Sodom, Greece, Rome and homosexuality.

[AlAyeti]

Does allowing for diversity include parents having no voice in what their children are forced to be taught and have to accept?

Do Christians and the many other cultures and belief systems opposed to homosexuality have the right to have their culture and religious views respected in society when it comes to decent and natural sexual behavior in the education system and in public?

Are homosexuals demanding accesss to children under the label of diversity and anti-hate legislation?

This seems the number one issue between average and normal "family" people and the homosexual agenda.

Can there be laws passed that keeps homosexuality from becoming forced on children and families that oppose it, without the homosexual community and homosexual action organizations crying discrimination?

Is there such a thing anymore as heterosexual rights?

[McCulloch]

Scrot, something similar was done Sat Aug 20, 2005 to Mon Oct 03, 2005.

Does Science show that Homosexual behaviour is immoral?

[1John2_26]

Scrot, something similar was done Sat Aug 20, 2005 to Mon Oct 03, 2005.

Does Science show that Homosexual behaviour is immoral?

Is science used to prove a crime was commited and is it used to prove a person "guilty or innocent?"

Is the sceice behind building weapons of mass destruction used to challenge the "morality" of other scientists that craet weapons of mass destruction to be used for "immoral purposes?"

Isn't that what the world is discussing right now with Iran's moral dilemma?

[Scrotum]

McCulloch, i must have missed that one, interesting reading, the entire topic makes me think about our John here.


John, i will try again. I wish to, once again, point out you have one simple way out of this, which is apologize and simple state you where wrong. And we can continue this debate on your missinformed information, i have no doubt that anyone here would want to make fun of you, and would gladly explain and help you out, no one looks down on you because of your error of view.

Simplification of Johns Logic:

Homosexual is "sick" and "perverted" because it is not natural to have sex using the rectum. (Johns claim)

But this also leads to;

That Typing on a keyboard is Not natural, and using Johns own logic, "sick" and "perverted". Yet, he does this himself.


How does he justify this hypocrisy John? Please answer and keep some honer.

[1John2_26]

From that old post:

It has been argued that science shows that homosexual behavior is immoral. Anatomy and physiology and biology and DNA can help deescalate the words "ignorance" and "bigotry" about the sexuality of the human being. And of course sticking a xxx into a rectum cannot find any scientific justification unless the person is mentally feeble, or a fumbly lover. In either case, science cannot support wrongdoings with the body's design. Someone putting their genitalia into the anal opening or into the mouth is empirically wrong. And female homosexuality is even more deviant to the norm. Any woman that ovulates is by physiology or anatomy or biology, heterosexual. Their body is expellinh an ovum that was not fertilized. Sexuality can only be defined by anatomy. That is perfect logic. Anything else is faith-based beliefs. And we all know that is a big no-no. [..] yet, when anyone thinks that the digestive tract is part of the sexual organs, it is laughable when they are protected by people who demand science be the final say in all matters of faith.

The argument runs like this:
Homosexual behavior is not procreative.
Non-procreative sexual behavior is not natural.
Unnatural sexual behavior is immoral.
therefore
Homosexual behavior is immoral.
Is this argument true? Does science condemn homosexual behavior? The logic is flawless. If you accept these three premises, you must accept the conclusion.

Which scientist's get to decide "for us?"

So, lets view each of the three points:

1. Homosexual behavior is not procreative. This premise is true. I am unaware of any anatomist, psychiatrist, biologist, anthropologist, sociologist, parent, gay activist or plumber who would argue against this premise.

Homosexuals can claim to desire offspring. Thus making them not homosexual "by nature." They are hypocrites or worse.

2. Non-procreative sexual behavior is not natural. This premise is false. Psychiatry, anthropology and sociology all show that sexual behavior is far more than for procreation.

Then having to cast away evolution as a science. Procraetion is the only driving force of eolution. Same-sex sex is another word for death.

Sexual behavior has social and psychiatrical functions in human society.

Human society hinges on the well-being of the populace. Homosexuality has been proven to be very dangerous for the non-homosexual populace. Science has indeed proclaimed that sex without a condom is immoral and potentially a felony.

This can also be shown in other primates. In nature, primates exhibit sexual behavior, even homosexual behavior, which is not procreative. Therefore, is is very clear to me that non-procreative sexual behavior is not necessarily unnatural.

