PDA

View Full Version : Court throws out ban on exposing children to gays



megimoo
06-15-2009, 08:51 PM
Court throws out ban on exposing children to gays

"Why don't we just toss in the f**g towel and give up,This country's lost !"

The Georgia Supreme Court on Monday threw out a judge’s order that prohibited children in a divorce case from having any contact with their father’s gay and lesbian friends.

The ruling was hailed by gay rights groups who said the decision focuses on the needs of children instead of perpetuating a stigma on the basis of sexual orientation.

The state high court’s decision overturned Fayette County Superior Court Judge Christopher Edwards’ blanket prohibition against exposing the children to their father’s gay partners and friends.

“Such an arbitrary classification based on sexual orientation flies in the face of our public policy that encourages divorced parents to participate in the raising of their children,” Justice Robert Benham wrote.

The Fayette County judge’s prohibition “assumes, without evidentiary support, that the children will suffer harm from any such contact,” Benham wrote. But there is no evidence that any member of the gay and lesbian community has engaged in inappropriate conduct in the presence of the children or that the children would be adversely affected by being exposed to members of that community, he said.

The ruling stems from the 2007 divorce of Eric Duane Mongerson and Sandy Kay Ehlers Mongerson, who had been married 21 years and had four children.

The visitation order prohibited the three youngest children, whose ages ranged from 8 to 16 at the time, from being in contact with their father’s gay and lesbian friends. The oldest child was already an adult.

Hannibal Heredia, an Atlanta lawyer representing Mr. Mongerson, called the court’s ruling “the proper decision.” Lance McMillian, a lawyer for Ms. Mongerson, could not be reached for comment.

Beth Littrell, staff attorney for the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund in Atlanta, said the visitation order was the most sweeping of its kind she had seen in Georgia.

“Placing a blanket ban on children’s association with gay people not only hurts this father’s relationship with his children, it is blatant discrimination,” Littrell said. “The court has done the right thing today by focusing on the needs of the children instead of perpetuating stigma on the basis of sexual orientation.”

The ruling, she added, ensures that visitation decisions are “not based on the prejudices of individual judges.”


http://www.ajc.com/business/content/metro/stories/2009/06/15/court_divorce_ban_gays.html?cxntlid=homepage_tab_n ewstab

stsinner
06-15-2009, 09:21 PM
That's odd-homosexuals in the news.

Shannon
06-15-2009, 09:25 PM
Maybe women shouldn't have children with fags.;)

megimoo
06-15-2009, 09:32 PM
Maybe women shouldn't have children with fags.;)
He obviously wasn't a fag when they had kids.Fags don't go with woman !!

AlmostThere
06-16-2009, 12:05 AM
He obviously wasn't a fag when they had kids.Fags don't go with woman !!

It's not uncommon for women to have very close male friends who are gay. Do you really believe a gay man cannot father children? How about a lesbian bearing a child?

djones520
06-16-2009, 12:34 AM
Homophobe much? :rolleyes:

wilbur
06-16-2009, 08:03 AM
Such a story only seems shocking if you are one of the ignorant many who believe some really idiotic things... for example, that homosexuality is just a lesser version of, or precursor to peadeophelia.... someone like megs.

I find it shocking that such a judge could impose such an order, actually.... although I guess I really shouldn't have... idiots are everywhere.

noonwitch
06-16-2009, 08:59 AM
I think it's a fair ruling. The courts shouldn't be as petty as the parties in the custody or divorce case in front of them. Asking a court to limit who a parent can associate with around their kids without there being a provable threat to the kids is infringing on his or her rights.


We had an interesting one in suburban Detroit-a female judge took custody from a hasidic mother and gave the kids to the father because she drove on a sabbath. The mother had signed an agreement saying she wouldn't drive on the sabbath, then later got a job that required her to work on the sabbath. I'm not sure how hasidic the mother is (because if she was, would she even take a job that required her to work on the sabbath?), but the father sued for custody because the mother breeched her agreement. The judge ruled on the father' behalf.

megimoo
06-16-2009, 09:14 AM
It's not uncommon for women to have very close male friends who are gay. Do you really believe a gay man cannot father children? How about a lesbian bearing a child?
I Know that they have the plumbing but with the exception of bisexuals most homosexuals, i assume, would prefer their buddies backsides,just ask Barney the butt !

megimoo
06-16-2009, 09:15 AM
Homophobe much? :rolleyes:Faghag much ?

megimoo
06-16-2009, 09:27 AM
Such a story only seems shocking if you are one of the ignorant many who believe some really idiotic things... for example, that homosexuality is just a lesser version of, or precursor to peadeophelia.... someone like megs.

I find it shocking that such a judge could impose such an order, actually.... although I guess I really shouldn't have... idiots are everywhere."'Gay' family kids 7 times more likely to be homosexual But report shows researchers concealing information."

Columbia Encyclopedia: pedophilia
Top Home > Library > Miscellaneous > Columbia Encyclopediapedophilia, psychosexual disorder in which there is a preference for sexual activity with prepubertal children. Pedophiles are almost always males. The children are more often of the opposite sex (about twice as often) and are typically 13 years or age or younger; they may be within or outside the pedophile's family. Sexual fantasies, looking, or fondling are more common than genital contact. Sexual offenses against children make up a significant proportion of reported criminal sex acts.


The cause or causes of pedophilia are not well understood. Personality problems may be evident, and the pedophile often shows little or no concern for the effects of his sexual behavior on the child. Researchers have reported that psychotherapy in conjunction with the use of testosterone-lowering drugs has substantially reduced the desire in male pedophiles to molest children.

Rockntractor
06-16-2009, 09:46 AM
"'Gay' family kids 7 times more likely to be homosexual But report shows researchers concealing information."
Let me get this straight you are born gay . But you are seven times more likely to be born gay If you are adopted later in life by gays. Is this proof of predestination!

megimoo
06-16-2009, 10:04 AM
"'Gay' family kids 7 times more likely to be homosexual But report shows researchers concealing information."

Columbia Encyclopedia: pedophilia
Top Home > Library > Miscellaneous > Columbia Encyclopediapedophilia, psychosexual disorder in which there is a preference for sexual activity with prepubertal children. Pedophiles are almost always males. The children are more often of the opposite sex (about twice as often) and are typically 13 years or age or younger; they may be within or outside the pedophile's family. Sexual fantasies, looking, or fondling are more common than genital contact. Sexual offenses against children make up a significant proportion of reported criminal sex acts.


The cause or causes of pedophilia are not well understood. Personality problems may be evident, and the pedophile often shows little or no concern for the effects of his sexual behavior on the child. Researchers have reported that psychotherapy in conjunction with the use of testosterone-lowering drugs has substantially reduced the desire in male pedophiles to molest children.

NAMBLA describes itself as a "support group for intergenerational relationships," and uses the slogan "sexual freedom for all."

One of the group's arguments is that age of consent laws unnecessarily criminalize sexual relationships between adults and minors (particularly boys). In 1980 a NAMBLA general meeting passed a resolution, which said: " The North American Man/Boy Love Association calls for the abolition of age-of-consent and all other laws which prevent men and boys from freely enjoying their bodies. We call for the release of all men and boys imprisoned by such laws." This policy was still in NAMBLA's "official position papers" in 1996.

