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

[C_Clayton_Jones]

religion requires a point of worship and dogma

how about we just say they're a minority entitled to the same equal protection under the law as anyone else.



being gay is just what some people are born.

People aren' born gay.

Irrelevant.

Whether gay Americans are gay as a consequence of birth or personal choice is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant.

The 5th Amendment’s Liberty Clause guarantees each American the right to self-determination, the right to make decisions concerning personal, private matters absent interference by state:

It suffices for us to acknowledge that adults may choose to enter upon this relationship in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons. When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

Therefore, the conservative ‘argument’ that if gay Americans don’t wish to be discriminated against all they need do is ‘stop being gay’ fails; again, however much you and others on the right fear and hate gay Americans, that does not justify your seeking to deny them their civil rights and individual liberty.

 

[Silhouette]

Therefore, the conservative ‘argument’ that if gay Americans don’t wish to be discriminated against all they need do is ‘stop being gay’ fails; again, however much you and others on the right fear and hate gay Americans, that does not justify your seeking to deny them their civil rights and individual liberty.

We discriminate against objectionable behaviors every single day of the week. It's called "the penal and civil code" of a state near you..

..Using behavior as the premise [for that is what it is, compulsive or not], should compulsive thieves not be discriminated against and not allowed access to their compulsions with the graces of society? Should bulimics be pardoned and elevated to "iconic" because they can no more stop barfing after they eat than a gay guy can stop putting HIV infected semen into another man's colon/direct access to bloodstream?

If you really had to boil down which one of the behavioral-scourges I just mentioned that are not under the conscious control of the afflicted that has the most potential to harm society as a whole, gay sex between men in particular has the highest rate of mass death risk to the general population for the following reasons [and should not either be protected, promoted or normalized therefore]:

1. Whereas thieves and bulimics usually only hurt random people temporarily or just themselves, gay men are spreading one of the worst epidemics in the 21st Century unchecked. Moreover, with "social blessings" and education czar Kevin Jennings active curriculum in schools, they are reaching out to and teaching youngsters about "the joys of anal sex". Jennings' people recently were going around to schools teaching kids how to relax their anuses to receive anal sex in lessons on "fisting". Not coincidentally, with the blessings of society to this deviant cult, there is a new and alarming rise in HIV cases in boys ages 13-24. You know how young and impressionable kids are. They always want to try out "the new fad that all the young people are into"...

2. The colon evolved to resorb the body's own benign fluids and large dissolved vitamins in case of famine or dehydration. It did not evolve to have foreign substances introduced into it that weren't first processed by the strong acids and of the stomach and small intestine. So it doesn't know the difference between its own fluids and vitamins and HIV infected semen when it comes to rapidly resorbing these items directly into the bloodstream without preamble..

3. HIV patients typically cost about $500,000 per patient to treat until their untimely and horrible deaths. Usually within the first year or two after being diagnosed, the patient becomes indigent and the state picks up the cost for this behavioral disease.

4. Heroics in treating late-stage HIV and AIDS patients mean throwing lots of stronger and stronger antibiotics and anti-retrovirals at doomed patients. This activity grows stronger and stronger more resistant strains of HIV and bacteria that then enter the general population who are not equipped either to fight off some of the more pernicious ones. In other words, for every HIV/AIDS patient we encourage with our laws and tolerance towards these deviant sexual behaviors [compulsive or not], we are setting up a laboratory wherein we are growing some of the world's worst epidemics yet to come.

5. Bisexuals are the bridge between that sordid and deadly world and heteros. I suppose that's why the compulsives who seem to like to invite lots of company actively recruit naturally sexually-curious and impressionable youth to attend "bi-curious" events with punch, cookies, music and fun to lure them in.

It's funny how much this cult functions like a cult when you really think about it. People mesmerized by cults don't seem to have conscious control over their actions either. In fact, that is the hallmark of someone who has been completely inducted and in need of an intervention....not encouragement to "carry on!"...

 

[Luddly Neddite]

First learn what a cult is:

1: formal religious veneration : worship


2

: a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents


3

: a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents


4

: a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator <health cults>


5

a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad

b : the object of such devotion

c : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion

Cult - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

so the answer is no....

unless in opposite world you think they're not really gay...

note: no religious beliefs
note: no object of religious devotion
note: gays are about 10% of the population, far greater than some religious groups and not a small group at all

there are no "adherants" unlike your cult of homophobes

Its a measure of desperation that the phobes are now calling Constitutionally guaranteed rights "cults".

 

[Silhouette]

You call a duck a duck when it walks, waddles and quacks like one..

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

First learn what a cult is:

1: formal religious veneration : worship


2

: a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents


3

: a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents


4

: a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator <health cults>


5

a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad

b : the object of such devotion

c : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion

Cult - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

so the answer is no....

unless in opposite world you think they're not really gay...

note: no religious beliefs
note: no object of religious devotion
note: gays are about 10% of the population, far greater than some religious groups and not a small group at all

there are no "adherants" unlike your cult of homophobes

Its a measure of desperation that the phobes are now calling Constitutionally guaranteed rights "cults".

Exactly.

Having failed to make a reasonable, factual, and Constitutional argument in court, in desperation they now resort to demagoguery.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

They freely admit this is a "culture war".

Everyone acknowledges the fact we’re in the midst of a culture war, a war that has been going on for nearly 40 years, started by the manifestation of the bane of social conservatism and Christian fundamentalism, as the radical right seeks to deny Americans their civil liberties motivated by subjective religious dogma, and seeks to codify that religious dogma in secular law in violation of the First Amendment.