Appealing to unreasonaing beasts to claim a human motal position is unsound. Rape is OK in nature and it obviously does not harm the one raped. Shall mankind legaize rape or make it a sexual orientation? Looking to beasts for morality is not logical.

3. Unnatural sexual behavior is immoral. I have not seen any support for this premise. Some natural sexual behavior can be shown to be immoral in human society. Forced sexual submission, rape, does occur in a number of mammalian species in nature including humans.

Science does indeed then weigh in on morality as no zoologist or antropologist is on record claing that the strongest human males should be killing weaker ones and raping female humans. Homosexuality is completely out of the justification of sexuality box. It deos not even exist "morally" as even something to ponder "scientifically."

It is immoral since it violates the will of one human by another.

If homosexuality is justified because "it happens in nature" than rape is not a crime. Neither is killing puny weak males. It does seem that scientists speak volumes on "morality." Some things are natural laws and some things are so obvious that they can only be perverted.

But, I have not seen any reasoning or logic which shows that unnatural sexual behavior is immoral.

You just have.

If someone were to show that unnatural sexual behavior is, in fact, immoral, then there might possibly be many common sexual activities which might be thus condemned. Could one say, "Lips are made for keeping food in your mouth when you chew, closing off the airway when you breath and forspeechh. Kissing is not natural. It is wrong to teach my children that kissing is a valid life choice. I don't want my children to learn to tolerate those left-leaning-bubble-headed people who have a kissing agenda."

The OP/ED piece stands on its own personal viewpoint of the author McCulloch.

Conclusion It cannot be shown that science proves that homosexual behavior is immoral.

In pack animals (social animals) dominace (sexual and violent) over weaker and younger individuals is not only tolerated but encouraged. Scientists take a graet stand against those behaviors in human beings. Even some psychiatrists.

If rape and killing are immoral behaviors (in humans) than homosexuality is immoral behavior. Logic and scientists have weighed in.

[1John2_26]

McCulloch, i must have missed that one, interesting reading, the entire topic makes me think about our John here.


John, i will try again. I wish to, once again, point out you have one simple way out of this, which is apologize and simple state you where wrong. And we can continue this debate on your missinformed information, i have no doubt that anyone here would want to make fun of you, and would gladly explain and help you out, no one looks down on you because of your error of view.

Simplification of Johns Logic:

Homosexual is "sick" and "perverted" because it is not natural to have sex using the rectum. (Johns claim)

But this also leads to;

That Typing on a keyboard is Not natural, and using Johns own logic, "sick" and "perverted". Yet, he does this himself.

How does he justify this hypocrisy John? Please answer and keep some honer.

Other than just pure personal insult and the denigrating ad hominem attack (used against anyone that will not submit to liberal/progressive totalitarianism), to avoid dealing with logic and reason; Scrotum fails to see the reasonableness inherent in not justifying aberrant behavior just because "it can be done." In that case it is not hypocritical to murder people. That to can also be done and condoned by others. Ask a gang member.

The keyboard is not an abomination of God, nor is it hypocritiacl to study and communicate using a computer. It was designed for that purpose! Now, if I use my computer against my religious beliefs and try to get others within my religious group to practice anti-Christian actions, then the keyboard "could" be considered a tool of heresy or hypocrisy.

The keyboard was "designed" for a particular pupose.

The anus was designed for a particular purpose.

The mouth was designed for a particular purpose.

Sexual intercourse follows design.

The keyboard was not designed to hit baseballs while at bat playing baseball. Sexual intercourse was not designed to be used with the digestive tract from mouth to anus. Even the time semen travels through the urethra is for "normal sexual intercourse." A woman's urethra is located in a portion of her vagina but again has absolutely nothing to do with sexual intercourse.

The anus is not designed as a recepticle for sperm or ejaculate or a condom-covered male sex organ or synthtic facsimile. The mouth may indeed accomodate a male sex organ shaped object, but the "fact" of design is that it is not a sex organ.

It is hypocritical to claim to be intelligent or educated and teach that the anus and the mouth are sex organs since, they are not sex organs.