According to Roy Radow, a NAMBLA principal and one of the many NAMBLA members being sued by the parents of Jeffrey Curley in Curley v. NAMBLA (for allegedly encouraging the rape and murder of their son), NAMBLA has opposed corporal punishment, rape, and kidnapping, and has declared that sexual exploitation is grounds for expulsion from the group.

megimoo
06-16-2009, 10:24 AM
Let me get this straight you are born gay . But you are seven times more likely to be born gay If you are adopted later in life by gays. Is this proof of predestination!

The APA members (American Psychiatric Assn.) were forced by homosexual activists with threats of physical violence at one of their conventions to redefine homosexuality as a genetic condition (genetic disorder) and not a choice,(the elusive 'gay gene').They found that there is no gay gene !!
Read the raging debate here !
http://www.marriageresourcesforclergy.com/site/Articles/articles022.htm#_ftn11

http://www.marriageresourcesforclergy.com/site/Articles/articles022.htm#_ftnref13

FlaGator
06-16-2009, 10:56 AM
I Know that they have the plumbing but with the exception of bisexuals most homosexuals, i assume, would prefer their buddies backsides,just ask Barney the butt !

You have lived a very sheltered life haven't you?

Rebel Yell
06-16-2009, 11:22 AM
Megs,

You would be suprised at the number of gay men who marry, just to have kids and a family. They go in, knowing the only reason is to father a child, get what they want then file for divorce. In the worst cases, they don't get a divorce, just go out and party with their gay friends then come home to the "normal" family life. It's the best of both worlds, 'til the wife finds him balls deep in another guys dook shoot. Then it gets real ugly.

noonwitch
06-16-2009, 11:39 AM
NAMBLA describes itself as a "support group for intergenerational relationships," and uses the slogan "sexual freedom for all."

One of the group's arguments is that age of consent laws unnecessarily criminalize sexual relationships between adults and minors (particularly boys). In 1980 a NAMBLA general meeting passed a resolution, which said: " The North American Man/Boy Love Association calls for the abolition of age-of-consent and all other laws which prevent men and boys from freely enjoying their bodies. We call for the release of all men and boys imprisoned by such laws." This policy was still in NAMBLA's "official position papers" in 1996.

According to Roy Radow, a NAMBLA principal and one of the many NAMBLA members being sued by the parents of Jeffrey Curley in Curley v. NAMBLA (for allegedly encouraging the rape and murder of their son), NAMBLA has opposed corporal punishment, rape, and kidnapping, and has declared that sexual exploitation is grounds for expulsion from the group.


Did you ever see the episode of South Park where Eric Cartman joins NAMBLA? It's probably one of their funniest episodes.

Rebel Yell
06-16-2009, 11:41 AM
Did you ever see the episode of South Park where Eric Cartman joins NAMBLA? It's probably one of their funniest episodes.

You mean the National Association of Marlon Brando Look Alikes?

thinker
06-16-2009, 11:45 AM
I'm 100% positive that knowing homosexual people growing up did horrible things to my sexuality....wait, no, sorry.

Two of my best friends are gay, and I'm not in the least interested. So yea, unless there's a good reason to prevent contact (i.e., a history of molestation or pedophilia on the part of the individual in question) there's no reason to discriminate on who a child can and cannot associate with on the basis of sexual orientation.

You're a walking talking example of a straight person that I wouldn't let within 20 miles of my kid, meg. I can think offhand of a half dozen people you'd have problems looking at, let alone talking with, that I'd rather have around.

wilbur
06-16-2009, 12:03 PM
Honestly, megs... not interested in how many articles from tabloids you can spam... I can spam them right back if you want.

Try doing some honest research sometime, instead of simply seeking out validation for your prejudice from "news" organizations whose business model is to sell you comfort..... by confirming your prejudice.

stsinner
06-16-2009, 12:53 PM
Homophobe much? :rolleyes:

Use words incorrectly much? Phobia=fear....

stsinner
06-16-2009, 12:56 PM
Megs,

You would be suprised at the number of gay men who marry, just to have kids and a family. They go in, knowing the only reason is to father a child, get what they want then file for divorce. In the worst cases, they don't get a divorce, just go out and party with their gay friends then come home to the "normal" family life. It's the best of both worlds, 'til the wife finds him balls deep in another guys dook shoot. Then it gets real ugly.

And the queer probably gets the kids in the divorce for fear of having a discrimination lawsuit filed against the court... Yay Homosexual rights!

wilbur
06-16-2009, 01:00 PM
And the queer probably gets the kids in the divorce for fear of having a discrimination lawsuit filed against the court... Yay Homosexual rights!

If you can make it up, it must be true! This country is going to hell in a handbasket!

FlaGator
06-16-2009, 01:15 PM
If you can make it up, it must be true! This country is going to hell in a handbasket!

I thought you said this was the most moral time in America's history. How can that be if it's going to hell in a handbasket?

We do agree on this, however, it is on a down hill spiral into mediocracy or worse.

Japandroid
06-16-2009, 01:53 PM
I thought you said this was the most moral time in America's history. How can that be if it's going to hell in a handbasket?

We do agree on this, however, it is on a down hill spiral into mediocracy or worse.

You missed a little bit of condescension in that post.

FlaGator
06-16-2009, 01:57 PM
You missed a little bit of condescension in that post.

But not as much as you think I did. :D

wilbur
06-16-2009, 02:15 PM
I thought you said this was the most moral time in America's history. How can that be if it's going to hell in a handbasket?

We do agree on this, however, it is on a down hill spiral into mediocracy or worse.

There was much sarcasm in that post...

I've said thats a debatable point that the nearly ubiquitous assumption of decline might be misplaced... as most people simply seem to assume that the distance we have traveled from the norms of Christian sexual ethics to be the best metric with which to measure our moral standing. I would say those sexual ethics were horrible and immoral (hey, look at this thread!).. and any departure from those ethics is a potential improvement... and that emphasis on such a metric is misplaced to begin with...

Surely one has to consider universal human rights to be the single greatest achievement of western civilization.... and it was still less than 60 years ago, where these human rights were legally denied to an entire race of people. When one starts figuring such things into the equation, the almost always uncontested claim that we are in decline looks tenuous and myopic.

But, OMG there was a female nipple on TV and a public display of homosexuality! Its all over!

hazlnut
06-16-2009, 02:44 PM
Use words incorrectly much? Phobia=fear....

Yes, stsinner -- we get that you know what 'phobia' means. And we get that you think you're not affraid of Homosexuals and therefore not a Homophobe. However, I encourage you to pick up a dictionary before trying to defend that position again.

Homophobia is more than an irrational fear of or aversion to homosexuality. It also refers to discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals or individuals perceived to be homosexual. Homophobia is defined as fear or contempt for lesbians and gay men, as well as behavior based on such a feeling.

Your views in posts on this board are homophobic. You're not the only one.

It is what is, man. All bigotry is fear-based.

PoliCon
06-16-2009, 02:53 PM
Yes, stsinner -- we get that you know what 'phobia' means. And we get that you think you're not affraid of Homosexuals and therefore not a Homophobe. However, I encourage you to pick up a dictionary before trying to defend that position again.

