Why Homosexuality MUST Be Recriminalized! Part 3

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Yet you don't seem to be the least bit disturbed with the amount of abortions done yearly due to out of wedlock sex;

I am concerned about your reading comprehension. Unlike yourself, I don't accept cherry-picked reasons to allow abortion.

Abortions disproportionately happen outside of marriage.

Regarding your stance on abortion, I'll forego talking about your candidate's abortion record (for those of you interested, it can be found in the table of contents).

Quote:
the amount of out of wedlock births where those children overwhelmingly are raised in fatherless homes and often times turn to drugs and crime as a way of life; or the amounts of STD's that happen in out of wedlock sexual relations.

What part of "telling them to abstain does not equal telling em to marry em while they are still young" do you not understand?

I guess I missed you telling me why it is wrong for 19 year old John Luke Robertson to marry his sweetheart Mary Kate McEacharn who appears to be the same age?

Quote:
You act like marriage is a bad thing Sandy.

Marriage isn't good or bad, but simply neutral depending on the couple involved.

The institution of marriage is the nucleus of a society. Mark it down in your notebook Sandy that "marriage is good".


Quote:
If a male and a female are of legal age, why should you or I tell anyone not to marry if they're committed to one another?

Legal age assumes maturity. There are reasons that a certain type of older person would prefer, if allowed, to marry a child or teenager. It certainly has nothing to do with love or compatibility.

If maturity automatically came with age, there would be no liberals Sandy.

 

[Rusha]

Abortions disproportionately happen outside of marriage.

And somehow you believe that makes the one's that happen inside of marriage fine ...

Got it.

Once again, you are off topic. Your thread is about homosexuality. Focus.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Abortions disproportionately happen outside of marriage.

And somehow you believe that makes the one's that happen inside of marriage fine ...Got it.

In 2011, the vast majority (81%) of women who had an abortion were classified as ‘single’ (Table 2): an increase from 75% in 2002. However, this relates only to marital status. The proportion of women who described themselves as ‘single with partner’ increased from 17% in 2002 to 49% in 2011, while 26% described themselves as ‘single no partner’: compared to 25% in 2002.
http://www.abortionreview.org/index.php/site/article/964/

Did I mention that marriage is good for society in more ways than one Sandy?

Once again, you are off topic. Your thread is about homosexuality. Focus.

Thanks for stopping by Sandy, as it's always a pleasant experience chatting with you.

 

[Arthur Brain]

So your answer would be "No, if it were legal a 18 year old male marrying a 15 year old post pubescent female would not make that male a pedophile."

Except it's not legal, I'd never support any law that was pushed through the courts to try and make 'post pubescent children' legal for marriage/sex as there's obvious reasons as to why they aren't mature enough for such, and I find it appalling that some states in the USA allow 13 year old girls to be handed over in marriage with 'parental consent'.

In case you haven't managed to keep up I said no such thing as you would apparently wish.

Unlike the LGBTQueer movement that you defend, neither Phil Robertson nor I want the age of consent lowered. In fact, both Phil Robertson and I acknowledge that out of wedlock sex is immoral.

So what's with the above and asking me about where my stance would be if it was legal for 15 year olds to get wed? I'm not the one arguing that that's okay either in reality or hypothetically as it isn't, and nor is making some crass comments about 'getting' girls so that they'll be more compliant, pick your ducks, have all your meals ready on time and be nice and subservient in general which was his obvious "humorous" gist.

So your answer is "No, other than making that one off the cuff remark he hasn't since talked about underage marriage nor has he ever lobbied to lower the age of consent when it comes to marriage."

Saying that men need to get girls while they're 15/16 at a public rally and the complete disparagement towards young women in the process pretty much says what he'd be okay with. You too by association.

lain:

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
So your answer would be "No, if it were legal a 18 year old male marrying a 15 year old post pubescent female would not make that male a pedophile."

Except it's not legal, I'd never support any law that was pushed through the courts to try and make 'post pubescent children' legal for marriage/sex as there's obvious reasons as to why they aren't mature enough for such, and I find it appalling that some states in the USA allow 13 year old girls to be handed over in marriage with 'parental consent.

Not to worry Art, there isn't a movement that is attempting to lower age of consent laws when it comes to traditional marriage. HOWEVER, the LGBTQueer movement is progressively pushing the legalization of adult-child sex.