It is not hypocrisy to believe that people that practice deviant sexuality are immoral and dishonest (a form of immoral behavior) if indeed they practice these things and convince others to practice that form of innapropriate usage and at the same time lying to them that the mouth or rectum are sex organs. Lying is a form of hypocrisy.

A religious person such as a Christian, would be a hypocrite if they taught others to practice acts (of Sodomy, promiscuity) that are contrary to the teachings of Christianity.

Now indeed a person could join a religion or invent their own that includes anal and oral sex (Sodomy) as things to practice (such as the secular world embraces) but it would be hypocritical for a Christian to support others in those actions. No different than Christians opposing Mormon or Muslim beliefs.

The petty nature by which Scrotum is attacking my position of orthodoxy of Christianity; and the sciences of physiology, biology and anatomy stand in stark opposition to his assertion that I have ever been guilty of hypocrisy. I only agree with the facts. I am not obsessed with anything other than emotionless facts driving "the debate'

He doesn't need to apologize. I am a Christian after all. Forgiving people that insult us is part of the deal.

That is keeping with the definition of what "hypocrisy" is. It would be hypocritical of me not to forgive Scrotum.

BTW: Is science used to prove a crime was commited and is it used to prove a person "guilty or innocent?"

Is the sceice behind building weapons of mass destruction used to challenge the "morality" of other scientists that craet weapons of mass destruction to be used for "immoral purposes?"

Isn't that what the world is discussing right now with Iran's moral dilemma?

All typed on keyboards and all designed to communicate by an istrument designed for that purpose.

[melikio]

The petty nature by which Scrotum is attacking my position of orthodoxy of Christianity; and the sciences of physiology, biology and anatomy stand in stark opposition to his assertion that I have ever been guilty of hypocrisy.

John, your views present multiple dichotomies on a repeated basis. And although you don't see the dubiousness in your own religion and moral values, you really cannot stop others from recognizing them readily.

You believe what you say is "true"; most everyone here realizes that.

I only agree with the facts.

And mere facts don't necessarily build a case which is believable or absolutely "true". (Get real.)

I am not obsessed with anything other than emotionless facts driving "the debate'

You aren't dealing with "computers" or specimens "controlled" in your personal lab; you are dealing with human beings. (Get real, please.)

-Mel-

[Cathar1950]

Your only counter is insulting "me." (I won't bother reporting you to the moderators.)

Thank you for not reporting me but I was not insulting you I was only giving you truth(my opinion) and facts(my words). Unlike you I didnt give a site that endorsed your view as fact.

This is so typical of those whose agenda is shown in the light of day as something they thought they could hide.

What on earth is that suppose to mean? Rather cryptic and meaningless.

None of my rebuttals were bigoted. My positions were backed up by facts.

You have not presented any facts. Bigoted is not a fair assessment of your position. You contantly use words that are loaded. Such as those below and when you are call out on it you have presented definitions that remind me of an adolescent that has just learned the difference between swearing and profanity. When you tell them to quit swearing they say, "it is not swearing it is profanity". Then you tell them it doesnt matter what it is knock it off.

1John** words:

Lascivious
Atheists/liberals/gays/secularists
Disgusting aspect of anal and/or oral sex is also quite easily err, grasped
The demonic nature of sexual deviants
Hedonistic promiscuity
Personal sexual perversions
Sexual debauchery
Unnatural and aberrant behavior
Repugnant
Deviant behavior and aberrant behavior
Violation of body orifices
Promiscuity
Homosexualization(not happening and not really a word)
Debauchery.
Pederasty
Sexually permissive
Pedophiles
Inappropriate as same-sex "marriage"
mental disorder
Aberrant behavior
Unrepentant sinners
Deviant behavior
Unless sick, twisted, sexual deviance
Promiscuous
Same-sex sex should be viewed as "creepy."
Yucky porn
Yuck-factor
Too bad "love" is equated with sex acts.
an abominable thing
Vilification of Christians
Decency
aberration of the natural
bank-robbing is outlaw phobic.
denigrating and outlawing/legislating against Christians that use both the Bible and science to support their views on morality and sexuality
Homosexuality is proveably wrong behavior anyway
licentious individual that permeates leftist ideology
Self-centered hedonism

Pretty words.

