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.
Are you kidding me? Anybody following this thread knows you've ignored the exact quotes I posted. You're a lying troll and everybody knows it. Now you're embarrassing yourself.
If it's inflammatory to defend peoples civil rights then I'll be inflammatory. I guess MLK was inflammatory. I've told you several times. I don't hide my disdain for religion. Abortion rights, gay rights, and contraception are only issues in this country because of religion.
I'm not ignoring anything. You've yet to provide proof about the contradiction of the verses re: homosexuality. Until you do, there's nothing to discuss.
I support all of the rights you list, include gay rights (and marriage). Just go to bed.
It's not flimsy at all. Religious people are voters and have every right to vote how their beliefs direct them to do so. Members of the same sex marrying is not normal in any culture known to man and is purely confined to the 20th century West. Most of the world thinks this is a sick joke.
Super flimsy. What does a religious person's beliefs have to do with how 2 other people live their lives? Are you at all concerned about what people of other religions believe? What if they believe you should die because you don't believe what they believe? As long as they have the majority, it's cool?
The idea that change is bad is ignorant. All sorts of things are new. The world can be a pretty repugnant place... progress is a good thing. What about rights for minorities and women? Is that a sick joke too? Don't you see the inconsistency?
Take a look at what goes on in the middle east. That's this old world you seem to think is better than the USA now. Absolutely repressive conditions for many, and largely because of religious nonsense. But majority rules, so it's cool right? Who cares if they treat women like dogs and do honor killings over idiotic things. That's basically what you are saying, that people don't have to answer for their beliefs, they just have to say "hey that's what my religion says". Super flimsy.
If you were actually interested in science, you would adopt and understand the prevailing science and opinion on the normalcy of homosexuality in humans, and expression of sexuality.
See for reference: American Psychological Association
The (presumably) grown adults on City-Data are multi-generational, interesting case studies in the effect of a failing, underfunded and woefully deficient American education system.
Don't have to go to Princeton to understand the APA did a 180 on homosexuality in 1973 due to political pressure alone.
"The A.P.A. was strongly motivated by the desire to reduce the effects of social oppression. However, one effect of the A.P.A.'s action was to add psychiatric authority to gay activists' insistence that homosexuals as a group are as healthy as heterosexuals. This has discouraged publication of research that suggests there may, in fact, be psychiatric problems associated with homosexuality."
Knowing the APA will cave to even slight pressure, the Occupy Movement has taken aim at the APA and upcoming DSM5.
"There are many reasons why people might join the Occupy the APA Protest May 5th in Philadelphia. One is the prospect of the DSM5 and labeling, generally. Another is opposition to coercive psychiatry. Another is the harm caused by the drugs and psychiatry’s refusal to tell the truth about them. Another is for people in the Occupy Wall Street movement to understand how psychiatry in general, and the American Psychiatric Association in particular, is inventing diseases, etc., to sell ever more drugs, that on the whole are very harmful, with horrendous consequences for society and millions of individuals. The horrendous psychiatric drugging of poor children in this country is a national disgrace and is another reason to protest. There are no doubt more."
How weak is your argument when it hinges on the credibility of an organization known to cave to political pressure from outside groups with highly questionable motives?
Don't have to go to Princeton to understand the APA did a 180 on homosexuality in 1973 due to political pressure alone.
"The A.P.A. was strongly motivated by the desire to reduce the effects of social oppression. However, one effect of the A.P.A.'s action was to add psychiatric authority to gay activists' insistence that homosexuals as a group are as healthy as heterosexuals. This has discouraged publication of research that suggests there may, in fact, be psychiatric problems associated with homosexuality."
LOL @ You. Quoting NARTH! Which has ZERO credibility in ANY academic circles WHATSOEVER.
It only has credibility with armchair psychologists. Of which you are apparently one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
Knowing the APA will cave to even slight pressure, the Occupy Movement has taken aim at the APA and upcoming DSM5.
