal and normal eating behavior" so that bulimics don't have to feel weird, in the closet etc? No, aberrent behaviors no matter how organized and delusional as such do not get deemed "normal" just because they are becoming more and more aggressively evangelical...

Your argument is a logical failure. Bulimics can get married anywhere in the nation as long as they are also hetero. That long winded post simply missed that point.

 

[Yurt]

Seeking to keep women from voting is despicable.

Seeking to keep blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, Asian Americans from voting is despicable.

Seeking to keep people from marrying whom they wish is despicable.

The Circuit Court seems divided 2 - 1.

so you support incest marriages?

 

[DriftingSand]

Seeking to keep women from voting is despicable.

Seeking to keep blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, Asian Americans from voting is despicable.

Seeking to keep people from marrying whom they wish is despicable.

The Circuit Court seems divided 2 - 1.

Forcing the world to accept the homosexual lifestyle is despicable.

Forcing Christian businesses (or any businesses for that matter) to cater to causes they oppose is despicable.

If we can all agree that a Christian baker shouldn't have to decorate a cake with a swastika for a neo-nazi group then we can agree that the same baker shouldn't be forced to decorate a cake with decorations promoting or reflecting the homosexual lifestyle. Period!!

The business shouldn't be punished for exercising that simple right.

 

[JFK_USA]

Seeking to keep women from voting is despicable.

Seeking to keep blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, Asian Americans from voting is despicable.

Seeking to keep people from marrying whom they wish is despicable.

The Circuit Court seems divided 2 - 1.

Forcing the world to accept the homosexual lifestyle is despicable.

Forcing Christian businesses (or any businesses for that matter) to cater to causes they oppose is despicable.

If we can all agree that a Christian baker shouldn't have to decorate a cake with a swastika for a neo-nazi group then we can agree that the same baker shouldn't be forced to decorate a cake with decorations promoting or reflecting the homosexual lifestyle. Period!!

The business shouldn't be punished for exercising that simple right.

Southern businesses use that same logic by degrading and segregating blacks in the Jim Crow era. Your example is terrible because he isn't selling the swastika cake to a certain type of people, he isn't selling the cake period. If he sells a 5 layer wedding cake to any heterosexual couple but refuses to sell the exact type of cake to any homosexual couple, that's discriminating against a group of people for no other reason than for being gay.

If your business is open to the public and you offer to build wedding cakes to the general paying public but then discriminate against certain couples, that is against the law and unconstitutional regardless of religious beliefs.

In Loving Vs Virginia, the Supreme Court case that unanimously ruled that outlawing interracial marriages are unconstitutional, the Virginia judge's opinion that convicted then stated that God intended races to be separated because they were on different continents therefore outlawing interracial marriage is justified because of God.

He used his religion to discriminate against a certain type of married couple and that was ruled unconstitutional.

There is no difference under the laws of a secular nation between a gay marriage and an interracial marriage. There are limits to your religious freedom. You can have the free exercise of your religion but you can't use your religion to infringe on the rights of others.

 

[Silhouette]

Southern businesses use that same logic by degrading and segregating blacks in the Jim Crow era. Your example is terrible because he isn't selling the swastika cake to a certain type of people, he isn't selling the cake period. If he sells a 5 layer wedding cake to any heterosexual couple but refuses to sell the exact type of cake to any homosexual couple, that's discriminating against a group of people for no other reason than for being gay.

"Being gay" is a question of behavior. That changes everything about your argument. Essentially what we have here is one cult dictating to a recognized religion what edicts it may or may not follow. It is the attempt of a deviant sexual fetish cult to erase the 1st amendment rights of others and to force them to enable and elevate their own skewed and antithetical value system above their own. Gays and LGBTs aren't even shy about the fact that this is a "culture war". A culture is not a race. It is a fad trying to usurp another set of values. May the strongest in this contest win.

Unless you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that gays are "born that way" and their behaviors don't instead follow much more closely to learned behavioral issues, you cannot force another religion to abandon itself in favor of a deviant-sexual cult.

As of this post, we have 60% of posters polling that LGBT at least has the overtones of a cult [so it's worthy for further exploration], 30% professing that it is not a cult. And 10% "other". Odd that 60% would see it as a cult. There's probably a reason for that. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

 

[Asclepias]

Seeking to keep women from voting is despicable.

