Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Silhouette]

Upon the irrational premise that Sexual Abnormality is NORMAL. What's that based upon? 'WE ARE NOT "ABNORMAL PEOPLE"... therefore our sexuality is not Abnormal!' Their truth is Subjective... .

They claim that their position rests in "SCIENCE!" that they TRUST science... and, that opposition of their need is based upon RELIGION!, which they do NOT TRUST.

Yet the purely scientific position, which incontestably demonstrates that Homosexuality; not only deviates from the standard intrinsic to human physiology, but it deviates as far FROM that standard as can be deviated, where all participants are HUMAN. And they could not care less, they do not trust science... because their trust of science is Subjective... .

It helps that they stormed the American Psychological Association back in the 1970s and took over its ranks. The impact of that was GIGANTIC. And that is because virtually ALL "scientific" entities that have to do with the human mind or physiology take their walking orders from the APA. Gays began filling the ranks of the board of directors of the APA. The association used to abide by a ruling scientific principle called "the Leona Tyler Principle". It said that any position the APA took on a topic publicly HAD to be backed by hard science.

After gays took over the board of directors in the APA, that ruling scientific principle that had been the mooring of that institution for many many years was *disappeared*. There wasn't even an up or down vote on it by the Board. It just vanished. And in fact, a recent search for it on the APA search engines comes up with nothing. This new relativism came to a head not too long after this coup by the gay cabal of the APA. It happened when Congress formally censured the APA at a hearing that had to do with protecting children from sexual predators. The neo-APA was arguing/urging its position which had become "sometimes it may be OK for adults to have sex with kids"...yeah...no kidding.. I think it was the first time ever that Congress voted to censure a "scientific" group's testimony.

Instead of the ruling principle based in science, that was subsequently *disappeared* by gay militants in the APA, we have this which is PRECISELY the relativism you are talking about. I just searched this today and my jaw fell in disbelief on how you NAILED IT... Read, if you dare...straight from the APA approved books links. The "experts" call (CQR) research. It is "qualitative" (subjective group agreement) and not relying on numbers...silly numbers get in the way of "socially agreed conclusions" of the group-think. It is the ANTITHESIS of a ruling scientific principle.

You just can't make this stuff up:

Consensual Qualitative Research: A Practical Resource for Investigating Social Science Phenomena
Edited by Clara E. Hill, PhD Consensual Qualitative Research A Practical Resource for Investigating Social Science Phenomena

"
This lively and practical text presents a fresh and comprehensive approach to conducting consensual qualitative research (CQR). CQR is an inductive method that is characterized by open-ended interview questions, small samples, a reliance on words over numbers, the importance of context, an integration of multiple viewpoints, and consensus of the research team. It is especially well-suited to research that requires rich descriptions of inner experiences, attitudes, and convictions.
Written to help researchers navigate their way through qualitative techniques and methodology, leading expert Clara E. Hill and her associates provide readers with step-by-step practical guidance during each stage of the research process. Readers learn about adaptive ways of designing studies; collecting, coding, and analyzing data; and reporting findings.
Key aspects of the researcher's craft are addressed, such as establishing the research team, recruiting and interviewing participants, adhering to ethical standards, raising cultural awareness, auditing within case analyses and cross analyses, and writing up the study.
Intended as a user-friendly manual for graduate-level research courses and beyond, the text will be a valuable resource for both budding and experienced qualitative researchers for many years to come.

Examine or adopt this book for teaching a course "

Let me just repeat the underlined parts above. The APA is advocating that their researchers rely on "words over numbers" in an "adaptive" style or "craft" and that they practice "auditing" each other to insure conformity to the non-scientific (words not numbers) principle of "doing research".

THIS is the data the activist-judges in the federal circuit are relying on "as fact". It is a cult dogma within a cloistered cabal and they have renamed it "science".

I urge that every person should read this book. It defines the root of the collective insanity we see justified today. You could literally rename this book "Where it all went wrong"...

You know who else "audits" (pressures its membership in real ways) for conformity to the dogmatic rule? Scientology.


We are dealing with a cult. They are as scientific and open-minded in their research as the Jim Jones Colony.

 

[Syriusly]

I can't actually figure out what his posts have to do with anything.....he does mention EVIL a lot.....