Homophobia is more than an irrational fear of or aversion to homosexuality. It also refers to discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals or individuals perceived to be homosexual. Homophobia is defined as fear or contempt for lesbians and gay men, as well as behavior based on such a feeling.

Your views in posts on this board are homophobic. You're not the only one.

It is what is, man. All bigotry is fear-based.
Another word corrupted by doublethink and newspeak. :rolleyes: There is a reason why the left tries to attack homophobia to those who are against homosexuality and their special rights campaign. Phobia's are irrational. They want to attack that stigma of irrationality to those who are not afraid to call homosexuality deviant.

wilbur
06-16-2009, 03:18 PM
Another word corrupted by doublethink and newspeak. :rolleyes: There is a reason why the left tries to attack homophobia to those who are against homosexuality and their special rights campaign. Phobia's are irrational. They want to attack that stigma of irrationality to those who are not afraid to call homosexuality deviant.

Actually, the corruption of the word comes from those pretending to have a rational, intellectual moral reason for their homophobia... they want to dismiss the label because it makes them appear as they really are... bigoted homophobes.

FlaGator
06-16-2009, 03:42 PM
There was much sarcasm in that post...

I've said thats a debatable point that the nearly ubiquitous assumption of decline might be misplaced... as most people simply seem to assume that the distance we have traveled from the norms of Christian sexual ethics to be the best metric with which to measure our moral standing. I would say those sexual ethics were horrible and immoral (hey, look at this thread!).. and any departure from those ethics is a potential improvement... and that emphasis on such a metric is misplaced to begin with...

Surely one has to consider universal human rights to be the single greatest achievement of western civilization.... and it was still less than 60 years ago, where these human rights were legally denied to an entire race of people. When one starts figuring such things into the equation, the almost always uncontested claim that we are in decline looks tenuous and myopic.

But, OMG there was a female nipple on TV and a public display of homosexuality! Its all over!

I'm not even considering sex a yard stick in measuring the decline in morality. I am looking at the increase in divorce rates, murder rates, general crime statistics, the increase in addictions, battered spouses, child abuse, suicide, elderly in nursing homes, the decline of the school systems, increase in those living below the poverty level, the number and size of blighted areas in medium to large cities, abortions numbers increasing every year; the list goes on and on. They’re very little immoral behavior that has decreased in the last 50 years. Does the civil rights that were finally recognized for those who were being denied offset these immoral behaviors? Seeing that civil rights themselves have nothing to do with immoral activity then to hold up one and imply that it offsets the other is silly.

Why do you the Christian view of sex as representative of all Christian immorality? It seems to be your biggest concern about Christian values when there is in reality much more ethical depth that you maintain a willful blindness to. Christians see some sexual behavior as immoral but it is only one small item in a huge list of immoral behaviors. For some reason, however, you want to disregard Christian morality and ethics based on the fact that sex outside of marriage and homosexual behavior is considered immoral behavior by Christians. That is a very narrow view in which to judge Christian morality. In fact, it as narrow as stating that America is overall more moral of a place just because the the civil rights of women and ethnic minorities was finally recognized.

FlaGator
06-16-2009, 03:47 PM
Yes, stsinner -- we get that you know what 'phobia' means. And we get that you think you're not affraid of Homosexuals and therefore not a Homophobe. However, I encourage you to pick up a dictionary before trying to defend that position again.

Homophobia is more than an irrational fear of or aversion to homosexuality. It also refers to discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals or individuals perceived to be homosexual. Homophobia is defined as fear or contempt for lesbians and gay men, as well as behavior based on such a feeling.
Your views in posts on this board are homophobic. You're not the only one.

It is what is, man. All bigotry is fear-based.

The the word is being used in a way that it wasn't originally intended based on its roots and perhaps another word should be used or created. Regardless of what the dictionary says, when I used it or here it used I equate the meaning of the word with an irrational fear of homosexuals. Just because I view their behavior as immoral doesn't mean I have an irrational fear of them. I view pornographic movies has immoral but I do no fear them.

Am I a bigot because I believe active homosexuals to be immoral?

FlaGator
06-16-2009, 03:50 PM
Actually, the corruption of the word comes from those pretending to have a rational, intellectual moral reason for their homophobia... they want to dismiss the label because it makes them appear as they really are... bigoted homophobes.

That's as shallow of a view of people who find homosexuality immoral as you are implying the subjects of your post are.

hazlnut
06-16-2009, 05:38 PM
The the word is being used in a way that it wasn't originally intended based on its roots and perhaps another word should be used or created. Regardless of what the dictionary says, when I used it or here it used I equate the meaning of the word with an irrational fear of homosexuals. Just because I view their behavior as immoral doesn't mean I have an irrational fear of them. I view pornographic movies has immoral but I do no fear them.

Am I a bigot because I believe active homosexuals to be immoral?

Fair enough -- but terms have both denotations and connotations.

Also, your is tone respectful and not hateful in any way. You don't use derogatory terms and, most importantly, look at the way you phrase your view: "I believe" -- you own it. You state it as your own opinion, not a harsh statement of fact.

I think you would agree that not all posts re: homosexuality have the same tone.

PoliCon
06-16-2009, 05:40 PM
Actually, the corruption of the word comes from those pretending to have a rational, intellectual moral reason for their homophobia... they want to dismiss the label because it makes them appear as they really are... bigoted homophobes.

spoken like the leftist you are. :rolleyes: Finding homosexuality deviant does not mean that someone is AFRAID of it.

megimoo
06-16-2009, 06:14 PM
Did you ever see the episode of South Park where Eric Cartman joins NAMBLA? It's probably one of their funniest episodes.Cartman is a Queer child molester ?

megimoo
06-16-2009, 06:30 PM
Let me get this straight you are born gay . But you are seven times more likely to be born gay If you are adopted later in life by gays. Is this proof of predestination!

APA ‘Gay’ gene claim suddenly vanishes
American Psychological Association revises statement on homosexuality

snip
Specifically, in a brochure that first came out years ago, the APA stated: "There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person’s sexuality."

However, in a new release of the information in a brochure now called, "Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality," the APA’s position changed.

The new statement says:

"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles..."

"Although there is no mention of the research that influenced this new position statement, it is clear that efforts to ’prove’ that homosexuality is simply a biological fait accompli have failed," Byrd wrote. "The activist researchers themselves have reluctantly reached that conclusion. There is no gay gene. There is no simple biological pathway to homosexuality."



http://www.alainsnewsletter.com/read/220/gay-politics/apa-gay-gene-claim-suddenly-vanishes/

Rockntractor
06-16-2009, 06:39 PM
If you can make it up, it must be true! This country is going to hell in a handbasket!

Wilbur you don't believe in hell.