Maybe you should take all of that energy that you're using to denounce Phil Robertson and put it someplace where it's really needed (in the movement that you defend).

Quote:
Unlike the LGBTQueer movement that you defend, neither Phil Robertson nor I want the age of consent lowered. In fact, both Phil Robertson and I acknowledge that out of wedlock sex is immoral.

So what's with the above and asking me about where my stance would be if it was legal for 15 year olds to get wed? I'm not the one arguing that that's okay either in reality or hypothetically as it isn't, and nor is making some crass comments about 'getting' girls so that they'll be more compliant, pick your ducks, have all your meals ready on time and be nice and subservient in general which was his obvious "humorous" gist.

Again Art, take all of that indignation that you hold towards Christians like Phil Robertson (who by the way spoke out against homosexuality...I'm sure that didn't bother Art in the least bit) and put it towards HRC founder and accused rapist/pederast Terry Bean and the long long list of LGBTQueer icons that are/were into kiddy sex ((Harry Hay, Frank Kameny, Harvey Milk, Dan Savage, Peter Tatchell, Gore Vidal, Allen Ginsberg, James Baldwin, Larry Kramer etc. etc. etc.),


Quote:
So your answer is "No, other than making that one off the cuff remark he hasn't since talked about underage marriage nor has he ever lobbied to lower the age of consent when it comes to marriage."

Saying that men need to get girls while they're 15/16 at a public rally and the complete disparagement towards young women in the process pretty much says what he'd be okay with. You too by association.

When Phil Robertson creates the "North American Man-Girl Love Association, I'll be concerned.

Until then, worry about the disease ridden foxes that are circling the hen house and eyeballing the young roosters.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Not to worry Art, there isn't a movement that is attempting to lower age of consent laws when it comes to traditional marriage. HOWEVER, the LGBTQueer movement is progressively pushing the legalization of adult-child sex.

Strikes me that in some of your states it's appallingly low as it is, and I could care less about "parental consent" being a 'qualifier'. Still, you seem to have no problem with children being wed as long as they're 'post pubescent', is that right? In the UK it's across the board, it doesn't differ from county to county. So what are you actually talking about where it comes to lowering age of consent laws? Where would you set the bar?

:think:

Maybe you should take all of that energy that you're using to denounce Phil Robertson and put it someplace where it's really needed (in the movement that you defend).

I don't 'defend' any movement. I acknowledge the rights of gay people to live without fear of incarceration or else providing they don't break the law. The rest is all in your deluded mind or what passes for one...

Again Art, take all of that indignation that you hold towards Christians like Phil Robertson (who by the way spoke out against homosexuality...I'm sure that didn't bother Art in the least bit) and put it towards HRC founder and accused rapist/pederast Terry Bean and the long long list of LGBTQueer icons that are/were into kiddy sex ((Harry Hay, Frank Kameny, Harvey Milk, Dan Savage, Peter Tatchell, Gore Vidal, Allen Ginsberg, James Baldwin, Larry Kramer etc. etc. etc.),

So you're fine with the guy making disparaging remarks about young women and the obvious references associated as regards age then? Noted if so. Your little deflective bunny trail is as irrelevant on this point as it is transparent. Do you support what he said in his 'views' on young girls/women or not? Simple question.

When Phil Robertson creates the "North American Man-Girl Love Association, I'll be concerned.

Until then, worry about the disease ridden foxes that are circling the hen house and eyeballing the young roosters.

So you're not concerned about a guy who thinks it's fine to advocate 'getting girls' young enough so they'll pick yer ducks instead of yer wallet and all of the obvious inferences associated then?

Okay.

 

[alwight]

So it's Door #1: Take a 15 year old teenager who very well might be sexually confused and put him in with the criminal element where he'll undoubtedly be someone's "boy toy" instead of getting to the core of why he is sexually confused.

It took some effort, but your answer is loud and clear Al (the LGBTQueer movement needs more recruits).

You're all over the place once again aCW. I simply said that any person who intends to do harm to children should be physically prevented from doing that if necessary. I did not suggest that a 15 year old with issues should therefore be given up to those already in jail as extra time jailbait.
The one track and incredibly low level at which your mind seems to operate is a truly salutary thing.

In a righteous society any person who engages in the unnatural sexual behavior known as homosexuality would be subject to the penalties and punishment that said society doles out. My point is that sexually confused children such as the boy in Sprague WA might be salvageable and as a compassionate society we should do everything possible to save him from a life of perversion.