Perhaps because this is a topic about homosexuals forcing their lifestyles onto religious people; and those religious people knowing that to acquiesce to that force means an eternity in the pit of fire?

That might be the reason he keeps bringing up "evil". Because that scenario fits perfectly with the passage in Jude 1 that talks about the "smooth speeches" of the offenders trying to force their lifestyles onto christian ones.

I think it has to do with you and him trying to promote discrimination against homosexuals by calling them evil.

 

[Syriusly]

Better than that, heck I believe that if a federal judge declared anything from his or her activist bench, that they (the beneficiaries of the rulings) would run hollering it to the roof top's loud and very clear in a heart beat (i.e. in your face), and they are doing this just like selfish arrogant intellects would do these day's, and especially when they want something that no one else wants, and then they get it. Now somehow they are always getting these things through or by way of a federal judge who is pandering to certain groups these days, and for whom then defies the masses on so many levels that it just isn't funny anymore. Then they look for some kind of JUNK science to somehow back it all up if necessary when challenged, and next they would somehow use it in order to make it all appear legit even if it's a huge stretch in doing so or even if the odds are always against them. The Idolization of Junk Science these days, is something that has gotten way out of control I think, and the federal judges these days who are buying into all of this mess ( I think) have lost their judicial minds it seems anymore..

.[/QUOTE]

I have noticed that Conservatives only believe that judges are activists when they rule contrary to what the Conservatives believe.

For instance, in another thread, we have the case of Conservative activists attorney's filing suit on behalf of ministers challenging a city law that prohibits business's from discrimination against homosexuals- they claim this law is unconstitutional. IF the judge agrees with this suit, Conservatives will rejoice in the wisdom of this judge- he won't be an 'activist' judge who overturns an unconstitutional law, he will be a prudent judge who overturned an unconstitutional law.

But....when its homosexuals filing suit claiming that a law violates their civil rights- if a judge rules that law is unconstitutional- Conservatives call that judge an activist judge.

Now for me- I believe that both the ministers- and homosexuals- have the right to challenge the constitutionality of a law in court- and I believe that just because a judge agrees or disagrees- it doesn't make him 'an activist' judge.

 

[Syriusly]

Not complicated: children cannot consent.

OH! So why can't children consent?

I ask because there is a segment of "SCIENCE!" which long ago came out and declared that "... some children may actually benefit from a loving sexual relationship with a caring adult."

This being the same group within the Kinsey Institute who are responsible for their other conclusion: THERE IS NOTHING ABNORMAL ABOUT HOMOSEXUAL SEX (which literally is precisely as baseless as it appears to be... particularly given that such is patently absurd, given the standard established by human physiology and the 180 degrees of deviation that homosexuality takes FROM that standard).

And despite all that, you'll recall that it was that 'Professional Medical/Psychiatric Opinion', thus the "SCIENCE!" upon which was stood the basis for the lifting of Sodomy Laws. 'Homosexuality was normal, thus not indicative of deviant reasoning, therefore the individuals participating in or otherwise identified through such were not a threat to society.'

So, tell me, IF "SCIENCE!" came out and declared that 'Children CAN CONSENT TO SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH ADULTS'... would that in any way alter your current position, which in effect rests on the Legality which rests DIRECTLY UPON the common sense recognition that children are no where NEAR capable of understanding the circumstances regarding sexual behavior?

Better than that, heck I believe that if a federal judge declared anything from his or her activist bench, that they (the beneficiaries of the rulings) would run hollering it to the roof top's loud and very clear in a heart beat (i.e. in your face), and they are doing this just like selfish arrogant intellects would do these day's, and especially when they want something that no one else wants, and then they get it. Now somehow they are always getting these things through or by way of a federal judge who is pandering to certain groups these days, and for whom then defies the masses on so many levels that it just isn't funny anymore. Then they look for some kind of JUNK science to somehow back it all up if necessary when challenged, and next they would somehow use it in order to make it all appear legit even if it's a huge stretch in doing so or even if the odds are always against them. The Idolization of Junk Science these days, is something that has gotten way out of control I think, and the federal judges these days who are buying into all of this mess ( I think) have lost their judicial minds it seems anymore.