I have waited a long time for you to present your views without the emotional rhetoric and personal insults to me and I reallize it isn't going to happen soon, but Melikio, please try. Children are suffering at the hands of people more concerned with promoting deviant sexuality than offering an education based on rationality.

My "personal" opinion and behaviors are not open for debate. We are dealing with sexual deviants wanting evryone to think as they do or get charged with a crime.

You liberals lit a fire by your wanton permissiveness

It is

called empirical scientific proof.

Heterosexual Europeans maybe. Their promiscuity is well known.

Now who is calling who names?
Emotional rhetoric indeed!

Then there are your facts:

I am a Christian and have some opinions:

I don't know how Christian and opinion relate in your words.

Pro-family, pro-marriage and pro-normality and pro-morality are not anti-gay positions. They ahve been changed to be called that. The verse quoted above is seen as a hate crime if directed at preaching against homosexuality.

Liberals/progressives (Democrats) prove my position is well founded.
Sodomtie-like sexual miscreants are trampling decent people that practice sexual discretion and morality on.

Parents are seen as a hindrance to the humnanistic secular belief system of unlimited "unfettered" sexual freedoms.

One that cannot be approved or celebrated or normalized by a populace that wants decency to prevail in society.

They both agree 100% with Christian views on natural sexuality versus aberrant behavior. Yeah, 'nuff said.

Science and math are no concern to Christians. The ID debate will settle down as soon as freedom enters the education system. Right now the humanists hold total power and control.

Truer words never spoken.

In what science book? I can prove that deviant behavior and aberrabt behavior is well defined by what is normal and natural. It is not a hard math problem.

I know that is hard for the deviant mind to understand.

I think only a deviant mind would undersand what ever you are saying.

Normality kind of wacked out of rational thought.

Your use of imflammatory hyperbole used to denigrate Christians is as old as the Christian community.

I think you have out done them. Is that what you mean by winning?

Decent, compassionate and loving people are parents that raise their children in the husband-wife manle-female environment. Decent, compassionate and loving people are those that do not want to pervert that immutable form of family.

This seems to assume that unless they think like you they are not Decent, compassionate and loving people. Nice touch and you feel insulted?

Then you are always complaining how they want to rule over you with such statements as:

The demonic nature of sexual deviants used to be better hidden but now the bold are coming right after children. The lesbians and gay politicians in California and Masachusetts know very well that they are not preaching inclusivity but dominance and totlatitarianism.

Of course it seems you are projecting. You seem to be the one that wants to rule.

You believe in that doomed ideology. My children will rule over misfits of hedonism not out of hate or religiosity but from a stable mind.

So I guess I am wondering how you claim victory?
Your posts belong in Mad Magazine.
This is just a small sampling of your work.
I left out pages and pages of this trash.

[kilczer15]

Good Buddha's belly! What hedonistic sport has thrived without mine's supervision?

John, you shame me. You spread hate at every turn, spouting religious babble and wicked speech. A curse on both your house, for you see everyone who is different (atheist, Muslim, liberal, gay) as being not just incorrect, but morally obscene, while I just see you as misguided.

I apologize if this counts as a personal attack, I just thought it had to be said. Because John personally offended me when he said being an atheist is morally wrong and obscene.

[1John2_26]

Looks like I am being stalked.

Cathar1950:

Quote:
Your only counter is insulting "me." (I won't bother reporting you to the moderators.)

Thank you for not reporting me but I was not insulting you I was only giving you truth(my opinion) and facts(my words). Unlike you I didnt give a site that endorsed your view as fact.

Quote:
This is so typical of those whose agenda is shown in the light of day as something they thought they could hide.

What on earth is that suppose to mean? Rather cryptic and meaningless.

Quote:
None of my rebuttals were bigoted. My positions were backed up by facts.


You have not presented any facts. Bigoted is not a fair assessment of your position. You contantly use words that are loaded. Such as those below and when you are call out on it you have presented definitions that remind me of an adolescent that has just learned the difference between swearing and profanity. When you tell them to quit swearing they say, "it is not swearing it is profanity". Then you tell them it doesnt matter what it is knock it off.

