Political Crossfire Forums

[Yojimbo]

Wallie_x wrote: The Underground wrote: How much different is what you said than what he said? Really think about it.

How much different? Really? The idea of the spiritual dichotomy of human nature has been expounded by some of the brightest minds to gift humanity. So what your saying is:

1) their is no spiritual dichotomy, it is all subjective interpretation.
2) the literary classics are antiquated hogwash so lets not mention them.

mattwa33193 wrote: Calling for a Constitutional ban on gay marriage,

This belongs in its own thread. Moreover, the idea is just more secular existential hogwash. Gays have no right to define their unions as a 'marriage' period. That right is for those whom God has given the responsibility to procreate the human species.

The "marriage" issue is not really up to the gov't, but to churches. Couldn't the gov't afford them the same legal benefits as married, heterosexual couples?

[Wallie_x]

Yojimbo wrote: The "marriage" issue is not really up to the gov't, but to churches. Couldn't the gov't afford them the same legal benefits as married, heterosexual couples?

I have no problem with 'civil unions.' I respect commitment, and applaud anyone, gay or otherwise, who wishes to share life with one they love.

I do not however, approve of gay 'marriage' as a term. It is presupposing heterosexual unions are the spiritual equivalent of a gay union. Nature has made the latter sterile, and I believe with purpose since I believe in God.

[Yojimbo]

Wallie_x wrote: Yojimbo wrote: The "marriage" issue is not really up to the gov't, but to churches. Couldn't the gov't afford them the same legal benefits as married, heterosexual couples?

I have no problem with 'civil unions.' I respect commitment, and applaud anyone, gay or otherwise, who wishes to share life with one they love.

Then we don't disagree.

Quote: I do not however, approve of gay 'marriage' as a term.

If this is just a semantics issue, I don't see much point in arguing about it. Whether gay people are allowed to call their relationship a "marriage" is completely up to churches. Some churches will perform a gay wedding ceremony, from what I understand.

Quote: It is presupposing heterosexual unions are the spiritual equivalent of a gay union. Nature has made the latter sterile, and I believe with purpose since I believe in God.

OK I don't, so that's where we part ways, I suppose.

[George W Bush]

Wallie_x wrote: The clamor for 'equal rights' by liberals and gays for their lifestyles and views has more than captured its share of media attention these last few years. And with the fallacious idea of moral relativism sweeping a 'dumbed down' and P.C. Americana academia, the most recent under 25 generation has shown more acceptance of gays than any preceding one. To the credit of the gay propaganda machine, it looks like the gay community may well be pulling off their play on morals and facts.

But!!! I've done some research and it isn't good. You may judge for yourselves.

An Interview With Professor Steven Goldberg, Chairman of the Sociology Department at City College of New York

Quote: Question: What pathologies are seen in homosexuality?

Answer: Besides the family backgrounds, you also see more suicide and depression. Even in cultures where there is little social sanction against homosexuality, such pathology does not disappear. You also see more narcissism in homosexuality. And if you've been around many gay men for very long, you notice an element of compulsivity. Some of these men are seventy years old and half the things in their houses are still phallic symbols.

Question: How do you think most people form their opinions about whether homosexuality is disordered?

Answer: Most people form their opinions from the social group they're in. There's strong anti-gay feeling in some social subgroups, whereas on the other hand, liberals almost automatically assume the condition is healthy. I'd guess only 1% of the people came to their conclusion as a result of careful, reasoned thinking. Of course, people don't have time to study every issue.

There are other distortions of the facts that are less benign. Normalizing homosexuality is one of them. Science has to be consistent in its understanding of what is abnormal; it's all got to hang together logically. To call homosexuality normal, and other sexual deviations like coprophilia or necrophilia abnormal, is logically inconsistent. Beyond that, we musn't distort the truth by calling homosexuality normal. The term "normal" must mean something. Because homosexuality is so clearly bound up with pathology--and because we see so many Freudian-type backgrounds in the histories of homosexuals--we have no justification for labelling the condition "normal."

Question: Do you think homosexuality will ever be completely acceptable in our society?

Answer: I doubt we'll ever have any society that gives equal status to homosexuality. We've had thousands of cultures, and it's never happened. This is anthropogically universal. The sanction has varied from stoning homosexuals to death, to granting them more or less equal freedom, but never has any society granted them status parity.
There's never been a culture which hasn't seen gays as "men with something missing."
From: Understanding How We Think about Homosexuality
by Linda Nicolosi How We Think About Homosexuality


Quote: Q: How would you distinguish between someone with same-sex attractions and someone with deep-seated homosexual tendencies?

