Saturday, June 16, 2012

Agenda Lies 5: Based on Science?

The topic of today's Agenda Lies installment is the notion that declassification of homosexual behavior as a mental illness or disorder was a result of any scientific research or study.  Here we have a former president of the APA saying exactly what I've stated in other posts and comments, which is that homosexuality was declassified as a mental disorder in 1973 in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders as the result of activism.  What's more, Dr. Nicholas Cummings supports the Agenda That Doesn't Exist, but is honest enough to tell the truth. 

(This also points to a common misconception regarding which side of the political divide rejects science in order to maintain a position.  Once again we see it is the left that does this, not the right.)

Pressure from the homosexual activists is essential in overriding the logic, morality and science that supports the positions of their opponents.  What else is left to them but to be obnoxious?  As stated many times, if there was sound science upon which to rely, that science would be at the forefront of every debate related to the Agenda's advancement.  But we're not graced with any such evidence from science.  What passes for scientific evidence is the APA's support.  I guess because psychology and psychiatry are sciences, then it is enough for an association of those scientific practitioners to merely state that something is so for it to be regarded as scientific evidence.  At least it's enough for the supporters of the Agenda (and lefties in general) who would prefer no one look too deeply into an issue they support.

On a side note, there is a list of links to related articles at the bottom of the article to which I've linked above.  One of them carried this:

“Statewide campaigns to deny same-sex couples legal access to civil marriage are a significant source of stress to the lesbian, gay, and bisexual residents of those states,” states the APA, which bills itself as “a strong advocate for full equal rights for LGBT people.”

Really?  Do homosexuals often sit about anguishing over this issue to the point of being significantly stressed?  There are laws in my state that deny me access to a few things, such as the right to carry a weapon to protect myself.  Such denial has never been particularly stressful for me.  What's wrong with those people that they are so easily stressed?  I thought they were no different than the rest of us.

95 comments:

Neil said...

The APA is hopelessly politicized. Should we be surprised that the father of lies is helping them?

Jim said...

You sure are obsessed with this subject, Marshall. Are you expecting to change anybody's mind here, or are you just setting up another circle jerk?

Maybe you should just name your blog "No sex for YOU!"

Marshall Art said...

I'm obsessed? Am I trying to redefine the word "marriage"? Am I trying to force 98% of the nation to accept MY sexual practices? Am I trying to force 98% of the nation to accept abnormal attractions as normal? Am I looking to teach kids in public schools that behaviors their parents find sinful and abnormal is instead perfectly acceptable regardless of the parents' feelings about me doing so? Is it I who fears being denied sexual activity simply because another stands for traditional marriage and maturity in human sexuality?

As I've said so many times in the past, little Jimmy, it is not me who is obsessed about this issue. Those who are doing the above are the obsessive ones. And as this series of blogs clearly demonstrates, they are so obsessed with their perverse desires that they are more than willing to lie to achieve their Agenda That Doesn't Exist. The sad part is the fact that they have chuckleheads like yourself doing all you can to buy into their nonsense. Talk about useful idiots!

And speaking of idiocy, you continue to trot out that inane "sex nazi" meme. Why you care to compete with Parkie for resident idiot is beyond me. Perhaps you can peruse every post and comment regarding this issue and find me the spot where I suggested that homosexuals should be prevented from engaging in their perversions. This ongoing attitude that there is something wrong with me for encouraging maturity and personal responsibility regarding one's sexual behavior suggests to me that you are the obsessed one. For you, there is no inappropriate or immoral context for human sexuality, that it is all good all the time. What a jackoff you are to be so obsessed with sexual pleasure as to regard one such as I as some kind of sexual fascist for not elevating sex above its true level of importance.

This issue, which the president feels is important enough to support against the Christian religion he claims membership, is plainly not good for the nation to be regarded as equal to normal heterosexuality. It is not deserving of state sanctioning and support for it serves the state in no beneficial manner as does traditional marriage. I oppose this further degradation of our culture, a degradation by which you are all too much corrupted to believe that people like myself are the obsessive ones. And so, rather than address the facts presented in this post, you do what all lefties do and act as if there is something wrong with me for presenting them.

The saying is not exactly stated this way, but evil triumphs when good men do nothing. But you're in the clear, Jim, because your support for this deviancy clearly shows you're not a good man.

John B said...

As I have said in the past the reason why it seems that Christians are obsessed with homosexuality is because it's one of the only sins we are told we must accept.

There are no adultery pride parades. There is no Theives Rights Campaign.

We are bombarded with homosexuality in politics, television, and schools. Christians are essentially backed into a corner on this issue unlike any other.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

I do need to point out that there is SOME science in the field of psychiatry, but only in actual medical issues and never in anything to do with "mental illness," since there is no such thing - a mind is not tangible and therefore cannot be ill. The same goes for clinical psychology - there is no science behind it at all.

And I don't get the "gay pride" thing: what is it they are proud of - their sexual behavior? Their sexual lifestyle? I mean, how are you to be proud of sexual behavior? Do normal people go around saying, "I have sex with my wife and I am soooo proud of it!!" this is insane!

Marshall Art said...

That they are "proud" to be homosexuals suggests choice. They like to compare their "struggle" to that of the blacks. So I guess like "black pride" slogans, they are appropriating the notion that they are proud to be who they are. But here's the difference:

Blacks are truly born black, as we all are born into whatever race or ethnicity is our parents. It is truly something unchangeable, regardless of Michael Jackson's efforts. Blacks had a pretty damn good reason to encourage their numbers to be proud, or more precisely, to reject feelings of inferiority in order to claim their rightful equality with the rest of the human race, particularly the majority whites. But it isn't as if they can choose to be black or choose not to be black. They simply are, just as I am white and handsome. Can't help it. And unlike homosexuals, we can't do anything about our race.

But it isn't the same with homosexuals at all, or else there would truly be no success stories of homosexuals rejecting the lifestyle through therapeutic means, or conversely, women who decide to live a lesbian lifestyle.

What's more, they are proclaiming pride in something based on behavior, which, as Neil states, would be the same as one taking pride in stealing, lying or being a lazy bum. These are all manifestations of orientation, often very strong orientations, but are not considered acceptable. Such people are strongly encouraged to forsake the urges that drive their particular behaviors. The Agenda That Doesn't Exist seeks to force all into acceptance of their particular behavior.

And once more, for the feeble minded lefties who visit here, we who oppose such things do so with both a concern for our culture as well as for those trapped in the lie of that lifestyle. Yet, no one of significance, to my knowledge, is working to force them to do anything. We only seek to prevent being forced ourselves to "tolerate" what is clearly abnormal and unquestionably sinful behavior.

Feodor said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Feodor said...

Marshall, at long last I’ve uncovered the text of the gay agenda:

www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html


And have you checked out the 9th amendment by any chance?

Feodor said...

"a mind is not tangible and therefore cannot be ill.”

Glenn, have an elected frontal lobotomy and we’ll see if your mind is affected.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Feodor,

The mind is intangible and cannot be ill. That is a fact. The brain can have organic defects or be damaged in some way so as to disrupt thinking processes, but that is a medical issue and not a psychobabble issue.

Feodor said...

We can easily have regions of your brain excised, Glenn, that leaves your cognition and reasoning in perfect order but changes any one of a number of other things: your mood; your control of emotions; or your short term memory; or your long term memory; your taste; or your personality.

Or what, exactly, do you think the mind is if not composed of all these things?

Mark said...

It is homosexuals that are obsessed. I've observed over and over and over again that every homosexual I've personally known (and there have been many) cannot go more than 5 minutes without talking about sex, or making tawdry gutter jokes, or taking the most innocent statements out of context and using double entendres to make them about sex.

Because homosexuals have no morals, nothing is beneath them in their efforts to desensitize the world to any and all kinds of illicit sexual behavior.

If they ever succeed in their attempts to normalize abhorrent behavior (which will have to be after I'm dead, because I'll never accept this deviancy as normal), their next step will probably be to normalize pedophilia. They would like nothing better than to be allowed to rape children legally.

Marshall Art said...

"Glenn, have an elected frontal lobotomy and we’ll see if your mind is affected."

Of course, I've always preferred a bottle in front of me. But really, Glenn. Feo's speaking from experience here. It certainly has affected him, as his initial response to me has demonstrated. Somehow, this fool thinks that the homosexuals have to this point been denied something guaranteed them by the Constitution. So I wonder how the 9th has anything to do with the demand that the state must recognize abnormal and sinful behavior as no different than normal and legitimate marriages between two of opposite genders. I'm sure feo has an entirely convoluted explanation for this. Can't wait to read it.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Feodor,

Those are all organic problems with the brain which may affect thinking processes. Those are things for real, medical doctors to deal with. The mind is NOT the brain. The mind is intangible. Psychobabblers claim the mind itself is ill and in need of counseling or drugs to make it conform to what they believe is proper. There is no science behind what they do, and it is nothing more than witchdoctoring.

Feodor said...

You caanot say what the mind is, Glenn, apparently.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

I think the mind is the soul.

Can you define the mind? Apparently not.

Feodor said...

OK, the mind is the soul... So there really is no mind, then? Just body and soul, according to you?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

"Soul" and "Mind" are interchangeable. After all, isn't the mind what really defines the person - all his thinking processes, his beliefs, his emotions, etc are all part of the mind. Or is it your spirit? Soul and spirit are often used synonymously in Scripture, but other times they are not. And we are told to love the lord with our soul, heart and mind - so are the three the same? Are the three synonymous? The "heart" in biblical language is essentially the same as the mind, since the heart as an organ cannot feel, think, etc.

So can you touch the mind? You can affect thinking processes by causing damage to the brain, but the brain is not the mind.

You haven't said what you think the mind is. Is it an organ?

Feodor said...

Yet again, Glen, if you would electt for a frontal lobotomy we would easily see how "who you are" would be enormously altered on so many levels: your intelligence would be terribly diminished; your emotional range would be cut in half; you would exhibit increased irresponsibility; a loss of discipline and a sharp increase in childishness.

"Who you are" as your friends know you - or what you want to call the mind - would be utterly changed by the touch of a knife.

Your eternal being, though, your value to God as God relates to you - your soul - remains unchanged.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Again, you are talking brain damage which affects thinking processes. The mind is still undamaged because you never touched it.

So try again - what do YOU say the mind is?

Jim said...

I'm obsessed? Obviously.

Am I trying to redefine the word "marriage"? I don't know. Marriage for millenia has been defined as a legal contract by which property can be jointly owned or transferred between persons. You seem to define it as a way for babies to have two legal, biological parents.

Am I trying to force 98% of the nation to accept MY sexual practices?

Absofuckinlutely!

Am I looking to teach kids in public schools that behaviors their parents find sinful and abnormal is instead perfectly acceptable regardless of the parents' feelings about me doing so? I know of nobody who has done this. They are teaching kids that it's none of their parent's business what other couples do in private.

Is it I who fears being denied sexual activity simply because another stands for traditional marriage and maturity in human sexuality?

I would hardly say that you have in any way demonstrated any maturity in human sexuality nor that you are in any way qualified to judge anybody else's human sexuality.

I know what you've said, Marsha. Over and over again, because you are obsessed with other people's sex lives.

I have no reason to compete with Parklife. We are in different events.

there is something wrong with me for encouraging maturity and personal responsibility regarding one's sexual behavior

It's fine for you to do that if you like. But nobody really gives a crap about what you think is mature sexual behavior.

For you, there is no inappropriate or immoral context for human sexuality, that it is all good all the time.

Typically a totally false assumption on your part. BTW, Jerry Sandusky has apparently been involved in a sexually mature traditional marriage for YEARS, and what has he been up to?

not elevating sex above its true level of importance.

What exactly IS sex's true level of importance?

the president feels is important enough to support against the Christian religion

Many, many Christian's support the president on this so it's pretty difficult to see how he is doing anything against "the Christian religion."

not good for the nation to be regarded as equal to normal heterosexuality.