"There are many reasons why people might join the Occupy the APA Protest May 5th in Philadelphia. One is the prospect of the DSM5 and labeling, generally. Another is opposition to coercive psychiatry. Another is the harm caused by the drugs and psychiatry’s refusal to tell the truth about them. Another is for people in the Occupy Wall Street movement to understand how psychiatry in general, and the American Psychiatric Association in particular, is inventing diseases, etc., to sell ever more drugs, that on the whole are very harmful, with horrendous consequences for society and millions of individuals. The horrendous psychiatric drugging of poor children in this country is a national disgrace and is another reason to protest. There are no doubt more."
How weak is your argument when it hinges on the credibility of an organization known to cave to political pressure from outside groups with highly questionable motives?
The way you people "debate" (a term used loosely, since "projectile vomit of ignorance" is a better way to describe what you and your kind do on this board) is hilarious.
With what evidence or support do you make the conclusion:
"Knowing the APA will cave to even slight pressure..." REALLY? Did you pull that out of your arse? Is there something in the DSM V concerning and describing the pleasure derived from conservatives by pulling BS arguments out of their arse?
Maybe we should write to the APA and figure it out.
But get a clue, momonkey: NO CREDIBLE ACADEMIC INSTITUTION, society of psychiatrists or psychologists in the United States, Canada, or Europe thinks the way you and Narth do. Narth are widely regarding as even quackier than regular quacks, yet you guys lap up their crap like dogs.
That should tell you something. Everyone is out of line though, except for YOU. YOU know the truth.
Lol. Delusions of grandeur... one of the hallmarks of narcissistic personality disorder. Look it up.
LOL @ You. Quoting NARTH! Which has ZERO credibility in ANY academic circles WHATSOEVER.
It only has credibility with armchair psychologists. Of which you are apparently one.
The way you people "debate" (a term used loosely, since "projectile vomit of ignorance" is a better way to describe what you and your kind do on this board) is hilarious.
With what evidence or support do you make the conclusion:
"Knowing the APA will cave to even slight pressure..." REALLY? Did you pull that out of your arse? Is there something in the DSM V concerning and describing the pleasure derived from conservatives by pulling BS arguments out of their arse?
Maybe we should write to the APA and figure it out.
But get a clue, momonkey: NO CREDIBLE ACADEMIC INSTITUTION, society of psychiatrists or psychologists in the United States, Canada, or Europe thinks the way you and Narth do. Narth are widely regarding as even quackier than regular quacks, yet you guys lap up their crap like dogs.
That should tell you something. Everyone is out of line though, except for YOU. YOU know the truth.
Lol. Delusions of grandeur... one of the hallmarks of narcissistic personality disorder. Look it up.
That poster trots out the same old crapola anytime there is a thread like this.
Must have it bookmarked.
You're not a Christian then. Sorry the teachings are clear. I guess you'd be what Muslims call an apostate. As a Christian you should know one can love the sinner and not the sin.
But that is something people like you who claim to be Christians, while calling others non-Christians, stand to learn. Hating the sin is what I take to be, don't engage in something you think is a sin. But you hate gays instead and want to "protect" the society from them and largely be denouncing the protections afforded by the US Constitution which advises against using religion for political playground.
You're not a Christian then. Sorry the teachings are clear. I guess you'd be what Muslims call an apostate. As a Christian you should know one can love the sinner and not the sin. It's a core teaching. Not supporting gay marriage is not hate, it's standing up for your beliefs and drawing the line in the sand in what society will tolerate and what it will not.
True. Approving the sins others goes against the teachings of the Bible.
