"More popular than Jesus Christ"

[freeandfun1]

Believing that religious crap is one thing, but expecting everybody to live by these rules is insane. You're being a very hypocrite religious extremist.

And I don't 'fuck everything that walks,' where did YOU get this ridiculous crap? Not respecting another is something your religion doesn't want you to do.

Explain:

1) What is a hypocrite (real definition, not yours)

2) How is HE being a hypocrite

3) What you referring to as "religious crap"

You expect him or others that base their morals on religion to live by YOUR rules, so why can he not want/expect you to live by his religious rules? If anybody is exhibiting hypocrisy here, it is YOU.

Pot calling the kettle black?

 

[Blashyrkh]

Explain:

1) What is a hypocrite (real definition, not yours)

2) How is HE being a hypocrite

3) What you referring to as "religious crap"

You expect him or others that base their morals on religion to live by YOUR rules, so why can he not want/expect you to live by his religious rules? If anybody is exhibiting hypocrisy here, it is YOU.

Pot calling the kettle black?

1) 'a person who professes beliefs and opinions that they do not hold'

2) He is a hypocrite because his religion is based on love and respect to other people, no matter their beliefs or way of living. Describing homosexuals as being 'mentally ill' and 'perverted' is not a proof of this. And he is denying the truth, saying there's ONLY ONE way to live your life (a religious life).

3) Premarital sex being bad, homesexuality being a mental disorder, father/mother position in family, and so on. And I don't want every believer in the world to live by my morals, but I just can't understand why you refuse to believe there might be more to existence than the way religion thinks about it.

 

[007]

1) 'a person who professes beliefs and opinions that they do not hold'

Your first statement above reaks of ignorance. Ignorance of the fact that you do NOT know me, yet you make a claim about a life that you have ZERO knowledge of. So let me set you straight, I DO "hold" the beliefs and opinions of which I make my point with here. If I DON'T "hold" it, I won't profess it.

2) He is a hypocrite because his religion is based on love and respect to other people, no matter their beliefs or way of living. Describing homosexuals as being 'mentally ill' and 'perverted' is not a proof of this. And he is denying the truth, saying there's ONLY ONE way to live your life (a religious life).

Homosexuality is in and of itself, the worst scourge known to mankind that pertains to sex. It is sick, perverse and vile. And those who "choose" to endulge in it should seek help and be treated, and that's the way it was until the faggots started to get nasty and put pressure on the psychiatric community.

3) Premarital sex being bad, homesexuality being a mental disorder, father/mother position in family, and so on. And I don't want every believer in the world to live by my morals, but I just can't understand why you refuse to believe there might be more to existence than the way religion thinks about it.

The problem with this is, you and your liberal constituants want to rewrite what existance is, in an unnatural, premiscuous, and perverted way. There's no good in it. It's an immoral and destructive path. So you take it. I could give a rats ass. But don't come here telling me that the sick beliefs you hold contain some fragment of truth. It's bull shit, so go tell it to your buddies at the D.U.

 

[Gem]

Blashyrkh,

I agree with you that premarital sex is a reality in our society today, and I agree with you that not all of it is bad. However, to deny the negatives that have come out of the increased sexualization of this nation is at best, naivete and at worst, stupidity.

(Note, there are no links in this post because it is conversational, if the conversation progresses I will, of course, provide links to needed topics)

Single parent homes have increased by the thousands, while single parents CAN be loving, supportive, and incredibly successful as parents, statistics show that people raised in single family homes have drastically higher risks of becoming criminals, of doing much worse than their peers raised in dual-parent homes in primary school, high school, college, and in the workforce.

The more premarital sex you have, the higher the rate of single parents...single parents lead to numerous problems, including higher crime rates, and many of the problems we see in our schools today. There are also the larger problems that single parent homes create...a higher prevalence of people needing welfare or governmental support programs, a higher prevalence of people without medical benefits, children living below the poverty level, etc.

Premarital sex also leads to an increase in abortions. As President Clinton said, "Abortions should be safe, legal, and RARE." If you support this statement, or as many people are, support a woman's right to choose but hope that there will be LESS abortions not MORE, then we should be trying to decrease premarital sex.