I don't think anybody is even talking about what attractions or behaviors are equal or what that has to do with the nation. The issue is whether two people of the same gender can enter the same legal arrangement as any two people of opposite genders. Sexuality of lack of same is really irrelevant.

rather than address the facts presented in this post

Facts? What facts?

Yes, you are obsessed because you bring up the same stuff over and over and over again. For some reason you apparently feel compelled to prove to SOME body that you are right. You clearly don't have to prove this to Mark or Glenn, et al and you'll never prove it to me because you can't.

So yeah, you're obsessed.

you're not a good man.

I'll discuss that with God, not you, Dr. Laura.

Jim said...

it's one of the only sins we are told we must accept.

You don't have to accept it. It's simply none of your business.

Christians are essentially backed into a corner on this issue unlike any other.

Poor, poor Christians.

And I don't get the "gay pride" thing. Clearly, and you wouldn't. The concept is "I refuse to define myself as sinful, perverse, or mentally ill just because you do." It means "I am proud of who I am and I really don't give a shit what you think."

That they are "proud" to be homosexuals suggests choice.

Just like being proud to be of Irish or Italian descent suggests a choice? What an inane assertion!

But it isn't the same with homosexuals at all, or else there would truly be no success stories of homosexuals rejecting the lifestyle through therapeutic means, or conversely, women who decide to live a lesbian lifestyle.

Holy shit, your mental gymnastics should be in London this Summer!

would be the same as one taking pride in stealing, lying or being a lazy bum.

Spoken like an ignoramus.

Jim said...

I've observed over and over and over again that every homosexual I've personally known (and there have been many) cannot go more than 5 minutes without talking about sex, or making tawdry gutter jokes, or taking the most innocent statements out of context and using double entendres to make them about sex.

Stop hanging out in gay bars, Mark.

I work in San Francisco surrounded by gays and lesbians and I've never experienced anything like what you are talking about. However, if you went to the biker bar on the other side of town you would probably hear all of that from your macho hetero dude friends.

Because homosexuals have no morals

What an asshat thing to say.

their next step will probably be to normalize pedophilia.

No, that's already the agenda of heterosexuals like Jerry Sandusky.

They would like nothing better than to be allowed to rape children legally.

Spoken like a true ignoramus.

Marshall Art said...

Just skimming for now, but had to comment on this:

"I have no reason to compete with Parklife. We are in different events."

Well. That's incredibly impressive. In a different event and still threatening to take Parkie's Crown of Ultimate Stupidity. Your stupidity is rampant in these latest comments of yours, Jim. The Sandusky reference arguably the stupidest. I'll be addressing the other stupid stuff (time allowing of course...there's so much here) later on. Time to crash.

Marshall Art said...

Still low on time, so I guess I'll have to do this piecemeal.

"Marriage for millenia has been defined as a legal contract by which property can be jointly owned or transferred between persons."

Never. But even if we concede the materialistic aspects of your statement, as such entered into the equation in many cultures, marriage has ALWAYS been the union of a man and a woman, and in this country at the very least, the issue of child bearing and the support of those children was indeed an integral part. You engage in the very same types of lies that this series of posts seeks to address. THAT'S obsession. To go to such lengths to show your support for the sexual behaviors of unfortunate people.

I asked:

"Am I trying to force 98% of the nation to accept MY sexual practices?"

You answered:

"Absof**kinlutely!"

Yet, like Parkie, you fail to support this nonsense in any way. Where have I sought to codify my sexual practices into law? Where have I sought to redefine thousands of years of tradition and understanding in order to force my perspective upon those with righteous beliefs to the contrary? It's difficult to separate what part of your defense of abomination is stupidity and what is outright lying on your part. I suspect a unique blend.

More later.

Jim said...

Where have I sought to codify my sexual practices into law?

Where has the LGBT community tried to codify their sexual practices into law?

There's nothing in the issue about codifying sexual practices. And yet it is you who is trying to force everyone to accept your rules on sexuality and sexual expression.

The Sandusky reference arguably the stupidest.

You try to equate homosexuality with pedophilia, but it is heterosexuals and priests who practice pedophilia.

THAT'S obsession.

Since I've never posted about this on my site and only answered your posts on this site, it is unclear how I could be in any way obsessed.

your defense of abomination

No need for me to defend something that exists only in YOUR mind.

Marshall Art said...

Jim apparently can't wait to pretend he's got a good point to counter what I've said. It would have served him better to do so. Or maybe not. It could be that he purposely jumps on anything that presents an opportunity for him to twist and distort, rather than to lay out a logical and articulate defense of his position or counter to mine.

And still I must deal while dealing with little time to do so in a manner I would prefer. So, once again, to address his unique blend of dishonesty and stupidity:

"Where has the LGBT community tried to codify their sexual practices into law?"

Trying to assert by law that their "unions" are equal to and/or an example of "marriage" as the term has long been understood by both religious and civic bodies results in their behavior being codified into law, since the demands of their Agenda That Doesn't Exist is based upon their sexual behaviors.

"And yet it is you who is trying to force everyone to accept your rules on sexuality and sexual expression."

This lie is typical of enablers and activists alike. What I do is highlight this very attempt by the activists who are seeking to use the courts to overturn the will of the people on this issue, a people who understands the difference between real marriage and what the homosexual community and their enablers would prefer it become. Thus, by these attempts, it is the activists and their enablers who are doing the forcing. We who better understand science, religion, logic and human nature and sexuality simply seek to block these attempts to further damage an already damaged institution.

"You try to equate homosexuality with pedophilia...,"

You're confusing me with Mark. I prefer to equate homosexuality with polygamy, bestiality and incest as they are all prohibited by God in the same Chapter of Leviticus. You should read it sometime.

"... but it is heterosexuals and priests who practice pedophilia."

"Heterosexuals and priests" to whom you refer, like Sandusky, practice sex with boys. This is homosexual behavior. If their victims were girls, you'd be close to having a point. The best you can say about these types of men is that they are either closeted homos or bi-sexuals with a passion for younger males.

"Since I've never posted about this on my site and only answered your posts on this site, it is unclear how I could be in any way obsessed."

You rush to defend the unfortunate reprobates with all manner of idiotic retorts. You accuse me of some type of fascism for daring to uphold long held ideals of virtue and morality, most of which are based upon the very Christian faith to which you claim to be a member, in an effort to lend my voice to a shrinking number of faithful concerned about the moral direction of our nation. You pretend there is nothing to fear from this downward spiral obviously because of your own moral bankruptcy. You're obsessed to the point that any vocalizing of morals, virtue, character, etc. brings about mockery and weak arguments in opposition.

"No need for me to defend something that exists only in YOUR mind."

Once again, CINO, read your Bible, at least once before you die, and see where the notion of homosexual behavior as an abomination to God exists. It is in my mind, like so much of what Scripture teaches because it already existed in His mind, before being clearly revealed to the rest of us through Scripture.

Now, try to restrain yourself until I have the chance to respond to the rest of your previous drooling.

Jim said...

since the demands of their Agenda That Doesn't Exist is based upon their sexual behaviors.

No, it's based on their desire to have a legally-recognized relationship with the person they love. "Sexual behaviors" has nothing to do with it.

a people who understands the difference between real marriage and what the homosexual community and their enablers would prefer it become.

Are the "real" marriages the 1 out of every 2 that don't fail? Or are the failed marriages "real" as well? The homosexual community doesn't want "real marriage" to become any thing that is isn't already-a legal union of two people recognized by the state which has the same legal and financial rights as it always has.

the activists and their enablers who are doing the forcing.

Forcing what?

You're confusing me with Mark.

Not hard to do.

You should read it sometime.


I've read it, but I can't figure out why we are not killing all the homosexuals and adulterers.

You accuse me of some type of fascism for daring to uphold long held ideals of virtue and morality

Uphold them all you want in your own house. Ellen DeGeneres' is none of your business.

read your Bible, at least once before you die

This part? "And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do." - Exodus 21:7

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Jim,

You are correct that they - the same-sex advocates - do indeed want their sexual behavior to legally recognized, sanctioned and promoted. As stated succinctly by Al Dager, “The whole LGBT agenda is being shoved down our throats by the government, big business, the media and the government indoctrination camps called ‘public schools.’ One cannot turn on one’s television set without encountering some positive reference to one sexual perversion or another; the highest office in the land is being used to promote sexual perversion; schools are taking extraordinary measures to ensure that sexual perversion is embraced by students. Major businesses have sufficient confidence to favor sexual perversion in its ads, and they don’t care a whit about those offended by them.”

As for you claim of wanting recognition for a relationship with “the person they love,” you cannot therefore logically deny someone the relationship with the person they love if that person is a child, or two people or five people, or a sibling or a parent or a child. Just “loving” a person does not thereby make it a moral and proper relationship to be sanctioned by the state.

The lie about “1 out of 2” marriages that fail is based on some very poor manipulation of statistics - sort of like the lie propagated that 10% of the population are queer. But for the sake of argument, suppose half of all real marriages fail; does that thereby change the definition of marriage? Is it the fault of an institution that people abuse it? You claim is just a red herring.

You play the atheist/skeptic soundbites of comparing the stance against homosexual behavior with O.T. laws of stoning adulterers, selling of maidservants, etc. These issues, as with the majority of O.T. laws, were never meant for anyone other than the nation of Israel, who were being purified to be used of God as his chosen people to bring the knowledge of God to the rest of the world. The issue of homosexual behavior is addressed among other sexual perversions/sins which are forbidden to ALL the world. But you aren’t familiar with Scripture outside of soundbites, so you wouldn’t understand there is a context to everything in it. And your focus on the O.T. totally forgets that the N.T. also soundly condemns homosexual behavior.

Homosexuality is an abomination to God. If you don’t believe in God, then common sense should demonstrate how homosexual behavior violates biology 101 and abuses human sexuality in a way that is medically dangerous, let alone psychologically and spiritually harmful.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

I found this excellent article demonstrating the depravity of those who identify themselves by their sexual behavior:
http://the-end-time.blogspot.com/2012/06/flipping-off-reagan-in-white-house-and.html

Jim said...

their sexual behavior to legally recognized

That would be unnecessary. Their sexual behavior is already legal. It is their marriage ceremony that is not legally recognized in most states.

Major businesses have sufficient confidence to favor sexual perversion in its ads, and they don’t care a whit about those offended by them.”

My employer, a very "major business", encourages it's employees to participate in LBGT events and pride parades. They know that diversity and tolerance are good business and foster loyalty in their communities and among their employees.

you cannot therefore logically deny someone the relationship with the person they love if that person is a child, or two people or five people, or a sibling or a parent or a child.

Yeah I can. I don't have a problem restricting same-sex couples to the same rules as heterosexual couples.

the lie propagated that 10% of the population are queer.

Who claims this?

But you aren’t familiar with Scripture outside of soundbites, so you wouldn’t understand there is a context to everything in it. And your focus on the O.T. totally forgets that the N.T. also soundly condemns homosexual behavior.

Actually I have and do read the Bible quite regularly. I am familiar with these passages and their context, although context derived from ancient languages is subject to interpretation. And there is some question about whether homosexuality is condemned in the New Testament.

That said, the acceptance that God considers homosexual behavior an abomination requires faith and adherence to specific doctrine. Not everyone in this country adheres to that doctrine and yet they are endowed with all the same rights enjoyed by those who do. So, OT or NT, it really has nothing to do with what the law is.

I found this excellent article demonstrating the depravity of those who identify themselves by their sexual behavior:

I think they identify themselves by their names.

I flipped off Reagan a few times myself, in person. Well, he wasn't president but he was governor and candidate for governor. I was a student at the University of California. He didn't like us and we didn't like him.

I've learned to respect him more years later, but he's still no saint to me. I don't know how anyone can say the things they do about President Obama and then complain about people giving a picture of Reagan the bird.

Marshall Art said...

I will attempt to catch up here. Going back to Jim's initial goofiness:

"I know of nobody who has done this. They are teaching kids that it's none of their parent's business what other couples do in private."