Seeking to keep blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, Asian Americans from voting is despicable.

Seeking to keep people from marrying whom they wish is despicable.

The Circuit Court seems divided 2 - 1.

Forcing the world to accept the homosexual lifestyle is despicable.

Forcing Christian businesses (or any businesses for that matter) to cater to causes they oppose is despicable.

If we can all agree that a Christian baker shouldn't have to decorate a cake with a swastika for a neo-nazi group then we can agree that the same baker shouldn't be forced to decorate a cake with decorations promoting or reflecting the homosexual lifestyle. Period!!

The business shouldn't be punished for exercising that simple right.

No one is forcing you to become homosexual. You are being force to render the same services to everyone in the public that enters your store. You dont like it then get out of the business arena.

I dont agree that a Christian baker should be able to deny making a cake for a nazi group. If they are open for business then the retarded nazis get serviced like anyone else.

 

[Silhouette]

No one is forcing you to become homosexual. You are being force to render the same services to everyone in the public that enters your store. You dont like it then get out of the business arena.

I dont agree that a Christian baker should be able to deny making a cake for a nazi group. If they are open for business then the retarded nazis get serviced like anyone else.

You cannot strip a religious person of their 1st Amendment rights to reject the dogmatic "values" of the cult of LGBT.

LGBT are a collection of deviant sexual fetish BEHAVIORS. Learned sometime in childhood or at the threshold of puberty. Behaviors do not have rights. Unless they are a recognized religion. And so even if LGBT was a recognized religion instead of a dangerous fascist cult, they would not have the right to force christians or muslims to practice their brand of "faith" by enabling it by making a "gay wedding cake". For in a christian or muslim world, making a "gay wedding cake" means enabling a cult of LGBT. And doing so casts them along with the deviants into the pit of fire for eternity. [Jude 1, Romans 1]. So you're forcing them to abandon their contract with their God in order to cater to [literally] the devil.

This isn't about some passing mention of a passe' remnant food law from the Old Testament. Jude and Romans are of the New Testament. Jude describes how not just one man or a group of them were punished for enabling homosexuality. It describes how an entire region was wiped off the map for the faithful standing by and allowing themselves to be steamrollered over by the deviant culture nipping at their heels. These passages implore the faithful that their helpless inaction in fending this deviant culture off spells their certain doom. And they hold out Sodom as the prime example of "what we will do to you folks again if you fail to remember".

You cannot require faithful people to abandon their faith for another. Not especially in circumstances this dire..

 

[auditor0007]

From this conversation's post # 455 http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...always-been-between-a-man-and-a-woman-31.html

The First Amendment prohibits religious belief from becoming US law. This is known as "the separation of church and state". Not everyone believes your religion so it is not "freedom" to impose your religious views on members of the general public through legislation. Why is this so difficult to understand?

Writing a law based on a Bible passage which defines marriage as only between a man and a woman in order to discriminate against tens of thousands of gay and lesbian couples is in direct violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. So the question stands, "Do Teabaggers want to abolish the First Amendment in order to push through their religious laws?"

Then why is the cult of LGBT trying to force what it does on other religions who forbid enabling such a cult to expand and thrive in a culture they're in?

LGBT is a de facto religion. They have rules of conduct, they actively evangelize [don't believe me? Watch TV] and they punish heretics within and outside the fold. Think of Anne Heche's name being synonymous with "traitor" and what they just did to the Mozilla guy..

Don't kid yourself. They freely admit this is a "culture war". They are one religion, a cult, actively seeking to extinguish the 1st Amendment rights, and thereby the active components of the faith they're after extinguishing. Key components of christianity interfere with the expansion of the new cult. Such as the forbidding of homosexual behavior and homosexual enabling. So one cult sees the other as the enemy that has to be extinguished in order for it's own dogma to survive. And it is actively engaged in doing just that under the ruse of "a legitimate civil rights movement". Behaviors outside federally-recognized religions don't have "civil rights". Especially when those "civil rights" seek to force the faithful of other longstanding religions abandon their core values to accomodate a new religion that embraces core dogma diametrically opposed to faithful christians, muslims etc.

