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?

[Chimp]

Actually, that is exactly what I would like to see. They certainly believe in things that are challenged by science. Then they would leave Christianity alone, and exist in the light of what they are, the kingdom of the cults. Or, they could repent and follow "you know who."

Seems more like Christianity should leave them alone...most arguments
against gays are based in religion.

[Cathar1950]

I don't think they are
challenged by science.
Science doesn't support your prejudice.
I don't belive that are bothering you except their existence.
They don't sound cultic but you do.
I tend to agree with chimp. Christians should leave them alone.
Guilt and shame can cause a lot of damage if it mentally unhealthy and inappropriate. In this case it is inappropriate.
In this care Guilt and shame is being used for your purposes, control.

[trencacloscas]

Lotan was very accurate defining sex, it is worthy to read it all over again:

"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."

In this curious "anatomy and phisiology" nazi approach, sex consists only in sticking a penis in a vagina. So sad that sex is only that for guys like these, they are missing one of the most rich and spiritual experiences in life. But to try to impose this ridiculous prejudice onto others, that's a whole different thing. They fully deserves for this the scorn they receive from healthy gays and heterosexuals alike.

Sex saved a lot of people from the stupidity of religion, it actually saved me from that calamity. Responsible sex, open-minded sex, sex that reaffirms the joy of life... As Henry Miller once put it, sex is a formidable weapon and that's why priests and bigots are so afraid of it, because when you are in bed enjoying the possibilities of your body and mind your attention certainly don't belong to them.

Christians are taught to hate life, and that's why they hate sex and freedom of choice, both things they have been persecuting since the first occasion they had the power to do it, their goal was always to criminalize all forms of sex and freedom, and their hatred and intolerance are very well documented through history.

Why should we be surprised each time that a Christian shows his hatred and intolerance towards the most pleasant experiences in life?

[micatala]

Christians are taught to hate life,

No, not really. If you refer to the Bible, I think the best reading is to say that Christians are called not to make the 'pleasures of this life' the be all and end all of existence. We are to consider others needs over our own. Obviously, some are better at this than others.

and that's why they hate sex and freedom of choice,

wherever did you get this idea.

both things they have been persecuting since the first occasion they had the power to do it, their goal was always to criminalize all forms of sex and freedom,

Way too over the top. Christians have arguably sought to put greater restrictions on sexual behavior than many other cultures and societies (probably not Islam, though, for example. I'm not sure about some forms of Buddhism), but criminalizing all forms of sex?? That's ridiculous. Try reading the Song of Solomon.

and their hatred and intolerance are very well documented through history.

Again, way too broad a brush. Some Christians have been guilty of hatred and intolerance, granted. So have a lot of other people of other faiths or no faith. People tend to be selfish, to like power, and to think that their opinions are the right ones to have. This is what leads to hatred and intolerance.

[trencacloscas]

and that's why they hate sex and freedom of choice,

wherever did you get this idea.

Check Christian history and your own Fathers of the Church: Augustine, Ambrose, Thomas Aquinas et al, please

[Cathar1950]

trencacloscas wrote:

Check Christian history and your own Fathers of the Church: Augustine, Ambrose, Thomas Aquinas et al, please

You left out Paul. Just because people have hang ups and blame it on flesh
dosn't mean all Are goofy. Augustine dumps the love of his life for God then jumps into the arms of the first prostitute that comes along while his love remains true to her love. He had problems. `
Oh yes the Song of Solomon. Her vagina is like a goblet that he can drink wine from forever. It says navel but they meant vagina. Not that is a use that isn't promoted by pure anatomy. Might be fun too.

[AlAyeti]

Lotan was very accurate defining sex, it is worthy to read it all over again:

"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."

In this curious "anatomy and phisiology" nazi approach, sex consists only in sticking a penis in a vagina. So sad that sex is only that for guys like these, they are missing one of the most rich and spiritual experiences in life. But to try to impose this ridiculous prejudice onto others, that's a whole different thing. They fully deserves for this the scorn they receive from healthy gays and heterosexuals alike.