Premarital sex leads to an increase in HIV/AIDS and other STDs. Bottom line, if you only have sex with the person you marry, and they do the same...then the chances of either of you catching an STD are slim to none. But if you come to your marriage bed after sleeping with 10 other people, and they do the same....you do the math. Condoms protect, of course, but they are not perfect...and you'd be a fool to say they were.

Then there are the more intangible problems, for instance...the increased sexualization of the young. At first, premarital sex was about consenting adults deciding to enjoy sex before marriage. Then high schoolers decided that they were adult enough too, except that most studies show that young people interviewed say overwhelmingly that they were too young the first time they had sex and wished that they had waited. Now, Abercrombie and Fitch sells thongs to elementary school girls, and MTV has programming aimed directly at selling sex to "tweens" (girls and boys between the ages of 9 and 12).

What does this do? Well look at the prevalence of sexual activity among elementary and middle school students? Check out how many elementary school girls know what a blowjob is and think that it, "isn't a big deal cause at least it isn't sex." Do some research into the "hook up culture," and how it leaves both men and women feeling empty and unfullfilled.

Then look to writer Maureen Dowd, a highly successful woman who gave up marriage and a family to become a writer for the NY Times, because after all, she could have premarital sex and "have it all." And now she writes vicious little articles about how men are marrying younger women who actually want a family and a marriage, and she is old and alone. And now these successful older women are deciding to have children later and later...increasing the risk of birth defects and other problems...

I could go on....

To deny that premarital sex is a right in our society is nonsense. But, to deny that increases in premarital sex hurt our society is equally ridiculous.

 

[Blashyrkh]

Your first statement above reaks of ignorance. Ignorance of the fact that you do NOT know me, yet you make a claim about a life that you have ZERO knowledge of. So let me set you straight, I DO "hold" the beliefs and opinions of which I make my point with here. If I DON'T "hold" it, I won't profess it.

Homosexuality is in and of itself, the worst scourge known to mankind that pertains to sex. It is sick, perverse and vile. And those who "choose" to endulge in it should seek help and be treated, and that's the way it was until the faggots started to get nasty and put pressure on the psychiatric community.

The problem with this is, you and your liberal constituants want to rewrite what existance is, in an unnatural, premiscuous, and perverted way. There's no good in it. It's an immoral and destructive path. So you take it. I could give a rats ass. But don't come here telling me that the sick beliefs you hold contain some fragment of truth. It's bull shit, so go tell it to your buddies at the D.U.

You clearly don't respect other people, and your too obsessed with your own beliefs to know it. Homosexuality is not something you choose. That's the only truth there is about it. It's not perverted, not a mental disorder. Following a religion, like you do, is a matter of choice. And that your ancestors chose such a hypocrite, perverter, mentally ill and unnatural religion is obviously not your fault.

Your whole attitude towards people with other believes and ways of live reaks of huge ignorance of everything outside your church.

 

[Gem]

Blashyrkh Wrote:

Homosexuality is not something you choose. That's the only truth there is about it

Actually, what you just wrote is rhetoric.

We have no idea why people become homosexuals. Science looked for years for the "gay gene," and did not find it. It was listed as a mental disorder for many years, then it was decided it was not, many still feel that it is. Some people have become gay later in life, and then decided that they were not gay after all. Some people have felt that they were gay "since birth."

The bottom line is, whether you accept homosexuality or not, no one knows why some people are gay and some people are not, and whether or not it is a choice or not.

However, if it is, as you say, a way that people are born, rather than a choice. Then obviously you are categorizing it as a mental and/or biological issue. Afterall, if an entire society was born homosexual then that society would die out. I am going to make an assumption here and state that I think you probably believe in Darwin, evolution, and the animalistic need to procreate and carry on a species, so you know that homosexuality is not the biologically preferred method of sexuality, since it doesn't give the benefit of procreation. Therefore, homosexuality (while you may find it an acceptable anomoly) is, not biologically "normal," and therefore maybe categorized as biologically abnormal, if not mentally abnormal (although science still has been unable to determine "where" exactly the "gay" gene exists, or even if it does.