Rom 1 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
Yes, there are churches who approve homosexuality, but such churches are lost, and leading others away from the truth. The Bible calls such churches "synagogues of Satan" and followers of Jezebel "You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality "
This issue is so simple. Either you think people deserve equal rights, or you don't. Everything else is just rationalization for denying others equal rights. Lots of Christians get this. Bible bangers don't. Pull your head out of the sand and look at the world around you. Not everyone is just like you. Should a bible banger be denied rights because they hold the stories from a book written 2000 years ago above common sense? No. It goes both ways. For a group that sprang from Jesus' love, there sure is a lot of hate going around Christian circles. You really think Jesus would tell you to condemn gays? Really? Just because I rejected the fluff of organized religion, doesn't mean I missed the message. The message is love your neighbor, do unto others. How can so many "Christians" not understand this means everybody, not just people that are just like them?
This is the typical tactic of the Left. Demonize those that disagree with you. So people who oppose Obama's ruinous spending are racists. And people who want to preserve the institution of marriage as being between a man and a woman--which it has been in all societies throughout human history--are haters and bigots. Some societies countenance child brides. Would it be hateful to resist the introduction of that custom in this country? Would it be hateful to resist the introduction of the practice of female genital mutilation, which is common in other countries?
I'm not demonizing anybody, I just don't understand the disconnect in the thinking, and no one can put it together logically. They can't because it doesn't make any sense, logically. Either you think ALL people deserve equal rights, or you don't. "Because my religion says so" is devoid of logic. Please indicate what I said that demonized anyone. I'm just looking, as a rational person, for rational answers. Religion doesn't play nice with rationality. If that's demonizing, then maybe you should look inside for answers to why your religion is putting you in this position, defending something you know is wrong. I know it's hard to realize it, when all your life you've been taught otherwise. But the truth is, they lied to you.
Don't go down the child brides path. Rational people agree that children are too young to consent to a lifelong commitment. You may as well bring up the tired argument "what's next? marrying monkeys?"
What does history have to do with it? Up until the civil war, all societies' were ok with slavery. So is it ok, or not? It was for thousands of years, right? So it must be ok? Use your head, this isn't that hard.
Preserve the institution of marriage? What a joke. Marriage has a level of respect in this country on the par with fast food. I don't know what genital mutilation has to do with this, but people do it in this country too. Ever hear of a clit ring?
Either you think ALL people deserve equal rights, or you don't. So, what do YOU think? And don't let the bible answer for you.
And please don't call me "the left". I don't play that game. I evaluate issues individually on their merits, and then decide, based on logic and common sense. I don't align myself with a side first, and then let them tell me what to think. Not politicians, and not religious leaders either. Some issues I agree with the left, and some with the right. Sometimes, I think they are both wrong. Not surprising that a religious person wouldn't understand that though.
I'm not demonizing anybody, I just don't understand the disconnect in the thinking, and no one can put it together logically. They can't because it doesn't make any sense, logically. Either you think ALL people deserve equal rights, or you don't. "Because my religion says so" is devoid of logic. Please indicate what I said that demonized anyone. I'm just looking, as a rational person, for rational answers. Religion doesn't play nice with rationality. If that's demonizing, then maybe you should look inside for answers to why your religion is putting you in this position, defending something you know is wrong. I know it's hard to realize it, when all your life you've been taught otherwise. But the truth is, they lied to you.
Don't go down the child brides path. Rational people agree that children are too young to consent to a lifelong commitment. You may as well bring up the tired argument "what's next? marrying monkeys?" What does history have to do with it? Up until the civil war, all societies' were ok with slavery. So is it ok, or not? It was for thousands of years, right? So it must be ok? Use your head, this isn't that hard.
Preserve the institution of marriage? What a joke. Marriage has a level of respect in this country on the par with fast food. I don't know what genital mutilation has to do with this, but people do it in this country too. Ever hear of a clit ring?
Either you think ALL people deserve equal rights, or you don't. So, what do YOU think? And don't let the bible answer for you.
And please don't call me "the left". I don't play that game. I evaluate issues individually on their merits, and then decide, based on logic and common sense. I don't align myself with a side first, and then let them tell me what to think. Not politicians, and not religious leaders either. Some issues I agree with the left, and some with the right. Sometimes, I think they are both wrong. Not surprising that a religious person wouldn't understand that though.
Best post on this thread.
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.
