Sodom, Greece, Rome and homosexuality.

[AlAyeti]

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

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

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

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

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

Is there such a thing anymore as heterosexual rights?

[AlAyeti]

Hermaphrodite IS a definition Lotan.

They have the right to decide what they want to be because of their congenital genital condition.

Thank you for agreeing with me on how I see the unnatuarlness of what homosexuals do with their properly formed genitalia.

You're getting there. Keep studying.

[AlAyeti]

A sociopath cares noting for the feelings of others. Communist atheists fit that definition quite well. That is if the millions and millions and millions and millions of murdered people are any indication.

I just follow the logic brick road.

Empiricism does not lend a good reputation to atheism. And I have yet to meet a Pro-Life Atheist. There clearly appears to be a Part and Parcel lifestyle, that goes along with the Atheist-Freethinker-Progressive-Liberal-yada-yada-yada, crowd. All shouting diversity but all absolutely the same. In fact, legislating homogenization of ideological thought.

Sodomites cared nothing for the feelings of the Angels they demanded to "know." I'm surev the children had it worse in those cities on the plains.

Sociopathic or garden-variety evil?

The similarity to the time-worn label of Sodomite rings just as loud and accurate today as it always has.

They demand to be let in. And now it is every school and every wedding chapel. They have "won" the "rights" to live their lives "in the light of day," but still the demands to be ever "normalized."

And still the children.

[Lotan]

Hermaphrodite IS a definition Lotan.

They have the right to decide what they want to be because of their congenital genital condition.

So God gave them male and female genitalia because he wants them to be bisexual, right?

Genitalia points to sexual orientation.

The anatomy is clearly defined by the Creator.

[micatala]

Sodomites cared nothing for the feelings of the Angels they demanded to "know."

Agreed.

The people insisting on having the angels brought out were more concerned with satisfying their flesh than they were with basic respect for their fellow beings (whether angels or men), and I would certainly hold this as wrong.

Where I don't follow you is equating this attitude and the actions that stem from it with homosexuality. The licentiousness that the men of Sodom were engaging in could have just as easily been focused on women, and it would have been just as wrong.

Homosexuality does not equal licentiousness. Licentious is, according to Webster, "disregarding sexual restraints" or "lacking legal or moral restraints." Having an innate tendency towards attraction to the same sex is not licentiousness. Giving yourself over to satisfying your lusts, whether heterosexual or homosexual, would be licentious (IMV). Doing so at the expense of others who are not participating consentually is more than licentious, it is abusive or worse. Homosexuals who are in consensual monogamous relationships and who respect for their partner are not, IMV, being licentious at all.

It is true that some homosexuals do not feel they have to follow the moral restraints that you think they should. However, this does not mean that they are lacking in moral restraint, only that they have a different moral code than you do.

[Cathar1950]

At first I thought it was just your common every day "Gay Bashing".
As I read I noticed that it was the

Secular world

,

Evolution: (Or, actually deevolution):Secularism, Socialism and Sexualism.

and of course Atheist and Agnostics.
AlAyeti wrote:

My point to this thread is that unchecked licentiousness is a major concern of a rational populace.

Homosexuals demand to be identified solely on their sexual acts. That is disgusting and no one should have to tolerate OR accept that.

That children are the target of the homosexualization of society is hardly debatable. Just look at what is happening in our schools....

There was a reason that the family was attacked by unchecked divorce embraced by the morally unsound. And now their unchecked children are reaching a new level of debauchery.

It doesn't exist in the hedonistic self-centered sexual world of perversion that is the homosexual lifestyle. If a parent doesn't have grounds to ultimately FEAR these people that promote unchecked sexualism, then, I don't know what will get a parent motivated to protect their children.

This is the history of unchecked sexual licentiousness. It can be seen in the socieites that died because of it....
The target is easy to see. Because the history of the same-sex sexualization game has always been the children. Now they are just blatant about it.

(bold italics added for effect by me)
Notice the words that keep popping out. I am trying to decide if AlAyeti is homophobic, sexually predjudice, or sexually repressed. I will get to that later.
MagusYanam wrote:

Age of consent varies from state to state. In most states, including New York and most New England states, is 18, which is the adult age for most other concerns including voting and full drivers' licensing (but not for drinking). Sex with someone younger than 18 is statutory rape in most liberal states - a crime punishable by up to life imprisonment.
Now think Alabama, which has an age of consent of something like 15 - and is a Republican state.

