|
Post by rational on Jun 14, 2015 0:16:38 GMT -5
How about the children of L/G couples who were born to them in previous marriages?
I know couples who had children before & are now raising their children together.
Do you think that those children should have been taken away from them and adopted out to hetero couples?
If they insist on living together. I usually am not prone to revel in another's misfortune, but when I read things like this I am glad to see the rapid decline of people who like Rush Limbaugh support this type of rhetoric and promote it to the public. Wouldn't it be enlightening to know why same sex marriage and same sex relationships are so threatening to Lee?
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Jun 14, 2015 4:09:30 GMT -5
They may have made homosexuality legal but they have not made it compulsory. Despite what the believers in urban myths would have us believe.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jun 14, 2015 10:42:58 GMT -5
If they insist on living together. I usually am not prone to revel in another's misfortune, but when I read things like this I am glad to see the rapid decline of people who like Rush Limbaugh support this type of rhetoric and promote it to the public. Wouldn't it be enlightening to know why same sex marriage and same sex relationships are so threatening to Lee? To me its a matter of reinforcing an ideal in the culture. I hear now that ideal is being called the natural family. I had some neighbors once who were gay and had children. I didn't like it but we got along fine. Gays have a friend in me at some level as we have a common enemy, the government. That is to say I don't trust or want government to arbitrate every aspect of our lives and I wouldn't actually want children yanked from their homes even though I said so. I said so because I don't think its right and I think it shades and even mocks the ideal of the natural family. I suppose you could say exceptions to the natural family prove the rule, perhaps so. To continue, my homophobia if you want to call it that is as follows: 1) There are societies where gay behavior has existed in excess of typical deviations from the hetero orientation. This strongly implies a cultural impetus to gayness. It would help us to understand ourselves better to ask why gayness and other deviations from hetero-fidelity have become prevalent in those societies. 2) I'm opposed to the abuse and misuse of the meanings pertaining to the word 'natural', an inevitability when a creator isn't assumed.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 14, 2015 11:24:14 GMT -5
To me its a matter of reinforcing an ideal in the culture. I hear now that ideal is being called the natural family. It may well be an ideal to you but in a society there are others involved. I am guessing that I have one or two 'ideals' that would be at odds with yours. It mocks your ideal of the natural family. I am wondering where this idea of the natural family came from. Certainly not from the examples in the bible. One of god's favorites had multiple wives, many concubines, and killed the husband of the woman he got pregnant while having an adulterous affair. Is this the source of the ideal 'natural' family because there was no homosexual relationship (we can forget about Jonathan for the time being!)? I don't believe I mentioned homophobia. Specific examples might make your meaning clearer. From your point of view, isn't the creator an omnipotent omniscient being? Being the creator of all things aren't they all 'natural'? How do you define natural? On the other hand the ideal marriage you are looking for is not the 'natural' state for the vast majority of animals. How can you call it natural? Or does 'natural' = traditional? Perhaps within the last 1-200 years?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jun 14, 2015 14:19:10 GMT -5
Since homosexuality is found in many species, not just the human species, it makes sense that it is a biological outcome and therefore is part of life. No one is told they have to be a certain way, a homosexual couple does not in any way hinder or effect a heterosexual couple so I think it is a choice on the part of heterosexuals to condemn something that is different from them. They do this because of a couple of verses in a book that they really don't even understand and are constantly warring with each other over the interpretation of things found within it. Live and let live, love, be compassionate and tolerant of that which does not hurt anyone. Imo, those that oppose gay marriage do more harm than good. Placing a stigma on certain groups in society is abusive. A good example of how it effects the children is how it was for unwed mothers and their offspring not that many years ago. The mothers suffered and so did their children because people were choosing to place them in a category that made them 'not good enough'.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jun 14, 2015 15:36:43 GMT -5
I usually am not prone to revel in another's misfortune, but when I read things like this I am glad to see the rapid decline of people who like Rush Limbaugh support this type of rhetoric and promote it to the public. Wouldn't it be enlightening to know why same sex marriage and same sex relationships are so threatening to Lee? To me its a matter of reinforcing an ideal in the culture. I hear now that ideal is being called the natural family. I had some neighbors once who were gay and had children. I didn't like it but we got along fine. Gays have a friend in me at some level as we have a common enemy, the government. That is to say I don't trust or want government to arbitrate every aspect of our lives and I wouldn't actually want children yanked from their homes even though I said so. I said so because I don't think its right and I think it shades and even mocks the ideal of the natural family. I suppose you could say exceptions to the natural family prove the rule, perhaps so. To continue, my homophobia if you want to call it that is as follows: 1) There are societies where gay behavior has existed in excess of typical deviations from the hetero orientation. This strongly implies a cultural impetus to gayness. It would help us to understand ourselves better to ask why gayness and other deviations from hetero-fidelity have become prevalent in those societies. 2) I'm opposed to the abuse and misuse of the meanings pertaining to the word 'natural', an inevitability when a creator isn't assumed. I think that I am beginning to see the light!