But, OMG there was a female nipple on TV and a public display of homosexuality! Its all over!
Wilber! Whadup with OMG! You don't have a God did you get religeon while I was working today?

megimoo
06-16-2009, 06:39 PM
Exposed: The Myth That Psychiatry Has Proven That Homosexual Behavior Is Normal

In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) removed homosexuality as a mental disorder from the APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders (DSM-II). snip

What Really Happened?
Numerous psychiatrists over the past decades have described what forces were really at work both inside and outside of the American Psychiatric Association-and what led to the removal of homosexuality as a mental disorder.


snip

Dr. Ronald Bayer, a pro-homosexual psychiatrist has described what actually occurred in his book, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis. (1981)

In Chapter 4, "Diagnostic Politics: Homosexuality and the American Psychiatric Association," Dr. Bayer says that the first attack by homosexual activists against the APA began in 1970 when this organization held its convention in San Francisco. Homosexual activists decided to disrupt the conference by interrupting speakers and shouting down and ridiculing psychiatrists who viewed homosexuality as a mental disorder. In 1971, homosexual activist Frank Kameny worked with the Gay Liberation Front collective to demonstrate against the APA's convention. At the 1971 conference, Kameny grabbed the microphone and yelled, "Psychiatry is the enemy incarnate. Psychiatry has waged a relentless war of extermination against us. You may take this as a declaration of war against you."

Homosexuals forged APA credentials and gained access to exhibit areas in the conference. They threatened anyone who claimed that homosexuals needed to be cured.

Kameny had found an ally inside of the APA named Kent Robinson who helped the homosexual activist present his demand that homosexuality be removed from the DSM. At the 1972 convention, homosexual activists were permitted to set up a display booth, entitled "Gay, Proud and Healthy."

Kameny was then permitted to be part of a panel of psychiatrists who were to discuss homosexuality. The effort to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder from the DSM was the result of power politics, threats, and intimidation, not scientific discoveries.

Prior to the APA's 1973 convention, several psychiatrists attempted to organize opposition to the efforts of homosexuals to remove homosexual behavior from the DSM. Organizing this effort were Drs. Irving Bieber and Charles Socarides who formed the Ad Hoc Committee Against the Deletion of Homosexuality from DSM-II.

The DSM-II listed homosexuality as an abnormal behavior under section "302. Sexual Deviations." It was the first deviation listed.

After much political pressure, a committee of the APA met behind closed doors in 1973 and voted to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder from the DSM-II. Opponents of this effort were given 15 minutes to protest this change, according to Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, in Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth. Satinover writes that after this vote was taken, the decision was to be voted on by the entire APA membership. The National Gay Task Force purchased the APA's mailing list and sent out a letter to the APA members urging them to vote to remove homosexuality as a disorder. No APA member was informed that the mailing had been funded by this homosexual activist group.
snip
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/eleven.php

MrsSmith
06-16-2009, 10:12 PM
To a liberal, the word "homophobe" means: anybody who says or thinks anything even slightly derogatory about someone known or assumed to be a homosexual...even if the statement or thought happens to be completely true. Unless, of course, you are a Democrat speaking of a Republican...then it's impossible to say anything nasty enough to be homophobic.


As to this case, it used to be extremely common for judges to order divorced parents to keep their children away from any "significant other" until that "other" becomes a legal spouse. It would seem that the fear of "homophobia" is more important that what is best for the child.

stsinner
06-16-2009, 11:17 PM
Yes, stsinner -- we get that you know what 'phobia' means. And we get that you think you're not affraid of Homosexuals and therefore not a Homophobe. However, I encourage you to pick up a dictionary before trying to defend that position again.

Homophobia is more than an irrational fear of or aversion to homosexuality. It also refers to discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals or individuals perceived to be homosexual. Homophobia is defined as fear or contempt for lesbians and gay men, as well as behavior based on such a feeling.

Your views in posts on this board are homophobic. You're not the only one.

It is what is, man. All bigotry is fear-based.

That's all new Politically Correct bullshit..... Phobia means fear of, plain and simple, and I don't fear homosexuals-I loathe them as immoral and disgusting and wanting to make my kids think they're A-Okay and born that way... Bull crap!!!! .... I'll go to jail before I allow that shit to be taught to my children!! I'll teach my children that homosexuality is a perversion of nature and that these people are to be avoided and only dealt with when unavoidable.. Homosexuality is not normal, nor will any rational, God-fearing human being ever deem it to be.. We'll accept you into our communities and not attack you, but don't attack us-leave us alone.. Go home and practice your anal destruction and ruination of children in the privacy of your own home, but don't ever expect me to say it's okay or right. No homosexual couple should ever be allowed to raise or adopt a child, and that's just the way I feel about it.. You may feel different..

There is no way two fags can teach a boy what it means to be a man, or two dykes can teach a girl what it means to be a woman.... Much worse if it's two fags with a girl or two dykes with a boy... What the hell do any of them have to teach their kids.. Nothing at all except victimization and how to work the system and make people fear lawsuits....

thinker
06-16-2009, 11:55 PM
That's all new Politically Correct bullshit..... Phobia means fear of, plain and simple, and I don't fear homosexuals-I loathe them as immoral and disgusting and wanting to make my kids think they're A-Okay and born that way... Bull crap!!!! .... I'll go to jail before I allow that shit to be taught to my children!! I'll teach my children that homosexuality is a perversion of nature and that these people are to be avoided and only dealt with when unavoidable.. Homosexuality is not normal, nor will any rational, God-fearing human being ever deem it to be.. We'll accept you into our communities and not attack you, but don't attack us-leave us alone.. Go home and practice your anal destruction and ruination of children in the privacy of your own home, but don't ever expect me to say it's okay or right. No homosexual couple should ever be allowed to raise or adopt a child, and that's just the way I feel about it.. You may feel different..

Every single one of the words or phrases I bolded, with the exception of rational, speaks to one thing - fear. You'll ALLOW things to be taught to your children? Why not let them learn for themselves? I can see giving them your perspective, and letting that even be the sole perception you give them until they begin to be able to think for themselves, but past a certain point, your wish to control their thoughts or learning process to mirror your own only speaks to a phobia. Likewise, people loathe what they fear. When do gay people attack other people in broad daylight because they're gay? Some evidence would be GREAT. You -fear- an attack by a gay person...you don't have any reason to, do you? You ever been mugged by a gay man? Because you were straight and he wanted your tail? Come ON, this is a tad ridiculous.

As for rational...you're anything but. I don't agree with homosexuality, but I also don't see a problem with my child knowing homosexual people.


There is no way two fags can teach a boy what it means to be a man, or two dykes can teach a girl what it means to be a woman.... Much worse if it's two fags with a girl or two dykes with a boy... What the hell do any of them have to teach their kids.. Nothing at all except victimization and how to work the system and make people fear lawsuits....

Ignorance is the breeding ground of fear. You have no clue what you're talking about, because you aren't gay and obviously don't associate with gay people. Great job painting an entire group of people with a stereotypical, bigoted, and generally wrong brush.

Just get it over with and admit you're a racist bigot, okay? The only person you're kidding is yourself.

megimoo
06-17-2009, 12:22 AM
That's all new Politically Correct bullshit..... Phobia means fear of, plain and simple, and I don't fear homosexuals-I loathe them as immoral and disgusting and wanting to make my kids think they're A-Okay and born that way... Bull crap!!!! .... I'll go to jail before I allow that shit to be taught to my children!! I'll teach my children that homosexuality is a perversion of nature and that these people are to be avoided and only dealt with when unavoidable.. Homosexuality is not normal, nor will any rational, God-fearing human being ever deem it to be.. We'll accept you into our communities and not attack you, but don't attack us-leave us alone.. Go home and practice your anal destruction and ruination of children in the privacy of your own home, but don't ever expect me to say it's okay or right. No homosexual couple should ever be allowed to raise or adopt a child, and that's just the way I feel about it.. You may feel different..