GLSEN being allowed into schools of all levels has as its purpose to normalize homosexual behavior. Just as the Agenda That Doesn't Exist has always intended, they have sought to promote their deviancy to the next generation through their propaganda in the schools. They aren't merely teaching that what one does in private is no one's business. They are teaching that it is normal and morally benign to engage in deviant sexual behavior. And even if they were speaking only about normal heterosexual encounters, it would still be inappropriate in schools K-12. It is not the business of the schools to teach anything more than the biology of human reproduction, not sex techniques that are clearly prohibited by the religions of most every person of faith. YOU, however, being a sorry example of a Christian, pretend there is nothing going on in the schools to promote this as being on par with normal heterosexual behaviors between a husband and wife. A single Day of Silence is proof enough that the lobby is pushing their Agenda That Doesn't Exist on our kids. Shame on you.

"I would hardly say that you have in any way demonstrated any maturity in human sexuality nor that you are in any way qualified to judge anybody else's human sexuality."

Would you now? How could you considering I haven't spoken of my sexual practices, thus my level of maturity couldn't possibly be demonstrated. But perhaps you are not being clear and are suggesting that I haven't expressed what maturity in human sexuality looks like. If that's the case, I don't know if you are capable of understanding based on your defense of this behavior. But for an example, I submit this. In it, you will find an example of sexual maturity of the type that I believe is just what God has in mind. Indeed, it is maturity of the highest quality to put aside one's own urges (of any kind) in favor of what God has clearly revealed is His preference for us.

As to being qualified to judge anybody's sexuality, this is tripe. Of course we are all so qualified to study what God has determined is proper behavior and when we or another has run afoul of His Will. It doesn't require special certification. It only requires honesty and a resolve to live in a manner pleasing to Him, not ourselves. So when another engages in bad behavior, I do not regard myself as one who can prevent them, but only one who can tell the difference between right and wrong, which is no mystery at all, and offer any clarifying advice on the issue should the opportunity to do so presents itself. In the meantime, I am more than qualified to do so in a general manner on a blog or in any other forum where the issue comes up or can be brought up.

more coming now...

Marshall Art said...

"It's fine for you to do that if you like. But nobody really gives a crap about what you think is mature sexual behavior."

This might be true for the morally bankrupt like yourself, Jim. But as the culture is inundated with all manner of propaganda intended to perpetuate the lies about homosexual behavior, I, like many people serious about the moral direction of our nation, prefer not to remain silent and let the situation worsen with ease. That's the job of reprobates like yourself. Those of us who care about the world in which our descendants must live have a more noble job to do.

"What exactly IS sex's true level of importance?"

It is primarily for procreation. This is obvious to anyone who isn't so involved with their own crotch so as to be unable to see clearly. Due to it's all-consuming nature to the self-indulgent, it is clear to see that it is way too important an act for mere self-gratification (often thinly veiled as "acts of love"), but not so important that our lives are extended by indulging as often as we can. It has NO effect on lifespan, and really very little effect on quality of life considering incredibly brief spasm of pleasure it provides. I like to put it this way: It's really, really great fun, but it's not that great. Would I miss it if I couldn't again engage in it? Probably. Would my life be empty and woeful without it? Not hardly.

"Many, many Christian's support the president on this so it's pretty difficult to see how he is doing anything against "the Christian religion."

What's "many"? Churches have folded up after their memberships have dwindled when a denomination has supported this abomination. It still happens. Considering that 32 states have voted to maintain the traditional definition of marriage indicates a majority (large enough to be considered a landslide if it the same percentage of votes decided an election) and I would wager the percentage is higher within the Christian community (as opposed to the population in general). And of course, if all Christians were as off the mark as you and other "Christian" enablers, Obama's support would STILL be against Christian teaching.

"I don't think anybody is even talking about what attractions or behaviors are equal or what that has to do with the nation."

No. You just don't think. The fact is that this is exactly what is being put forth...that there is no moral difference between sex between a man and wife and sex between two of the same gender. And indeed and without question it is put forth as beneficial to our nation to pretend acceptance of this deviancy demonstrates our "tolerance" as a nation. Tolerating bad behavior is NEVER good for the nation.

more coming now...

Marshall Art said...

"Facts? What facts?"

The fact validated in this post that homosexuality was declassified as a mental disorder in 1973 in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders as the result of activism and not scientific justification.

"For some reason you apparently feel compelled to prove to SOME body that you are right. You clearly don't have to prove this to Mark or Glenn, et al and you'll never prove it to me because you can't."

The reason is clear and stated often: to counter the lies perpetrated by those supporting and pushing the Agenda That Doesn't Exist so that honest people aren't deceived, and to be another voice for righteousness and be a positive influence for our young who are so often exposed to the immorality of people like you. Changing YOUR heart is up to God, Who may have already given you over.

"You don't have to accept it. It's simply none of your business."

Such denials! There are numerous stories of businesses being sued for refusing to do business with homosexuals in a manner that enables their behavior. The photographer in New Mexico that would not do a lesbian wedding ceremony. I've heard of two bed and breakfast operations sued for not renting rooms to homosexuals. Mark Turek losing a contract with two companies for his views on homosexuality, which he never discussed on the job, but were discovered by a homo who googled his name before a seminar Mark was giving (that had nothing whatever to do with sexuality or religion). Don't have to accept it? What a putz to say such a thing in light of such common occurrences. And those are just off the top of my head.

"And I don't get the "gay pride" thing. Clearly, and you wouldn't. The concept is "I refuse to define myself as sinful, perverse, or mentally ill just because you do." It means "I am proud of who I am and I really don't give a shit what you think.""

I could name dozens of mobsters who feel exactly the same way. The same for drunkards, those addicted to gambling and pornography, white supremists and other bigots, and the list could go on and on. They all could refuse to so define themselves and instead be proud, and they'd be in denial just like yourself.

"Just like being proud to be of Irish or Italian descent suggests a choice? What an inane assertion!"

I clearly explained the distinction and still you play this childish game. First, I stated I saw no reason to be proud of being black or Irish, except that as such things are not behaviors, to be condescended to over race or ethnicity is foolish, and so is regarding one's self negatively for such reasons.

But homosexual behavior is not beyond anyone's control, even if the desires cannot be. It is a BEHAVIOR and to revel in the attraction, to be proud that one suffers from some negative desire (such as homosexual attractions, the desire to steal or harm others, to covet) is to suggest that one is choosing to indulge in the desires. It demonstrates choice to be proud of such desires as one who voices such pride has decided that to indulge is OK. How does one indulge in Irish? What is Irish behavior and what does it look like? How about black behavior? Do you really want to continue presenting yourself as this stupid?

"Holy shit, your mental gymnastics should be in London this Summer!"

No, but your lack of understanding qualifies you for the Special Olympics. Those who have left the lifestyle prove choice is a major factor in homosexuality, many lesbians claim to have turned to a lesbian lifestyle after troubles with men. Are you really that dense? Those who don't leave the lifestyle choose not to and thus are expressing pride in a distinctly different manner than those who express pride for their race or ethnicity.

still more...

Marshall Art said...

"No, it's based on their desire to have a legally-recognized relationship with the person they love. "Sexual behaviors" has nothing to do with it."

This is incredible in its denial. There would be no push for recognition if not for their sexual behaviors. Talk about "ignoramus"!

"Are the "real" marriages the 1 out of every 2 that don't fail? Or are the failed marriages "real" as well?"

"Real" marriage was never defined by whether or not it lasted, but by who were a part of it. The union of one man and one woman. THAT has always been the legal understanding of marriage, NOT the union of "two people".

"the activists and their enablers who are doing the forcing.

Forcing what?"


Now it's clear you're being an asshole pretending to not see the facts. I've given instances of that force and can give more. Using the courts when the votes aren't there is another example.

"I've read it, but I can't figure out why we are not killing all the homosexuals and adulterers."

Try reading the actual Bible and not the coloring book version intended for little children. There you will find the why we don't do that anymore.

"You accuse me of some type of fascism for daring to uphold long held ideals of virtue and morality

Uphold them all you want in your own house. Ellen DeGeneres' is none of your business."


All the while you defend the lobby and uphold THEIR notion of morality. And again, asshole, I continue to state that I have no issue with what these sad individuals do if it is between consenting adults, nor have I ever pushed for denying them that "right". But they are, as I have shown briefly here and countless times in other posts and blogs, demanding acceptance of their twisted notion of morality and you have no issue with it, pretending they aren't. You're either a liar or completely stupid. Again, I suspect a unique blend.

"That would be unnecessary. Their sexual behavior is already legal."

This is not accurate. Even Lawrence v Texas did not confer legal status on the behavior, but only denied states the right to interfere in the private intimacies between consenting adults. With that, as Scalia said, all moral legislation is destroyed. But that does not give legal status, such as "legal to carry a gun", but more like decriminalizes the behavior.

"My employer, a very "major business", encourages it's employees to participate in LBGT events and pride parades."

Your employer, like many employers, are chumps for the lobby. No business would suffer for lack of patronage by such a small percentage of the population. If employers such as yours had backbone, they would add to the more righteous influence upon the rest of the culture, rather than quicken its slide to moral oblivion.

yet more...

Marshall Art said...

"I don't have a problem restricting same-sex couples to the same rules as heterosexual couples."

Apparently you do, as you won't restrict them to the same marital rules applied to heteros. You want to change the rules to include them, but not those Glenn listed, you bigoted hypocritical asshole.

"the lie propagated that 10% of the population are queer.

Who claims this?"


Note the past tense "propagated". It is not been so since the truth has been shown to be far less over and over again. But to answer: the activists claimed that.

"And there is some question about whether homosexuality is condemned in the New Testament."

Only by activists and their enablers. Honest scholars and students of Scripture know this isn't true in the least, including one or two I can find for you who are either homosexuals themselves or enablers like yourself.

"... the acceptance that God considers homosexual behavior an abomination requires faith and adherence to specific doctrine."

yet is not hardly the only basis for maintaining the traditional definition of marriage and why the state should only recognize that definition as having benefits to society at large.

"I flipped off Reagan a few times myself, in person."

I'm not surprised in the least. Lefties lack any sense of decorum or reverence and feel they possess the moral superiority to do what they feel like doing regardless of the situation or location. What people say about Obama are factual and attacks on his policies and beliefs, not on him personally, as is flipping him off would be. You really shouldn't try to compare the behavior of lefties with the center-right people, as you have no moral understanding to do so.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Jim,

Queers want their behavior not JUST legally recognized but legally sanctioned, promoted and protected from other viewpoints.

If “tolerance” is so good for businesses, why do they not TOLERATE those who object to perversion? OH, with homosexualists, tolerance is a one-way street.

You do NOT want homosexuals having the same rules for marriage as heterosexual couples, because the first rule is opposite sex members! You are indeed logically inconsistent when you state people should be able to marry someone they love and yet deny the same right to pedophiles, incestuous and polygamous people.

Who claims 10% are queer? Kinsey first stated that and many, many advocates have repeated that lie for decades.

Here is the context and proper exegesis of the Bible passages about homosexuality. You like to play with the homosexualist soundbites and twisting of scripture. There is no dispute among real scholar as to what they mean, and have for 4000 years been understood:
http://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/2010/09/bible-and-homosexual-behavior.html

Homosexuals identify themselves by their behavior and that is 100% fact.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Jim is a Christian in the same way Dan is a Christian - both make up a god and christ of their own design, who approve of homosexual behavior. This is a false god and a false christ, just as any cult’s god and christ are false. There is no salvation from a false god and false christ.

Jim said...

Here's an OP-Ed written by David Blankenhorn, founder of the Institute for American Values and a witness who testified in support of California's Proposition 8, the gay marriage ban.

It's short, so please read it.

Now I'm off to church. More later.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Jim,

He is entitled to his opinions, but he is dead wrong.

Jim said...

He is entitled to his opinions, but he is dead wrong.

Since there is no assertion of fact in his column, you can't say he is wrong. You may disagree with his opinion, but it is opinion just as yours is opinion.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

In cases like this, one's opinion must be based on facts. He ignores all facts about homosexuality and marriage and comes up with an unfounded opinion. His opinion flies in the face of facts so it is wrong.

Jim said...