What's off topic about it? (Other than your obscurant statement of course)

This thread is about should churches be forced to marry gay couples aganist their wishes. Not pedophiles. Want to start a thread about that topic then by all means do so.

Nope, churches shouldn't be forced to marry gay couples at all, and this especially so if they choose not to. They should not be forced to go against their long held charter, beliefs, denomination, religion, ideology or etc. Last I checked America is supposed to be free nation within reason, and not anything less or more unless the majority of the people agree. The problem today is many things are being done without the peoples consent or agreement upon, and so slowly we are all being hearded like cattle to the slaughter by the PC police and the word destroyers.

I agree. Churches should not forced to marry any couple aganist their wishes, gay or otherwise.

Absolutely.

The only ones suggesting that churches should- or will be forced to marry anyone and everyone are the far right.

Churches will no more be forced to marry homosexuals than a Catholic Church would be forced to marry my wife and I.

Shouldn't the same be said for the Christian cake baker/maker who got shut down for not baking a cake for the gay couple as based upon his or her Christian beliefs in life? .

Do you believe that a bakery is the same thing as a church? Really?

What I said- and you responded to:
Churches will no more be forced to marry homosexuals than a Catholic Church would be forced to marry my wife and I

And that is true. Churches however are different from business's.

A business cannot refuse to business with someone contrary to the law just because they claim a religious issue.

A Muslim cannot refuse to rent a room to a Christian by claiming it violates his religious principles. A Jew cannot refuse to hire a Christian because he suspects the Christian eats pork.

If a city- or state has a law which forbids business's from discriminating against persons based upon their sexual orientation, then a business which discriminates against homosexuals is no different than a business which discriminates against Jews or Chinese.

 

[Syriusly]

You just can't make this stuff up:
y.

Actually you do......all the time.

 

[dblack]

Do you believe that a bakery is the same thing as a church? Really?

The point is that the baker's freedom of association is just as important as the priest's.

What I said- and you responded to:
Churches will no more be forced to marry homosexuals than a Catholic Church would be forced to marry my wife and I

And that is true. Churches however are different from business's.

A business cannot refuse to business with someone contrary to the law just because they claim a religious issue.

That's the real premise that's being called into question. Outside of voluntary contractual obligation, no one should be forced to do business with anyone else. Period.

 

[Silhouette]

That's the real premise that's being called into question. Outside of voluntary contractual obligation, no one should be forced to do business with anyone else. Period.

There would be a racial grounds for denying that. But LGBTs are NOT a race of people. They are a cult. And as such, no religion must be forced to abdicate its core values to be usurped in favor of another religion's core values.

 

[Syriusly]

That's the real premise that's being called into question. Outside of voluntary contractual obligation, no one should be forced to do business with anyone else. Period.

There would be a racial grounds for denying that. But LGBTs are NOT a race of people. They are a cult. And as such, no religion must be forced to abdicate its core values to be usurped in favor of another religion's core values.

If they were a 'cult' then they would be protected under religious grounds. But of course, the only one calling a group of people bound together only by the discrimination that they face based upon who they are attracted to a 'cult' is you.

 

[dblack]

That's the real premise that's being called into question. Outside of voluntary contractual obligation, no one should be forced to do business with anyone else. Period.

There would be a racial grounds for denying that. But LGBTs are NOT a race of people. They are a cult. And as such, no religion must be forced to abdicate its core values to be usurped in favor of another religion's core values.

The reason is irrelevant.

 

[ShackledNation]

Nature created homosexuality...which makes your entire diatribe moot.

Yes it did, but human biology indicates that nature made a mistake. All in the genes. There's a reason why homosexuality is the recessive sexual trait in human beings in the first place. Normally such a thing is not the intended result of our evolutionary progression.

Really? So recessive traits are mistakes? White skin is a mistake? Red hair is a mistake? Blue eyes are a mistake? No. You pretend to root your argument in "nature" and "biology" but if you applied your reasoning to all other variations in the human genome you would be faced with absurd and unacceptable conclusions.

That something is a recessive or less common trait does not automatically make it a "mistake." That is a total non sequitur.

"Mistake" is a poorly reasoned conclusion. Such alterations provide some useful purpose, and surges in instances of homosexuality typically portends cultural collapse... . Therefore, normalizing such is a profoundly BAD IDEA!