In "Biblical Times" it was 13. Usually a woman was married by the time she was 15. It seems to have been biological, today we have the luxury of waiting and some times the law helps.

AlAyeti wrote:

I should have included Noah's days about the behavior rising to the level of commonplace and acceptance in this thread topic. I'm sure that is why the homosexual agenda uses the rainbow for its diversity call. Kind of waving God's promise of destruction of the evil people embrace constantly, in His face as it were.

So that is why they use the rainbow. Why did they leave our indigo?
Those tricky gays or GLBTs. Then there is "The Rainbow Coalalition", What are they thinking?

...It seems quite clear that practioners of Athesim are either sociopaths, psychopaths or sychophants

.
Jesus! That sounds a lot like some Christians. Usually the dogmatic authoritarian type.
trencacloscas wrote:

I have nothing to do with pederasty (sex with children). I condemn it firmly. Do you know how to read?: 1) SAFE 2)SANE 3)CONSENSUAL 4)HELD BY RESPONSIBLE ADULTS.
Pederasty is a must in religious circles, especially in the history of the church, where sexual repression explodes oftenly in deviant behaviours and priests abused defenseless novices on a regular basis.

I wanted to say that. You said it better anyway. It is worth repeating.
AlAyeti wrote:

Don't think I didn't find it ironic that you went unpolitically correct in your epithet of my name. Are you homophobic?

Now, my point about an evolutionist is empirically accurate. If it doesn't make you feel warm and fuzzy pick a religion and go with it. But evolution and freethinkers/atheists/secularists/blah-blah-blah. . . they all dance to the same beat. And sing it too.

Sodom was a reality too. Proven just one mouse click away, or on any big city USA. Now, not even at dark.

Your fear comes through loud and clear. And of course your hatred.

Your fear comes loud and clear. I question your empiricism and history.
All I have seen so far is crap.

But I judge atheists by the actions of those who believe in it as well. The probability that a billion people have been murdered by atheism is in keeping with observable actions of the atheists in countries that have embraced this ideology and who murder or imprison any who don't.This is the only (bottom) line of the skeptic/atheist/secular/humanist. And it is as old as the first skeptic question asked in the Bible.
"Did God 'really' say?"

I would hope someone is question this. Nothing worse then unchecked ignorance.
McCulloch wrote:

AlAyeti blames Atheism for the crimes of Stalinism and Maoism.
It is a kind of double standard. Any crimes done in the name of christianity are done by false christians and is certainly not caused by any flaw in the ideals of christianity. But atheism, itself, is at fault for all of the crimes done by atheists.

It seems AlAyeti "knows" all the evils of the world. Is this first hand knowledge?
AlAyeti wrote:

Why are America and western countries heading back to Sodom, Greece and Rome? Now that I would like to see an answer for.
The commie-atheist connection is obvious.
Atheism is a mental disorder. Sociopaths care nothing about the suffering of others. In fact cannot. Atheism as you say is the belief in nothing but self-serving innterest. It has no other definition

That they are ruthless and non-caring is well documented. Only, in history, does the pitiless slaughter of others by Muslims come close to the deaths caused by atheism driven doctrine.

The sin of Sodom and Gomorrah as laid out in Ezekiel, is so accurate to the way in which the homosexual agenda goes about its business. Greece and Rome were very much the same. Hedonism and sexual licentiousness first and foremost and damn the consequences.

Total disregard to decency.

Thank you for agreeing with me on how I see the unnatuarlness of what homosexuals do with their properly formed genitalia.

You're getting there. Keep studying.

Where did Lotan agree with you? I see you were being patronizing.
Pretending he is getting where you are is not flattering. I wouldn't take that Lotan. LOL

micatala wrote:

The people insisting on having the angels brought out were more concerned with satisfying their flesh than they were with basic respect for their fellow beings (whether angels or men), and I would certainly hold this as wrong.

Where I don't follow you is equating this attitude and the actions that stem from it with homosexuality. The licentiousness that the men of Sodom were engaging in could have just as easily been focused on women, and it would have been just as wrong.