There is no way two fags can teach a boy what it means to be a man, or two dykes can teach a girl what it means to be a woman.... Much worse if it's two fags with a girl or two dykes with a boy... What the hell do any of them have to teach their kids.. Nothing at all except victimization and how to work the system and make people fear lawsuits....
snip
When writing their newly released book Destructive Trends in Mental Health, Wright and Cummings invited the participation of a number of fellow psychologists who flatly turned them down--fearing loss of tenure, loss of promotion, and other forms of professional retaliation. "We were bombarded by horror stories," Dr. Cummings said. "Their greatest fear was of the gay lobby, which is very strong in the APA."

"'Homophobia as intimidation' is one of the most pervasive techniques used to silence anyone who would disagree with the gay activist agenda," said Cummings. "Sadly, I have seen militant gay men and lesbians-- who I am certain do not represent all homosexuals, and who themselves have been the object of derision and oppression-- once gaining freedom and power, then becoming oppressors themselves."

He described his own experience of oppression and reverse bias: "This was aptly demonstrated," he said, "during an interchange that took place in a large meeting assembled by the then-current president to address the future of the APA. I was just about to agree with one of the participants, when she stopped me before I could speak: 'I don't know what you are going to say, but there is nothing you and I can agree on, because you are a straight white male and I am a lesbian.' Such blatant reverse discrimination was overlooked by everyone else in the room, but I was dumbfounded. This woman is prominent in APA affairs, is extensively published, and has received most of the APA's highest awards. The APA continues to laud her, even though recently she had her license suspended for an improper dual relationship with a female patient! What would be the response had it been a straight white male in an improper dual relationship with a female patient?" snip
http://www.narth.com/docs/insiders.html

stsinner
06-17-2009, 11:36 AM
As for rational...you're anything but. I don't agree with homosexuality, but I also don't see a problem with my child knowing homosexual people.



Ignorance is the breeding ground of fear. You have no clue what you're talking about, because you aren't gay and obviously don't associate with gay people.


Actually, you're wrong, and if you'd actually read my posts you'd know that I work for a lesbian in one of my jobs and that we get along just fine because she isn't an activist and acts respectfully toward me and doesn't make out with her lover in public, doesn't have the retarded rainbow stickers on her car, etc..

What I'm against is the schools trying to influence our kids' way of thinking about homosexuality by introducing books such as Johnny and his Two Daddies, etc... It's not their place.. I am not ignorant about homosexuals-my grandmother's best friend when I was in high shcool was a cross-dressing faggot named Donnie.. Well, Donnie was all funny and cute, showing us polaroids of him on the catwalk in drag from the past weekend and shit, but then, one night when I was going to spend the night with my grandma, she went to the bathroom and Donnie slipped me a piece of paper with his number on it and told me to call him when my grandma was asleep... Now, being a wrestler and footbal player, I didn't take kindly to this faggot hitting on me, and I hit him with a right cross and knocked him out cold.. When my grandma came out of the bathroom and saw him unconscious on the floor she got hysterical. When I told her what had happened and showed her the piece of paper he had given me, she called his lover and told him to come get the piece of crap and get him out of her house, and the they never spoke again..

Fags have a mental disorder that we have yet to diagnose, in my opinion, and I think they should know their place in society. It couldn't be more obvious by the way the human body is designed and every other animal, that male and female is the natural order of things and anything else is just a sick perversion of nature.

PoliCon
06-17-2009, 11:38 AM
there is a concerted effort to teach America to endorse homosexuality as a valid and acceptable life choice. Interestingly - at the same time the same people are campaigning against abstinence as a valid and acceptable life choice . . . . It's okay to teach kids to be gay but not okay to teach them to be moral. :rolleyes:

stsinner
06-17-2009, 11:47 AM
Just get it over with and admit you're a racist bigot, okay? The only person you're kidding is yourself.

Funny how you Liberal pussies try to label everyone who doesn't approve of sodomy and call racist anyone who mentions the absurdly high crime rates, single-parent birth rates and anti-social behavior of minorities (Look at the Lakers fans "celebration") (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,526304,00.html) that can simply be read in the paper every single day..

Sorry, I deal in facts, and unless you can dispute the facts, name calling doesn't work on me.

Racist? No. Observer of facts? Yes.

Homophobe? No. Observer of my religion's teachings? Yes. If i was a Muslim, I guarantee you that you would shut your mouth right here... But since I'm Catholic, I'm sure you'll have something to say.

Try again, little fella. Your name calling does work on some people, but they don't really bother me the least little bit.

wilbur
06-17-2009, 12:02 PM
Funny how you Liberal pussies try to label everyone who doesn't approve of sodomy and call racist anyone who mentions the absurdly high crime rates, single-parent birth rates and anti-social behavior of minorities (Look at the Lakers fans "celebration") (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,526304,00.html) that can simply be read in the paper every single day..


Hate to break it to you, but crime rates have been dropping (or at least not varying significantly)... especially homicide rates.... news media outlets have increasingly focused their efforts on reporting about crime, even while rates drop or stay steady... your perception of crime has been entirely shaped by the media. Crime reporting has become one of the pillars of the media's business model.



Sorry, I deal in facts, and unless you can dispute the facts, name calling doesn't work on me.


Facts disputed..



Racist? No. Observer of facts? Yes.

Homophobe? No. Observer of my religion's teachings? Yes. If i was a Muslim, I guarantee you that you would shut your mouth right here... But since I'm Catholic, I'm sure you'll have something to say.

Try again, little fella. Your name calling does work on some people, but they don't really bother me the least little bit.

Homophobia you willingly inherit by way religious belief from ancient ignoramuses (whose beliefs you will not question or critically examine) still counts as homophobia, even if you labor under the illusion that you have noble reasons for it. I would have no bones about saying that to a Muslim as well.

wilbur
06-17-2009, 12:05 PM
there is a concerted effort to teach America to endorse homosexuality as a valid and acceptable life choice. Interestingly - at the same time the same people are campaigning against abstinence as a valid and acceptable life choice . . . . It's okay to teach kids to be gay but not okay to teach them to be moral. :rolleyes:

Red herring... no one disputes that abstinence can be a good, responsible, and even preferable choice (though I bet quite a few psychological pathologies can develop in time if one is abstinent for too long)...

Opposition is always to *abstinence only education*.. especially the kind where the effectiveness of birth control is under represented, with the hopes of scaring kids into abstinence (which turns out to be nearly all programs)... not abstinence itself.

linda22003
06-17-2009, 12:06 PM
Stsinner disapproves of "sodomy" but that includes oral sex in many states, and I'll bet he'd be grateful for a blowjob. He might be a lot less cranky if he could get one. ;) [And what was the point of him telling us his granny was a 'fag hag'? :cool:]

thinker
06-17-2009, 12:12 PM
Actually, you're wrong, and if you'd actually read my posts you'd know that I work for a lesbian in one of my jobs and that we get along just fine because she isn't an activist and acts respectfully toward me and doesn't make out with her lover in public, doesn't have the retarded rainbow stickers on her car, etc..