For instance, the Creator of the billed cap DID NOT INTEND for the cap to be worn ass backwards! The Creator meant for it to be worn with the bill of the cap in front!
There was a reason He Created the cap in that fashion! It was to shield one's precious eyes from the glare of the sun!
Some people may say that it is OK to wear the cap that way, ass backwards, (bill of cap towards the back instead of the front) because it a matter the culture at this time in the history of mankind.
But it really is a perverted way of wearing something in a way that the Creator did not intend!
It doesn't shade the eyes and even mocks the ideal of the 'natural' way!
Just look at the cap worn ass backwards?! Notice that triangle of the open skin that is created on the forehead by wearing it in such a perverted way!
That triangle of skin is right over another even more important and precious part of one's head -one's brain! It is called the the PREFRONTAL CORTEX!
The PREFRONTAL CORTEX!
"That area of ones brain, the gray matter of the anterior part of the frontal lobe that is highly developed in humans and plays a role in the regulation of complex cognitive, emotional, and behavioral functioning ."
S0, with the sun beaming down on their PREFRONTAL CORTEX, is it any wonder why our civilization is on the brink of extinction?
The wearers of these ass backwards caps are baking their brains!*
*THE AUTHOR DOES NOT INTEND this POST TO APPLY ALL MEN WEARING THEIR CAPS 'ass backwards.' My apologies to those men, -including MY son!
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jun 15, 2015 18:10:28 GMT -5
Congratulations for commencing the mind of a theist! You dip your your toes in first then in up to your knees. Next your whole legs until you're ready to get out again. Can't help you after that, either you want to be a theoretical, theologian or you don't. As far as hats go, I recall reading somewhere the hat was made for man, not man for the hat. Possibly Hat Thew 12:8 but I can't remember. Regarding our Lord's invention of the baseball cap, they retain heat and obstruct vision on the bill side, and exhaust heat through the hole in the back. Depending on the temperature and angle of the sun, the cap can be worn variously to maximize or minimize heat exchange. What a marvelous Lord and God we serve ... Welcome!
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jun 15, 2015 20:23:59 GMT -5
"theoretical, theologian?"
Geeze, Lee, I was trying to be a comedian!
Well, shucks, -guess I'll have to give up any hope for a career in comedy!
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jun 16, 2015 20:41:36 GMT -5
I was being matter-of-fact. Can anyone venture a walk of faith without being theoretical?
|
|
terry
Senior Member
Posts: 328
|
Post by terry on Jun 17, 2015 7:35:49 GMT -5
Wow didn't realize there were so many bigots on this board. How does homosexual marriage affect you and your spouse? Doesn't bother my marriage in the least. How many wife's or concubines Did Abraham, David Sampson etc have? Why should a deceased spouses in a hetero marriage be passed to a spouse u encumber, but not a surviving homo couple? Why should employer paid health insurance be taxed for a homo couple but not a hetero. The USSC isn't going to impose anything, but hopefully they will right a wrong when you start off your post with name calling it doesn't make your argument that credible... According to Webster Full Definition of BIGOT : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance I would say that this definition would fit several of the posters in these thread wouldn't you?