You can think that Pale Rider is extreme, you wouldn't be the only one. But please try to drop the pro-homosexual talking points. No one knows why one person is gay and another isn't. There is just as much "evidence" that people choose to be gay as there is that people are born that way.

 

[Blashyrkh]

Blashyrkh Wrote:


Actually, what you just wrote is rhetoric.

We have no idea why people become homosexuals. Science looked for years for the "gay gene," and did not find it. It was listed as a mental disorder for many years, then it was decided it was not, many still feel that it is. Some people have become gay later in life, and then decided that they were not gay after all. Some people have felt that they were gay "since birth."

The bottom line is, whether you accept homosexuality or not, no one knows why some people are gay and some people are not, and whether or not it is a choice or not.

However, if it is, as you say, a way that people are born, rather than a choice. Then obviously you are categorizing it as a mental and/or biological issue. Afterall, if an entire society was born homosexual then that society would die out. I am going to make an assumption here and state that I think you probably believe in Darwin, evolution, and the animalistic need to procreate and carry on a species, so you know that homosexuality is not the biologically preferred method of sexuality, since it doesn't give the benefit of procreation. Therefore, homosexuality (while you may find it an acceptable anomoly) is, not biologically "normal," and therefore maybe categorized as biologically abnormal, if not mentally abnormal (although science still has been unable to determine "where" exactly the "gay" gene exists, or even if it does.

You can think that Pale Rider is extreme, you wouldn't be the only one. But please try to drop the pro-homosexual talking points. No one knows why one person is gay and another isn't. There is just as much "evidence" that people choose to be gay as there is that people are born that way.

Okay, that's a very good story. I never thought about homosexuality in such a way. But I still think Pale Rider has some serious respect problems.

 

[007]

You clearly don't respect other people, and your too obsessed with your own beliefs to know it. Homosexuality is not something you choose. That's the only truth there is about it. It's not perverted, not a mental disorder. Following a religion, like you do, is a matter of choice. And that your ancestors chose such a hypocrite, perverter, mentally ill and unnatural religion is obviously not your fault.

Your whole attitude towards people with other believes and ways of live reaks of huge ignorance of everything outside your church.

When all else fails, resort to psycho-babble. Well at least you're right in step with the rest of your liberal kind. You think that if you say it last or loudest then that makes me right. Pathetic.

It's now very evident to me that you're not worth the effort it takes me to type. You're either very young, or have been fully indoctrinated into the cult of liberalness, or both. I just hope you know that puts you not only in the minority, but at a disadvantage when speaking.

 

[007]

Okay, that's a very good story. I never thought about homosexuality in such a way. But I still think Pale Rider has some serious respect problems.

You have to EARN respect around here, it's not just handed out.

 

[Blashyrkh]

You have to EARN respect around here, it's not just handed out.

Not respecting me is something I can understand, but I was referring to homosexuals earlier... even if it is an illness, you'd have to respect them. You don't disrespect ill people, or do you?

 

[archangel]

Not respecting me is something I can understand, but I was referring to homosexuals earlier... even if it is an illness, you'd have to respect them. You don't disrespect ill people, or do you?

This is not a matter of respect regarding homosexuality as a illness...no matter how one cuts through the chase on this issue...it still boils down to a sexual fetish...no different than a fetish for shoes or panties or golden showers etc, etc, etc...this is why so many oppose gay marriage..."pandoras" box if you will....when will all of this end? When the gay community keeps their fetish in the bedroom...then this is when the straight community will leave them alone!enough said!

 

[007]

Not respecting me is something I can understand, but I was referring to homosexuals earlier... even if it is an illness, you'd have to respect them. You don't disrespect ill people, or do you?

Like a lot of other young people these days, I believe you're not fully understanding what respect really is, or how you go about getting it. Also, "not" respecting someone is completey different than "disrepecting" them. You'll have to learn the difference.

So give me one good reason why I, or anyone else for that matter, should respect queers.

(this ought to be good.... )

 

[Said1]

So give me one good reason why I, or anyone else for that matter, should respect queers.

(this ought to be good.... )

Because?