Right, calling recessive traits a mistake, like homosexuality, is poor reasoning. You argued that because homosexuality was a recessive trait it was a mistake, but now you say other recessive traits are not mistakes. Throw in the gays will destroy society and your true bigotry is revealed.

I'm calling it what it is: Sexual Abnormality. A Deviation from the human physiological norm, which presents as abnormal reasoning. As is indicated by the demanding the use of illicit government power to force others to accept their perverse sexuality and reasoning.

You are conflating statistical abnormality with morality. That is a fallacy. Just because something is abnormal does not make it wrong or immoral. If that were the case, red heads would be immoral.

Recognizing such would likely provide a culture with the means to alter its behavior, such as how it is treating procreation... where such would perhaps be taken lightly, causing unsustainable increases in population. Particular in unsustainable circumstances through inviable individuals, causing unsustainable demands on resources... the solution to such being that coitus be discouraged except where the individuals are capable of bearing the responsibilities common to procreation.

Not the least bit relevant to my comment, nor does it make any sense. We all have the means to alter our behavior. The above is word vomit with no coherent point. I say this honestly.

If we all have the means to alter our behavior, then homosexual BEHAVIOR is readily alterable, thus there is no potential correlation with judicial rulings regarding precedent inter-racial rulings, relevant to marriage and out the door goes the entire rationalization that formal roommate agreements are anything remotely akin to marriage.

I say that honestly... and sure, it helps that it's otherwise incontestable.

Homosexuality is not a behavior any more than left-handedness is a behavior.

The problem is that "Religion" is the typical purveyor of the calls for such discipline and the major cause of 'the problem' are found in those areas which eschew religion, which is also the same areas suffering the greatest population stress, which also suffer the highest instances of homosexuality, which are the same areas where one finds the highest popular calls for the normalization of sexual abnormality... .

Considering religions has resulted in some of the worst wars in human history and other brutal atrocities, I think it is hard to take that point seriously. The Middle East is arguably one of the most religious regions on the planet--yet also one of the most war burdened regions.

Religions? Or religion? Because you're basically pointing out Islam... which is a political cult wrapped around an irrational, thus false religious facade, wherein the fundamental political beliefs are collectivist, which IS the WORLD RECORD holder in 'human lethality', second only to disease.

Hope that clears it all up for ya.

[/quote]
Religions. Muslims are not the only ones fighting in the Middle East. Perhaps that is news to you?

Your post is full of nonsense with no basis in reality. Come back down to earth.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

If they were a 'cult' then they would be protected under religious grounds. But of course, the only one calling a group of people bound together only by the discrimination that they face based upon who they are attracted to a 'cult' is you.

That discrimination is because of your groups perverse sexual tendencies, persecution as a group has nothing to do with it, simply a talking point to gin up sympathy for the poor persecuted faggots ....................

 

[ShackledNation]

No one else is quoting you, why are you ..................
No one gives a fuck about what you said the first time, why keep reposting it??

If you don't have an argument in response to mine, then don't bother quoting me. We all know you've got nothing.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Upon the irrational premise that Sexual Abnormality is NORMAL. What's that based upon? 'WE ARE NOT "ABNORMAL PEOPLE"... therefore our sexuality is not Abnormal!' Their truth is Subjective... .

They claim that their position rests in "SCIENCE!" that they TRUST science... and, that opposition of their need is based upon RELIGION!, which they do NOT TRUST.

Yet the purely scientific position, which incontestably demonstrates that Homosexuality; not only deviates from the standard intrinsic to human physiology, but it deviates as far FROM that standard as can be deviated, where all participants are HUMAN. And they could not care less, they do not trust science... because their trust of science is Subjective... .

It helps that they stormed the American Psychological Association back in the 1970s and took over its ranks. The impact of that was GIGANTIC. And that is because virtually ALL "scientific" entities that have to do with the human mind or physiology take their walking orders from the APA. Gays began filling the ranks of the board of directors of the APA. The association used to abide by a ruling scientific principle called "the Leona Tyler Principle". It said that any position the APA took on a topic publicly HAD to be backed by hard science.

