Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, let's consider the "real" source of all sources - our Creator. Our Creator, created us "male & female." So, let's have a look in the mirror... or an anatomy book.
A male has a penis, a female has a vagina - & they fit together! They fit so well that in a healthy male & female, there are no health risks from intercourse...
...unlike that of 2 males engaging in anal sex...
Anal intercourse causes
-hemorrhoids,
-anal fissures,
-anorectal trauma,
-retained foreign bodies, and
-creates high risk for anal cancer.
Among male homosexuals engaging in oral-to-anal contact, an extremely high rate of parasitic and other intestinal infections exists.
2 males cannot creatively procreate, nor can 2 females. A natural male-female match is required to naturally create another human being.
So, our Creator was being creative when he/she created males & females... to also be creative!
The penis of my father entered into the vagina of my mother - his sperm joined her egg... & bingo! I was conceived!
This same process happened for everyone naturally conceived - throughout this entire world!
We are all living evidence that our Creator created men & women to join & procreate.
Tell, me, Jaymax, how is this spreading lies??
Since this isn't lying, it implies that anybody denying these facts are.
SuperSoul, it just seems that all you are focusing on here is penises, anuses and vaginas.
Try looking at the hearts, minds, and souls.
I say this gently, not trying to cause a huge disruption or argument here.
Just... I think you are bypassing the essential part of us, and looking at more of the temporal stuff.
hope that makes sense.
peace,
sparrow
Last edited by .sparrow.; 06-08-2011 at 12:38 PM..
No it is not, that is just your bias and willful ignorance speaking. Your book is so grossly flawed in so many aspects, yet you repeatedly ignore the reality and cling to the stone age mentality of the authors of your book.
No, that is not insulting your god, for you god had no input into your book, but was invented by your book.
And you want people to think you have no bias and willful ignorance speaking.
Maybe you felt left out that I didn't include the catagory of people who God classifies as " ... The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, and their ways are vile"
As one of your crowd so lovingly put it .... you just need to learn to shut up.
Are you sure you want to take that stand? Are you referring to ALL scripture? Both OT and NT? It kind of suggests you haven't really read the Bible.
If you practiced some of the laws that were written thousands of years ago, in today's world, you would end up in prison very quickly.
Wanton hatred toward the truth isn't my problem. It's your comments that suggests you haven't really read the truth and take it to heart.
Last edited by twin.spin; 06-08-2011 at 02:03 PM..
Judith Riesman is an anti-gay crusader who has been obsessed with Kinsey for years. She has no qualifications or experience in this field. Her doctorate is in Communications (or "spin" if you like). She has no credibility amongst scientists or medical health professionals. The one report she did on pornography with government funding was so flawed and prejudiced that it was rejected by the government as useless. She is another one who makes a habit of distorting the work of other people. For example, she pushes the malicious myth that homosexuality and child molestation/pedophilia are linked. When in fact, it's the opposite.
Hardly an unbiased source of information about Kinsey.
So have you managed to find any studies (from reputable peer-reviewed sources) to back up your claim that homosexuality is caused by sexual abuse?
Or are you really insisting there aren't any studies supporting your claim because of "lack of funding"?
I gave you a link in another thread to a 2009 study of 908 adults who had been sexually abused as children. It just didn't support your claim. Then again, none of the peer-reviewed, published studies on child sexual abuse support your claim. I wonder why?
Once again, the homosexual crowd is attempting to exalt the infamous pseudo-science of Alfred Kinsey,. It is very interesting that my write-up in post #183 contained 737 words total, and you zeroed in on a single sentence which only mentioned that Judith Reisman had once sued the Institute, but your Reismanophobia is certainly justified, and I hope that the readers of these posts, see how this reveals something about yourself. Judith Reisman was not obsessed with Kinsey. She was a very intelligent woman, raised Catholic. She was simply an individual who had experienced child molestation in her own family when her daughter was molested by a 13 year old. She perceived a notable decline in the morals of American culture and traced a significant portion of that influence to the twisted pseudo-science of Alfred Kinsey, (hero of the homosexuals).
Judith Reisman holds a Phd in Media Communications, has served as consultant to the to U.S. Departments of Justice, Education, and Health and Human Services. She is president of the Institute for Media Education and the author of several books exposing the homosexual deception, or at least, Kinsey's part in it. She has brilliantly, (in my opinion), connected the dots, by explaining how one man's obsession with sex has affected major aspects of our society. You mentioned her name contained in only one sentence, out of 737 words on post #183, so I thought I might expound a little. I don't mind at all.
For the readers, something that 'Jaymax' has been adamant about, is providing 'peer reviewed' findings by credible scientific researchers/psychologists. The irony which is almost laughable is, this hero Alfred Kinsey, was one of the most scrutinized, and unqualified individuals in the history of scientific research. Not simply because of the bias related to his Atheist/Darwinistic views, or his perverted obsession with every form of sex, including pedophilia, but simply because the man's education and experience was not one of a psychological nature. Sexology was basically 'made up'. It's like the term homophobia. Homosexuals seem to be professionals at using this tactic.
Kinsey's own associate Paul Gebhard questioned much of the sampling that was done. At least 2 of the major groups used as subjects were, lets see, how did Gebhard put it, oh yeah, "defective". A researcher who along side Kinsey performed this perverted research, didn't have faith in the results produced. Quote: Gebhard PBS Interview (PBS isn't a right wing religious fringe group, last I checked).
" Here's my opinion of the thing, our lower social level sample, that is the grade school educated, was bad, I'm sorry we even published on it. Our sort of middle high school level, it's an approximation, I wouldn't bet the farm on it, but it's a pretty fair approximation. Our upper middle, our sort of college level sample I'd say is excellent, I don't think it's ever been approached since. I think it's the best sex sample done on that particular level.
"The other sample, the lower social level samples, those are defective, and you shouldn't pay too much attention to them."
Gee Jaymax, your hero is looking a little on the unqualified side to me. His own twisted accomplice just criticized his sampling.
For readers, this hero of the homosexual movement also protected a known child molester, Rex King, who admitted to molesting hundreds of children. Was this an incarcerated individual?? No! But, this didn't seem to bother Kinsey at all. Good ol' Rex was in good hands with the staff of the Kinsey Institute. No need to ruffle feathers over a few hundred molested children. This man was free to molest at will, and reportedly handed over detailed documentation of many accounts, directly to Kinsey. Some might call this, now what's the word, oh yeah, 'evidence', not to mention a misappropriation of funding.
PBS itself isn't blameless in it's attempts to help to mislead society by portraying Kinsey in a positive light, (attempting to stay in the good graces of the gay crowd, no less), in at least one documentary, but they just can't seem to get their hands on the more accurate version which aired in 1998 on the BBS network, known as Secret History, 'Kinsey's Pedophiles'.
The product of religious fringe groups?? Nice try, Jaymax. Judith Reisman was just one of the few in society who had the guts to report about this cartoon character.
Regarding studies, I suppose we're at an even disadvantage. You were to have forwarded studies at one time, establishing conclusively that homosexuality is innate/inborn. What I got was a bunch of theories, one of which actually had the stones to mention Kinsey. One of the pediatric reports you sent, written by an MD, would have been better named 'How to care for your homosexual'.
Anyone, (and I mean anyone), psychologist, Christian, layperson, who does their homework on this individual, will not need Reisman in order to know that this individual was a sexual psychopath, responsible in large part, for the deconstruction of the nuclear family, and the advancement of perversions.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
it just seems that all you are focusing on here is penises, anuses and vaginas.
