Two Ministers say Homosexual is ok (Savior, Gospel, beliefs, scriptures)
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.
The homosexual lifestyle that I am talking about is one that is a slave to the desires of the flesh. Dangerous promiscuous behavior is a very common trait. At least the CDC is not afraid to speak the truth about the darkness that exists on this path:
Those are alarming and very sad statistics and antithesis to the media lie that homosexuality is overwhelmingly positive.
I challenge you to pick a straight nightclub out at random and go for a visit this weekend. Stop off at a strip club, wander around a bit and notice how many of these men have wedding rings on. Your hypocrisy is noted. I know you won't go, of course. You'll be here, most likely praising straight people and condemning gay and lesbian people, such as myself (I've never had sex btw.)
When, every single day, one is labeled an abomination, unworthy of Christian fellowship, labeled promiscuous hen you don't know any of us personally, unworthy of familial connection...when we face bullying you can't imagine, when we see others in our community beaten or murdered for no reason other than their orientation or gender identity (at least 16 trans women so far this year), it's going to cause major depression in many of us. Some of those depressed commit suicide.
Paul McHugh, one of the researchers conducting the study, has had an anti-gay, anti-trans bias for years. He's also claimed that transwomen are attracted to themselves, something he calls autogynephilia
He also still 'preaches' the discredited claim by Ray Blanchard that the sexual orientation of male-to-female transsexuals with the presence or absence of autogynephilia (erotic arousal by the thought or image of “himself” as a woman). Blanchard's Autogynephilia Theory suggests that the association between sexual orientation and autogynephilia among male-to-female transsexuals is clinically important and the association is always (or almost always) present. Although the theory has been criticized by clinicians, researchers, and transsexuals themselves.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00918369.2010.486241?src=recsys&
Paul McHugh, one of the researchers conducting the study, has had an anti-gay, anti-trans bias for years. He's also claimed that transwomen are attracted to themselves, something he calls autogynephilia
He also still 'preaches' the discredited claim by Ray Blanchard that the sexual orientation of male-to-female transsexuals with the presence or absence of autogynephilia (erotic arousal by the thought or image of “himself” as a woman). Blanchard's Autogynephilia Theory suggests that the association between sexual orientation and autogynephilia among male-to-female transsexuals is clinically important and the association is always (or almost always) present. Although the theory has been criticized by clinicians, researchers, and transsexuals themselves.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00918369.2010.486241?src=recsys&
expat is the local PR agent for JWs and as such, is used to disseminating erroneous information as if it was...(ahem)...gospel.
Questions about the biological basis of sexual orientation were first raised about a century ago when the British sexual liberators Havelock Ellis and Edward Carpenter argued that laws against same-sex sexual activities should be dropped because people engaging in such activities were biologically different from those with opposite-sex partners: they called such people "inverts". The use of the word "homosexual" as a noun designating a certain kind of person – rather than an adjective referring to specific activities – dates from that period. However, the creation of this new, presumably biological, typology did nothing to reduce prejudice and bigotry.
Sexual orientation, like any other human behavior, is experienced in complex and variable ways, which are undoubtedly influenced by both biological and societal factors. By seeking a definitive basis of such behavior in genetics, we risk oversimplifying our view of behaviors, and ultimately, of our world. And, as amply demonstrated by history, basing civil rights claims on biology is a double-edged sword.
Questions about the biological basis of sexual orientation were first raised about a century ago when the British sexual liberators Havelock Ellis and Edward Carpenter argued that laws against same-sex sexual activities should be dropped because people engaging in such activities were biologically different from those with opposite-sex partners: they called such people "inverts". The use of the word "homosexual" as a noun designating a certain kind of person – rather than an adjective referring to specific activities – dates from that period. However, the creation of this new, presumably biological, typology did nothing to reduce prejudice and bigotry.
Sexual orientation, like any other human behavior, is experienced in complex and variable ways, which are undoubtedly influenced by both biological and societal factors. By seeking a definitive basis of such behavior in genetics, we risk oversimplifying our view of behaviors, and ultimately, of our world. And, as amply demonstrated by history, basing civil rights claims on biology is a double-edged sword.
Where's the proof? Oh yeah, there isn't it. Just a whole lotta assumption. Kinda like with evolution.
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.