|
|
|
Post by terfly4fun on Jun 17, 2015 9:25:43 GMT -5
the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition, Text Revision, also known as DSM-IV-TR, a manual published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA, The DSM-IV codes are thus used by mental health professionals to describe the features of a given mental disorder and indicate how the disorder can be distinguished from other, similar problems. REF: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSM-IV_codes The DSM-IV used to list homosexuality as an "abnormality." Now it shows homosexuality to be "normal." I wonder what makes it "normal" all of a sudden? It certainly is not natural! Let's say a male soldier goes to war and gets his genitalia blown away by a grenade, why then does he have to go through hormone and estrogen therapy and "learn" to be a woman? If it is "normal," why does it take YEARS of counseling and on-going therapy and reinforcement, to " ... stay the course ..." of this "new" gender? It's NOT normal. I'm tired of hearing this term 'homophobic.' That is just some cop-out term some creative homosexual thought up. I say homosexuals are all HETEROPHOBIC!!! www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?...heterophobic [' ...heterophobic: having irrational hatred of heterosexuality: showing an irrational hatred, disapproval, or fear of heterosexual people ...'] Additionally, there's this bologna about "culture" and "bigotry" ... BOLOGNA!!! First of all, homosexuality is nor more a "racial" issue than is heterosexuality! I see it as a gender identity disorder. Some homosexuals argue that earth worms are both sexes. Human beings are not earthworms!!!! God made us male and female - on purpose! Now, AWAY WITH THIS NOTION OF BIGOTRY AND HOMOSEXUALITY BEING A "RACIAL" AND "CULTURAL" ISSUE!!! HOMOSEXISM IS A CHOICE FOR THE MOST PART.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 17, 2015 11:03:57 GMT -5
the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition, Text Revision, also known as DSM-IV-TR, a manual published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA, The DSM-IV codes are thus used by mental health professionals to describe the features of a given mental disorder and indicate how the disorder can be distinguished from other, similar problems. REF: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSM-IV_codes The DSM-IV used to list homosexuality as an "abnormality." Now it shows homosexuality to be "normal." I wonder what makes it "normal" all of a sudden? First of all, Homosexuality was never listed in the DSM-IV. It was not included in the DSM-3 but there was a ego dystonic homosexuality section. By DSM-IV it was completely removed and was not in DSM-V. As to why the change was made - understanding and increased knowledge of the roots of homosexuality. And, of course, there was the evidence. Examination of the results of psychological tests for homosexuals and heterosexuals revealed that both groups score within the normal range. Homosexuality is unrelated to psychological problems. It is no more a disorder than left-handedness, which was considered a disorder before homosexuality.What does transgender transformation have to do with homosexuality? How does being a male with XY chromosomes relate to a male with XY without gonads or a male with XY chromosomes deciding to go the root of estrogen therapy?First of all, getting genitalia blown off removes an individual from the realm of normalcy. Secondly, deciding to undergo estrogen therapy is the decision of the individual. Do you have information why the person in the accident decided to undergo estrogen therapy? You are right. Having your genitalia blown off is not normal.Why? The people who beat and tortured Matthew Shepard were homophobic. People who discriminate or use violence against a person because they are homosexual is described as homophobic. Much of this post could easily be considered homophobic. Like Matthew Shepard or Raymond Taavel or Sean Kennedy? Perhaps people become creative while they are being beaten.And I am sure you have some examples of this.Not sure how you are tying race into all of this.Here is your chance to show that the data collected to date is wrong, conduct your own research, and propose your entry into the next version of the DSM. Data based ideas is what is needed. Do you have anything to support you claims now?There are a lot of organisms that are hermaphrodites but you will have to help me understand how that related to homosexuality. There are also Homo sapiens that are hermaphrodites. Have you met any?Well, there are males and females and then there are the hermaphrodites.This would be a good answer if there was not the DNA data to show it is probably wrong. I am assuming you are not a homosexual or at least not admitting you are. Did you choose to be a heterosexual? Why?