Queers [sic] want their behavior not JUST legally recognized but legally sanctioned, promoted and protected from other viewpoints..

Again, this is not true. Their sexual behavior is already legal. They want their marriage vows to be legally recognized. I don't understand how "promoted" enters into it.

It is not the business of the schools to teach anything more than the biology of human reproduction, not sex techniques that are clearly prohibited by the religions of most every person of faith.

Can you provide links to proof that any public school sex education curriculum includes the "teaching of" anal or oral sex?

based on your defense of this behavior.

Can you provide links to show how I have defended "this" behavior?

The fact validated in this post that homosexuality was declassified as a mental disorder in 1973 in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders as the result of activism and not scientific justification.

It may be a "fact" that there was a change to the status of homosexuality in 1973, and it may be a "fact" that there was some activism going on, but it is very disputable that the change was purely a result of activism. The women's vote and civil rights in the 60 was also abetted by activism.

do business with homosexuals in a manner that enables their behavior.

What does this mean?

Marshall Art said...

Jim,

Blankenhorn gives far more reason to maintain opposition than he does for dropping it. And the reasons he gives for dropping it is based on the same faulty premises (to be kind) you and others have given for so long.

The main one is based on the notion that homosexual attraction is a fixed and morally benign quality, such as race or gender. His position suggests that it is just so, a normal thing that is benign and without negative consequences. None of this is true at all.

(At this point, I wish to point out, not for the first time, that despite the FACT that homosexual attraction is a mental dysfunction, no one has ever asked how I would see it handled. I wonder why that is?)

The question of the orientation's status as normal or dysfunctional never having been established officially through scientific means makes treating the unfortunates who suffer from this dysfunction as normal and entitled to special privileges is premature, to say the least. More accurately, it is NOT worthy of a nation that wants to see itself as responsible and forward thinking with its own best interests, and that of future generations, at heart.

Blankenhorn believes there is equal dignity that should be afforded "homosexual love". Why? The real love that is required of a marriage is not based on lustful attractions often labeled "love" (I'm SO in love with you!). And as mentioned so often, it is based on a mental dysfunction that redirects one's normal attention toward members of the opposite sex to members of one's own. Where's the dignity in dysfunction? One can speak of the dignity of a given person's humanity, or the right to be treated with some equal level of respect based on the fact that said person is another human being, but to dignify dysfunction? Whence comes THAT? No good Christian, nor any good American for that matter, seeks to mistreat any other human being for any dysfunction OR even for bad behaviors. But it is not mistreatment to deny such people their every desire that is based on their dysfunction, especially those that are known to be bad behaviors.

At the same time, they have received all the dignity to which anyone is entitled due to Lawrence v Texas and they no longer can have their privacy invaded while engaging in their sexual practices than can two unmarried heteros can.

This is not an issue of fairness for it puts the rest of the nation in a position that forces them to acquiesce to bad behavior because of the demand that the dysfunction be seen as perfectly normal.

Equality and comity is not a matter of putting aside morality to the satisfaction of the immoral.

more coming now...

Marshall Art said...

Blankenhorn says he has no stomach for the culture wars. Well, who does? Wars aren't fought because anyone wants to fight them, but because they must be fought. In this case, the culture war's two major fronts are abortion and homosexuality. I have no stomach for either, but while proponents in support of both exist, I will join the fight to oppose these clearly heinous and immoral factions.

He also says that we've failed to persuade on this issue. This is about the only true thing he has said in defense of his position change, but it is also a bad reason for it. That we've failed thus far only means that greater resolve is required to make the population understand the lies perpetuated by the activists. The growing consensus is based on those lies and the manipulation of our young to believe those lies.

He then goes on to speak of the strength (or lack thereof) of the institution of marriage based on the opposition to homosexual unions. How this is supposed to tie together he does not mention and I can't imagine. The mistake here, I'm certain, is in ignoring that the push for homosexual marriage, as well as the degradation of the institution, is all part of the same moral decline of our culture. It is not enough to limit marriage to its actual meaning in order to repair the damage that other aspects of moral decline has wrought. That's another battle in the culture war that has long been forsaken which has resulted in this current battle being required to be fought.

In the end, Blankenhorn confuses unrelated aspects of the moral decline and suggests acceptance of homosexual marriage is a step toward correcting any of them. He'll need to make that connection first, as I know one doesn't exist, except to say that it all stems from a rejection of the sexual morality taught in the Judeo-Christian traditions.

But then he makes the same ludicrous argument made by Dan Trabue so often:

"Can we agree that, for all lovers who want their love to last, marriage is preferable to cohabitation?"

To unite with another and remain faithful until death is not a matter of state licensing. It is a matter of how one looks upon the vows, and whether or not a person sees vows as something important to which a person need remain faithful. This can be done regardless of civil laws or even religious ceremonies. I don't remain faithful to my wife because of the license, nor did any who chose not to be. Indeed, I don't love her because of it or because of any lustful attractions. I don't even love her based on her feelings for me. I do these things because I took a vow to do so until I die, regardless of sickness or health, wealth or poverty, through good times and bad. THAT is both maturity to which I continue to aspire as well as the most important aspect of our union. It would be true and I would still be with her even without the state sanctioning because I took the vow in the first place.

Like Dan, this guy thinks that somehow people will stay together because of the license and state recognition of their union. This after speaking about the how bad the institution is regarded these days. What evidence is there that nationwide acceptance of homosexuality and their unions would make their unions last longer? None whatsoever. Indeed, if they are truly "like the rest of us, except...", their unions will last or break up at the same frequency and thus far, it seems they lag behind.

So, Jim. Got any other nonsensical arguments to make?

Marshall Art said...

Wait up, I found some in your last response.

"They want their marriage vows to be legally recognized. I don't understand how "promoted" enters into it."

This is because you are either a liar, stupid or not paying attention (a third aspect of that unique blend). It is CONSTANTLY promoted as no different than heterosexual attraction, which is plainly contradictory considering it is the opposite. But it is promoted as MORALLY equal or at least no worse. This is promotion and in schools, GLSEN promotes the notion that kids who experience homosexual attractions should explore those attractions and gives them tips on how to go about it. If you want links, check out AFTAH or Illinois Family Institute for anything they expose about GLSEN and the promotion of homosexuality in schools. No responsible citizen can state that they are unaware unless they are too self-centered to give a rat's ass about what schools are teaching kids these days. Be the former, not the latter.

"Can you provide links to show how I have defended "this" behavior?"

There you go being an asshole again. Are you seriously trying to pretend you have not been defending this behavior? If you favor homo marriage, you obviously cannot do so without defending the behavior upon which the agenda is based. Play that crap somewhere else.

"...but it is very disputable that the change was purely a result of activism."

If it was disputable at all, it would have been settled by the studies that confirmed their position and touted each and every time anyone tried to describe it as the mental dysfunction it is. I'm still waiting to see that checkmate study.

And again, as the liar you're so desperately to be (or the idiot, or that unique blend of both), you attempt to compare behavior to race and gender. Run that crap elsewhere. It is a lie that even you liars understand. Did you learn this in church today?

Jim said...

The point is that it doesn't matter what our Bible says, and it doesn't matter what biology says, and it doesn't matter what the APA says, now or before 1973. Whether you think I'm your kind of Christian or not really doesn't matter.

The point is that it's a matter of fairness. As Mr. Blankenhorn says,

"I don’t believe that opposite-sex and same-sex relationships are the same, but I do believe, with growing numbers of Americans, that the time for denigrating or stigmatizing same-sex relationships is over. Whatever one’s definition of marriage, legally recognizing gay and lesbian couples and their children is a victory for basic fairness."

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

No, it isn't "fairness" because it isn't FAIR to place same-sex unions on a par with real marriage. It isn't FAIR to force people to accept a perverse sexual behavior or else be punished for it. It isn't FAIR to force children to learn that it is a normal and rational behavior.

There is nothing at all FAIR about the homosexual agenda.

Marshall Art said...

Indeed. Fairness is not the issue at all, or else ANY arrangement of people can be included beyond merely two homos or two heteros. What's more, to pretend it has anything to do with fairness puts the impact on children in the back seat, as a secondary consideration at best.

But the issue does affect the attitudes of our society on the roles of gender and the notions regarding family and does in a way proponents of non-traditional marriages refuse to acknowledge as important or even possible. They assume that all will be well just as the same types of people assumed premarital sex or hooking up has affected the culture. Look how well that worked. But now, they dress it up as being merely an issue of no licensing leading to the ills of the homosexual lifestyle, when it was the lack of maturity resulting in acquiescing to immoral urges that has been the cause.

It can only be an issue of fairness if, like race, there is no difference of relevance. One's race is irrelevant to one's quality of character. Indulging in sexual urges speaks directly to character and/or mental/emotional stability. It's like saying there is no difference between one who works for his money and one who steals it. They both want money, so it isn't fair that the thief is prohibited from having the money he obtained because of the way he obtained it.

But unlike what Jim states so wrongly, it DOES matter what our Bible says if we are Christians and have the choice of supporting this agenda or opposing it. By supporting it, you are complicit in their sinfulness by your acceptance, tolerance and votes for those who would force this abomination upon the rest of the nation and its children.

It DOES matter what biology says if we are to suggest normal behavior from dysfunction, lest we ignore the effects of all dysfunction and allow those who suffer from them to live so affected without any restrictions at all.

And it certainly DOES matter what the APA says if what they say is to be submitted for consideration in arguing for tolerance of this dysfunction.

And I don't argue whether or not you're MY kind of Christian, but whether or not your positions validate your claims for being one. On issues regarding human sexuality, they don't.

Jim said...

it isn't "fairness" because it isn't FAIR to place same-sex unions on a par with real marriage

Sure it is. Because they WOULD be real marriages.

It isn't FAIR to force people to accept a perverse sexual behavior or else be punished for it.

No one has to accept anybody's sexual behavior. Just don't think about sex. I know it's hard, but give it a shot. Stop being so obsessed by what you THINK other people are doing in the bedroom.

It isn't FAIR to force children to learn that it is a normal and rational behavior.

They aren't forced to learn any such thing. Nobody tells children about ANY sexual behavior. They only learn that not all families are the same.

ANY arrangement of people can be included beyond merely two homos or two heteros.

This is an old argument and it's baloney. The same restrictions as to family relations and number of people in a marriage would apply to all couples.

puts the impact on children in the back seat, as a secondary consideration at best.

Not at all. It just means that children are not the only consideration in marriage. Millions of married couples are childless for whatever reason or another.

Look how well that worked.

What worked? Pre-marital sex exists. Extra-marital sex exists. Get over it.

ills of the homosexual lifestyle

What "ills" of "the homosexual lifestyle"? All the homosexual couples I know seem to have no more ills than any heterosexual couples I know.

One's race is irrelevant to one's quality of character. Indulging in sexual urges speaks directly to character and/or mental/emotional stability.

What a bunch of horse shit. The gays I know are of outstanding character.

It's like saying there is no difference between one who works for his money and one who steals it.

More horse shit.

it DOES matter what our Bible says if we are Christians.

Of course. If you are considering the lifestyle for yourself.

have the choice of supporting this agenda or opposing it.

There is at least one other choice. Not being involved in or obsessed by someone else's life style.

By supporting it, you are complicit in their sinfulness

Supporting it? I don't support it. I don't care about it. It may not be sinful, anyway. They could be atheists for all I know.

votes for those who would force this abomination upon the rest of the nation and its children.

I don't know of anybody forcing any abomination on anybody.

if we are to suggest normal behavior from dysfunction

But it only counts if you're gay? Because gays don't do anything "biologically" that heterosexuals don't also do.

consideration in arguing for tolerance of this dysfunction.

Frankly I couldn't care less about what the APA says. Remember, I said it doesn't matter.

whether or not your positions validate your claims for being one.

I don't need you to validate my "claims".

Marshall Art said...

"Sure it is. Because they WOULD be real marriages."

Nonsense. Even if the whole world deceives itself that SSM would be as real marriages, it would not be so. But worse, you seem to think that merely saying it is so would make it so. How childish and typical of the activist/enabler point of view.

