homosexual thread
- Thread starter chrysostom
- Start date
Lets say your best friend is an alcoholic and deep in his alcoholism. Would not the best thing you could do as a friend be to tell him he has a problem and needs help? Isn't that what a friend should do? Thats not "hate", thats actually love, honest love.
It is no different when you tell a homosexual he has a problem. Thats not hate, thats just honesty. Its actually the people who tell homosexuals that they are normal who are committing a bad act against homosexuals, enabling their disorder.
It is no different when you tell a homosexual he has a problem. Thats not hate, thats just honesty. Its actually the people who tell homosexuals that they are normal who are committing a bad act against homosexuals, enabling their disorder.
This is EXACTLY why alcohol should be illegal. Drinking is self-destructive and kills others.
(duplicate post)
alwight
New member
But aCW's the best parody of right wing Christian homophobic bigotry there is, even if he doesn't know it, an example for us all and a lifetime member of TOL to boot, he can't go. :shocked:
This is the sort of garbage language which has only one purpose: To stifle a legitimate conversation.
They tried that once with disastrous results.
Besides, Drinking is not self-destructive to many people. Many people enjoy a fine wine with a fine meal. Fine wine-makers are almost artists at their trade. Would you outlaw that to? What about people who like to have a beer with their pizza. Is that a destructive act that kills others? You are only thinking about real alcoholics, drunk driving and all that, which is bad. But there is nothing wrong with the others who I have just spoken of.
And in keeping with my original analogy, sex is not a bad thing either; its a wonderful thing between a man and wife. But if it is perverted due to sexual disorders, that is when it is no longer a good thing.
Well, glad to hear it, since my comment was pure sarcasm.
THAT is a claim that cannot be validated. It is an opinion, nothing more.
NOW you are getting it. There is a difference between actions that intentionally hurt others and those that just hurt one's self.
You know, I have no problem whatsoever with you holding this opinion ... it's when you try to legislate it.
I personally believe that anyone having promiscuous sex is foolhardy and dangerous to themselves and many times those they are sleeping with. However, that doesn't just mean homosexuals.
I would hold a disease-ridden heterosexual to the same standard as I would a disease-ridden homosexual. They have a responsibility to not victimize others with their disease and to not notify a partner of such should have legal repercussions.
WHY, outside of *sin* and religion should there be a different standard under our secular laws?
Whoa.. ...WHO is trying to legislate it?
Marriage has been between a man and a woman for the entire history of this country, and for over 2,000 years of western civilization. Its not us, its YOU who are trying to change what marriage is.
Huh? I was speaking of making homosexuality a criminal offense. As far as marriage, it is a PERSONAL relationship between the participants and it's not up for you, myself or anyone else to define what it is for THEM.
Or ... let me guess ... are you one of those people who believes that if homosexuals marry all heterosexual marriages will become null and void?
lain:
alwight
New member
Do you really deny that a great many right wing Christians like aCW clearly are little more than hate filled homophobic bigots?
If you do we could perhaps debate that? :think:
The Christian church actually only formalised marriage during the Middle Ages, less than a thousand years ago. It was decreed that sex being a sin was forbidden unless between church approved formally married couples, for life. Up until then couples could simply decide for themselves whether they were married or not.
genuineoriginal
New member
FIFY
1) I haven't the foggiest idea who would make homosexual activity a criminal offense.
2) It has ALREADY been defined by law and civilization: Marriage is between a man and a woman. Besides, its also illegal for three people to marry, and bigamy is illegal, and its illegal for you to marry you mom or dad or brother, so don't sit there and say it cannot be regulated.
genuineoriginal
New member
No, it is not.
Marriage is an institution of society designed to restrict humans to selective breeding partners in order to maintain a stable society.
It is up to the society to define what marriage is, and to make illegal those relationships that disrupt the stability of the society.
Right. And let us not forget, there is much more to the gay agenda than just marriage
Gay Activists War Against Christianity
Church Seen as Main Obstacle Hindering
Wholesale Acceptance of Homosexual Agenda
"All churches who condemn us will be closed." That was what Michael Swift, a "gay revolutionary," declared in a February 1987 issue of the Gay Community News.
"Michael Swift" was a pseudonym, and the first line of the now-infamous homosexual rant — which was even reprinted in the Congressional Record — claimed that the entire piece was a "cruel fantasy" that explained "how the oppressed desperately dream of being the oppressor."