Fitzgibbons: Those with deep-seated homosexual tendencies identify themselves as homosexual persons and are usually unwilling to examine their emotional conflicts that caused this tendency. These individuals in the priesthood have a significant affective immaturity with excessive anger and jealousy toward males who are not homosexual, insecurity that leads them to avoid close friendships with such males and an inordinate need for attention. Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons, a psychiatrist, author and contributor to the Catholic Medical Association's document "Homosexuality and Hope."

Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons says:

Strange, the wording of these to respected doctors sounds so familiar..deja vu?

Quote: A recent study of Massachusetts teenagers, published in the American Journal of Public Health (Anne H. Faulkner and Kevin Cranston, "Correlates of Same-Sex Sexual Behavior in a Random Sample of Massachusetts High School Students," February 1998, p. 264) discovered that self-identified gays were:

1)nine times more likely to have reported using alcohol on a daily basis;

2)six times more likely to report having recently used cocaine than their heterosexual counterparts;

3)nineteen times more likely to report having used cocaine on ten or more occasions per month;

4)five times more likely to report having used other illegal drugs, including cocaine, twenty or more times in their lives;
nearly seven times more likely to report ever having injected an illegal drug;

5)fifty percent more likely than their heterosexual counterparts to have considered committing suicide.

The average homosexual of any age is three times more suicidal than the heterosexual (Cameron, Playfair, Wellum, The Homosexual Lifespan, Family Research Institute, Feb 14, 1992).

Life expectancy of homosexual men and women without AIDS is about 33 years shorter than that of the heterosexual (Cameron, Playfair, Wellum, The Homosexual Lifespan, Family Research Institute, Feb 14, 1992). Surprisingly, AIDS has only a modest effect on the average life expectancy of a homosexual male. The average age of men dying from AIDS is 39. The average age of homosexuals dying from all other causes is even more revealing: 41. Only one percent die of old age. In study after study, less than three percent of all homosexuals surveyed are over the age of 55.

Why is homosexuality such a dangerous lifestyle? Part of the reason is the promiscuous lifestyle of homosexuals. Homosexualities (1978, page 308) an official publication of The Institute for Sex Research founded by Alfred Kinsey, Alan Bell, and Martin Weinberg, reported that only ten percent of male homosexuals could be termed as "relatively monogamous" or "relatively less promiscuous" (defined as 10 or fewer lifetime partners). Additional findings showed that 60 percent of male homosexuals had more than 250 lifetime sexual partners, and 28 percent of male homosexuals had more than 1,000 lifetime sexual partners. Another startling fact is that 79 percent admitted that more than half of their sexual partners were strangers.


Quote: It is important to recognize the linkages among the component parts of the sexual revolution. Permissive abortion, widespread adultery, easy divorce, radical feminism, and the gay and lesbian movement have not by accident appeared at the same historical moment. They have in common a declared desire for liberation from constraint--especially constraints associated with an allegedly oppressive culture and religious tradition. They also have in common the presuppositions that the body is little more than an instrument for the fulfillment of desire, and that the fulfillment of desire is the essence of the self. On biblical and philosophical grounds, we reject this radical dualism between the self and the body. Our bodies have their own dignity, bear their own truths, and are participant in our personhood in a fundamental way.

I know this is an older thread but I felt compelled to respond.

This a popular generalization with too much emphasis on value. In other words, its not enough to condemn every homosexual because of their preferences. Its just not fair to generalize.

Now, if you take other common issues like divorce rate, spousal abuse, child abuse, etc. you see a common thread of heterosexuality.

Is that enough to condemn all heterosexuals to conclude heterosexuality is wrong?

Your taking a fact of relationship and using it to condemn preference which is a fallacy in and of itself.

Sexual preference is not a determining factor of promiscuity.

[Leon Czolgosz]

because the factors you use to condemn heterosexuallity are issues of degree. You may think yelling at your wife is spousal abuse while others might think it's hitting. YOu may think spanking your kid is child abuse while others do not.

With gay, there are no degrees, you either take it up the butt, or give it up the butt (same sex) either way, you're gay. It doesn't make you less gay to only give as oppossed to give or recieve.

[mattwa33193]

Leon Czolgosz wrote: because the factors you use to condemn heterosexuallity are issues of degree. You may think yelling at your wife is spousal abuse while others might think it's hitting. YOu may think spanking your kid is child abuse while others do not.

With gay, there are no degrees, you either take it up the butt, or give it up the butt (same sex) either way, you're gay. It doesn't make you less gay to only give as oppossed to give or recieve.

A homosexual who practices abstinence, thus neither taking it up the butt or giving it up the butt, is still gay, just like a heterosexual who practices abstinence is still straight.