Anyone's capacity to discern what is "righteous" is somewhat debateable assuming that they don't possess godly powers, and you are clearly no exception aCW. :nono:
However it seems to me that if you are now suggesting here that the 15 year old with issues should also be protected and looked after then perhaps you are betraying your own right wing ideology somewhat? Are you becoming a liberal aCW or is it simply a temporary convenience?
That you might not simply want to lock up the 15 y-o as an evil monster and throw away the key, why it's almost heart warming (sob).

If indeed the 15 year olds motive when he kidnapped the 2 year old boy was sexual, then he would be considered a pedophile.

Dare I suggest that qualified professional care might indeed be given to him, rather than what you might think of as "righteous", or would that flip you back to seeking a terrible righteous right wing Godly retribution? :think:

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Not to worry Art, there isn't a movement that is attempting to lower age of consent laws when it comes to traditional marriage. HOWEVER, the LGBTQueer movement is progressively pushing the legalization of adult-child sex.

Strikes me that in some of your states it's appallingly low as it is, and I could care less about "parental consent" being a 'qualifier'. Still, you seem to have no problem with children being wed as long as they're 'post pubescent', is that right? In the UK it's across the board, it doesn't differ from county to county. So what are you actually talking about where it comes to lowering age of consent laws? Where would you set the bar?

This coming from a guy who is recorded telling two children that "homosexuality is acceptable as long as the people involved love one another"?
And speaking of that ultra ultra conservative United Kingdom:
Would that be the same UK that published a letter by a well known homosexual activist that promoted pedophilia?

Once again for the liberal impaired: Phil Robertson, myself nor any Christian that I know has ever advocated lowering the age of consent.

Quote:
Maybe you should take all of that energy that you're using to denounce Phil Robertson and put it someplace where it's really needed (in the movement that you defend).

I don't 'defend' any movement. I acknowledge the rights of gay people to live without fear of incarceration or else providing they don't break the law. The rest is all in your deluded mind or what passes for one...

So you're against all of the things that the LGBTQueer movement has fought hard for (i.e. shoved around little old ladies and pregnant women and issued death threats to teenage girls who spoke out against them) such as marriage, adoption, equal employment, housing, etc. etc. etc.?

I thought so.


Quote:
Again Art, take all of that indignation that you hold towards Christians like Phil Robertson (who by the way spoke out against homosexuality...I'm sure that didn't bother Art in the least bit) and put it towards HRC founder and accused rapist/pederast Terry Bean and the long long list of LGBTQueer icons that are/were into kiddy sex ((Harry Hay, Frank Kameny, Harvey Milk, Dan Savage, Peter Tatchell, Gore Vidal, Allen Ginsberg, James Baldwin, Larry Kramer etc. etc. etc.),

So you're fine with the guy making disparaging remarks about young women and the obvious references associated as regards age then? Noted if so. Your little deflective bunny trail is as irrelevant on this point as it is transparent. Do you support what he said in his 'views' on young girls/women or not? Simple question.

This of course coming from a liberal who supports a movement that promotes abortion (many of those babies aborted are little girls), pornography and all kinds of things that "disparage" women.
Christians honor women and girls and don't treat them like garbage; Phil Robertson is no different (if you've ever seen Duck Dynasty you'd know that Phil puts Ms. Kay up high on a pedestal).


Quote:
When Phil Robertson creates the "North American Man-Girl Love Association, I'll be concerned.

Until then, worry about the disease ridden foxes that are circling the hen house and eyeballing the young roosters.

So you're not concerned about a guy who thinks it's fine to advocate 'getting girls' young enough so they'll pick yer ducks instead of yer wallet and all of the obvious inferences associated then?

Again: This coming from a guy who supports a movement that prepares little boys and girls for genital mutilation later in life and indoctrinates them at early ages to the ways of disease ridden-perverse sex?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
So it's Door #1: Take a 15 year old teenager who very well might be sexually confused and put him in with the criminal element where he'll undoubtedly be someone's "boy toy" instead of getting to the core of why he is sexually confused.

It took some effort, but your answer is loud and clear Al (the LGBTQueer movement needs more recruits).

You're all over the place once again aCW. I simply said that any person who intends to do harm to children should be physically prevented from doing that if necessary.

We're not talking about "any person" here Al, we're talking about a 15 year old boy who in the eyes of the law isn't considered an adult, a boy who very well might be dealing with same sex desires.