Sex saved a lot of people from the stupidity of religion, it actually saved me from that calamity. Responsible sex, open-minded sex, sex that reaffirms the joy of life... As Henry Miller once put it, sex is a formidable weapon and that's why priests and bigots are so afraid of it, because when you are in bed enjoying the possibilities of your body and mind your attention certainly don't belong to them.

Christians are taught to hate life, and that's why they hate sex and freedom of choice, both things they have been persecuting since the first occasion they had the power to do it, their goal was always to criminalize all forms of sex and freedom, and their hatred and intolerance are very well documented through history.

Why should we be surprised each time that a Christian shows his hatred and intolerance towards the most pleasant experiences in life?

I'm sorry, I had to post the whole thing. This is an example of unintelligence being held up as a valid position. It is dribble to say the least.

Are not the sexual adventures of "Christians" ubiquitous? Isn't Bill Clinton a "Christian?"

Bigotry is the willful neglect of empirical observations to help change a persons perspective. As you can see, the root of hatred towards Christians is that they point out facts. That makes those that want to live in a sexual deviant world uncomfortable.

Anatomy and physiology and biology and DNA can help deescalate the words "ignorance" and "bigotry" about the sexuality of the human being. And of course sticking a penis into a rectum cannot find any scientific justification unless the person is mentally feeble, or a fumbly lover. In either case, science cannot support wrongdoings with the body's design.

If personal choice behavior is laid aside and science guides the question about what is and what isn't sexual intercourse, then of course the Christian is applauded by science in this case. That is logical.

But those that have a wierd idea of guilt, do not want to be challenged on ANY grounds. The very people that claim they have no god ruling them, have a problem with human perspectives that differ with theirs. How odd.

Where does a non-godian regret come from? Logically it cannot exist. That is why the Sodomites pound down doors of those that dissent!

So why the ire with a Christian perspective. Rome again?

Note in the quoted medical lesson, that unless something "goes wrong" with the developement of the developing embryo, it will be born normal. So then by developement and the empiricism observed there is right and wrong sexuality.

That is a fact.

If a person claims normality and does that which by empiricism is shown to be not correct, then their feelings are their own and not owned by the person pointing out the error.

The body is a fact.

What is done with the body in terms of bodily functions can be judged according to the facts of the design of body parts. Enjoyment in terms of "feelings" in doing something with the body other than that which it was designed for is not the issue. Facts are.

Shydiving is very enjoyable, but can be argued as not being natural and being risky behavior, without the bearers of opposition be labeled as proselytizers or bogots OR Nazi's. How ignorant that would be of the Skydiver.

No need for ignorance to decide opinions.

Just facts.

Lots of things are enjoyable and not physically justifiably. Defecating in ones pants is somewhat a naturally justifibale function but there is harm that can be done to the body when things that should go certain places do not. Bigotry does not decide opinion empiricism does.

[azchurchmouse]

AlAyeti said,

"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?"

The opposite however is true. There are laws being passed in this country at this very minute that make it illegal for you to say anything bad about homosexuality. Even if it conflicts with your religious faith.

If your child happens to be in the California public school system and shows what a teacher terms questionable views on homosexuality, they can be sent to receive appropriate counseling. Assembly Bill 1785, establishes training for teachers to learn how to identify at risk pupils that might have the potential to someday displaying discrimination attitudes.

Take a look at a recent bill before the West Virginia legislature that proposes adding "sexual orientation" to the states student harassment code. The wording however would redefine sexual harassment to include "unwelcome behavior, verbal or written words or symbols directed at an individual because of gender or sexual orientation.

So if a student was in a conversation about homosexuality and they happen to mention they thought it was wrong...........that it was against their beliefs, that would be included in this bill.

If your a Christian who believes what the Bible has to say about homosexual behavior..........your to keep your mouth shut. If you speak up your a potential criminal.

The West Virginia Office of Civil Rights has organized teams of middle and high school students and teachers-three students per grade plus one or two faculty advisors-who are to report harrament, which in their definition includes "homophobic slurs," to law enforcement officers.

