F
fix
Guest
Auberon Quin:
You are correct. I was being rhetorical.
- Status
A
Auberon_Quin
Guest
The Barrister:
Just very, very curious.
What societies are those? Can you establish a causal link between the “institutionalization” of homosexuality and the fall of the society?
Just very, very curious.
V
Vitus
Guest
Cite please.
And which natural law is that? If you are referring to the animal kingdom, you are wrong. These laws are based solely on religous grounds.
Homosexualists? Junk science?
Give me a break.It is not your place to judge the actions of another person. It is not your place to judge the hearts of your fellow men and women. It is not your place (nor the governments) to impose morals on anyone but yourself.
I don’t know why God creates homosexuals. It’s not an illness, they weren’t turned gay. This is how God created them. I never had to struggle with homosexual feelings, I do not understand them. I don’t need to. I don’t even have to know if it’s right or wrong. I know what Jesus told me. And it wasn’t to condemn people, it wasn’t to make them believe what I think is right and wrong, it wasn’t to get the govenment to make laws about something I neither understand or approve of. It’s to love them. That is it. Period end.
You of course also realize that sodomy laws relate to married men and women as well too.
F
fix
Guest
Nope, just because they have some psychological problem does not mean they do not have free will and does not mean the rest of us do not deserve the protection of the law.
A
Auberon_Quin
Guest
I’m not saying this to be argumentative (I would never, ever do such a thing; not me, no sir), but I still don’t understand what straights (of whom I am one) need to be protected FROM.
M
Melchior
Guest
Auberon Quin:
Rome. While it was not institutional it’s wide acceptance coincided with it’s demise.
F
fix
Guest
Cite please.
You, sir, are the one who must provide the citations. Yours is the dissenting view.
And which natural law is that? If you are referring to the animal kingdom, you are wrong. These laws are based solely on religous grounds.
Any just law comes from God. Whether you understand that or not. Natural law is what we each know. We all know the fundamentals they are written on each heart. Do not murder, steal, etc. They are two sexes…
Homosexualists? Junk science?
No, you give me a break. The same folks who give us transgender surgery, IVF, contraception as virtuous, euthanasia, masturabation as helpful and good, fornication outside marriage as acceptable. These folks are now saying homosexual sex is normal. Hardly infallible sources. There is no evidence that homosexuality is congenital. Even if some are born that way, it does not mean it is not a severe deviation and should not be corrected.
It is not your place to judge the actions of another person. It is not your place to judge the hearts of your fellow men and women. It is not your place (nor the governments) to impose morals on anyone but yourself.
It is my place to judge others actions. Christ tells us to. Anyone who does not is a liar. Should I not decide which people are to be my friends? Do I not teach my children which people are helpful and which can lead astray?
We may not judge anothers soul, but we certainly are called to judge their words and actions.
I don’t know why God creates homosexuals. It’s not an illness, they weren’t turned gay. This is how God created them. I never had to struggle with homosexual feelings, I do not understand them. I don’t need to. I don’t even have to know if it’s right or wrong. I know what Jesus told me. And it wasn’t to condemn people, it wasn’t to make them believe what I think is right and wrong, it wasn’t to get the govenment to make laws about something I neither understand or approve of. It’s to love them. That is it. Period end.
Homosexuality is an illness. SSAD is a burden and in some cases it can be corrected. PERIOD.
See my previous posts. I think all sodomy should be outlawed, especially homosexual sodomy.
S
Southernrich
Guest
Protection of the law from what? Having to perform acts of sodomy?
T
Tom
Guest
No they are not the same. One is a sexual act (sodomy) the other is a sacrament (marriage) from God.
My question is why does a government “recognize” marriage at all? It’s a sacrament. Government shouldn’t care if I’m married or single. A person shouldn’t get different treatment from the government, based on his or her marital status. The marriage penalty is a good example (although they’ve address part of it), why did I pay more taxes married with children, than two singles living together, earning the same wage? Or why do married people with children pay less tax than a single person with no children earning the same wage? The person with children is putting a higher burden on the “system” than the single person but the single person is paying for it.
Government has no business recognizing a sacrament.
K
Ken
Guest
What kind of person is interested in what other people do in the privacy of their bedroom?
T
The_Barrister
Guest
As followers of Christ we are all called upon to evangelize and preach the Truth. Criminalizing immoral and unsafe behavior also helps people who might be tempted to engage in such behavior, enforceability notwithstanding.
K
Ken
Guest
The Barrister:
Does that mean the people who are interested in what goes on in other people’s bedrooms are the followers of Christ? Is such interest one of the signs that one follows Christ? If one lacks such interest, can they be a follower of Christ?
V
Vitus
Guest
Tell me fix, would you have yelled at Jesus for sitting with the tax collectors and prostitutes, or would you have just mumbles to yourself about Jesus’ actions?
There is no evidence that homosexuality is a mental illness. In fact, it has been removed from the DSM because science knows better now. It can not be corrected as it is not an illness. Anyone who thinks they’ve been “cured” of homosexuality is simply fooling themselves.
Please provide to me where Jesus said we should judge other’s actions. Before you go looking, you might want to get the planck out of your eye so you can see better. And after that, please be the first to cast the first stone.