 

[Hobbit]

Wow, long thread I missed out on. Ok, here goes.

John Lennon - Anyone saying they are better than Jesus in any way, shape, or fashion is, at best, foolish, or at worst, blasphemous.

Homosexuality - I don't know what causes people to be gay, but I am a Christian (Assembly of God, Pentecostal) and believe that practicing homosexuality is a sin. However, lieing, stealing, cheating (on tests), lustful gazes at women, hatred, disrespecting parents, and many many other things that I have done, some of them quite often, are also sins. Therefore, a homosexual, to me, is like anyone else who repetitively sins, meaning they need my love (Platonically, of course), friendship, and eventually, my testimony (keep in mind that this is my point of view. Whether or not you think people need God, I think they do). They are no more or less people in my eyes, but their actions are, in fact, sins, which means I will always oppose gay marriage (it legitimizes an act I find offensive), the practice of teaching kids that "It's ok to be gay," and many other such things that endorse the "lifestyle."

Abstinence - People who say abstinence is a joke that will never work are simply making excuses. Teenagers today are largely out of control and are given excuses for every deviant behavior they engage in. Oh, and thanks to Bill Clinton, oral sex isn't really sex anymore. Let the facts speak for themselves. Abstinence is the only 100% foolproof way to prevent STDs and unwanted pregnancy (there's a record on file of a woman with her tubes tied getting pregnant by having sex with a guy who'd had a vasectomy). It is also perfectly possible to abstain from sex before marriage, especially if you limit your dating crowd to people who think the same way. Some people still fall. I know a couple in my campus Christian group (Chi Alpha) who recently confessed that they'd had sex, but promised never again unless and until they got married. I, myself, am 22 and have reserved myself quite conservatively. I have never even kissed a girl (except my mother and sister), and I NEVER date a girl I can't see myself marrying, and I will not marry a girl unless she is a virgin or has, since the last time she had sex, taken an oath before God to abstain from that point until the wedding. I find that with the right attitude, abstinence is not only possible, it's EASY. I'm not saying I've never been tempted, but I always stay out of situations where I could actually give in to temptation. A sense of propriety really helps here. Now, that doesn't mean I expect schools to force this way onto everyone, but educating them on the best way to go about abstaining if they choose to do so isn't too much to ask, or shouldn't be.

Well, there's my 2 cents. Do as you will with it.

Oh, and as for my attitude towards the two extreme debators.

Pale Rider: Chill.

Blashyrkh: First, where'd you get that name? Not trying to be insulting, but I'm curious. Second, try to abstain from using derogatory adjectives to describe people's religious beliefs...you evil, ungodly liberal, whose politics will only bring this country to a chaotic ruin.

 

[007]

Pale Rider: Chill.

Hobbit: Pale don't chill.

 

[GotZoom]

Blashyrkh Wrote:

We have no idea why people become homosexuals. Science looked for years for the "gay gene," and did not find it. It was listed as a mental disorder for many years, then it was decided it was not, many still feel that it is. Some people have become gay later in life, and then decided that they were not gay after all. Some people have felt that they were gay "since birth."

The bottom line is, whether you accept homosexuality or not, no one knows why some people are gay and some people are not, and whether or not it is a choice or not.

However, if it is, as you say, a way that people are born, rather than a choice. Then obviously you are categorizing it as a mental and/or biological issue. Afterall, if an entire society was born homosexual then that society would die out. I am going to make an assumption here and state that I think you probably believe in Darwin, evolution, and the animalistic need to procreate and carry on a species, so you know that homosexuality is not the biologically preferred method of sexuality, since it doesn't give the benefit of procreation. Therefore, homosexuality (while you may find it an acceptable anomoly) is, not biologically "normal," and therefore maybe categorized as biologically abnormal, if not mentally abnormal (although science still has been unable to determine "where" exactly the "gay" gene exists, or even if it does.

Just to throw something out there - using your reasoning:

A question come to mind. Homosexuality was first diagnosed as a mental disorder. Then it was decided that it wasn't a disorder at all. It has been accepted by millions of people.