Make no mistake. LGBTs DO NOT want a discussion of their idiology as having behavior at its base. Because if that topic gets explored, the only conclusion that can be arrived at is that we are dealing with a de facto cult. And cults have no place expanding and in so doing forcing christians and other faithful to abandon their 1st Amendment rights.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

People aren' born gay.

Proof?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Is LGBT Functioning as a Cult Under the Guise of "A Civil Rights Movement"?

What planet do you people sprout on?

 

[Silhouette]

People aren' born gay.

Proof?

Let me guess. Even the CDC, Mayo Clinic and 300+ peer-reviewed scientific stuides won't be enough to convince you if you can point to just 3 or 4 "American Psychological Association" funded studies that refute this? Bear in mind that the APA was taken over by a gay cabal in the 1970s who systematically and secretly removed the ruling Leona Tyler scientific principle and replaced it with a gay political agenda. Google "Leona Tyler" and "Cummings" for details..

ATLANTA [2005 Clinical Psychiatry News] -- Substance abuse is pervasive among gay men and is so intricately intertwined with epidemics of depression, partner abuse, and childhood sexual abuse that adequately addressing one issue requires attention to the others as well, said Ronald Stall, Ph.D., chief of prevention research for the division of HIV/AIDS prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta...

2007 Mayo Clinic:
One of the most obvious examples of an environmental
factor that increases the chances of an individual becoming
an offender is if he or she were sexually abused as a child.
This relationship is known as the “victim-to-abuser cycle”
or “abused-abusers phenomena.”
5,23,24,46...

...
why the “abused abusers phenomena” occurs: identification with the aggressor,
in which the abused child is trying to gain a new
identity by becoming the abuser; an imprinted sexual
arousal pattern established by early abuse; early abuse
leading to hypersexual behavior; or a form of social learning took place http://www.drrichardhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf

And this peer-reviewed and approved paper with over 300 peer-reviewed and approved studies in its bibliography supporting its conclusions that not only is sexual orientation learned, but it is learned from cues an individual takes from its environment/social matrix:

Conditioning and Sexual Behavior; A Review

http://www.pphp.concordia.ca/fac/pfaus/Pfaus-Kippin-Centeno(2001).pdf

James G. Pfaus,1 Tod E. Kippin, and Soraya Centeno
Center for Studies in Behavioral Neurobiology, Department of Psychology, Concordia
University, 1455 deMaisonneuve Bldg. W., Montre´al, Que´bec, H3G 1M8 Canada

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Seeking to keep women from voting is despicable.

Seeking to keep blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, Asian Americans from voting is despicable.

Seeking to keep people from marrying whom they wish is despicable.

The Circuit Court seems divided 2 - 1.

Forcing the world to accept the homosexual lifestyle is despicable.

Forcing Christian businesses (or any businesses for that matter) to cater to causes they oppose is despicable.

If we can all agree that a Christian baker shouldn't have to decorate a cake with a swastika for a neo-nazi group then we can agree that the same baker shouldn't be forced to decorate a cake with decorations promoting or reflecting the homosexual lifestyle. Period!!

The business shouldn't be punished for exercising that simple right.

No one is ‘forcing’ anyone to do anything.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts now, as they’re currently written by the states, and the states do not have the authority to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law.

Public accommodations laws are both appropriate and Constitutional regulatory policy, no different than any other regulatory policy businesses are subject to. As professionals and responsible members of the business community, business owners understand that abiding by this regulatory policy is indeed a condition of doing business, where public accommodations laws in no way ‘violate’ religious expression.

That you and others on the right hate and fear gay Americans is not justification to seek to deny them their civil rights, or to deny them access to public accommodations in violation of the Constitution – that may be the America you and other conservatives wish to live in, but that’s not the America the majority of Americans believe in, as we are indeed better than that.

 

[Silhouette]

No one is ‘forcing’ anyone to do anything.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts now, as they’re currently written by the states, and the states do not have the authority to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law...

WTF? Only in 3 states according to Windsor. What laws are you referring to? The new lavender fascism and activist judges in contempt of the Supreme Court and guilty of sedition and treason?