The Barrister:
There is no evidence that homosexuality is a mental illness. In fact, it has been removed from the DSM because science knows better now. It can not be corrected as it is not an illness. Anyone who thinks they’ve been “cured” of homosexuality is simply fooling themselves.
Please provide to me where Jesus said we should judge other’s actions. Before you go looking, you might want to get the planck out of your eye so you can see better. And after that, please be the first to cast the first stone.
The Barrister:
So you are in favor of the government making laws purely on religous grounds?
T
Tom
Guest
No they are not the same. One is a sexual act (sodomy) the other is a sacrament (marriage) from God.
My question is why does a government “recognize” marriage at all? It’s a sacrament. Government shouldn’t care if I’m married or single. A person shouldn’t get different treatment from the government, based on his or her marital status. The marriage penalty is a good example (although they’ve address part of it), why did I pay more taxes married with children, than two singles living together, earning the same wage? Or why do married people with children pay less tax than a single person with no children earning the same wage? The person with children is putting a higher burden on the “system” than the single person but the single person is paying for it.
Government has no business recognizing a sacrament.
T
The_Barrister
Guest
Auberon Quin:
Read “Sex & Consequences - An anthropologist vindicates the traditional family” by Peter Wood. Excerpt:
Anthropology—hometown to cultural relativists and all-night diner for disaffected intellectuals—may not be where you would most expect to find good reasons to defend traditional American family values. But anthropology, in fact, guards a treasure house of examples of what happens when a society institutionalizes other arrangements.
Want to know what it really means for a society to recognize “gay marriage”? Or for a society to permit polygamy? Or when the stigma on out-of-wedlock birth disappears? Care to know what happens to a human community that tolerates sexual experimentation among pre-adolescents and teenagers? Are fathers and mothers really interchangeable? Anthropology actually has a large amount of empirical evidence on all these matters—and many others that are now on the table in the United States thanks to various advocacy movements.
The Leftist political convictions of many of my fellow anthropologists tend to keep them silent about some of the scientific findings that have accumulated over 150 years or so of systematic ethnographic study. But these findings strongly suggest that the family is a bedrock institution and that the kinds of modifications to the family advocated by gays, feminists, and others who speak in favor of relaxing traditional restrictions on sexual self-expression will have huge consequences. Have fun.
Glad you asked.
Read “Sex & Consequences - An anthropologist vindicates the traditional family” by Peter Wood. Excerpt:
Anthropology—hometown to cultural relativists and all-night diner for disaffected intellectuals—may not be where you would most expect to find good reasons to defend traditional American family values. But anthropology, in fact, guards a treasure house of examples of what happens when a society institutionalizes other arrangements.
Want to know what it really means for a society to recognize “gay marriage”? Or for a society to permit polygamy? Or when the stigma on out-of-wedlock birth disappears? Care to know what happens to a human community that tolerates sexual experimentation among pre-adolescents and teenagers? Are fathers and mothers really interchangeable? Anthropology actually has a large amount of empirical evidence on all these matters—and many others that are now on the table in the United States thanks to various advocacy movements.
The Leftist political convictions of many of my fellow anthropologists tend to keep them silent about some of the scientific findings that have accumulated over 150 years or so of systematic ethnographic study. But these findings strongly suggest that the family is a bedrock institution and that the kinds of modifications to the family advocated by gays, feminists, and others who speak in favor of relaxing traditional restrictions on sexual self-expression will have huge consequences. Have fun.
A
Auberon_Quin
Guest
The Barrister:
Pass. If you can’t be bothered to summarize it, I can’t be bothered to read it.
T
The_Barrister
Guest
All legitimate laws are based upon the natural (God’s) law. It has nothing to do with “religion,” which is how we worship God, and everything to do with morality, which is how we conform our conduct to God’s laws.
Unfortunately, history has not been kind to the distinction, and most other people (apparently including you) cannot see the difference.
T
The_Barrister
Guest
Auberon Quin:
I did summarize it in my previous post. You asked for facts and to establish a causal link. Here’s your proof. I’m not saying that you are the typical liberal, but this is exactly the type of behavior I’ve come to expect from them.
Copout.
I did summarize it in my previous post. You asked for facts and to establish a causal link. Here’s your proof. I’m not saying that you are the typical liberal, but this is exactly the type of behavior I’ve come to expect from them.
T
The_Barrister
Guest
Logics lesson of the day. If all of set B is included within set A, it does not follow that all of set A is included within set B.
A
Auberon_Quin
Guest
The Barrister:
You provided neither. Your excerpt mentions no societies by name, and it points only to unspecified “huge consequences.”
You’re the one who asserted that every society that institutionalized homosexuality collapsed as a result. I asked you to back up your claims by citing examples. I figured if you were making the claim, you must be able to back it up, right?
I am still waiting for you to support your position (Quin twiddles thumbs and looks at ceiling).
Hmm. I asked you to tell me (1) which societies collapsed after institutionalizing homosexuality and (2) proof of a causal link.
You provided neither. Your excerpt mentions no societies by name, and it points only to unspecified “huge consequences.”
You’re the one who asserted that every society that institutionalized homosexuality collapsed as a result. I asked you to back up your claims by citing examples. I figured if you were making the claim, you must be able to back it up, right?
I am still waiting for you to support your position (Quin twiddles thumbs and looks at ceiling).
- Status