"No one has to accept anybody's sexual behavior."

Still you deny what is already going on in this country and worse in others that have given in to the corruption. People have been forced to accept the sexual behavior of homosexuals or suffer consequences from lawsuits to harassment and job losses. Must be that unique blend of yours again.

"They aren't forced to learn any such thing. Nobody tells children about ANY sexual behavior. They only learn that not all families are the same."

More deceitful denial, as I have provided sources to prove it. And they don't just tell little kids that not all families are the same, but that they are all equally families. You're a liar.

"What worked? Pre-marital sex exists. Extra-marital sex exists. Get over it."

It's not merely that it exists, you jackass, but that it became more accepted and tolerated in the manner that homosexuality is now. The results have been the over 50 million abortions since that became a "right", the spread of various STDs and to younger people, the amount of divorce, abuse and suicides all because of a loosened cultural attitude about human sexuality. Further straying from traditional notions of sexual morality will not make things better. But then, as a lib, you people often think doing the wrong thing more and bigger will make it eventually all work out. Typical stupidity.

"What "ills" of "the homosexual lifestyle"?"

Incredibly stupid and purposely deceitful question which has been exhaustively answered in this and many other blogs and honest sources. To pretend they don't exist shows an incredibly perverse sense of concern for those pathetic people.

"What a bunch of horse shit. The gays I know are of outstanding character."

Only if they are like the Mormon fellow highlighted in the link I provided above. Otherwise, if they are engaging in homosexual behavior, they are absolutely NOT of outstanding character. It would be like saying that the adulterers you know are of outstanding character, or the sluts you know are of outstanding character. What the hell do they teach you in your church, anyway? Anything Christian?

"it DOES matter what our Bible says if we are Christians.

Of course. If you are considering the lifestyle for yourself."


Not of course. It matters in what you support as well. If you are supporting a behavior God regards as an abomination to Him, you might as well be living the lifestyle yourself. You should find a REAL Christian church. Or maybe you go there to take a nap. In either case, your understanding is incredibly unChristian.

"There is at least one other choice. Not being involved in or obsessed by someone else's life style."

No one's suggested that you do, so that is irrelevant.

Marshall Art said...

"Supporting it? I don't support it. I don't care about it. It may not be sinful, anyway. They could be atheists for all I know."

Gee...lie or stupidity? So hard to tell. Of course you support it. Your every comment meant to discredit mine or Glenn's or anyone else who has posted in support of real marriage is proof of your support. I have no doubt that if two candidates were identical in every way but for their position on this issue, you'd vote for the one that supports the Agenda That Doesn't Exist.

"I don't know of anybody forcing any abomination on anybody."

It isn't a matter of who YOU know personally. But you're a liar if you pretend you don't know that the activists are trying to force their position on the nation.

"Because gays don't do anything "biologically" that heterosexuals don't also do."

It's not what they do, but with whom they want to do it you lying asshole. THAT'S what determines their dysfunction and you damned well know that was my point.

"Frankly I couldn't care less about what the APA says. Remember, I said it doesn't matter."

You're lying again, or, you don't seem to think it matters if lunatics are given equal treatment as sane people. OR, you don't care because you know that the APA has no science behind their decision to reclassify the dysfunction as normal. Or, you're a bigger idiot than anyone's ever given you credit for being that you would speak of fairness regarding a behavior on which you have no solid basis for even taking a position. Yeah. That's likely it.

"I don't need you to validate my "claims"."

I couldn't as I have no basis for doing so. But note that I mentioned that YOUR positions don't validate your claims of being a Christian. They refute those claims as your position is in opposition to Christian teaching.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Jim,
No, it isn’t “real marriage,” because that requires opposite-sex couples.

We are indeed being forced to accept the behavior. If I don’t want to photograph a queer wedding, I get fined. If I don’t want to make cookies for a queer event, I get fined. If I don’t want to sanction in any way homosexual behavior, I get fined. Also people have been forced to take indoctrination classes, have lost there jobs, have lost thousands of dollars in lawsuits, etc, for nothing more than refusing to sanction homosexual behavior. And you have the audacity to say it isn’t being force on us?!

Children are taught in school about homosexuality and that it is normal.

So, you want to place restrictions on who can be “married” and yet you arbitrarily say no such restrictions should be placed if it is two queers.

The rest of your post is more repetition of the lies and self-denial of homosexualists and not worth responding to again.

Jim said...

But worse, you seem to think that merely saying it is so would make it so.

It would be a real marriage because the state recognizes it as a real marriage and grants the couple every legal right that all married couples have. It doesn't matter at all what you think it is or whether it's real to you. You are not granting the legal rights of married couples.

accept the sexual behavior of homosexuals

Nobody has to accept anybody's sexual behavior. You are so utterly hung up on what people do in private. You have no idea. For all you know they could just be spooning and leaving it at that. I'm sure that there are a lot of heterosexual married couples who engage in intercourse other than in the missionary position and that this is anathema to you. They aren't asking for your acceptance either. The issue isn't about sexual behavior. It's about legal rights.

that they are all equally families

Which of course is absolutely true.

You're a liar.

And your an asshole. Nyah Nyah Nyah.

for those pathetic people.

I've had a total change of heart. I'm going to tell all my gay friends and associates how pathetic they are.

What the hell do they teach you in your church, anyway?

Well, they certainly don't tell me to refer to people as "pathetic" or "perverted". They tell me to love my neighbor, to do unto others as I would have them do unto me, and to judge not lest I be judged. You know, all that hippie/commie stuff.

It matters in what you support as well.

I support equal rights for gay couples. That's it. I frankly don't give a damn about what they do behind closed doors. Unlike you, I don't think about it.

activists are trying to force their position on the nation.

As I see it, it is YOU who is trying to force your position on the nation.

THAT'S what determines their dysfunction

What dysfunction?

you don't seem to think it matters if lunatics are given equal treatment as sane people.

Oh THESE people are lunatics and the YOU are supposedly sane? It is to laugh.

the APA has no science behind their decision to reclassify the dysfunction as normal.

What science did they have to reach the original classification?

If I don’t want to photograph a queer wedding, I get fined. If I don’t want to make cookies for a queer event, I get fined. If I don’t want to sanction in any way homosexual behavior, I get fined.

Sounds like you should stop attending those Lions Club lunches, Glenn. Who else is requiring you to pay all these fines?

So, you want to place restrictions on who can be “married” and yet you arbitrarily say no such restrictions should be placed if it is two queers.

Uh, no. Nothing arbitrary at all. Same restrictions apply. As far as "queers" go, what restrictions were placed on your marriage?

Marshall Art said...

Jim,

Why can't you engage like an honest person, sort of as if you were indeed the church going man you claim to be?

If the state decides that you are a horse, would you have to accept that you are indeed a horse? Words have meanings and "marriage" is a word that has always meant something specific, amongst which is the union of one man and one woman. This is a fact that is clear to honest people everywhere. Take a cue from such people.

"Nobody has to accept anybody's sexual behavior."

Again you speak falsely, both in making that false statement and suggesting we're talking about being hung up on what two people do in private. The fact is, that honest people have given up on that long ago, if what people ever did in private sexually was a concern in the first place. This issue has ONLY been about the push for legitimacy of an illegitimate union, something honest people understand is both sinful, based on the teachings of the religions of people of faith, and a mental dysfunction based on the plain and obvious fact that human beings come in two genders biologically designed to be compatible and complimentary to each other. YOU think we're concerned with HOW they engage in sexual relations, when the proof of their sinfulness and mental dysfunction is manifested in with WHOM they have those relations.

Honest people who are also rational don't base policy and legislation on mental dysfunction presented as normal, particularly when doing so provides no discernible benefits to society. Honest people who are also rational do not conflate rights with wants, particularly the wants of people who need counseling. Honest and rational people do not pretend black is white when doing so means they must also pretend that green is orange as we will have to pretend that polygamists and the incestuous are equal to real marital unions as well.

What's more, marriage is not a "right" as much as religious expression is, or freedom of association is, or the freedom to express one's opinion is. All these are threatened by the granting the imagined "right" that homosexuals pretend they are being denied. This is the acceptance that will be forced upon honest and rational people as we have explained to you with real stories where refusal to live and do business on the terms of the homosexual has pushed those REAL rights to the side.

"I've had a total change of heart. I'm going to tell all my gay friends and associates how pathetic they are."

Proving my conclusion that you are a liar.

"They tell me to love my neighbor, to do unto others as I would have them do unto me, and to judge not lest I be judged."

Someday, perhaps, they'll tell you what that stuff means. You clearly don't know yet if you think it means enabling bad behavior & NOT calling evil by its name.

Marshall Art said...

"I support equal rights for gay couples. That's it. I frankly don't give a damn about what they do behind closed doors. Unlike you, I don't think about it."

And you dare call ME an asshole. Not only do you lie, but you continue to say the same lies after having been corrected many times. First, they already have equal rights. Second, and here's why you're an asshole, we aren't talking at all about what they do in private. It's what they are demanding from the rest of society we oppose.

"As I see it, it is YOU who is trying to force your position on the nation."

The nation, in the range of at least 60% of it, still wishes to maintain the true definition of marriage. YOU, being an asshole, pretend it this segment of society that is in the wrong. It would be like saying that we're forcing our position on the nation if 2% of the population wished to return to a monarchy and we opposed THAT.

"What dysfunction?"

Again you're being a lying asshole as this has been explained many, many times. Though it's becoming more clear that you suffer from a dysfunction of your own.

"Oh THESE people are lunatics and the YOU are supposedly sane?"

The only response to this is that like an asshole, you've taken this out of context as if to make a point that you couldn't support if I held a gun to your head.

"What science did they have to reach the original classification?"

Now I'm leaning back toward you being just really, really stupid, though it is too obvious to be true, so I must stick with the lying asshole assessment. What science is required to classify any mental dysfunction as such, Jimmy? For example, did they have to spend decades in the lab to know that someone who, say, is too afraid to leave the house has a problem? Or perhaps years of study was required to know that a bus driver who thinks he's Napoleon Bonaparte might be a bit off?

"Uh, no. Nothing arbitrary at all. Same restrictions apply."

But that's just it, fool. On what basis can you restrict ANY arrangement of people from demanding the same "right" to marry? At this point, these people think gender doesn't matter. But it does. Grant this "right", and then the next group will insist that blood relation doesn't matter. Who are you to deny them? And of course, if gender doesn't matter, then why numbers of people? But the fact is that right now, ALL these scenarios can exist and if they were truly serious about being so "in love" that they are willing to commit their lives, what do they care if the state recognizes them or not? When will THAT question get answered, anyway? I don't know about you, but I was already committed to my wife before we got the license and said "I do" before witnesses. We said "I do" when we proposed to live together AS man and wife before we got the license to legally BE man and wife. But we were at that point man and wife. We were married right then and there because we made the commitment.

But from the point of our legal marriage, the whole country and most of the world recognizes our marriage because we ARE married and our union IS a marriage. Even homos recognize it because it IS a marriage. It IS a marriage because our union fits the real definition of "marriage". Two of the same gender will NEVER fit that definition. The definition must change in order to make it work. Change it once for them and you MUST change it for every other group of people who demand it, because they can ONLY demand it using the exact same argument the homos are using. If you think that's just fine, then you definitely suffer from some mental dysfunction.

Marshall Art said...

So at this point, Jim, we're through here. Unless you can come up with some rationale for redefining "marriage" to satisfy this particular and extremely small group of people (because you certainly can't seem to come up with a reason why our arguments are irrational), then I don't see the point of carrying on with you.

The Piper's Wife said...