After gays took over the board of directors in the APA, that ruling scientific principle that had been the mooring of that institution for many many years was *disappeared*. There wasn't even an up or down vote on it by the Board. It just vanished. And in fact, a recent search for it on the APA search engines comes up with nothing. This new relativism came to a head not too long after this coup by the gay cabal of the APA. It happened when Congress formally censured the APA at a hearing that had to do with protecting children from sexual predators. The neo-APA was arguing/urging its position which had become "sometimes it may be OK for adults to have sex with kids"...yeah...no kidding.. I think it was the first time ever that Congress voted to censure a "scientific" group's testimony.

Instead of the ruling principle based in science, that was subsequently *disappeared* by gay militants in the APA, we have this which is PRECISELY the relativism you are talking about. I just searched this today and my jaw fell in disbelief on how you NAILED IT... Read, if you dare...straight from the APA approved books links. The "experts" call (CQR) research. It is "qualitative" (subjective group agreement) and not relying on numbers...silly numbers get in the way of "socially agreed conclusions" of the group-think. It is the ANTITHESIS of a ruling scientific principle.

You just can't make this stuff up:

Consensual Qualitative Research: A Practical Resource for Investigating Social Science Phenomena
Edited by Clara E. Hill, PhD Consensual Qualitative Research A Practical Resource for Investigating Social Science Phenomena

"
This lively and practical text presents a fresh and comprehensive approach to conducting consensual qualitative research (CQR). CQR is an inductive method that is characterized by open-ended interview questions, small samples, a reliance on words over numbers, the importance of context, an integration of multiple viewpoints, and consensus of the research team. It is especially well-suited to research that requires rich descriptions of inner experiences, attitudes, and convictions.
Written to help researchers navigate their way through qualitative techniques and methodology, leading expert Clara E. Hill and her associates provide readers with step-by-step practical guidance during each stage of the research process. Readers learn about adaptive ways of designing studies; collecting, coding, and analyzing data; and reporting findings.
Key aspects of the researcher's craft are addressed, such as establishing the research team, recruiting and interviewing participants, adhering to ethical standards, raising cultural awareness, auditing within case analyses and cross analyses, and writing up the study.
Intended as a user-friendly manual for graduate-level research courses and beyond, the text will be a valuable resource for both budding and experienced qualitative researchers for many years to come.

Examine or adopt this book for teaching a course "

Let me just repeat the underlined parts above. The APA is advocating that their researchers rely on "words over numbers" in an "adaptive" style or "craft" and that they practice "auditing" each other to insure conformity to the non-scientific (words not numbers) principle of "doing research".

THIS is the data the activist-judges in the federal circuit are relying on "as fact". It is a cult dogma within a cloistered cabal and they have renamed it "science".

I urge that every person should read this book. It defines the root of the collective insanity we see justified today. You could literally rename this book "Where it all went wrong"...

You know who else "audits" (pressures its membership in real ways) for conformity to the dogmatic rule? Scientology.


We are dealing with a cult. They are as scientific and open-minded in their research as the Jim Jones Colony.

Thank you!

I Agree!

And that position was VERY INFORMATIVE!

Ya NAILED IT!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Yes it did, but human biology indicates that nature made a mistake. All in the genes. There's a reason why homosexuality is the recessive sexual trait in human beings in the first place. Normally such a thing is not the intended result of our evolutionary progression.

Really? So recessive traits are mistakes? White skin is a mistake? Red hair is a mistake? Blue eyes are a mistake? No. You pretend to root your argument in "nature" and "biology" but if you applied your reasoning to all other variations in the human genome you would be faced with absurd and unacceptable conclusions.

That something is a recessive or less common trait does not automatically make it a "mistake." That is a total non sequitur.

"Mistake" is a poorly reasoned conclusion. Such alterations provide some useful purpose, and surges in instances of homosexuality typically portends cultural collapse... . Therefore, normalizing such is a profoundly BAD IDEA!

Right, calling recessive traits a mistake, like homosexuality, is poor reasoning. You argued that because homosexuality was a recessive trait it was a mistake, but now you say other recessive traits are not mistakes. Throw in the gays will destroy society and your true bigotry is revealed.

I'm calling it what it is: Sexual Abnormality. A Deviation from the human physiological norm, which presents as abnormal reasoning. As is indicated by the demanding the use of illicit government power to force others to accept their perverse sexuality and reasoning.