Amen! I think the following was why they were destroyed. At least according to the story line.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibg.htm

Isaiah 1; The entire first chapter is an utter condemnation of Judah. They are repeatedly compared with Sodom and Gomorra in their evildoing and depravity. Throughout the chapter, the Prophet lists many sins of the people: rebelling against God, lacking in knowledge, deserting the Lord, idolatry, engaging in meaningless religious ritual, being unjust and oppressive to others, being insensitive to the needs of widows and orphans, committing murder, accepting bribes, etc. There is no reference to homosexuality or to any other sexual activities at all.
Jeremiah 23:14:"...among the prophets of Jerusalem I have seen something horrible: They commit adultery and live a lie. They strengthen the hands of evildoers, so that no one turns from his wickedness. They are all like Sodom to me; the people of Jerusalem are like Gomorrah." Jeremiah compares the actions of the prophets with the adultery, lying and evil of the people of Sodom. Homosexual activity is not mentioned.
Ezekeiel 16:49-50:"Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen." God states clearly that he destroyed Sodom's sins because of their pride, their excess of food while the poor and needy suffered; sexual activity is not even mentioned.
Matthew 10:14-15: Jesus implied that the sin of the people of Sodom was to be inhospitable to strangers.
Luke 10:7-16: This is parallel passage to the verses from Matthew.

AlAyeti wrote:

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

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

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

Now I am sure homosexuality is not a mental illness at least not in any
recognized psychiatry. But some want homophobia added to mental illness.
Petition

To add Homophobia to the mental illness list!

http://www.petitiononline.com/mm889501/petition.html

Now some research!
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_fuel1.htm

What fuels homophobia?
The desire to discriminate against gays and lesbians, and thus to reserve special privileges to heterosexuals, appears to have many causes. Some are:

Inability or unwillingness to change the information received during childhood.
Fear of people who are different.
Promotion of homophobia by a religious group.
A heterosexual's natural feeling of repulsion at the thought of engaging in same-sex activity. Realizing that homosexual behavior is unnatural for them, some people generalize this feeling into the belief that homosexuality is wrong for everyone.
Actual homosexual feelings that a person cannot acknowledge or handle.
Low self esteem leading to a need to hate other group(s).

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/h ... _corr.html

Are Some Heterosexuals More Likely To Be Prejudiced Than Others?
Demographic Correlates In contrast to heterosexuals with favorable attitudes toward gay people, those with negative attitudes are more likely to be:
men
older
less well-educated
residing in geographic areas where negative attitudes represent the norm (for example, rural areas or the Midwestern or Southern United States).


Political and Religious Values

In contrast to heterosexuals with favorable attitudes toward gay people, those with negative attitudes are:
more likely to attend religious services frequently
more likely to endorse orthodox religious beliefs, such as the literal truth of the Bible
more likely to be a Republican than a Democrat or Independent
more likely to describe themselves as politically conservative, rather than liberal or moderate.


Personality and Attitudinal Characteristics

In contrast to heterosexuals with favorable attitudes toward gay people, those with negative attitudes:
display higher levels of psychological authoritarianism
are less sexually permissive
are more supportive of traditional gender roles.


Perceptions and Experiences of Gay Men and Lesbians

In contrast to heterosexuals with favorable attitudes toward gay people, those with negative attitudes:
are more likely to believe that a homosexual orientation is freely chosen
are less likely to have had close personal friends or family members who are openly lesbian or gay.

Like other types of prejudice, sexual prejudice has three principal features:

It is an attitude (i.e., an evaluation or judgment).
It is directed at a social group and its members.
It is negative, involving hostility or dislike.

Three different attitude functions have been identified that serve these symbolic purposes.

Attitudes serving a value-expressive function enable heterosexuals to affirm their belief in and adherence to important values that are closely related to their self concepts.

When attitudes serve a social expressive function, expressing the attitude strengthens one's sense of belonging to a particular group and helps an individual to gain acceptance, approval, or love from other people whom she or he considers important (e.g., peers, family, neighbors).

Finally, attitudes serving an ego defensive function lower a person's anxiety resulting from her or his unconscious psychological conflicts, such as those surrounding sexuality or gender.

So some one might want to do some self reflection.
Debate or Diagnosis and interesting possiblity.

[Chimp]

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

In short, yes. Although, you don't have to accept it...anymore than anyone
else accepting your views.

If you don't like a particular curriculum...you have the option to home
school. Is it that children are taught that homosexuality exists that bothers
you?