And we see that same ignorance and hate directed at gay Americans as Christian fundamentalists and social conservatives pursue un-Constitutional measures intended only to deny same-sex couples their equal protection rights.

 

[Pop23]

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.

Name the same sex couple that one of the participants died from a childbirth that was the result of a sex act between the participants of the partners within that unit.

Name a single citizen that is the result of same sex coupling.

Same or vastly different?

Blacks were discriminated against because of a superficial trait

Again, vastly different

 

[Asclepias]

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..

You keep missing it. No one is forcing them to accept the gay lifestyle. No one is infringing on their religious freedom and telling them to discount it. What is being said is if you step outside your realm of control you will do what the rules tell you to do or be penalized. If you dont want to have contact with gay people you can stay in your home. Where is it written you get to infringe on other people because you personally dislike their lifestyle. If you cant treat everyone equal stop serving the public. it wont be tolerated.

 

[Asclepias]

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.

Name the same sex couple that one of the participants died from a childbirth that was the result of a sex act between the participants of the partners within that unit.

Name a single citizen that is the result of same sex coupling.

Same or vastly different?

Blacks were discriminated against because of a superficial trait

Again, vastly different

Why are any of your questions relevant to the point?

There is nothing superficial about being Black. I am a Black person. They are gay people. We both know this. Its the exact same thing.

 

[Pop23]

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.

Name the same sex couple that one of the participants died from a childbirth that was the result of a sex act between the participants of the partners within that unit.

Name a single citizen that is the result of same sex coupling.

Same or vastly different?

Blacks were discriminated against because of a superficial trait

Again, vastly different

Why are any of your questions relevant to the point?

There is nothing superficial about being Black. I am a Black person. They are gay people. We both know this. Its the exact same thing.

Race changes none of the dynamics of a marriage. I've demonstrated how same sex does. One is a discrimination based on a superficial trait, the other is anything but superficial when one considers the burden on the male/ female dynamic compared to the lack of any burden on same sex.

Comparing race to this is simply silly.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Name a single citizen that is the result of same sex coupling. Has nothing to do with marriage partners.

Blacks were discriminated against because of a superficial trait False equivalency

-----------------------------

Marriage equality has changed nothing in the states where it is practiced.

 

[Asclepias]

Name the same sex couple that one of the participants died from a childbirth that was the result of a sex act between the participants of the partners within that unit.

Name a single citizen that is the result of same sex coupling.

Same or vastly different?

Blacks were discriminated against because of a superficial trait

Again, vastly different

Why are any of your questions relevant to the point?

There is nothing superficial about being Black. I am a Black person. They are gay people. We both know this. Its the exact same thing.

Race changes none of the dynamics of a marriage. I've demonstrated how same sex does. One is a discrimination based on a superficial trait, the other is anything but superficial when one considers the burden on the male/ female dynamic compared to the lack of any burden on same sex.

Comparing race to this is simply silly.

Yeah actually it does change the dynamics. There were laws that said blacks and whites could not marry. Did you forget this or did you just not know about it?

 

[Pop23]

Why are any of your questions relevant to the point?

There is nothing superficial about being Black. I am a Black person. They are gay people. We both know this. Its the exact same thing.

Race changes none of the dynamics of a marriage. I've demonstrated how same sex does. One is a discrimination based on a superficial trait, the other is anything but superficial when one considers the burden on the male/ female dynamic compared to the lack of any burden on same sex.

Comparing race to this is simply silly.

Yeah actually it does change the dynamics. There were laws that said blacks and whites could not marry. Did you forget this or did you just not know about it?

What function within the married unit was changed. Go ahead and take a stab at it.

 

[Pop23]

Name a single citizen that is the result of same sex coupling. Has nothing to do with marriage partners.

Blacks were discriminated against because of a superficial trait False equivalency

-----------------------------

Marriage equality has changed nothing in the states where it is practiced.

Bull and bull

 

[JakeStarkey]

Name a single citizen that is the result of same sex coupling. Has nothing to do with marriage partners.

Blacks were discriminated against because of a superficial trait False equivalency

-----------------------------

Marriage equality has changed nothing in the states where it is practiced.

Bull and bull

Nope. But your logic is.

 

[Pop23]

Nope. But your logic is.

You, being illogical does not make your stand logical

The concept of including same sex units, units that can't create population into a demographic comprised of units that can, is the height of goofiness.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Marriage is about couples first then children. PoP23, this is over. Sotomayor has six already and is trying to recruit the one remaining positivist on SCOTUS.

 

[jillian]

Nope. But your logic is.

You, being illogical does not make your stand logical

The concept of including same sex units, units that can't create population into a demographic comprised of units that can, is the height of goofiness.

so older people shouldn't marry?

infertile couples shoujldn't marry?

procreation is not the basis for the right to marry.

see: Loving v Virginia

 

[Pop23]

Nope. But your logic is.

You, being illogical does not make your stand logical

The concept of including same sex units, units that can't create population into a demographic comprised of units that can, is the height of goofiness.

so older people shouldn't marry?

infertile couples shoujldn't marry?

procreation is not the basis for the right to marry.

see: Loving v Virginia

Demographic groups my dear, demographic groups.

The color of those within the groups do not change the dynamic of those groups.

 

[Pop23]

Marriage is about couples first then children. PoP23, this is over. Sotomayor has six already and is trying to recruit the one remaining positivist on SCOTUS.

Thank you for changing to my position.

Only one group can produce children within the unit, before or after the license is granted.