You are conflating statistical abnormality with morality. That is a fallacy. Just because something is abnormal does not make it wrong or immoral. If that were the case, red heads would be immoral.

Am I? Let's re-examine what I said:

I'm calling it what it is: Sexual Abnormality. A Deviation from the human physiological norm

Golly... that is me talking about the standard established by the traits intrinsic to human physiology. Perhaps you're not familiar with human physiology, wherein two complimenting genders, each with distinct, but complimenting physical and psychological traits. From which homosexuality not only deviates... but deviates as far FROM that standard, as is possible where the participants are all human.

I continued:

which presents as abnormal reasoning.

That is me talking about the incontestable fact, that reasoning which drives an individual to seek sexual gratification through behavior antithetical to the standard established by human physiology is deviant reasoning; which is a perversion of standard human sexual reasoning.

These are incontestable facts... the morality comes into play only where one claims that that which irrefutably deviates from the natural standard... the standard which establishes the NORM... is normal.

This is because to do so demonstrates either the inability to perceive that which is real or the refusal to accept that which is real. FYI: There is no right to exercise either delusion or deceit. And only in THAT does the issue of morality enter into any of this.

I eagerly await your advocacy to publicly profess deceit and/or delusion and the benefits to the individual and by extension the collective they comprise.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Religions? Or Religion? 'Cause it seems like you're referring to Islam...

Religions. Muslims are not the only ones fighting in the Middle East. ... .

True. Except of course, that those who are not Muslim and are fighting in the Middle East are defending themselves from Muslims.

Now you're saying that THAT has never occurred to you? Seriously?

 

[Syriusly]

Really? So recessive traits are mistakes? White skin is a mistake? Red hair is a mistake? Blue eyes are a mistake? No. You pretend to root your argument in "nature" and "biology" but if you applied your reasoning to all other variations in the human genome you would be faced with absurd and unacceptable conclusions.

That something is a recessive or less common trait does not automatically make it a "mistake." That is a total non sequitur.

"Mistake" is a poorly reasoned conclusion. Such alterations provide some useful purpose, and surges in instances of homosexuality typically portends cultural collapse... . Therefore, normalizing such is a profoundly BAD IDEA!

Right, calling recessive traits a mistake, like homosexuality, is poor reasoning. You argued that because homosexuality was a recessive trait it was a mistake, but now you say other recessive traits are not mistakes. Throw in the gays will destroy society and your true bigotry is revealed.

I'm calling it what it is: Sexual Abnormality. A Deviation from the human physiological norm, which presents as abnormal reasoning. As is indicated by the demanding the use of illicit government power to force others to accept their perverse sexuality and reasoning.

You are conflating statistical abnormality with morality. That is a fallacy. Just because something is abnormal does not make it wrong or immoral. If that were the case, red heads would be immoral.

Am I?

Let's re-examine what I said: "I'm calling it what it is: Sexual Abnormality. A Deviation from the human physiological norm

.

Blond hair is a deviation from the human phsyiological norm.
Left handedness is a deviation from the human physiological norm.

Doesn't make them wrong.

Doesn't mean the government should discriminate against them.

 

[ShackledNation]

Really? So recessive traits are mistakes? White skin is a mistake? Red hair is a mistake? Blue eyes are a mistake? No. You pretend to root your argument in "nature" and "biology" but if you applied your reasoning to all other variations in the human genome you would be faced with absurd and unacceptable conclusions.

That something is a recessive or less common trait does not automatically make it a "mistake." That is a total non sequitur.

"Mistake" is a poorly reasoned conclusion. Such alterations provide some useful purpose, and surges in instances of homosexuality typically portends cultural collapse... . Therefore, normalizing such is a profoundly BAD IDEA!

Right, calling recessive traits a mistake, like homosexuality, is poor reasoning. You argued that because homosexuality was a recessive trait it was a mistake, but now you say other recessive traits are not mistakes. Throw in the gays will destroy society and your true bigotry is revealed.

I'm calling it what it is: Sexual Abnormality. A Deviation from the human physiological norm, which presents as abnormal reasoning. As is indicated by the demanding the use of illicit government power to force others to accept their perverse sexuality and reasoning.

You are conflating statistical abnormality with morality. That is a fallacy. Just because something is abnormal does not make it wrong or immoral. If that were the case, red heads would be immoral.