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

First off...
You do not speak for Christianity.
Secondly, your views will never be respected until you offer the respect
you desire to others. Your views are tolerated, like everyone else's. If you
want respect...show some.

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

You are confusing pedophilia with homosexuality. ...and no they are not
the same thing.

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

What is forcing homosexuality?

[AlAyeti]

Micatala,

Once again an amazing post. The logic is askwed but amazing to document.

Here's your stuff:

Homosexuality does not equal licentiousness. Licentious is, according to Webster, "disregarding sexual restraints" or "lacking legal or moral restraints." Having an innate tendency towards attraction to the same sex is not licentiousness. Giving yourself over to satisfying your lusts, whether heterosexual or homosexual, would be licentious (IMV). Doing so at the expense of others who are not participating consentually is more than licentious, it is abusive or worse. Homosexuals who are in consensual monogamous relationships and who respect for their partner are not, IMV, being licentious at all.

It is true that some homosexuals do not feel they have to follow the moral restraints that you think they should. However, this does not mean that they are lacking in moral restraint, only that they have a different moral code than you do.

/ / /

It seems that you can look at a rose and see a tennis ball.

Webster's definition is another example of how my position is not bigoted or "phobic" or discriminatory, but based on sound reason.

If homosexual acts is not emprical "disregard for sexual restraint," than there is no such thing as science.

[AlAyeti]

It is clear from reading and rereading chimp and cather's posts, that there is indeed a "homosexual agenda" and it is indeed implemented by force.

Somehow, according to Cathar, if you believe that
the rectum and the throat are NOT sexual organs, than you have a mental illness. Yet, homosexuality DOES have a history of being a mental disorder according to Psychiatry. It was legal actions that took homosexuality from the DSM, not science.

Chimp says, "if you don't like it, leave." Not exactly tolerance, or scientific. People like myself could care less about homosexuality, IF, it were taught truthfully. It is deviant sexual behavior proven by science and reason, BUT this is what Chimp wants out of the schools and NOT taught, along with anyone not willing to be forced to accept the homosexual agenda. His words speak for themselves.

The overwhelming incidences of that "Priest sexual-abuse" in the Catholic Church? Pedophilia and homosexual are indeed linked like the throat and the digestive tract, or sperm and ovum. Empiricism guides us in reason. Homosexuality IS an act. That is if observable fact can be, well, observed. . .

Although anatomy, biology and physiology, is violated by homosexuality, those that see the behavior as not natural and ermpirically wrong, are labeled (somehow) as wrong.

There IS an agenda at work.

Lothar, indeed believes that there is "sexual deviance," but refuses to use logic and rational empiricism to prove the facts, somehow, picking and choosing, what is and what isn't sexual deviant behavior.

Pedophiles use the exact same logic.

[Cathar1950]

AlAyeti wrote:

Somehow, according to Cathar, if you believe that
the rectum and the throat are NOT sexual organs, than you have a mental illness. Yet, homosexuality DOES have a history of being a mental disorder according to Psychiatry. It was legal actions that took homosexuality from the DSM, not science.

I don't recall saying anything about using the rectum and throat as sexual organs. Don' be putting things in my mouth. There isn't much history of Psychiatry unless yo mean when they were drilling hole in heads shocking, or spinning people around. Science wouldn't be backing up you position. It is a good thing we have legal recourse so these people are not stigmatized and your fond of doing. Most of the mental illness comes from the secondary consequences such as you distain and unkind words to some one of a different sexual orientation then yourself.
It is not

deviant sexual behavior proven by science and reason

Your words are loaded and biased.

The overwhelming incidences of that "Priest sexual-abuse" in the Catholic Church? Pedophilia and homosexual are indeed linked like the throat and the digestive tract, or sperm and ovum. Empiricism guides us in reason. Homosexuality IS an act. That is if observable fact can be, well, observed. . .

I don't hang out in those places so I am not sure if it is an observable fact.
But the rest is graphically ridicules.

Although anatomy, biology and physiology, is violated by homosexuality, those that see the behavior as not natural and ermpirically wrong, are labeled (somehow) as wrong.

That is an emotionally driven response not science.

Lothar, indeed believes that there is "sexual deviance," but refuses to use logic and rational empiricism to prove the facts, somehow, picking and choosing, what is and what isn't sexual deviant behavior.

Pedophiles use the exact same logic.