I did not suggest that a 15 year old with issues should therefore be given up to those already in jail as extra time jailbait.
The one track and incredibly low level at which your mind seems to operate is a truly salutary thing.

Looking at your statement at the bottom of the post, I believe that we've finally come to an agreement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
In a righteous society any person who engages in the unnatural sexual behavior known as homosexuality would be subject to the penalties and punishment that said society doles out. My point is that sexually confused children such as the boy in Sprague WA might be salvageable and as a compassionate society we should do everything possible to save him from a life of perversion.

Anyone's capacity to discern what is "righteous" is somewhat debateable assuming that they don't possess godly powers, and you are clearly no exception aCW.

Refer to the "Book of Rules" when it comes to what is right and what is wrong. If you want to talk about the secular humanist rule book, I'll gladly do so.

However it seems to me that if you are now suggesting here that the 15 year old with issues should also be protected and looked after then perhaps you are betraying your own right wing ideology somewhat? Are you becoming a liberal aCW or is it simply a temporary convenience?
That you might not simply want to lock up the 15 y-o as an evil monster and throw away the key, why it's almost heart warming (sob).

It's a Christian compassion thing that atheists like you don't understand. Get to the core of the problem when they're young (in this case the core of the problem likely being homosexual desires) and do your best to save that person from a life of misery.


Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
If indeed the 15 year olds motive when he kidnapped the 2 year old boy was sexual, then he would be considered a pedophile.

Dare I suggest that qualified professional care might indeed be given to him, rather than what you might think of as "righteous", or would that flip you back to seeking a terrible righteous right wing Godly retribution?

Thank you Al! A qualified reparative therapy professional should work with this sexually confused boy and help him change his unnatural sex desires.
I knew you'd eventually come around Al.

 

[GFR7]

What's not to understand? There are proud and unrepentant homosexuals who for reasons of their own don't want the institution of marriage changed. Is that supposed to make them less threatening to society?

Yes, they are less threatening. They may demand the right to be gay in privacy but they are against pushing the school agenda, and infringing on tradition, nature, & Christianity for others.

It appears that you have much in common with Domenico Dolce and Stefano Gabbana or else why would you post their article?

No, I agree with them the way Brian Brown and other conservatives do right now. For the reasons stated above.

There is no such thing as "gay people". The people you are referring to proudly engage in the behavior known as homosexuality, a behavior which is changeable.

I know but we've gone down a road now, from which there is no returning. The question is: Why? Why was there not ample opposition to the entire ideology, when it was still in the making, and its defenders few in number? :think:

These supposed "rights" that those who engage in the sexual behavior known as homosexuality have been given go against tradition. Biologically speaking, homosex is not only unnatural but extremely harmful.

I know, but so is eating oneself into a heart attack, or drinking or smoking oneself into decay.

I think it's wonderful that Catholics like the writers on First Things and Brian Brown are applauding Dolce & Gabbana.

 

[kiwimacahau]

Homosexuality is no more inherently sinful than is heterosexuality

 

[alwight]

It took some effort, but your answer is loud and clear Al (the LGBTQueer movement needs more recruits).

Nothing I've ever said here has been in support of any activist group's agenda nor in any of their particular targets whatever that might mean.

We're not talking about "any person" here Al, we're talking about a 15 year old boy who in the eyes of the law isn't considered an adult, a boy who very well might be dealing with same sex desires.

I don't consider that same sex desires is a great problem for individuals other than if that person is also confronted with a mindless homophobic bigotry.
People are what they are and must deal with life accordingly.

Looking at your statement at the bottom of the post, I believe that we've finally come to an agreement.

We were in agreement before iirc aCW, we both agreed that criticism in a subscribers POTD thread should be open to criticism rather than just toadying praise but sadly the ToL Mods didn't agree.
Whether that agreement will ever happen here however is rather harder to imagine.

Refer to the "Book of Rules" when it comes to what is right and what is wrong. If you want to talk about the secular humanist rule book, I'll gladly do so.

I always try to do my own thinking aCW, rather than rely on what someone else once wrote while perhaps under the influence of drink, a delusion or even a disingenuous desire for the gathering of a personal following and acolytes.

It's a Christian compassion thing that atheists like you don't understand. Get to the core of the problem when they're young (in this case the core of the problem likely being homosexual desires) and do your best to save that person from a life of misery.