I responded to that lovely lamea$$ story in the thread you posted it in.


What I'm against is the schools trying to influence our kids' way of thinking about homosexuality by introducing books such as Johnny and his Two Daddies, etc... It's not their place.. I am not ignorant about homosexuals

What, exactly, are you asserting that the book "One Dad, Two Dads, Brown Dad, Blue Dads" by Johnny Valentine is teaching children? Give specific examples, please. There's nothing wrong with the school system explaining to children that some people are different, and that they shouldn't be treated differently because of who they are. Beyond that, if the individual teacher or the school at large uses the material to try and equate that group with special status, is different; but that's not the fault of the author. That's a problem with the teacher and the school, and as a parent it's your job to know what your kid is being taught, and either place them in a school where you're okay with what's being taught, or at the least attempt to correct the perspective being taught.

Of course, I suspect your version of "correcting the perspective" and mine will be vastly different, but that's neither here nor there.


-my grandmother's best friend when I was in high shcool was a cross-dressing faggot named Donnie.. Well, Donnie was all funny and cute, showing us polaroids of him on the catwalk in drag from the past weekend and shit, but then, one night when I was going to spend the night with my grandma, she went to the bathroom and Donnie slipped me a piece of paper with his number on it and told me to call him when my grandma was asleep... Now, being a wrestler and footbal player, I didn't take kindly to this faggot hitting on me, and I hit him with a right cross and knocked him out cold.. When my grandma came out of the bathroom and saw him unconscious on the floor she got hysterical. When I told her what had happened and showed her the piece of paper he had given me, she called his lover and told him to come get the piece of crap and get him out of her house, and the they never spoke again..

I ABSOLUTELY LOVE how you always have some nicely worded story that deals with gays, crossdressers, blacks, whoever you're currently bashing, which puts you in the best possible light and them in the worst possible light. You got all these on a word document on your computer, so you can whip em out whenever you need to?


Fags have a mental disorder that we have yet to diagnose, in my opinion, and I think they should know their place in society.

Bigoted hatespeak. Their place is below you, right? And you, being a WASP male, are at the top? :rolleyes:

Go on, just say it and get it over with. This coy little "I'm not a bigot or a racist" crap mixed in with your inferences, anecdotes, and little asides is getting tedious.


It couldn't be more obvious by the way the human body is designed and every other animal, that male and female is the natural order of things and anything else is just a sick perversion of nature.

Best to just put em out of their misery, eh? You're one sick puppy, dude.

stsinner
06-17-2009, 12:22 PM
I responded to that lovely lamea$$ story in the thread you posted it in.



What, exactly, are you asserting that the book "One Dad, Two Dads, Brown Dad, Blue Dads" by Johnny Valentine is teaching children? Give specific examples, please. There's nothing wrong with the school system explaining to children that some people are different, and that they shouldn't be treated differently because of who they are. Beyond that, if the individual teacher or the school at large uses the material to try and equate that group with special status, is different; but that's not the fault of the author. That's a problem with the teacher and the school, and as a parent it's your job to know what your kid is being taught, and either place them in a school where you're okay with what's being taught, or at the least attempt to correct the perspective being taught.

Of course, I suspect your version of "correcting the perspective" and mine will be vastly different, but that's neither here nor there.



I ABSOLUTELY LOVE how you always have some nicely worded story that deals with gays, crossdressers, blacks, whoever you're currently bashing, which puts you in the best possible light and them in the worst possible light. You got all these on a word document on your computer, so you can whip em out whenever you need to?



Bigoted hatespeak. Their place is below you, right? And you, being a WASP male, are at the top? :rolleyes:

Go on, just say it and get it over with. This coy little "I'm not a bigot or a racist" crap mixed in with your inferences, anecdotes, and little asides is getting tedious.



Best to just put em out of their misery, eh? You're one sick puppy, dude.


All Liberal pussiebabble... I've got the stories because I live it-I've experienced it, I know these peole, I work with these peoples, and it just pisses you off that you say I'm ignorant about it, yet I know much more about it and have experienced more of it, having lived all over the word in four different countries (not states-COUNTRIES) and having spent 8 years in the Army.. You've probably been to the next city....

Just keep thinking everyone is wonderful as the social and moral threads of our society unravel...

thinker
06-17-2009, 12:22 PM
Funny how you Liberal pussies try to label everyone who doesn't approve of sodomy and call racist anyone who mentions the absurdly high crime rates, single-parent birth rates and anti-social behavior of minorities

First of all, I'm about as much a liberal pussy as you are a decent human being. (Hint: you're not).

Second, you obviously neither read nor comprehend what I post.

From http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?t=15135&page=3 , in direct counter to this very same point:


No. Mentioning facts do not make you racist. Saying things like "all [Obama] needs is a 40 oz..." with regards to how the man is sitting...IS. The one is a "fact" as you yourself put it. The other one is a racially based slur.

Keep in mind that's a slur you made, and we can drag that particular thread back up too, if you'd like.


Sorry, I deal in facts, and unless you can dispute the facts, name calling doesn't work on me.

This is the first thread I've seen you post anything anywhere CLOSE to facts. And all you're doing here is mentioning that there are facts out there, not the facts themselves. So far, all you've done besides that one post is use these lovely little unprovable anecdotes.


Racist? No. Observer of facts? Yes.

You've made very clear how you see yourself. That does not, and never will, make it true.


Homophobe? No. Observer of my religion's teachings? Yes. If i was a Muslim, I guarantee you that you would shut your mouth right here...

I don't give a damn if you're a motherf***ing Jane. Religion is NEVER a good excuse for hate.


But since I'm Catholic, I'm sure you'll have something to say.

Only to say I'm ashamed to say we share the same religion. Go to confession, you REALLY need it.


Try again, little fella. Your name calling does work on some people, but they don't really bother me the least little bit.

The only reason this discussion has happened at all is because YOU keep bringing the same old crap up. Until you can stop posting crap that has NOTHING to do with fact, evidence, or civil discussion, don't expect people to just give you a pass because this is a conservative board. You may be under the impression that it's okay, but plenty of other people aren't. And some of them are a lot more conservative than I am.

thinker
06-17-2009, 12:24 PM
All Liberal pussiebabble... I've got the stories because I live it-I've experienced it, I know these peole, I work with these peoples, and it just pisses you off that you say I'm ignorant about it, yet I know much more about it and have experienced more of it, having lived all over the word in four different countries (not states-COUNTRIES) and having spent 8 years in the Army.. You've probably been to the next city....

Just keep thinking everyone is wonderful as the social and moral threads of our society unravel...

You can't address one simple point. I never said, and never will say, that everything's rosy.

I just don't believe in hating people for what they are.

You do.