How do you know how pedophiles think and the logic they use?

[Lotan]

Lothar, indeed believes that there is "sexual deviance," but refuses to use logic and rational empiricism to prove the facts, somehow, picking and choosing, what is and what isn't sexual deviant behavior.

Pedophiles use the exact same logic.

Are you talking to me? How dare you make that kind of insinuation?

So far your posts to this thread have been sorely lacking in "logic", "rational empiricism", and "facts".

Let's see how well your simplistic "follow your genitals" approach to human sexuality agrees with the facts...

"Biological sex, includes external genitalia, internal reproductive structures, chromosomes, hormone levels, and secondary sex characteristics such as breasts, facial and body hair, and fat distribution. These characteristics are objective in that they can be seen and measured (with appropriate technology). The scale consists not just of two categories (male and female) but is actually a continuum, with most people existing somewhere near one end or the other. The space more in the middle is occupied by intersex people (formerly, hermaphrodites), who have combinations of characteristics typical of males and those typical of females, such as both a testis and an ovary, or XY chromosomes (the usual male pattern) and a vagina, or they may have features that are not completely male or completely female, such as an organ that could be thought of as a small penis or a large clitoris, or an XXY chromosomal pattern."

You didn't do too well on that one, Al. How about the supposed relationship between homosexuality and pedophelia...

"Mental health professionals agree that pedophilia should never be considered normal, because it is truly a disease. None of the things that make homosexuality a normal variation of human sexuality apply to pedophilia."
- Martin Downs, WebMD Medical News
"There is no medical evidence to suggest an association between homosexuality and impaired moral judgment."
- Journal of the American Medical Association - Pediatric Forum, March 2001
"It is ludicrous to identify pedophiles as homosexuals."
- Stan Robson, Chief Deputy, Benton County Sheriffs Department
(In over 14 years of Robson's work with pedophiles, 498 out of 500 offenders identified themselves as heterosexual.)
"The vast majority of offenders are heterosexual men. Male offenders who abuse young boys maintain adult heterosexual relationships. The habitual molester of boys is rarely attracted to adult males."
- Roland Summit, M.D. Head Physician, Community Consultation Service, Harbor UCLA Medical Center.
"The belief that homosexuals are particularly attracted to children is completely unsupported by our data. The child offenders who engaged in adult relationships as well, were heterosexuals. There were no homosexual adult oriented offenders in our samples who turned to children."
- A. Nicholas Groth, Ph.D., Director of the Sex Offender Program, Connecticut Department of Corrections, and Co-Director of the St. Joseph College Institute for the Treatment and Control of Child Sexual Abuse
"The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This is not to argue that homosexual and bisexual men never molest children. But there is no scientific basis for asserting that they are more likely than heterosexual men to do so."
-"Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation" - the U.C. Davis Psychology Dept.

Looks like the only connection exists in your imagination Al.

The bible doesn't say one word about pedophilia, but it does say this...

Numbers 31:15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
31:16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.
31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
31:18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Pedophilia wasn't a crime back then Al, it was a pastime!

It's not flamboyant queers that the children have to fear Al, it's sexually repressed folks. Like Catholic priests, for example. Want some more facts? How about this...

"A disturbing fact continues to surface in sex abuse research. The first best predictor of abuse is alcohol or drug addiction in the father. But the second best predictor is conservative religiosity, accompanied by parental belief in traditional male-female roles. This means that if you want to know which children are most likely to be sexually abused by their father, the second most significant clue is *whether or not the parents belong to a conservative religious group with traditional role beliefs and rigid sexual attitudes." (Brown and Bohn, 1989; Finkelhor, 1986; Fortune, 1983; Goldstein et al, 1973; Van Leeuwen, 1990). From "Sexual Abuse in Christian Homes and Churches", by Carolyn Holderread Heggen, Herald Press, Scotdale, PA, 1993 p. 73

Did you read that Al? "Conservative religious group with traditional role beliefs and rigid sexual attitudes." Who does that remind you of, Al?

It's bad enough that you spread this kind of poisonous hate speech against homosexuals without providing any real objective data to back your claims, but the real crime here is that you do so on the backs of the victims of childhood sexual abuse! You hypocrite! If you really cared about these children you would be more interested in protecting them from real threats than using them as fodder for your anti-homosexual propaganda. You make me sick!