Why? What made the popular and/or medical opinion change? Is it the large numbers of people who claim they are homosexual? Since there are so many, is it possible that the medical community had to "re-evaluate" their diagnosis?

If so, does that mean that if the numbers of people who are members of NAMBLA, or the KKK, or people who enjoy beastiality rises to a large amount, that these behaviours must be "re-evalulate" also and possible considered normal?

DO NOT MISUNDERSTAND - I am not comparing homosexuality to those things. An interesting question was presented about a behaviour that was once considered terrible and unacceptable. So I picked a few behaviours not that are considered the same.

I personally believe that what two people do in their bedroom is their business - it is between them and their God and when they meet their maker, they will find out what the truth is.

 

[freeandfun1]

I personally believe that what two people do in their bedroom is their business - it is between them and their God and when they meet their maker, they will find out what the truth is.

That's the key though... "what they do in their bedroom". As you know, the gay community wants to take what they do in the bedroom to the streets. They want to flaunt what they do in the bedroom in front of everybody. Just look at any gay pride parade.

 

[GotZoom]

That's the key though... "what they do in their bedroom". As you know, the gay community wants to take what they do in the bedroom to the streets. They want to flaunt what they do in the bedroom in front of everybody. Just look at any gay pride parade.

I agree completely. "what they do in their bedroom" - stays in their bedroom.

I know people will jump up and say they have the right to hold hands just like heterosexuals do in public. I agree.

But looking at the gay-pride parades, come on - be serious. Show me a parade that isn't gay pride who has people dressed up AND acting the same way.

I don't have a problem with gays and lesbians wanting respect for their lifestyle - I have a problem with them flaunting their lifestyle in other's faces.

Respect isn't given because it is asked for or demanded, it is given because it is earned.

 

[freeandfun1]

Respect isn't given because it is asked for or demanded, it is given because it is earned.

I agree completely.

 

[007]

Just to throw something out there - using your reasoning:

A question come to mind. Homosexuality was first diagnosed as a mental disorder. Then it was decided that it wasn't a disorder at all. It has been accepted by millions of people.

Why? What made the popular and/or medical opinion change? Is it the large numbers of people who claim they are homosexual? Since there are so many, is it possible that the medical community had to "re-evaluate" their diagnosis?

To answer your seemingly sincere question...

The American Psychiatric Association Coup

Homosexuals commonly point to the fact that the 'medical community' and, more specifically, psychiatrists agree with them that homosexuality is a "normal human sexual response."

It is certainly true that the American Psychiatric Association (APA) removed homosexuality from its list of "mental disorders" twenty years ago, in 1973. This is a fact that almost always comes up in debates with sodomites.

What the homosexuals do not mention, of course, is that this sudden change in attitude was not based on any new scientific evidence. As described in the following paragraphs, it was a purely political move, induced by a relentless saturation campaign of deception, intimidation, and unethical collusion between the APA committee and activist sodomite groups.

Preparing the Ground:

In 1968, representatives of activist homosexual groups approached leading psychiatrists and the officers of psychiatric organizations and began to lay the groundwork for the reclassification of their perversions as normal manifestations of human sexuality.

These activists correctly recognized that such a move was absolutely mandatory if they were to win public acceptance. After all, society in general would not look very kindly upon the subsequent lobbying done by a group whose members were officially recognized as "mentally disordered."

In the three years during which the APA's Homosexuality Task Force was deliberating, it collaborated actively with several sodomite groups, including the Gay Activist's Alliance, the Mattachine Society, and the Daughters of Bilitis, while completely ignoring organizations with views that contrasted with the homosexuals.

Abram Kardiner, former Professor of Psychiatry at Columbia University, revealed that "A powerful lobby of "gay" organizations has brought pressure on the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from the category of aberrancy. This is only one facet of the tidal wave of egalitarianism and divisiveness that is sweeping the country...."

During this unethical collusion, Kinsey colleague Paul Gebhard said that anyone who was known to harbor the view that homosexuality was a disorder was systematically excluded from being a member of the Task Force or from even being able to present his views or evidence to it.

In other words, the sodomites packed this committee in the same manner that pro-abortionist and fetal tissue harvesters do: Only those people with the "correct" viewpoint were allowed to voice an opinion.