The "dream" was filled with a nightmare scenario that seemed like something out of a fascist coup d’etat: "All laws banning homosexual activity will be revoked. … [W]e shall make films about the love between heroic men. … The family unit — spawning ground of lies, betrayals, mediocrity, hypocrisy and violence — will be abolished. … All churches who condemn us will be closed."
As the article found its way into Christian publications, believers were horrified, and homosexual activists tried to make light of its contents, claiming that it was intended merely as a satire.
Not many Christians, however, saw the humor in Swift’s sentiments, such as the following: "We shall sodomize your sons…. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all-male clubs, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together."...............<SNIP>
Rest of story >> http://www.afajournal.org/2006/february/206GayWar.asp
Yes .. it is.
Breeding partners. OIC. It all comes down to *breeding* with you. That explains a lot.
So, since it's all about breeding, at least be consistent by demanding that any heterosexual couple applying for a marriage certificate be mandated to a physical exam to determine that they are capable of "breeding".
IF they are unable, they are obviously, by your standard, unfit for your own *requirements*.
genuineoriginal
New member
You seem to have focused solely on what is being restricted by society and chosen to completely ignore why the restriction is in place.
This is what I stated, and I will emphasize the parts you seem to be unable to accept.
Here is some reference material:
Social Institutions
by D. Stanley Eitzen and Maxine Baca-Zinn
From: In Conflict and Order, 9th Edition, Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2001 (pp. 47-49)
Institutions are social arrangements that channel behavior in prescribed ways in the important areas of social life. They are interrelated sets of normative elements— norms, values, and role expectations—that the people making up the society have devised and passed on to succeeding generations in order to provide permanent solutions to society’s perpetually unfinished business. Institutions are cultural imperatives. They serve as regulatory agencies, channeling behavior in culturally prescribed ways. “Institutions provide procedures through which human conduct is patterned, compelled to go, in grooves deemed desirable by society And this trick is performed by making the grooves appear to the individual as the only possible ones” (Berger, 1963:87).
For example, a society instills in its members predetermined channels for marriage. Instead of allowing the sexual partners a host of options, it is expected in U.S. society that the couple, composed of a man and a woman, will marry and set up a conjugal household. Although the actual options are many the partners choose what society demands. In fact, they do not consider the other options as valid (for example, polygamy polyandry or group marriage). The result is a patterned arrangement that regulates sexual behavior and attempts to ensure a stable environment for the care of dependent children.
Institutions arise from the uncoordinated actions of multitudes of individuals over time. These actions, procedures, and rules evolve into a set of expectations that appear to have a design, because the consequences of these expectations provide solutions that help maintain social stability The design is accidental, however; it is a product of cultural evolution.
by D. Stanley Eitzen and Maxine Baca-Zinn
From: In Conflict and Order, 9th Edition, Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2001 (pp. 47-49)
Institutions are social arrangements that channel behavior in prescribed ways in the important areas of social life. They are interrelated sets of normative elements— norms, values, and role expectations—that the people making up the society have devised and passed on to succeeding generations in order to provide permanent solutions to society’s perpetually unfinished business. Institutions are cultural imperatives. They serve as regulatory agencies, channeling behavior in culturally prescribed ways. “Institutions provide procedures through which human conduct is patterned, compelled to go, in grooves deemed desirable by society And this trick is performed by making the grooves appear to the individual as the only possible ones” (Berger, 1963:87).
For example, a society instills in its members predetermined channels for marriage. Instead of allowing the sexual partners a host of options, it is expected in U.S. society that the couple, composed of a man and a woman, will marry and set up a conjugal household. Although the actual options are many the partners choose what society demands. In fact, they do not consider the other options as valid (for example, polygamy polyandry or group marriage). The result is a patterned arrangement that regulates sexual behavior and attempts to ensure a stable environment for the care of dependent children.
Institutions arise from the uncoordinated actions of multitudes of individuals over time. These actions, procedures, and rules evolve into a set of expectations that appear to have a design, because the consequences of these expectations provide solutions that help maintain social stability The design is accidental, however; it is a product of cultural evolution.
Now that is a serious medical issue. We're not just talking abut an issue of the mind or some disorder, we are talking serious physical problems.
Frankly I don't know what the protocol is for doctors these days