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jun 17, 2015 20:58:33 GMT -5
I'm opposed to the abuse and misuse of the meanings pertaining to the word 'natural', an inevitability when a creator isn't assumed. From your point of view, isn't the creator an omnipotent omniscient being? Being the creator of all things aren't they all 'natural'? How do you define natural? On the other hand the ideal marriage you are looking for is not the 'natural' state for the vast majority of animals. How can you call it natural? Or does 'natural' = traditional? Perhaps within the last 1-200 years? In the broadest sense all things are lawful. However, all things are not advantageous. It is perverse that the supposition, " .. at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female' is disputed today, and the normality of their respective desires.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 17, 2015 22:39:46 GMT -5
From your point of view, isn't the creator an omnipotent omniscient being? Being the creator of all things aren't they all 'natural'? How do you define natural? On the other hand the ideal marriage you are looking for is not the 'natural' state for the vast majority of animals. How can you call it natural? Or does 'natural' = traditional? Perhaps within the last 1-200 years? In the broadest sense all things are lawful. However, all things are not advantageous. It is perverse that the supposition, " .. at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female' is disputed today, and the normality of their respective desires. I don't think the basis of that myth is being called into question. Many homosexuals are male or female. Diversity is almost always advantageous.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jun 18, 2015 1:13:27 GMT -5
the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition, Text Revision, also known as DSM-IV-TR, a manual published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA, The DSM-IV codes are thus used by mental health professionals to describe the features of a given mental disorder and indicate how the disorder can be distinguished from other, similar problems. REF: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSM-IV_codesThe DSM-IV used to list homosexuality as an "abnormality." Now it shows homosexuality to be "normal." I wonder what makes it "normal" all of a sudden? It certainly is not natural! Let's say a male soldier goes to war and gets his genitalia blown away by a grenade, why then does he have to go through hormone and estrogen therapy and "learn" to be a woman? If it is "normal," why does it take YEARS of counseling and on-going therapy and reinforcement, to " ... stay the course ..." of this "new" gender? It's NOT normal. I'm tired of hearing this term 'homophobic.' That is just some cop-out term some creative homosexual thought up. I say homosexuals are all HETEROPHOBIC!!! www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?...heterophobic [' ...heterophobic: having irrational hatred of heterosexuality: showing an irrational hatred, disapproval, or fear of heterosexual people ...' Additionally, there's this bologna about "culture" and "bigotry" ... BOLOGNA!!! First of all, homosexuality is nor more a "racial" issue than is heterosexuality!
I see it as a gender identity disorder. Some homosexuals argue that earth worms are both sexes. Human beings are not earthworms!!!! God made us male and female - on purpose! Now, AWAY WITH THIS NOTION OF BIGOTRY AND HOMOSEXUALITY BEING A "RACIAL" AND "CULTURAL" ISSUE!!! HOMOSEXISM IS A CHOICE FOR THE MOST PART.
Perhaps, since you see homosexuality differently, you should set the American Psychiatric Association straight on the subject since it doesn't seem to agree with your conclusions. "Psychology was one of the first disciplines to study homosexuality as a discrete phenomenon.
Prior to and throughout most of the 20th century, common standard psychology viewed homosexuality in terms of pathological models as a mental illness.
That classification began to be subjected to critical scrutiny in the research, which consistently failed to produce any empirical or scientific basis for regarding homosexuality as a disorder.
As a result of such accumulated research, a large number of professionals in medicine, mental health, and the behavioral and social sciences, opposing the classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder, have in more recent years claimed the conclusion that it was inaccurate, and that the DSM classification reflected untested assumptions that were based on once-prevalent social norms and clinical impressions from unrepresentative samples which consisted of patients seeking therapy and individuals whose conduct brought them into the criminal justice system.[1]
Since the 1970s, the consensus of the behavioral and social sciences and the health and mental health professions globally is that homosexuality is a healthy variation of human sexual orientation, although some professionals maintain that it is a disorder.[2]
In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder.
The American Psychological Association Council of Representatives followed in 1975.[3]
Thereafter other major mental health organizations followed, including the World Health Organization in 1990.
Consequently, while a minority[citation needed] today believes homosexuality is a mental disorder, the body of current research and clinical literature supports a consensus that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are healthy variations of human sexuality, and is reflected in the official positions of the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association.
It is all there to read if you really want to know instead of just grabbing something off of some anti- gay fundamentalist religious site.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jun 18, 2015 3:06:43 GMT -5
I was being matter-of-fact. Can anyone venture a walk of faith without being theoretical? ehum... Are you saying that your "walk of faith" is theoretical, suppositional?