Linda Harvey, "West Virginia Attorney General Uses Students as Informants on Homophobic Speech, Federal AGencies, States ABusing Power to Promote Homosexuality," concerned Woman For America, 17 July 2002.

So if two kids have a disagreement that escalates into a close standing argument of sorts, and one kid is a homosexual and one is a Christian who opposed his view on homosexuality.only one is the criminal. Guess who? yea that would be the Christian kid.

Texbooks in Massachusetts are already written to teach children that homosexual marriage is just another option that we should accept, subsidize and celebrate. Impressionable kids who are still forming their beliefs. If you hold to the biblical account of homosexuality, then you better not send your children to public schools, at least in Mass.

Check out this book called Cootie Shots: Theatrical Inoculations Against Bigotry for Children, Parents and Teachers. It's designed for K-second grade. It features a play wedding, where two little girls play dolls and talk about a wedding between two men. Another skit features a girl saying, "The one I love wears a dress."
The title character in a skit promoting cross dressing responds to the question, "Whats with the dress Jack?" with "It shows off my legs."

"Play WEdding," Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network of Colorado-Cootie Shots Companion Guide-Lesson Plans.
http://www.glsenco.org/.

One more...

REad, "Heather has Two Mommies," a childrens book written to engender tolerance of homosexuality.

No longer do we have the right to maintain for ourselves and our children, moral beliefs taught for millennia by the religions to which the majority of the population subscribe.

[trencacloscas]

If personal choice behavior is laid aside and science guides the question about what is and what isn't sexual intercourse, then of course the Christian is applauded by science in this case. That is logical.

This is exactly the point of no return of ignorance. "Personal choice behaviour" cannot be laid aside, and science don't lay it aside. Sex is something you don't do only with anatomy or instinct but also with the mind. Science could not applaude the artificial separation that Christians make of body and spirit. It's all part of the same.

And of course sticking a penis into a rectum cannot find any scientific justification unless the person is mentally feeble, or a fumbly lover.

There is a scientific justification, called "personal choice behaviour". I wonder why are you bashing homosexuals and not the heterosexuals that practice anal sex. That is bigotry, pure and simple.

What is done with the body in terms of bodily functions can be judged according to the facts of the design of body parts.

Well, in this case, if the penis fits in the anus, all your problems are solved.

Speaking about designs... Hands are not designed for caressing, but we use them to caress our children, our parents, our lovers... Should we prevent such violations against Nature too?

Maybe your idea of sex is sticking a penis into a vagina without any other contact. No skin, no kisses, nothing else than a male penis into a female vagina. We may cover ourselves with latex to prevent any other possible friction. We should blindfold ourselves, because eyes are not designed for sex. Everything else except penis and vagina is prohibited and persecuted, and they may burn you at the stake for it like they already did some time ago in the times of the Inquisition.

Lots of things are enjoyable and not physically justifiably. [...]but there is harm that can be done to the body when things that should go certain places do not.

Now you are changing your statement. But, anyway, you never proved that anal sex responsibly held implies any harm at all. You know, I performed anal sex with many women and there was never any harm involved whatsoever. In the end, you are going against "empiricism" with all your affirmations. I guess you don't even know what the word means.

[azchurchmouse]

Nobody is forcing homosexuality.They ask for equal rights.They want to get married,thats all. Its upto the society to give that to them or to refuse it.They are not asking anything bad or illegal.

They want everyone to accept it, to tolerate it. It is rammed down our throats today. We are being silenced because of the homosexual agenda.
If we disagree we are being forced now to be silent or face prosecution.
If we stand up Bible in hand and say that we will stand on what scripture says about homosexuality, we are called hateful things, and we are prosecuted. The Bible is, has and will be in the future deemed a hate book. As I have indicated in many other posts, and given examples, it has already happened in Canada and other places around the world. It will happen here. The homosexual agenda is not just about the right to marry..............no way. That my friend is only the tip of hte iceburg.