1John** words:

Quote:
Lascivious
Atheists/liberals/gays/secularists
Disgusting aspect of anal and/or oral sex is also quite easily err, grasped
The demonic nature of sexual deviants
Hedonistic promiscuity
Personal sexual perversions
Sexual debauchery
Unnatural and aberrant behavior
Repugnant
Deviant behavior and aberrant behavior
Violation of body orifices
Promiscuity
Homosexualization(not happening and not really a word)
Debauchery.
Pederasty
Sexually permissive
Pedophiles
Inappropriate as same-sex "marriage"
mental disorder
Aberrant behavior
Unrepentant sinners
Deviant behavior
Unless sick, twisted, sexual deviance
Promiscuous
Same-sex sex should be viewed as "creepy."
Yucky porn
Yuck-factor
Too bad "love" is equated with sex acts.
an abominable thing
Vilification of Christians
Decency
aberration of the natural
bank-robbing is outlaw phobic.
denigrating and outlawing/legislating against Christians that use both the Bible and science to support their views on morality and sexuality
Homosexuality is proveably wrong behavior anyway
licentious individual that permeates leftist ideology
Self-centered hedonism

Pretty words.

Quote:
I have waited a long time for you to present your views without the emotional rhetoric and personal insults to me and I reallize it isn't going to happen soon, but Melikio, please try. Children are suffering at the hands of people more concerned with promoting deviant sexuality than offering an education based on rationality.

Quote:
My "personal" opinion and behaviors are not open for debate. We are dealing with sexual deviants wanting evryone to think as they do or get charged with a crime.

Quote:
You liberals lit a fire by your wanton permissiveness
It is Quote:
called empirical scientific proof.

Quote:
Heterosexual Europeans maybe. Their promiscuity is well known.

Now who is calling who names?
Emotional rhetoric indeed!

Then there are your facts:

Quote:
I am a Christian and have some opinions:

I don't know how Christian and opinion relate in your words.

Quote:
Pro-family, pro-marriage and pro-normality and pro-morality are not anti-gay positions. They ahve been changed to be called that. The verse quoted above is seen as a hate crime if directed at preaching against homosexuality.


Quote:
Liberals/progressives (Democrats) prove my position is well founded.
Sodomtie-like sexual miscreants are trampling decent people that practice sexual discretion and morality on.


Quote:
Parents are seen as a hindrance to the humnanistic secular belief system of unlimited "unfettered" sexual freedoms.


Quote:
One that cannot be approved or celebrated or normalized by a populace that wants decency to prevail in society.


Quote:
They both agree 100% with Christian views on natural sexuality versus aberrant behavior. Yeah, 'nuff said.


Quote:
Science and math are no concern to Christians. The ID debate will settle down as soon as freedom enters the education system. Right now the humanists hold total power and control.

Truer words never spoken.

Quote:
In what science book? I can prove that deviant behavior and aberrabt behavior is well defined by what is normal and natural. It is not a hard math problem.


Quote:
I know that is hard for the deviant mind to understand.


I think only a deviant mind would undersand what ever you are saying.

Quote:
Normality kind of wacked out of rational thought.



Quote:
Your use of imflammatory hyperbole used to denigrate Christians is as old as the Christian community.

I think you have out done them. Is that what you mean by winning?

Quote:
Decent, compassionate and loving people are parents that raise their children in the husband-wife manle-female environment. Decent, compassionate and loving people are those that do not want to pervert that immutable form of family.



This seems to assume that unless they think like you they are not Decent, compassionate and loving people. Nice touch and you feel insulted?

Then you are always complaining how they want to rule over you with such statements as:
Quote:
The demonic nature of sexual deviants used to be better hidden but now the bold are coming right after children. The lesbians and gay politicians in California and Masachusetts know very well that they are not preaching inclusivity but dominance and totlatitarianism.



Of course it seems you are projecting. You seem to be the one that wants to rule.

Quote:
You believe in that doomed ideology. My children will rule over misfits of hedonism not out of hate or religiosity but from a stable mind.


So I guess I am wondering how you claim victory?
Your posts belong in Mad Magazine.
This is just a small sampling of your work.
I left out pages and pages of this trash.

Wow. Ad hominem to the extreme Mr. Cathar1950.

[Cathar1950]

Looks like I am being stalked.

I bet you wish you were.

Wow. Ad hominem to the extreme Mr. Cathar1950.

I believe most of the comments were your own words.