I'm very glad we're different.

stsinner
06-17-2009, 12:26 PM
The only reason this discussion has happened at all is because YOU keep bringing the same old crap up. Until you can stop posting crap that has NOTHING to do with fact, evidence, or civil discussion, don't expect people to just give you a pass because this is a conservative board. You may be under the impression that it's okay, but plenty of other people aren't. And some of them are a lot more conservative than I am.

LOL... I haven't posted any facts... Now THAT'S rich....

You'd better get back to CNN-I think Obama may be on...

thinker
06-17-2009, 12:34 PM
Other than the post just upstream from here, where you say there ARE facts (but don't actually POST them, just mention there there) quote yourself, once, timestamped since you opened up that pathetic piece of trash in the thunderdome.

Go ahead.

linda22003
06-17-2009, 12:53 PM
I don't give a damn if you're a motherf***ing Jane. Religion is NEVER a good excuse for hate.



Psssst.... it's "Jain". He's going to think you're calling him a girl and he's REALLY going to get pissy. :p

PoliCon
06-17-2009, 12:58 PM
It's time for this to get moved to the thunderdome. :mad:

Shannon
06-17-2009, 01:09 PM
It's time for this to get moved to the thunderdome. :mad:

Really? I guess I better read it then. Kinda looks like the same old shit.

linda22003
06-17-2009, 01:12 PM
Really? I guess I better read it then. Kinda looks like the same old shit.

It is. Some people don't seem to be happy unless they're enraged about something.

Shannon
06-17-2009, 01:19 PM
It is. Some people don't seem to be happy unless they're enraged about something.

Not that there's anything wrong with that...:D

linda22003
06-17-2009, 01:20 PM
Not that there's anything wrong with that...:D

I don't mean crabby. I mean red faces and veins popping out on foreheads. :p

PoliCon
06-17-2009, 01:24 PM
Not that there's anything wrong with that...:D

no - but they are stinking the place up with it . . .

stsinner
06-17-2009, 03:07 PM
I don't give a damn if you're a motherf***ing Jane. Religion is NEVER a good excuse for hate.

.

Saying that the new way of thinking is better because it's a new way of thinking is ignorant and weak. Accepting and embracing every unusual and twisted new behavior that comes along and fights for mainstream acceptance isn't rooted in morality-it's called Liberalism and PC spinelessness. The simple fact that values are traditional doesn't make them wrong.

All of this acceptance and even embracing of abnormal behaviors is directly connected to the "progressives'" attack on religion and their campaign to drive religion out of America. Some people just think there's no room for religion in our new, more tolerant, touchy-feely society of pansies.. Immorality and the acceptance is not good, no matter what you tell yourself.
Less religion has led to a rise in crime rates and immorality, and as it is attacked more and more you'll see things get even worse, but hey, at least we're a tolerant and welcoming people...

linda22003
06-17-2009, 03:57 PM
The simple fact that values are traditional doesn't make them wrong.



It also doesn't automatically make them right.

stsinner
06-17-2009, 04:01 PM
It also doesn't automatically make them right.

Touche.

wilbur
06-17-2009, 04:57 PM
Saying that the new way of thinking is better because it's a new way of thinking is ignorant and weak. Accepting and embracing every unusual and twisted new behavior that comes along and fights for mainstream acceptance isn't rooted in morality-it's called Liberalism and PC spinelessness. The simple fact that values are traditional doesn't make them wrong.

All of this acceptance and even embracing of abnormal behaviors is directly connected to the "progressives'" attack on religion and their campaign to drive religion out of America. Some people just think there's no room for religion in our new, more tolerant, touchy-feely society of pansies.. Immorality and the acceptance is not good, no matter what you tell yourself.
Less religion has led to a rise in crime rates and immorality, and as it is attacked more and more you'll see things get even worse, but hey, at least we're a tolerant and welcoming people...

Homosexuality has nothing to do with religion, with the exception that some religions make it a point of dogma to explicitly fight it. Were that not the case, the two wouldn't even be talked about together.

stsinner
06-17-2009, 05:04 PM
I absolutely disagree-As a Christian, I believe that God created everything and everyone, and in his image.. And I observe the reason he made men the way he made them and women the way he made them. Procreation happens in one way-the obvious purpose and correct utilization of our sexuality and sexual organs. And believing this, when people try to argue that homosexuality is perfectly natural, not only do I laugh, I think of what a perversion of God's intent it is.

Also, morally right and wrong is just as important to some people as socially right or wrong. To me, homosexuality is morally wrong, and this is why it is so offensive to me for the school to address the issue in any capacity. It is the parents' responsibility to teach their kids their morals and right from wrong.

wilbur
06-17-2009, 05:34 PM
I absolutely disagree-As a Christian, I believe that God created everything and everyone, and in his image.. And I observe the reason he made men the way he made them and women the way he made them. Procreation happens in one way-the obvious purpose and correct utilization of our sexuality and sexual organs. And believing this, when people try to argue that homosexuality is perfectly natural, not only do I laugh, I think of what a perversion of God's intent it is.

Also, morally right and wrong is just as important to some people as socially right or wrong. To me, homosexuality is morally wrong, and this is why it is so offensive to me for the school to address the issue in any capacity. It is the parents' responsibility to teach their kids their morals and right from wrong.

I rest my case... if we even grant there is an anti-religion sentiment in the homosexuality camp, its not because they have some inherent philosophical or moral bone to pick with religion... simply for the sake of being anti-religion.

Its because Judeo-Christian religions make themselves dogmatic adversaries of homosexuality, by taking the same posture you display here.

As you also display, the position is so dogmatic that its immune to reason and rational discourse. So, short of convincing you your religious beliefs are a sham (and a sham they are), you will never compromise. So being anti-religion is the only choice you have left them.

megimoo
06-17-2009, 06:42 PM
I rest my case... if we even grant there is an anti-religion sentiment in the homosexuality camp, its not because they have some inherent philosophical or moral bone to pick with religion... simply for the sake of being anti-religion.

Its because Judeo-Christian religions make themselves dogmatic adversaries of homosexuality, by taking the same posture you display here.

As you also display, the position is so dogmatic that its immune to reason and rational discourse. So, short of convincing you your religious beliefs are a sham (and a sham they are), you will never compromise. So being anti-religion is the only choice you have left them.
So the bottom line is in the interest of absolute fairness all believers should follow Wilbur's advice and abandon the teachings of Jesus Christ,the son of GOD, and jump on the Homosexual Bandwagon in the approval of and advocation of a corrupt and diseased lifestyle !

Then we could spend all of eternity being abandoned like the great heathens of Infamy who defiled and corrupted GODS Creation !

stsinner
06-17-2009, 07:09 PM
I guess there is a good side to homosexuality-butt sex doesn't create a child and ensures that, unless they adopt, that branch of the family tree is pruned for eternity...

Rockntractor
06-17-2009, 07:18 PM
I'm glad we have this issue settled now!

PoliCon
06-17-2009, 07:24 PM
So the bottom line is in the interest of absolute fairness all believers should follow Wilbur's advice and abandon the teachings of Jesus Christ,the son of GOD, and jump on the Homosexual Bandwagon in the approval of and advocation of a corrupt and diseased lifestyle !

Then we could spend all of eternity being abandoned like the great heathens of Infamy who defiled and corrupted GODS Creation !