Am I? Let's re-examine what I said:

I'm calling it what it is: Sexual Abnormality. A Deviation from the human physiological norm

Golly... that is me talking about the standard established by the traits intrinsic to human physiology. Perhaps you're not familiar with human physiology, wherein two complimenting genders, each with distinct, but complimenting physical and psychological traits. From which homosexuality not only deviates... but deviates as far FROM that standard, as is possible where the participants are all human.

I continued:

which presents as abnormal reasoning.

That is me talking about the incontestable fact, that reasoning which drives an individual to seek sexual gratification through behavior antithetical to the standard established by human physiology is deviant reasoning; which is a perversion of standard human sexual reasoning.

These are incontestable facts... the morality comes into play only where one claims that that which irrefutably deviates from the natural standard... the standard which establishes the NORM... is normal.

This is because to do so demonstrates either the inability to perceive that which is real or the refusal to accept that which is real. FYI: There is no right to exercise either delusion or deceit. And only in THAT does the issue of morality enter into any of this.

I eagerly await your advocacy to publicly profess deceit and/or delusion and the benefits to the individual and by extension the collective they comprise.

You are conflating two definitions of normal. You are correct that homosexuality is, in the statistical sense, abnormal. So is red hair. However, you are also using a definition of normal that means socially or morally acceptable. The fact that homosexuality is statistically abnormal has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it is or should be socially and morally acceptable. Your argument is an equivocation, nothing more.

 

[ShackledNation]

Religions? Or Religion? 'Cause it seems like you're referring to Islam...

Religions. Muslims are not the only ones fighting in the Middle East. ... .

True. Except of course, that those who are not Muslim and are fighting in the Middle East are defending themselves from Muslims.

Now you're saying that THAT has never occurred to you? Seriously?

So all of the conflict in the Middle East is the result of Islam? No other religious influences have contributed to the problem? Really?

 

[Syriusly]

"Mistake" is a poorly reasoned conclusion. Such alterations provide some useful purpose, and surges in instances of homosexuality typically portends cultural collapse... . Therefore, normalizing such is a profoundly BAD IDEA!

Right, calling recessive traits a mistake, like homosexuality, is poor reasoning. You argued that because homosexuality was a recessive trait it was a mistake, but now you say other recessive traits are not mistakes. Throw in the gays will destroy society and your true bigotry is revealed.

I'm calling it what it is: Sexual Abnormality. A Deviation from the human physiological norm, which presents as abnormal reasoning. As is indicated by the demanding the use of illicit government power to force others to accept their perverse sexuality and reasoning.

You are conflating statistical abnormality with morality. That is a fallacy. Just because something is abnormal does not make it wrong or immoral. If that were the case, red heads would be immoral.

Am I? Let's re-examine what I said:

I'm calling it what it is: Sexual Abnormality. A Deviation from the human physiological norm

Golly... that is me talking about the standard established by the traits intrinsic to human physiology. Perhaps you're not familiar with human physiology, wherein two complimenting genders, each with distinct, but complimenting physical and psychological traits. From which homosexuality not only deviates... but deviates as far FROM that standard, as is possible where the participants are all human.

I continued:

which presents as abnormal reasoning.

That is me talking about the incontestable fact, that reasoning which drives an individual to seek sexual gratification through behavior antithetical to the standard established by human physiology is deviant reasoning; which is a perversion of standard human sexual reasoning.

These are incontestable facts... the morality comes into play only where one claims that that which irrefutably deviates from the natural standard... the standard which establishes the NORM... is normal.

This is because to do so demonstrates either the inability to perceive that which is real or the refusal to accept that which is real. FYI: There is no right to exercise either delusion or deceit. And only in THAT does the issue of morality enter into any of this.

I eagerly await your advocacy to publicly profess deceit and/or delusion and the benefits to the individual and by extension the collective they comprise.

You are conflating two definitions of normal. You are correct that homosexuality is, in the statistical sense, abnormal. So is red hair. However, you are also using a definition of normal that means socially or morally acceptable. The fact that homosexuality is statistically abnormal has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it is or should be socially and morally acceptable. Your argument is an equivocation, nothing more.

You stated that better than I did.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Homosexuality is a fact of life among the planet's species.

It has no moral context in and of itself.