Civil rights legislation was designed to protect individuals from being discriminated against on the basis of race, gender or religion but not lifestyle. The idea that people should be equal under the law does not necessitate a belief that all lifestyles are equal under the law. For instance, promiscuity is not equivalent to fidelity. Pornography is not equivalent to a real relationship with love. Fornication is not as equally desirable as chastity. Furthermore, marriage is not an inherent right to consenting adults in all types of relationships. Our government, for the good of society, correctly prohibits marriage in a variety of circumstances including incestuous couples, bisexual threesomes and polygamous heterosexual relationships. ...it can be seen that the homosexual agenda is truly about legitimizing a lifestyle and not obtaining insurance and social security benefits. ... Incidentally, it is interesting to remember that these same benefits that homosexuals claim they are denied are also denied to heterosexual single adults. The reason is simple. By definition, they are not qualified to receive them.
Keith Gibson, Apologetics Resource Center, Kansas City Office. March/April 2004 ARC Newsletter.

The Piper's Wife said...

Sounds like you should stop attending those Lions Club lunches, Glenn. Who else is requiring you to pay all these fines?

You are such a liar. I cited factual examples and these people have indeed paid fines, paid “damages” in lawsuits and were forced to attend indoctrination classes. I have a whole file of cases where people have been financially harmed for not wanting to give sanction to homosexuality.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

OOOOPPPPPSSSS,

I just discovered my wife's blog was the one signed in on, so those comments by "The Piper's Wife" are actually by me.

Jim said...

I cited factual examples and these people have indeed paid fines

You didn't cite. You claimed. Without some kind of proof, I simply don't believe you, one liar to another.

Lifestyle? What is all this about "lifestyle"? My closest gay friend lives in a house, owns a sailboat, works 40 hours or more a week, is on Facebook, likes to travel and cook, drives an Audi, and watches The View. What part of this lifestyle sets him apart from others? Oh, I know. He seldom wears socks with his loafers. How gay is that?

More later. I'm in Vegas practicing debauchery. I won't be staying in Vegas. The debauchery is up for debate.

Marshall Art said...

And once again, Jim enters with another example of his dishonesty. Homosexuals themselves speak of their sexual practices as a lifestyle (at least those who have left it do). Deceitfully, Jim likes to speak of things that have nothing to do with the issue at hand and pretend he has made a point that refutes the honest and truthful one. But to state it plainly again for his own edification, when he engages in sexual behavior with another of his own gender, it is THAT which sets him apart from normal people. Jim dishonestly likes to point to those normal things that abnormal people do to insist that they really are normal as well. Honest people are speaking only of the abnormal being put forth as normal.

Parklife said...

lol.. another classic thread..

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Links for the photographer incident
http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/court-says-gay-rights-trump-religious-rights.html
http://claytonecramer.blogspot.com/2012/06/elaine-photography-punished-for-failure.html

And the following doesn’t include the very numerous examples from Europe.

General
http://carm.org/homosexual-persecution-of-christians
http://www.overruledmovie.com/

Job loss/shut down of services (including temporary loss)
http://www.wnd.com/2010/12/236913/
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/canadian-court-rejects-legislation-allowing-marriage-commissioners-to-opt-o
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2005/dec/05121302 shows the set-up
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009/12/09/christian-man-fired-after-gay-rights-group-contacts-his-employer-to-complain/
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=1343950
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=1344772
http://townhall.com/columnists/mikeadams/2011/06/16/the_cisco_kid/page/full/
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/top-sports-anchor-fired-over-beliefs-on-marriage-this-can-happen-to-you
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/new-york-clerk-resigns-over-gay-marriage-gov-cuomo-responds-the-law-is-the
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/florida-high-school-removes-teacher-for-criticizing-gay-marriage-on-faceboo
http://townhall.com/columnists/mikeadams/2011/08/29/bank_of_gay_america/page/full/
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/gay-activists-get-lifesitenews-translator-and-pro-family-activist-julio-sev
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Education/Default.aspx?id=1471258
http://blog.speakupmovement.org/university/freedom-of-speech/university-of-illinois-reinstates-dr-kenneth-howell/
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/get-in-line-or-resign-admiral-tells-military-chaplain

Fines/lawsuits and other judgments/school suspension - final or pending
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2005/nov/05113006
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/bed-and-breakfast-owners-fined-for-turning-away-gay-couple
http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/03/08/homosexual-couple-files-complaint-against-dallas-morning-news/
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/vermont-inn-sued-by-aclu-after-refusing-lesbian-wedding-reception
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/homosexual-couple-prepares-to-sue-two-illinois-bed-and-breakfasts
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/high-school-school-punishes-student-for-saying-homosexuality-is-wrong/
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/lesbian-couple-mulls-action-against-christian-wedding-cake-baker
http://www.kentucky.com/2012/03/26/2127245/hands-on-originals-t-shirt-company.html
http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/atty-says-school-threatened-punished-boy-who-opposed-gay-adoption.html
http://www.volokh.com/2012/02/07/government-employer-free-to-fire-human-resources-officials-who-publicly-criticize-the-propriety-of-gay-rights-laws/
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/lesbians-sue-to-force-catholic-hospital-to-provide-same-sex-benefits-underm

These should be enough to prove the point that people are being punished for nothing more than opposing or speaking out against same-sex behavior and/or fake marriage.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

For a perfect example of the intolerance of the homosexualists, take a gander here:
http://www.dennyburk.com/doug-wilson-takes-on-gay-activists-in-qa/

Jim said...

Thanks, Park! Isn't though?

Jim said...

Well, thanks for all these citations, Glenn. Clearly you've spent a lot of time on this subject.

I didn't read them all but I did read a number of them. I noticed a common thread. In the case of the photography, the Knights of Columbus and similar situations, these businesses were providing a "public accommodation", and by doing so were subject to the laws of discrimination against protected classes. Sorry you don't like it that sexual orientation is a protected class, but it is. As it should be.

As far as the Dr. Turek case, although I think that's going a bit overboard, I would be interested to hear from the person who complained what it was that the doctor said on his own time.

For instance, if he found that Dr. Turek wrote on a blog or something similar, like this one, that gays are perverts, homos, queers, dysfunctional, despicable, pedophiles, etc., I would say he's perfectly justified in getting the guy fired.

Homosexuals themselves speak of their sexual practices as a lifestyle

Got a link for that?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Homosexuality should NOT be given special protection because it is a chosen sexual behavior. People who are just "oriented" but not practicing the behavior are not the problem. It is the sexually active ones who demand their sexual behavior and lifestyle be protect by anti-discrimination laws against all moral objections.

There is no logical basis for giving homosexuality special protection. By do so you cannot logically deny anti-discrimination laws for other sexual behaviors, or any behavior for that matter. Behaviors are always chosen.

Jim said...

Homosexuality should NOT be given special protection because it is a chosen sexual behavior.

So therefore, Catholicism should also NOT be given special protection because it is a chosen religious behavior.

Homosexuals themselves speak of their sexual practices as a lifestyle (at least those who have left it do).

Why on earth would we take these very rare people as authorities on the subject? Very likely they use that terminology because their gay healers have convinced them that being gay IS a lifestyle and therefore can be changed.

when he engages in sexual behavior with another of his own gender, it is THAT which sets him apart from normal people.

Sets him apart how? He works in the same office, drives his car on the same roads, shops at the same supermarket, watches the same TV shows, and walks on two legs. Is it the no socks thing? Because when I'm around him, that's the only thing I can think of that sets him apart from "normal" people.

what do they care if the state recognizes them or not? When will THAT question get answered, anyway?

Seriously? [Forehead slap here] States and the federal government grant legally married couples rights and privileges that non-legally married couples don't have. That is why. If it were simply a ceremony, this would all be moot.

We were married right then and there because we made the commitment.

I'm pretty sure your state and the Social Security Administration didn't think so.

If the commitment is all that matters to you, if THAT is the real marriage to you, then why are you fighting the legality of the government-recognized piece of paper that is a marriage license. It makes no sense to so vehemently deny those folks the piece of paper that is apparently only an after thought for you.

the whole country and most of the world recognizes our marriage because we ARE married

No. Your marriage is recognized because you have a license.

Two of the same gender will NEVER fit that definition.

That information is no longer up to date. Several states and a number of countries do say that couples who have a license and have completed a ceremony actually DO fit the definition of being married.

The definition must change in order to make it work.

Actually, I think it is the recent spate of anti=same sex laws that are "changing" the definition of marriage.

I'd be interested in reading the actual state legislation existing 20 years ago that explicitly said that only a man and a woman could obtain a marriage license. I'm willing to bet that this was never an issue until some same sex couple decided they were going to try to get a license and were denied because the county clerk decided since he'd never given a license to a couple of queers before, he certainly wasn't going to start now. I'm guessing THAT's when people started saying we better change the definition of marriage on our books to mean the union of one man and one woman.

Otherwise, why are states now passing laws and amendments saying that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. If that was already the definition, why the need to vote on it?

So I say, just who is it that's trying to change the definition of marriage?

Marshall Art said...

Well, Jim. Your desperation is apparent as is your lack of a coherent argument to refute our position or support whatever it is your think you're supporting. Very Parkie-like, but much more "wordy".

As for THAT troll, he stops by to prove once again he has nothing to say. I'm convinced that he has no idea why he disagrees with us, is entirely incapable of providing ANY substantive comment, lacks any courage to attempt to do so, and is clearly one who takes a position based on which way the wind is blowing as far as he can feel it. If all the world began to think shoving kittens down their pants was the way to go, he'd make the same stupid comments to those who opposed THAT school of thought, without ever knowing why.

This is who Jim thanks and with whom he agrees. Different events indeed.

Marshall Art said...

Thanks to Glenn for all the links. I am sorry to say that Jim (and his pet monkey, Parkie) are too much the reprobates for any of that to have any positive effect. But thanks nonetheless for the effort and good intentions.

Marshall Art said...

Let's look at some of Jim's stupidity and save the rest for tomorrow.

"In the case of the photography, the Knights of Columbus and similar situations, these businesses were providing a "public accommodation", and by doing so were subject to the laws of discrimination against protected classes."

And as stated, this imagined "right" now trumps ACTUAL enumerated rights in the US Constitution, such as freedom of religion, freedom of speech and freedom of association. And what's worse is that the litigants in these cases are almost ALWAYS able to get what they want from other business owners who aren't religious or religious enough to stand firmly against sexual immorality. The case of the photographer, for example, was not merely a case of not wanting to do business with lesbians, but a case of being forced to participate in a celebration of their immoral union. This is a direct violation of the rights of the photographer, but real enumerated Constitutionally protected rights are forced to take a back seat to this imaginary "right" to have people treat abnormal people and their sexual desires as equal to normal people.

What's more, Obama's politically motivated pandering to 2% of the population for their votes by signing into law special protections for these sad people was a scam action. It was added to a much needed military spending bill that provided income guarantees for the very people who put their lives on the line to safeguard actual rights of Americans. This is the type of snake-like tactics constantly employed by Democrats in general, and this lobby in particular to get their way: Make legislators choose between a real need and an incredibly unnecessary one, complete with bullshit rhetoric that states a lie put forth as honorable and honest intentions. Typical and losers like Jim use it to pretend special protected status for these unfortunate individuals is a good thing.

"As far as the Dr. Turek case, although I think that's going a bit overboard, I would be interested to hear from the person who complained what it was that the doctor said on his own time."

"OVERBOARD"?? It's reprehensible and absolutely unAmerican to do what the employer did to Turek over some bullshit notion of "diversity" and "equality". Google his name, jerkwad, and you'll see what he says about sexual immorality. Then try to make the case that there was anything logical, ethical or righteous in his dismissal. OR, try to defend the asinine notion that it is OUR side that is trying to force anything upon anyone.

"For instance, if he found that Dr. Turek wrote on a blog or something similar, like this one, that gays are perverts, homos, queers, dysfunctional, despicable, pedophiles, etc., I would say he's perfectly justified in getting the guy fired."

That's because you're an idiot. A clinical one like your buddy, Parkie. You both suffer from your own mental dysfunction. Trying to justify someone's firing due to the proper use of any of those terms is requires you to make a case. For instance, you decry the use of the word "pathetic" in relation to the condition of homosexuals. You are obviously unaware of the meaning of the term, or, like libs are wont to do, are choosing to redefine the word or insisting on only one usage of the word ANY TIME it is used in order to demonize your opposition. This is the type of dishonesty that makes dealing with lefties on important issues problematic.

More later...