But the homosexuals did not focus on the APA alone; they intimidated psychiatrists all over the nation. While the APA Task Force ws preparing its report, any psychiatrist or psychoanalyst who dared present documentation that homosexuality was a psychological disorder (anywhere in the country) was shouted down and even physically attacked at public forums or at local and national meetings of mental health professionals.

The APA Caves In:

The years of hard work put in by the sodomites began to pay off in 1972. The "National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) Task Force on Homosexuality Final Report" parroted Alfred Kinsey's proclamation that "exclusive heterosexuality" and exclusive homosexuality" were "sexual extremes," and that most people were basically bisexual.

This report in turn exerted a great deal of influence on the APA. In order to make its final report appear to be scientific, the APA's Homosexuality Task Force sent a letter to all APA member psychiatritst. This letter did not ask whether or not homosexuality should or should not be declared "normal." It was signed by all candidates for the upcoming elections for the APA presidency and urged all members to "vote" that homosexuality was thereafter declared to be on a level with normal sexuality.

This view was so voted by a very slim margin. The letter did not, of course, reveal the fact that it was written and funded by the National Gay Task Force. One of the letter's signers, in fact, later confessed that he knew that such knowledge would have been the "kiss of death" for a pro homosexual vote.

Subsequently, the APA eliminated homosexuality as a mental disorder from the 1973 edition of its "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual."

APA member Dr. Henry W. Reicken cut to the heart of the APA's motivation as he wrote a scathing dissent in the appendix to the above mentioned NIMH report entitled "Detailed Reservations Regarding the Task Force Recommendations on Social Policy:" "It is as if they 'the Task Force' said, "Here is a phenomenon about which we know almost nothing and about which there is a great deal of anxiety and concern; therefore, let us suggest a major revision in public policy for dealing with this phenomenon." I cannot escape the belief that this is an utterly unreasonable conclusion to draw from the sea of ignorance and misinformation in which we find ourselves."

The Essential Point:

The essential point to be made about this chicanery is that the sudden complete reversal in the APA position on homosexuality was not brought about as a result of a careful regime of scholarly research and study; it was a blatantly political move, a 'vote', of all things, on the status of a mental illness. Furthermore, this vote was undertaken in a climate of deception and intimidation.

At no time before or since has the APA or any other psychological or psychiatric professional group 'ever' addressed a mental health question in this manner.

Behind the Scenes:

It is fascinating indeed to see what psychiatrists 'really' think about homosexuality when they are free of the restraints of intimidation and political pressure.

Almost simultaneously with the 1972 National Institute of Mental Health report, the New York County District Branch of the APA's Task Force on Homosexuality produced a second report. According to APA member Charles Socarides, M.D., the document concluded that "....exclusive homosexuality was a disorder of psychosexual development, and simultaneously asked for civil rights for those suffering from the disorder."

It is even more revealing to examine the results of polls of psychiatrists taken since 1973 regarding the issue of homosexual orientation.

The original "voting" letter distributed by the APA Homosexuality Task Force in 1973 was answered by only about one-quarter of the recipients, leading one to speculate that the "volunteer bias" ignored by Kinsey in his original studies led to pro-homosexual results. It is quite certain that, if 'all' of the APA members had returned their "ballots," homosexuality would have remained a mental disorder in the view of the organization.

A later series of private surveys which could be answered confidentially and without fear of retaliation showed that two-thirds of APA members psychiatrists regarded homosexuality as abnormal despite the parent organization's switch

More specifically, in 1977, four years after the APA 'switch,' the journal "Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality" revealed that it had polled 2,500 psychiatrists on their view of what "current thinking on homosexuality" was, and, by a lopsided margin of 69% to 18% (nearly four to one, with 13%undecided). the respondents answered that "Homosexuality was usually a pathological adaptation as opposed to a normal variation."

This is certainly a more accurate poll than the original APA letter because the letter was subject to all of the "volunteer bias" that self selected populations exhibit. However, by comparison, the 1977 survey was truly random, and so its results should certainly be given more weight.

http://www.inoohr.org/americanpsychiatricassociation.htm