Quote:
Originally Posted by dog8food
What do you feel when you read the thread title?
Just 20 years ago, I could make this statement and there would hardly be a cringe among a crowd.
Today, it is seen as taboo; as if a damning slander suddenly leaped out of the dark ages. Heck, someone might close this very thread.
Why is this? How is it that a societal opinion can change so quickly, and so fiercely?
|
You conservatives are to blame. Period. Most of you supported it through your participation in lies. You all saw money and power like Judas. Even in exorcism the priest is not to agree with the demon. But most of you went along with lies. You all either Saul nor Paul but Judas. You all certainly are no Peter crucified upside down on a cross.
I have crossed feelings on the issue. On one hand I am very happy to see all the LGBTQ people standing up for themselves and asking to be left the "h" alone. Rather than be stoned to death by a bunch of Christians and gangsters that never read the Bible themselves.
Naturally, I don't see homosexuality or anything within the LGBTQ as wrong. I also--naturally--don't see blowing your enemies head off as wrong. I mean... if your enemy is some one that did something like set fire to your car or shot your beloved dog. And I'm a dog lover. I like dog more than people.
I don't--naturally--understand why mastubation is wrong or premarital sex or even adultery. I'm prone to being the worst sinner on earth perhaps. In fact I am quite a sinner. I have had my share of sexual sins.
But
if Jesus is God
then I try to accept what Jesus says is right and wrong.
If-then statements are used in logic to form logical statements. They are often used in science too.
In logic something does not have to exist--like fire breathing dragons that fly and burn down villages--but rather that one's proposition must reasonably follow from their other proposition. The conclusion must make sense based upon the statements they give.
Liberals routinely make no sense by contradicting their propositions. That's one problem with the whole LGBTQ thing. A "Q" is not a "T" and the argumentative support for the "Q's" tends to proclaim in pontifical moral tone that gender is only a social construct and we need to get rid of gender differences. But they turn right around and argue in support of the "T's" that gender is biologically produced, biologically caused. Mind you... it's always stereotypes of gender, such as the feminine gender likes to wear high heels, makeup, females dresses and so on. The male gender likes to work on trucks and watch sports (neither of which I do as a man by the way). And then we get to the female feminist... who can't make up their mind if true females are born biologically caused to like playing with dolls, "doing girly things" or not, because they are militant supporters of the fact children born in male bodies are 100% objectively girls if they prefer those things, yet they turn around and claim all of that gender stuff is socially caused and not biologically caused.
So, what is critical is if my conclusions logically follow from my
if-then statements.
The gay marriage thing--even adultery--I don't see in pure black and white terms. I mean I see it in black and white terms as being sin. But everyone sins and gay people and adulterous people (Bill Clinton perhaps) are not without some virtue. At least some of them. A lesbian woman sticking with her girlfriend of wife as she dies of cancer is a virtue. It is an expression of love. Then you have the married man that emotionally abuses his wife often and one day cuts the throat of their son, killing him, just to cause her agony. So, I prefer to let God judge. I have my own sins to worry about anyways.
I object to other people telling me how I'm supposed to believe. I accept what Christ says not what the LGBTQ or Muslims or Mormons say about marriage and sexual morality.
I don't support gay marriage, I view it as an oxymoron, but I'm not willing to kill people over it either.
Since US laws are used to teach Americans what is right and wrong (ergo, marijuana is outlawed to teach Americans it is wrong--aside from other reasons people conspired to outlaw it), and marriage celebrations come with... well celebrations, my view is that to reconcile the differences if Americans want maximum freedom, then the government should get out of marriage altogether.
Muslim men with money could marry 4 women in the USA, Mormon men with money could marry 15 women in the USA, and LGBTQ clubs could marry a bisexual guy to a gay guy and a transsexual who is also married to a lesbian.
And then Catholics can have their marriages through their own parish churches the way they want.
All the legal (as well as medical) and financial stuff can be worked out through lawyers and civil courts as well. People use these things all the time just when their friends or cousins. I took a math course many years ago and learned about
fair division for example. It's used by lawyers to divvy up items in inheritances when people like siblings can't agree entirely.
I'm not married and I've been asked at the hospital if I want to fill out paperwork giving legal authority to another person to make my medical decisions for me in the event anytime in my life I go into a coma or something. So, the idea that lesbians and gay men can't get have their homosexual lovers make their medical decisions for them if they go into a coma or sonething, unless they gay marriage is allowed, is BS.
You conservatives should never had bought into the lies, promoted those lies, that homosexuality is only and can ever only be
biologically determined by dictatorship commands from the genes. I stated the truth and was willing to be martyred for it. Unlike you all. And I argued homosexual attractions are
not freely willed (occurs to fast neurologically like triggers for an IV drug addict or gambling addict or pedophile or heterosexual) but they are also not genetically determined. That all sexual attractions are environmentally influenced on some level (all require eye sight and other senses like touch) but an erection and desire to fill sexual release
may not be environmentally caused but genetically, biologically caused (no need of eye sight or hearing or smell).
And now that biology as a science is moving into a new revolution, genetic determinism is viewed as flawed, and epigenetics is the new view point of understanding everything biological including homosexuality,
I was right all along.
The prefix "epi" means "above" and "beyond." So, epigenetics means above genes or beyond genes or above and beyond genes alone.
It was common damn sense. Does a gambler die if he stops gambling? No. A meth addict die if she stops smoking meth? No. A adulterer die if they don't leave their wife for a younger woman with a more shapely figure? No.
Likewise, plenty of homosexual men had married women, had sex, got stimulated enough they ejaculsted in the woman, had 1, 2, 4 kids with her but find themselves more attracted to men of certain looks. But stay with their wife if not going to kill them.
Don't mention suicide. Recovering drug addicts have higher rates of suicide than non-drug addicts. Gamblers have a far higher rate of suicide than even recovering drug addicts or using drug addicts. Gay people aren't the only ones with struggles or the only ones that commit suicide from despair and lack of happiness or fear that they might do something they don't want to do (but simultaneously do want to do).
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.