The main misery for gay people imo seems to be coming largely from homophobic fundamentalist religionists adhering to whichever ancient holy scripture that they happen to adhere to.
Some Christians are clearly very much embarrassed by the homophobic bigotry shown by others who also claim to be Christian. lain:

Thank you Al! A qualified reparative therapy professional should work with this sexually confused boy and help him change his unnatural sex desires.
I knew you'd eventually come around Al.

Your quack professional "therapists" are seeking to make a fast buck at best. No honest accredited mental health professional is ever likely to try to break someone's will and to make them want to reject the sexual orientation that is not evil, just a very natural part of what makes them, them. :nono:

 

[GFR7]

ADDENDUM to my other post:

Did you see this one, aCW? :think:

http://barbwire.com/2015/03/17/0655-i-have-come-to-indoctrinate-your-children-and-im-not-sorry/

 

[Arthur Brain]

This coming from a guy who is recorded telling two children that "homosexuality is acceptable as long as the people involved love one another"?
And speaking of that ultra ultra conservative United Kingdom:
Would that be the same UK that published a letter by a well known homosexual activist that promoted pedophilia?

Ah, standard aCW evasive tactics to avoid answering direct questions I see. Put up a load of obfuscation and smoke and hope nobody notices. Here they are again:

"Still, you seem to have no problem with children being wed as long as they're 'post pubescent', is that right? In the UK it's across the board, it doesn't differ from county to county. So what are you actually talking about where it comes to lowering age of consent laws? Where would you set the bar?"

Oh and FTR I'm not recorded as telling children any such thing or anything at all connected with sexual relations. Check back among your beloved table of contents to see your mistake.

Once again for the liberal impaired: Phil Robertson, myself nor any Christian that I know has ever advocated lowering the age of consent.

Phil advocates 15 as acceptable. Do you agree with him? Should be easy enough to answer.

So you're against all of the things that the LGBTQueer movement has fought hard for (i.e. shoved around little old ladies and pregnant women and issued death threats to teenage girls who spoke out against them) such as marriage, adoption, equal employment, housing, etc. etc. etc.?

I thought so.

I've told you what I support and it isn't a movement. Anyone who breaks the law should be dealt with whether gay or straight.

This of course coming from a liberal who supports a movement that promotes abortion (many of those babies aborted are little girls), pornography and all kinds of things that "disparage" women.
Christians honor women and girls and don't treat them like garbage; Phil Robertson is no different (if you've ever seen Duck Dynasty you'd know that Phil puts Ms. Kay up high on a pedestal).

Nope, don't support any such movement so how about instead you explain how Robertson's remarks were "honouring" women and girls exactly? Do please enlighten us.

Again: This coming from a guy who supports a movement that prepares little boys and girls for genital mutilation later in life and indoctrinates them at early ages to the ways of disease ridden-perverse sex?

Er, nope. Ready to answer the questions now?

:think:

 

[Nick M]

Once again for the liberal impaired: Phil Robertson, myself nor any Christian that I know has ever advocated lowering the age of consent.

And on the contrary, many say it should be 20 years old for adulthood and all of its choices. The faggots want to sodomize children, we know this. They have stated it.

 

[Arthur Brain]

And on the contrary, many say it should be 20 years old for adulthood and all of its choices. The faggots want to sodomize children, we know this. They have stated it.

Robertson didn't. He said "Get em' when they're 15/16" so quit playing - or being dumb Nick.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
What's not to understand? There are proud and unrepentant homosexuals who for reasons of their own don't want the institution of marriage changed. Is that supposed to make them less threatening to society?

Yes, they are less threatening. They may demand the right to be gay in privacy but they are against pushing the school agenda, and infringing on tradition, nature, & Christianity for others.

I don't recall seeing in the post that I wrote that the proud and unrepentant homosexuals who are against "gay marriage" are against the other things that the LGBTQueer movement has achieved.
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4194802&postcount=5034

Nor did I see in the article written by proud and unrepentant homosexuals Domenico Dolce and Stefano Gabbana anything other than them saying that traditional marriage should be left alone primarily because of the needs of children.
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/fi...abbana-the-only-family-is-the-traditional-one

In fact, the only one who is saying that "homosexuals only want privacy" and none of the other things that the LGBTQueer agenda has brought them is YOU.