I always find it amusing when a heathen tries to lecture a believer on what it is that the believer believes and the religion teaches. :rolleyes: I mean it's not like the scriptures condemn homosexual activity - repeatedly . . . right? OH WAIT . . . it DOES!:rolleyes:

megimoo
06-17-2009, 07:52 PM
I always find it amusing when a heathen tries to lecture a believer on what it is that the believer believes and the religion teaches. :rolleyes: I mean it's not like the scriptures condemn homosexual activity - repeatedly . . . right? OH WAIT . . . it DOES!:rolleyes:
Saul Of Tarsis Is quite Explicit on the Subject !

linda22003
06-17-2009, 07:55 PM
I guess there is a good side to homosexuality-butt sex doesn't create a child and ensures that, unless they adopt, that branch of the family tree is pruned for eternity...

You do know that "butt sex" is popular among heteros too... right?

linda22003
06-17-2009, 07:57 PM
Saul Of Tarsis Is quite Explicit on the Subject !

Tarsis is from Dragonlance, a Dungeons and Dragons sort of "universe".

The word you want is "Tarsus", o Doctor of Theology.:rolleyes:

Shannon
06-17-2009, 08:02 PM
You do know that "butt sex" is popular among heteros too... right?

I knew it would be you.:p

megimoo
06-17-2009, 08:12 PM
I knew it would be you.:pIn her crowd it would have to be popular ! It saves on doubler bagging them .

Rockntractor
06-17-2009, 08:22 PM
In her crowd it would have to be popular ! It saves of doubler bagging them .
And you guys say I am mean!

megimoo
06-17-2009, 08:42 PM
And you guys say I am mean!Just wait until you are a victim of her nasty venom .

Shannon
06-17-2009, 08:47 PM
Just wait until you are a victim of her nasty venom .

LOL! This place keeps me amused.

Rockntractor
06-17-2009, 08:59 PM
Just wait until you are a victim of her nasty venom .
She joined in on the feeding frenzy the first day I was on CU. It is just her hobby.

Teetop
06-17-2009, 09:12 PM
I think it's a fair ruling. The courts shouldn't be as petty as the parties in the custody or divorce case in front of them. Asking a court to limit who a parent can associate with around their kids without there being a provable threat to the kids is infringing on his or her rights.


We had an interesting one in suburban Detroit-a female judge took custody from a hasidic mother and gave the kids to the father because she drove on a sabbath. The mother had signed an agreement saying she wouldn't drive on the sabbath, then later got a job that required her to work on the sabbath. I'm not sure how hasidic the mother is (because if she was, would she even take a job that required her to work on the sabbath?), but the father sued for custody because the mother breeched her agreement. The judge ruled on the father' behalf.

It is a fair ruling, although, I disagree with it. The father could be a great role model, who knows?

The second comment.....Family and Divorce Court sucks. :)

wilbur
06-17-2009, 09:23 PM
I always find it amusing when a heathen tries to lecture a believer on what it is that the believer believes and the religion teaches. :rolleyes: I mean it's not like the scriptures condemn homosexual activity - repeatedly . . . right? OH WAIT . . . it DOES!:rolleyes:

This "heathen" didnt lecture any believers about 'what they believe'. As for what scriptures say, I know they claim homosexuality is wrong, thats whole damn problem, good grief..

There is an adversarial relationship between many homosexuals and various religions. The primary cause is religious belief that is antagonistic towards homosexuality (to say the least)... as opposed to the theory that was thrown out there, that homosexuals just randomly have an anti-religion agenda, just because.

PoliCon
06-17-2009, 09:40 PM
Saul Of Tarsis Is quite Explicit on the Subject !

The OT is far more so . . . .

PoliCon
06-17-2009, 09:44 PM
This "heathen" didnt lecture any believers about 'what they believe'. As for what scriptures say, I know they claim homosexuality is wrong, thats whole damn problem, good grief..

There is an adversarial relationship between many homosexuals and various religions. The primary cause is religious belief that is antagonistic towards homosexuality (to say the least)... as opposed to the theory that was thrown out there, that homosexuals just randomly have an anti-religion agenda, just because.

What do you call "Its because Judeo-Christian religions make themselves dogmatic adversaries of homosexuality"? it's not dogmatic - it's scriptural.

wilbur
06-17-2009, 09:56 PM
What do you call "Its because Judeo-Christian religions make themselves dogmatic adversaries of homosexuality"? it's not dogmatic - it's scriptural.

When I use a word that has an established, widely used secular definition, AND also a special definition under Christian philosophy, you can bet I am probably using the secular version unless I explicitly say otherwise.

And many Christians would refer to any form of "revealed truth" as "dogma", which of course, includes scriptures... but the adjective "dogmatic" in that sentence, was actually attached to "adversaries"... as in "he or she is dogmatic".

megimoo
06-17-2009, 09:57 PM
She joined in on the feeding frenzy the first day I was on CU. It is just her hobby.Raptor like feeding frenzy, back stabbing arrogant old liberal witch !

hazlnut
06-17-2009, 10:03 PM
I always find it amusing when a heathen tries to lecture a believer on what it is that the believer believes and the religion teaches. :rolleyes: I mean it's not like the scriptures condemn homosexual activity - repeatedly . . . right? OH WAIT . . . it DOES!:rolleyes:

Yep. It's right up there with eating shellfish, wearing mixed fibers, inter-faith marriages... all the 'abominations.' :rolleyes:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNiqfRyoAyA&feature=channel_page

thinker
06-17-2009, 10:06 PM
Gee. 10 hours, and not ONE quote of fact.

*crickets*

I guess that blows that little idea (that you're only stating fact) out of the water...

And linda, it may very well be Jainism. I really don't care :P. The point was that I don't give a flying frack what religion you are, it's STILL wrong to hate on that basis (not just because it's morally wrong, but because I'm 100% positive that Jesus loved the sinner and hated the sin)

PoliCon
06-17-2009, 10:07 PM
Yep. It's right up there with eating shellfish, wearing mixed fibers, inter-faith marriages... all the 'abominations.' :rolleyes:

actually - no. There is far more attention given to the issue of homosexuality and homosexual relations than the uninformed think. Of course it does require some knowledge . . . . you leftists like to pretend that you know the scriptures. . . . :rolleyes:



BTW - you ever going to allow that thunderdome thread to be reopened?

Rockntractor
06-17-2009, 10:19 PM
wearing mixed fibers
Will Bubba go to hell for spandex?

PoliCon
06-17-2009, 10:32 PM
Will Bubba go to hell for spandex?

no because that's not what the scriptures actually say. But you can't expect a leftist to actually know anything about what scriptures actually factually say. Hazlnut is quoting the Talmud not the Torah and prolly doesn't know the difference.

megimoo
06-17-2009, 10:33 PM
Will Bubba go to hell for spandex?
Naw, probably six months in the pits of purgatory until they melt offn him !Even them non snappers go there but they just don't know it !

Rockntractor
06-17-2009, 10:37 PM
Naw, probably six months in the pits of purgatory until they melt offn him !Even them non snappers go there but they just don't know it !
At least he doesn't have much hair to singe off.