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jun 20, 2015 23:26:36 GMT -5
Mine has been.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jun 20, 2015 23:27:55 GMT -5
In the broadest sense all things are lawful. However, all things are not advantageous. It is perverse that the supposition, " .. at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female' is disputed today, and the normality of their respective desires. I don't think the basis of that myth is being called into question. Many homosexuals are male or female. Diversity is almost always advantageous. I bet at least half of all gays wish they were straight. The stuff works better that way.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jun 20, 2015 23:36:14 GMT -5
Same sex attraction is a disorder for those who would prefer to be straight. Same-sex attraction is a disorder with respect to anatomical function. Unwanted hetero and same-sex attractions are spiritual problems; they are not first-of-all, examples of our inadequate descriptions of nature.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jun 21, 2015 0:58:21 GMT -5
Diversity is almost always advantageous. Whatever happened to variety? I guess it bowed out with God.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jun 21, 2015 1:14:02 GMT -5
Then perhaps you aren't as far along in your stage of investigation of why we believe certain things as I am -since I went through that suppositional phase a long time ago.
I went through the reasoning using conjecture, assumption there was god, and finally realized that it was only a feeling, a desire to believe and nothing more than that.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jun 21, 2015 1:23:57 GMT -5
when you start off your post with name calling it doesn't make your argument that credible... According to Webster Full Definition of BIGOT : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance I would say that this definition would fit several of the posters in these thread wouldn't you? Yes, terry, you are right.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 21, 2015 18:12:21 GMT -5
I don't think the basis of that myth is being called into question. Many homosexuals are male or female. Diversity is almost always advantageous. I bet at least half of all gays wish they were straight. The stuff works better that way. what stuff? You seem to be hung up on only the physical sex. But it is a step in the right directionto acknowledge theirs is not a choice.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jun 21, 2015 18:59:53 GMT -5
Anyone who is interested biological aspects of gender identity should listen to Charley Rose's program on the subject.
Eric Kandel is joined by Ben Barres, chair of neurobiology at Stanford University,
Norman Spack of Boston Children’s Hospital, Catherine Dulac of Harvard University,
Melissa Hines of University of Cambridge, Janet Hyde of University of Wisconsin.
(Air Date 6/16/2015)
Just look of Charley Rose's calender find the program click.
There is some amazing research being done!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 21, 2015 19:32:51 GMT -5
Same sex attraction is a disorder for those who would prefer to be straight. Left handedness is a disorder for those who would prefer to right handed. See how crazy that sounds? Again, although it is how you think same sex attraction is not always about copulation. There are a great many ways to express physical intimacy that do not have anything to do with anatomical function, despite your prurient interests. Unwanted and forces are criminal acts. Calling them spiritual problems sets up a belief that those who deal with criminal activities do not need to be informed because, after all, it is a spiritual problem.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2015 21:27:48 GMT -5
Quote - "Same sex attraction is a disorder for those who would prefer to be straight. Left handedness is a disorder for those who would prefer to right handed. See how crazy that sounds? "
What about a white guy walking into a church and shooting black people? Is that a disorder? No, evolutionary theory tells us it's not. And what about some guy getting his rocks off looking at kiddie porn? May yes, maybe no.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jun 21, 2015 22:30:38 GMT -5
Quote - "Same sex attraction is a disorder for those who would prefer to be straight. Left handedness is a disorder for those who would prefer to right handed. See how crazy that sounds? " What about a white guy walking into a church and shooting black people? Is that a disorder?
No, evolutionary theory tells us it's not. And what about some guy getting his rocks off looking at kiddie porn?
May yes, maybe no. Crime, Bert, crime.
You are always talking about moral decay, Bert, -why is it so difficult for you to understand the meaning of a crime?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jun 21, 2015 22:36:06 GMT -5
Same sex attraction is a disorder for those who would prefer to be straight. Same-sex attraction is a disorder with respect to anatomical function. Unwanted hetero and same-sex attractions are spiritual problems; they are not first-of-all, examples of our inadequate descriptions of nature. NOT spiritual problems, Lee.
You really should get out of your "stuck in a rut" mentality and check out some of the biological aspects not spiritual problems of gender identity from research done in fetal development.
Just look of Charley Rose's calender find the program click.
|
|