I take that back, in other posts you've stated that those who engage in homosexual behavior deserve certain "rights". So which is it, do those who engage in homosexual behavior "only want privacy" or do they want other supposed "rights" that the LGBTQueer agenda is responsible for giving them?

Quote:
It appears that you have much in common with Domenico Dolce and Stefano Gabbana or else why would you post their article?

No, I agree with them the way Brian Brown and other conservatives do right now. For the reasons stated above.

There is nothing "conservative" about endorsing those who proudly and unrepentantly engage in homosexual behavior.

Quote:
There is no such thing as "gay people". The people you are referring to proudly engage in the behavior known as homosexuality, a behavior which is changeable.

I know but we've gone down a road now, from which there is no returning. The question is: Why?...

Those who engage in homosex would much rather use a happy word such a "gay" instead of the word "homosexual" because of what the latter word really reveals.

Quote:
These supposed "rights" that those who engage in the sexual behavior known as homosexuality have been given go against tradition. Biologically speaking, homosex is not only unnatural but extremely harmful.

I know, but so is eating oneself into a heart attack, or drinking or smoking oneself into decay.

(They give themselves away every time when they compare an absolutely filthy behavior that has been severely punished throughout the history of western civilization with that of unhealthy eating habits and tobacco use...sigh, memories of Aaron).

I think it's wonderful that Catholics like the writers on First Things and Brian Brown are applauding Dolce & Gabbana.

I didn't see mention of National Organization of Marriage's Brian Brown commenting on Dolce and Gabbana, but after his "Dinner with Danny" fiasco, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised.
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3987757&postcount=1140

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Homosexuality is no more inherently sinful than is heterosexuality

Is this just another one of your drive-by troll posts or do you intend on sticking around and backing those words with facts kiwi?

 

[serpentdove]

Student's Right to Privacy Act Introduced in Nevada‏

Homosexuality is: forbidden (Lev. 18:22), considered an abomination (1 Kin. 14:24), punishment for (Lev. 20:13), unclean (Rom. 1:24, 26, 27). :vomit:

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
It took some effort, but your answer is loud and clear Al (the LGBTQueer movement needs more recruits).

Nothing I've ever said here has been in support of any activist group's agenda nor in any of their particular targets whatever that might mean.

As much as you would love to steal away Art Brain's "Queen of Denial" title, he pretty much has it for life. If we need to review the table of contents to show where you stand on the LGBTQueer agenda Al, I'll gladly take the time to 'refresh' your memory.


Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
We're not talking about "any person" here Al, we're talking about a 15 year old boy who in the eyes of the law isn't considered an adult, a boy who very well might be dealing with same sex desires.

I don't consider that same sex desires is a great problem for individuals other than if that person is also confronted with a mindless homophobic bigotry.
People are what they are and must deal with life accordingly.

If indeed it was same sex desires that were responsible for the 15 year old boy in Sprague WA to do what he did, then those desires were a "problem" for the children and their families involved.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Refer to the "Book of Rules" when it comes to what is right and what is wrong. If you want to talk about the secular humanist rule book, I'll gladly do so.

I always try to do my own thinking aCW, rather than rely on what someone else once wrote while perhaps under the influence of drink, a delusion or even a disingenuous desire for the gathering of a personal following and acolytes.

Refer to the table of contents to see what sort of things and people alwight the atheist supports because he does his "own thinking".


Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
It's a Christian compassion thing that atheists like you don't understand. Get to the core of the problem when they're young (in this case the core of the problem likely being homosexual desires) and do your best to save that person from a life of misery.

The main misery for gay people imo seems to be coming largely from homophobic fundamentalist religionists adhering to whichever ancient holy scripture that they happen to adhere to.
Some Christians are clearly very much embarrassed by the homophobic bigotry shown by others who also claim to be Christian.

So you're fine with the term "gay youth" and have no problem whatsoever if this particular 15 year old in Sprague WA does have homosexual desires?

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Thank you Al! A qualified reparative therapy professional should work with this sexually confused boy and help him change his unnatural sex desires.
I knew you'd eventually come around Al.

Your quack professional "therapists" are seeking to make a fast buck at best. No honest accredited mental health professional is ever likely to try to break someone's will and to make them want to reject the sexual orientation that is not evil, just a very natural part of what makes them, them.

I knew that you'd be very uncomfortable when I used the words "reparative therapy professional". How about in the future I refer to them as "therapists that help people with desires that no one wants"?

No one wants to have homosexual desires do they Al?