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Jim, you are a complete ass.

Religion is NOT a behavior - it is a philosophy. Your ignorance - or intentional stupidity - is astounding.

As noted to you before, if the state calls something a marriage, that doesn’t make it true. Same-sex unions will never be marriage. The state can call a dog’s tail a leg, but it will never be a leg. Calling a dandelion a rose doesn’t change its status as a week.

The reason why no one had to pass an amendment to define marriage in the past was because everyone KNEW what the definition of marriage is. But when people try to change the definition, laws have to be made to stop the insanity.

Marshall Art said...

Indeed, Glenn. "Ass" must be the term that best exemplifies Jim as a debater at least. He is unafraid to say the most stupid and/or dishonest things in order to fail to refute our position. Case in point:

"Homosexuals themselves speak of their sexual practices as a lifestyle (at least those who have left it do)."

"Why on earth would we take these very rare people as authorities on the subject?"

Note how my main point was that homosexuals speak of their practices as a lifestyle. Then in parentheses I suggest "at least" those who have left the lifestyle do. Jim then pounces on this and pretends it means that ONLY those who left the lifestyle refer to their way of living as a lifestyle. Worse, he thinks it matters that the numbers of those people is very small. So apparently, percentages only matter when the opinion expressed is a percentage JIM decides is too small. 2-3% is huge enough for Jim to overturn the Church and thousands of years of understanding. This mentally challenged thinking is then followed by this:

"...when he engages in sexual behavior with another of his own gender, it is THAT which sets him apart from normal people."

"Sets him apart how?"

The "how" is in the statement Jim questions. Normal people are attracted to and engage in sexual activity with members of the OPPOSITE sex. It is normal because that is what nature calls for. Same sex attraction is abnormal because it is counter to the reason there are two genders in the first place. An obvious problem never addressed by those who wish to pretend that homosexual attraction is normal. But for Jim, the knowledge of his co-worker's "orientation" isn't blatant enough for Jim to understand what sets the co-worker apart from normal people.

"what do they care if the state recognizes them or not? When will THAT question get answered, anyway?"

"Seriously? [Forehead slap here] States and the federal government grant legally married couples rights and privileges that non-legally married couples don't have."

First, I doubt you slapped yourself with the force your stupidity deserves. Secondly, your response suggests that their alleged love for each other is not main thing but that they are seeking monetary gain and/or forcing the state to recognize their unions as normal and equal to real marriages. Thirdly, the state confers unto real marriages that which it does not confer on single people, either. The reasons for this have been explained ad nauseum and your side, you and Parkie least of all, have ever presented reasons (based on anything tangible) to show how those reasons are present in same sex unions.

"We were married right then and there because we made the commitment."

"I'm pretty sure your state and the Social Security Administration didn't think so."

The point, as Jim well knows but pretends otherwise, is that what exists between my wife and I is not based on any state sanctioning at all, but on the commitment we made to each other, the vows we could have taken (and pretty much did) without a legal representative of the gov't to presiding.

Marshall Art said...

"If the commitment is all that matters to you, if THAT is the real marriage to you, then why are you fighting the legality of the government-recognized piece of paper that is a marriage license."

Because, lamebrain, as has been repeated and supported by actual facts for so long now, the state has a vested interest in promoting traditional marriage because if its unique nature and what doing so does for society that is not replicated by all the many alternative arrangements such as SSM and all those other groups of people waiting in the wings to use the same arguments that must allow their demands as well.

Now I know you will likely want to try that old canard about people who can't, won't or no longer can produce children. But the state isn't required to fine tune every law in order to suit every possibility. In each of those situations, the possibility still exists for children to be a part and enjoy the benefits of having both a father and a mother as each child has a right to have. THAT right, is far more significant and of importance to society in general than the demands of a small group of people whose "orientation" is both a mental dysfunction as well as likely to result in sinful behavior.

"Two of the same gender will NEVER fit that definition."

"That information is no longer up to date."

That info is ignored without basis in favor of forcing the (im)morality of one tiny segment of society upon the majority. This, BTW, flies in the face of liberal protests against the alleged attempts of the conservative Christians over forcing morality upon society. The truth is obvious. The left will do all it can to disrupt all true notions of virtue and morality to suit its own selfish ends.

Here is the biggest lie of all:

"So I say, just who is it that's trying to change the definition of marriage?"

As Glenn said so accurately, marriage needed no codified definition because it was not an issue what the word meant UNTIL homosexuals and leftist enablers lacking moral understanding (or the desire to adhere to any) decided that human sexuality was not a moral issue. Little Jimmy thinks he is being clever by calling me a sex nazi because I uphold traditional notions of morality and encourage others to do so as well, while never once suggesting any legislation to prevent sexual deviants, anarchists and those obsessed with sexual gratification from pleasuring themselves either alone or with any number of consenting "adults". This is not the case with the true fascists, the left, who are forcing their immorality upon the the nation.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Here is a good article about the definition of marriage:
http://www.mikeleake.net/2012/06/marriage-defined.html

Jim said...

From Glenn's article on the "definition" of marriage:

Marriage is a binding covenant created by God between one man and one woman for our holiness, for our joy, as a picture of the gospel to spread the glory of God.

So marriage only applies to believers? When couple goes to city hall to get a license, the clerk asks them if they believe in God? Is that how it works?

refute our position

Actually I'm refuting your so-called "positions" left and right. And quite handily, I might add.

a case of being forced to participate in a celebration of their immoral union.

It wasn't the photographer's job to pass judgement on the celebration, it was his job to take pictures of it.

Obama's politically motivated pandering to 2% of the population for their votes by signing into law special protections for these sad people was a scam action.

I'm pretty sure that sexual orientation was a protected class years before Obama had anything to do with it.

Make legislators choose between a real need and an incredibly unnecessary one,

Like this has never happened in the entire history of legislation in the US.

unfortunate individuals

I just sent an email to my friend to inform him that he is an "unfortunate individual".

I can't find much of anything about what Dr. Turek says, only how he was fired. A link would help.

Trying to justify someone's firing due to the proper use of any of those terms is requires you to make a case.

There you go (I think it was you) with the old "proper use" canard again. Do you know of any medical text or reputable medical journal which would use the terms despicable, pathetic, queer or homo, much less consider describing homosexuals with those words.

Religion is NOT a behavior - it is a philosophy.

I'd say it's both. You don't see atheists praying or Buddhists genuflecting, do you?

Faith or behavior, it's still a choice.

if the state calls something a marriage, that doesn’t make it true.

Actually, yes it does. When it comes to taxes, Social Security, survivor benefits, and medical decisions and much more, what the state calls marriage does, in fact, make it true.

everyone KNEW what the definition of marriage is.

Everyone knew what THEIR definition of marriage was. Some apparently defined it differently from others. The state didn't say one way or the other. So people felt compelled to change it to make it fit THEIR definition.

Then in parentheses I suggest

That, I would suggest, is a very important qualification of your statement.

overturn the Church and thousands of years of understanding.

Church? As far as the state is concerned, marriage is a civil contract. It doesn't care if your ceremony includes taking communion or stomping on a glass, or even if a cleric is involved. Therefore, what the church says is irrelevant, freedom of religion and all that.

But for Jim, the knowledge of his co-worker's "orientation" isn't blatant enough for Jim to understand what sets the co-worker apart from normal people.

If you met him, how could you tell that he was "set apart" from normal people? Except for the no socks thing.

Am I supposed to proactively set him apart from the others on my floor because I happen to know he is gay? If he can vote, drive a car, buy a home, and shop at the supermarket like everyone else, how would he be set apart?

their alleged love

Alleged? You are the judge of whether or not another person loves?

Jim said...

Thirdly, the state confers unto real marriages that which it does not confer on single people, either.

Uh, that's because they are married. And that's why gays who are couples want to be able to have the same things conferred to them when they are no longer single.

show how those reasons are present in same sex unions.

Every one of them is present. They can provide a stable household, they can own a home together, they can raise their children, send them to school and college, and have a dog.

what exists between my wife and I is not based on any state sanctioning at all.

Your Social Security survivor's benefits and IRS tax rates are.

state has a vested interest in promoting traditional marriage

Fine. Why does that mean that only "traditional marriages" should be allowed? Is there a quota for the number of marriage licenses states can issue and the feds can recognize?

But the state isn't required to fine tune every law in order to suit every possibility.

Fine tuning is what YOU want. Including people is the opposite of "fine tuning".

the benefits of having both a father and a mother as each child has a right to have.

So if a mother dies in childbirth, what happens? Divorce? No can do because that deprives a child of a right? I know the Declaration says that all men have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but I missed the part about the right to a mommy and a daddy. Likewise, the Constitution has free speech and religion, free guns, and few other things, but which amendment has the daddy and the mommy?

THAT right, is far more significant and of importance to society in general than the demands of a small group of people

What does one have to do with the other? Nothing. A gay couple with a marriage license in now way denies a child of your mythical right.

forcing the (im)morality of one tiny segment of society upon the majority.

I've never heard of anyone forcing you to be immoral. Is someone forcing you to be immoral? If so, are you not strong enough to resist?

Marshall Art said...

I haven't gotten to any of Glenn's links or articles, but this is another example of Jim's inability to engage honestly:

"So marriage only applies to believers?"

I don't even think it's necessary for me to read the article to know with absolute certainty that no such notion was put forth or even hinted. This makes the following line more laughable than it would normally be:

"Actually I'm refuting your so-called "positions" left and right. And quite handily, I might add."

Not even close. The above example, for instance, shows only the lengths you'll go to try to make a point that rational people wouldn't make by reading the article. It's not even a good straw man, but Jim will go with it anyway believing, as if he was Parkie, that he's on to something. Glenn can correct me if I'm wrong, or if I get the chance to read the article, I might find cause to correct myself, but I'm quite sure the idea was to simply provide an example of a definition that matches that which has been commonly understood for eons.

"It wasn't the photographer's job to pass judgement on the celebration, it was his job to take pictures of it."

Her job is not for you to define. Where do you find the right to dictate to a photographer what jobs she is required to take? What law exists that does this? Her reasons are reasons of conscience that no one has the right to override, and as a private enterprise is fully within her rights to refuse. That you would support any law that would do such a thing shows clearly that you support the activists forcing their immorality on society. She could have lied and said she was already booked. What that suit you better than risking offending these mentally dysfunctional souls who apparently cannot handle rejection, because they're oh so sensitive and offended that another human being objects to their lifestyle? Who the hell are you or they to demand that anyone lives on YOUR terms?

"I'm pretty sure that sexual orientation was a protected class years before Obama had anything to do with it."

My last minuter research said otherwise. If you have a link to something that contradicts what I've said, bring it on and I'll look at it to see how you've misinterpreted it.

"Like this has never happened in the entire history of legislation in the US."

All too often. I'm not surprised you fall back on the two wrongs make a right ideology.

"I just sent an email to my friend to inform him that he is an "unfortunate individual"."

Too bad you're too morally corrupt to competently explain how and why. Now he's even more unfortunate than he was before you told him. Way to go.

"I can't find much of anything about what Dr. Turek says..."

Try harder. I've barely time for my own research.

"There you go (I think it was you) with the old "proper use" canard again."

Canard? I don't need any medical text to know that I'm using the words I use properly. What is more accurate to say is that you DON'T understand the proper use. Are homosexuals mentally dysfunctional or disordered? They are according to all those who tried to block the activists who influenced the APA vote to remove the condition from the list. The are according to those in the field who still offer counseling and therapies to help those who are honest enough to know the score. All other words I've been using have also been appropriate and used according to their definitions. But it is typical of the lefty to accuse the user of such properly used words of bad intention, as if they were mere epithets. That's part of the deceit and dishonesty so typical of you and libs in general which makes progress on any issue so difficult.

Marshall Art said...

"Faith or behavior, it's still a choice."

What point are you trying to make here? Are you trying to equate living by one's faith as equal to living by one's base desires? Here's two problems with this stupidity:

1) Living by one's faith is counter to one's base desires, even normal heterosexual desires. It is to transcend one's base desires to become something better than what is naturally predisposed to doing. Homosexuals, by engaging in homosexual behavior, do exactly the opposite, just as a hetero does when having out of wedlock or adulterous affairs.

2) You have just equated them as behaviors that are choices, which flies in the face of the activists' claims. As a hetero, assuming you are one, you are not forced by your "orientation" to ever engage in sex at all, much less sex that the religion to which you claim to adhere prohibits. One's "orientation" does not justify anything regarding whether the behavior desired as a result of the orientation should take place or is beneficial for society to tolerate, sanction or accept as normal.


"if the state calls something a marriage, that doesn’t make it true."

"Actually, yes it does."

No. It doesn't. It only means that one can legally refer to it as such. That doesn't mean the arrangement is actually a marriage. As I said earlier, if the state said you were a horse's ass, it wouldn't mean that a veterinarian would agree, even though it would seem obvious to anyone who read your words. And you could certainly have that on your business cards, but again, you wouldn't literally be a horse's ass just because the state passed some kind of law that so stated you are one. The is in regards to what honest people know to be true. The state cannot dictate that.


"everyone KNEW what the definition of marriage is."

"Everyone knew what THEIR definition of marriage was. Some apparently defined it differently from others. "

Nonsense. EVERYONE knew that marriage was a union between one man and one woman. EVERYONE. What's more, the state would not license every individual's personal definition, so the state indeed defined what constituted a legal marriage. This had been going on for centuries. It is not a new development. And regardless of whether or not a given society allowed multiple wives, it was always the union of one man and one woman, then, the union of that same man and one other woman, but still one man/one woman. Try to be at least a little bit honest and less Parkie-like.

"Then in parentheses I suggest"

"That, I would suggest, is a very important qualification of your statement."

Absolutely not. It is an addendum at best. The bottom line was what came before and that is factual.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Jim,

You are being intentionally stupid.

People don’t have to believe in God to do things for HIS glory and to represent what HE wants represented. Marriage was designed by God for a purpose, and whether you believe that or not doesn’t alter the fact of it. Truth is truth regardless of belief about it.

You’ve not refuted any position of ours - all you have done is demonstrate how abjectly stupid and ignorant you are.

The New Mexico photographers had the right to determine whether or not they wanted to participate in the fake wedding ceremony. According to the defense’s legal brief, these Christians also “discriminate” when they “will not take photographs of situations that will promote or depict favorably such practices as unmarried cohabitation, polygamy, polyamory, no-fault divorce or same-sex 'marriage,' regardless of the sexual orientation of the people in the photographs." They also “discriminate” when they refuse to photograph people nude, or subjects which would show abortion or pornography in a good light. But this sort of discrimination is apparently okay with the NM Human Rights Commission since they were never fined for any of these.

I hire out to play at weddings but I would turn down a fake wedding - should I then be fined, jailed or otherwise punished? By being there it would demonstrate my tacit approval, which is why I could not morally be there. I have actually been asked to play for a Celtic polygamous “hand-fasting” ceremony and refused. I also refuse to play religious tunes at funerals of non-believers, refuse to play for cult groups (including Masons). So are you then saying I have no right to choose who I want to give my personal approval to?

Federally, sexual orientation was not protected before Obamanation. In some cities it has been. However, everywhere sexual “orientation” has been designated a protected class, the only “orientation” protected is homosexuality. Pedophiles, polyamorous, zoophiles, necrophiliacs, etc aren’t protected - proof of the bigoted agenda of the queers.

Medical texts will not use words of morality to describe sexual behavior - they make no moral judgments. I like the word “queer” because it means “strange, odd.” Homosexual is an adjective or adverb and yet the homosexualists have taken it to be a noun. But no one is “homosexual,” they are humans who like homosexual behavior or lust homosexually. “gay” means happy, but the queers stole that word and I refuse to let them keep it. Other good words would include perverts, sodomites, sexual degenerates, etc.

Jim said...

But no one is “homosexual,” they are humans

I take it then, that you are NOT a musician but a human who sits on a porch and plays a banjo (since your customer base is getting smaller all the time).

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Homosexual was never a noun. It describes behavior. Queers are always wanting to change definitions to fit their agenda.

I am a musician because I play an musical instrument - and that word has always been a noun.

My customer base is as large as it has always been. Shows your ignorance in your assumptions.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Another example of being punished for being against same-sex behavior.

There is no reason the course she was taking should have required her to practice counseling with queers.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/christian-student-expelled-over-her-views-on-homosexuality-loses-lawsuit-against-ga-university/

Jim said...

Are you trying to equate living by one's faith as equal to living by one's base desires?

Uh, no. Nor am I trying to equate apples to tse-tse flies.

The context was that sexual orientation should not be protected because it was a choice. I countered that if "choice" was a disqualification for protected class status, then Catholics should also be disqualified because they choose to practice their faith.

It only means that one can legally refer to it as such.

Bingo! That settles that argument. Thank you.

Ha! I REALLY love this one:

And regardless of whether or not a given society allowed multiple wives, it was always the union of one man and one woman, then, the union of that same man and one other woman, but still one man/one woman.

Oh man!

Homosexuals themselves speak of their sexual practices as a lifestyle...that is factual.

Links?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Jim,

You are again being intentionally stupid.

Choices in philosophy and choices in behavior are two different things. And no one is protected due to their “orientation,” because if that is all it was no one would no a person’s orientation. No, what they are protecting is the behavior, because everything they want sanctioned is based on behavior.

Behaviors are what we control, what we discriminate. After all, we wouldn't want society to approve of murder, theft, rape and riot - and those are also chosen behaviors. Not all behaviors are worthy of protecting.

Jim said...

People don’t have to believe in God to do things for HIS glory

If they are doing things FOR His glory, then they must believe in Him.

You’ve not refuted any position of ours

Maybe not, but I have shown how silly they are.

By being there it would demonstrate my tacit approval

No it wouldn't. Nobody cares if you approve or not. Being there would demonstrate that you are a (I assume) competent human who takes pictures or human who plays music. You don't have to approve tacitly or explicitly. If you like, you can demonstrate your disdain before your customers and guests and then see what kind of referrals you get from them.

So are you then saying I have no right to choose who I want to give my personal approval to?

No approval is required. If you own a motel, you don't have to approve of interracial couples, but you do have to rent rooms to them.

Federally, sexual orientation was not protected before [President Obama].

Guess he was catching up with the states.

I like the word “queer” because it means “strange, odd.”

Then it could be applied to you as well.

Jim said...

You are again being intentionally stupid.

Another nonsensical statement. Fits right into the thread.

And no one is protected due to their “orientation,” because if that is all it was no one would no [sic] a person’s orientation.

Sure they would, if a person declared themselves to be gay.

No, what they are protecting is the behavior, because everything they want sanctioned is based on behavior.

No, it's based on their commitment to a person of the same sex. What they do in private is of no consequence.

After all, we wouldn't want society to approve of murder, theft, rape and riot - and those are also chosen behaviors.

That's because the government has a public interest in prosecuting and punishing these behaviors. The government has no demonstrated public interest in discriminating against gays.

Marshall Art said...

Here is one incredibly idiotic piece of nonsense:

"You’ve not refuted any position of ours."

"Maybe not, but I have shown how silly they are."

Absolutely not the case at all. You HAVE shown, however, how silly YOU are by demonstrating how low you'll stoop in trying to defend bad behavior. You take things out of context, conflate what is unrelated with that which is relevant and never take any steps to provide any counter evidence or substantive argument in support of your position or to contradict ours.

Here's more idiocy:

"overturn the Church and thousands of years of understanding."

"Church? As far as the state is concerned, marriage is a civil contract."

Note how I stated Church AND thousands of years of understanding. Here's a helpful hint: If you're going to take something out of context, you do yourself no service by presenting the entire context. What's more, Jim, you are willing to pounce on anything Obama says as fact and truth and worthy of attention, but this same president speaks of respecting the faiths of Americans, particularly muslims, but shows no desire by his positions of respecting the Judeo-Christian traditions upon which this country has relied in so many ways. Not surprising of lefties to talk out of both sides of their mouths, but to do so in such an obvious manner is telling.

"If you met him, how could you tell that he was "set apart" from normal people?"

My personal knowledge of the orientation of another has nothing to do with whether or not that orientation sets him apart from normal people. This is a very stupid question. You continually prove an inability of understand plain English, whether in reference to a particular word's definition or its usage. Here's another clear example:

"Alleged? You are the judge of whether or not another person loves?"

The word "alleged" signifies a decided lack of judgement on my part. I have no way to prove whether or not ANYONE is truly in love or just saying so. I have no way of knowing with certainty whether or not a person can distinguish between love, lust or infatuation. Thus, to speak of their "alleged" love for each other is appropriate especially considering their arguments suggest love is not as important as cultural recognition and state provided benefits.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

You know, I have wasted too much time with the fool Jim. He is unteachable, makes things up out of whole cloth, thinks he has the moral high ground, can't understand logical discussions and is intentionally being stupid.

Good luck, Marshall.

Marshall Art said...

"Thirdly, the state confers unto real marriages that which it does not confer on single people, either.'

"Uh, that's because they are married."

Uh, the point here that you deceitfully evade or lack wisdom to see is that the state sees a benefit from legitimate traditional marriages that other lifestyles to not provide. Single people are merely another example of such lifestyles so lacking. Single people, regardless of their aspirations or conscious decision to do so, are committed to their single status. Some for life. This is not a commitment the state finds worthy of special considerations as it lacks unique benefits to the state that would provoke such. Neither do weak imitations of marriage such as SSM or polygamy.

"show how those reasons are present in same sex unions."

"Every one of them is present."

Really? "Their" children are the result of their sexual behavior? Their unions provide the best environment for children as all reputable professionals have concluded? Their unions tie the adults to the children their sexual behavior produced? You're an idiot.

"what exists between my wife and I is not based on any state sanctioning at all."

"Your Social Security survivor's benefits and IRS tax rates are."

Irrelevant to the point I made. Try paying attention. More accurately, try being honest.

Gotta go. I'm sure Jim will add more inanity that he thinks makes US look silly. The irony!

Marshall Art said...

Jim,

I deleted your last comment for it's peculiar Parkie-like quality of offering nothing in support of what you think was a refutation of the partial and mostly out-of-context excerpts of comments you highlighted. I probably should have done that for most, if not all of your comments, but I needed the entertainment of seeing just what stupidity you'll come up with next.

I will say that your every comment HAS been a tacit support for homosexual behavior and without a doubt, support for the Agenda That Does Not Exist. You seem to think that saying otherwise overrides the implications of your Parkie-like commentary. It doesn't. It just gives credence to the charge that you are dishonest and/or stupid.

Jim said...

Clearly the comment scored a mortal blow to your argument. Personally, I think the Brady Bunch analogy simply short-circuited what was left of your mental wiring because there was just no possible way for you to come up with a counter argument for it.

Deleting that comment was such a chicken s**t thing to do.

I win!

Marshall Art said...

I did not, however, delete your nonsensical comment from my email in-box. Thus, I can re-read it and just wonder that you think you've actually scored points. I am aware of the premise of the Brady Bunch TV show and it's not surprising you would look to bad television to validate your baseless assertions. Keep in mind again, I am not missing the fact that you take points out of context and act as if they stand alone as an argument for the overall position. Childish at best.

The fact is that as with all normal marriages where adopted or step children are involved, they are still granted the benefit of being raised by a mother AND a father which is best for their development. Thus, your attempt to pretend the Brady Bunch example does any damage at all to the cause of defending the logic and righteousness of traditional marriage fails as do all of your other weak attempts. Try again.

Jim said...

they are still granted the benefit of being raised by a mother AND a father which is best for their development.

Sometimes the "best" is not available. In that case, one parent is better than two?

In fact, my Brady Bunch example expressly refuted what you suggested a traditional marriage offered that a "non-traditional" one didn't when you wrote:

Really? "Their" children are the result of their sexual behavior? ... Their unions tie the adults to the children their sexual behavior produced?

And if you didn't like The Brady Bunch how about Yours, Mine, and Ours?