Homosexuality

[Autodidact]

Do your homework. Check their last statement on homosexuality and the one before.
Whatever I will provide will be not be respected by you. I am sure you can use google:yes:

Right; you got nothing. thanks.

 

[soleil10]

No, there's no redefinition involved, just enlarging the group of participants. When Black people were allowed to ride on the front of the bus, it did not change the definition of bus-rider. Loving v. Virginia did not change the definition of marriage; it just allowed mixed-race couples to participate. Same-sex marriage allows same-sex couples to participate.

Loving v. Virginia confirmed that marriage was between a man and a woman.
Where have you been ?

Stop equating the difference between color of skin and the fundamental difference between the opposite sexes.
That is so ridiculous

 

[lupus]

Hate speech alert !!! :help:

Is it just me or is this poster getting on everyone's tits? :areyoucra

 

[Autodidact]

Loving v. Vrginoa confirmed that marriage was between a man and a woman.
Where have you been ?

1. Cite?
2. You missed the point. The case enlarged the pool of people who an get married; it did not redefine marriage. In the same way, Varnum v. Brien enlarged the group of people who could participate in marriage in Iowa; it did nothing to redefine marriage.

Stop equating the difference between color of skin and the fundamental difference between the opposite sexes.
That is so ridiculous

So you disagree with every state supreme court that has considered the question. Interesting.

 

[lupus]

Every one "straight" or not "straight" has to dominate their sexual desires, urges, fantasms etc....

Homosexuality is another added issue. To believe that it is your original make up is a mistake. Once you surrender to that belief and act on it , it will be more and more difficult to overcome. You become like a burn CD. It is hard to erase.

The whole universe is based on the duality of male and female. What is more difficult ? to change yourself or to change the laws of the universe ?

You are trying to get some validation through your thread. It is fruitless because your orignal mind and your conscience will always remind you that you are not on the right path. So you will have to become angry to those that do not agree with you but most of whole you will be missing on the true potential of life.

Please do not take the wrong path

You really do not have the slightest clue what you're talking about do you? :no:

 

[AxisMundi]

That is not true but a lie.
I love when I hear peer-reviewed science.
Even the APA has backed off from their past statement.

What I stated IS the latest from the APA. No one has "backed off" of anything.

BTW, have a problem with peer-reviewed science in general? Oo only when it proves your scriptures bupkis?

 

[AxisMundi]

I am very focus. I know when I see a Trojan horse,

The only Trojans introduced into this topic are your own, as well as the strawmen you bring.

You can manipulate statistics all you want to push your agenda. I told you why he # appear lower

Vermont 4.2; Mass 2.5; DC 2.4; Conn 2.3; Iowa 3.1; NH 4.3.
States that recognize ss marriage - NY 3.4; RI 3.2; Maryland 3.4.
The national average is 4.1. Do the math.
Divorce Rate by state. Definition, graph and map.

You are trying to redefine marriage. SS "marriage" is the opposite of marriage. It violates the human rights of children by creating more motherless and fatherless homes. It is not better than divorce or out of wedlock single parenting. It is regression

Marriage has been defined as between one man, several women; one man-one woman of the same race; arranged only; and indeed in several cultures, including the peoples on this continent before Europeans, including people of the same gender.

There is no "definition of marriage" except as that created by a culture/society, and our own "definition of marriage" has evolved in our own Nation's history as well.

Colonial Love and Marriage

BTW, those people you love to hate because they show your bigotry to you, the APA, has found, through clinical rwesearch, that children raised in a household with two parenting figures of the same gender suffer no ill effects.

Sexual Orientation, Parents, & Children

Finally, no one is trying to change YOUR "definition of marriage". Christians will still e able to hold their cerimonies as they see fit, to whom they see fit. But as 1. Religious Doctrine is (supposed) forbidden from being turned into US Law, and 2. marriage is a civil contract that some Americans prefer to enact utilizing a religious wedding cerimony, there simply is no valid,s ecular reason to deny gays Equality of Marriage in a secular setting and/or those churches/religions that see homosexuals for what they are, perfectly normal human beings.

Here we go, the usual lame nonsense hate

Nothing wrong with hating a hater.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Every one "straight" or not "straight" has to dominate their sexual desires, urges, fantasms etc....

Homosexuality is another added issue. To believe that it is your original make up is a mistake. Once you surrender to that belief and act on it , it will be more and more difficult to overcome. You become like a burn CD. It is hard to erase.

Once again showing you have no idea what you're talking about. I had attractions to other men from a young age, rather then attraction to women, so how can you say I think my original makeup is a mistake? Homosexuality is my makeup obviously. If I'm not attracted to women sexually what does that tell you?

 

[AxisMundi]

Every one "straight" or not "straight" has to dominate their sexual desires, urges, fantasms etc....

Homosexuality is another added issue. To believe that it is your original make up is a mistake. Once you surrender to that belief and act on it , it will be more and more difficult to overcome. You become like a burn CD. It is hard to erase.

Lets see. to take the word of an ancient book that claims there is enough water on this flat, six thousand year old earth to compeltely inundate the surface, or peer reviewed sciences and clinical research.

http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/sorientation.pdf

Guess I'll just have to choose door number two.

The whole universe is based on the duality of male and female. What is more difficult ? to change yourself or to change the laws of the universe ?

Feel free to substantiate THAT one. The universe could care less about duality, male/female, or the human race.

You are trying to get some validation through your thread. It is fruitless because your orignal mind and your conscience will always remind you that you are not on the right path. So you will have to become angry to those that do not agree with you but most of whole you will be missing on the true potential of life.

Please do not take the wrong path

Hornswaggle, I think best sums up the above.

 

[AxisMundi]

Do your homework. Check their last statement on homosexuality and the one before.
Whatever I will provide will be not be respected by you. I am sure you can use google:yes:

1898 - The APA is born.

1953 - The APA begings sending out questionaires asking its mebmership to merely lsit what their patients see them about, and the frequency of patients in that catagory. As gays have been oppressed and persecuted in this Nation sicne day one, they of course show up often.

Homosexuality makes it into the DSM as a result.

1973 - Thanks to the APA taking up modern clinical research methods, homsoexuality is removed from the DSM as it is seen now for what it is, a perfectly naural, if uncommon, occurance among human beings.

Homosexuality is removed from the DSM.

So, mind showing us where this "recent flip-flop" from the APA occured?

 

[soleil10]

1. Cite?
2. You missed the point. The case enlarged the pool of people who an get married; it did not redefine marriage. In the same way, Varnum v. Brien enlarged the group of people who could participate in marriage in Iowa; it did nothing to redefine marriage.
So you disagree with every state supreme court that has considered the question. Interesting.

Of course it redefines marriage. ss "marriage" is an oxymoron. Every time people vote on it, they reject it.
Activist courts and judicial fiat are not impressive.

Even the supreme court of California had to surrender to the will of the people.
:faint:

 

[Rainbow Mage]

SS marriage isn't an oxymoron when you consider that in this country marriage is a secular institution of the state. It might be an oxymoron in your limited, dogmatic religious view, which I agree, all homosexuals should leave Christianity immediately. Why would they want to be in a religion that hates them so?

 

[AxisMundi]

Loving v. Vrginoa confirmed that marriage was between a man and a woman.
Where have you been ?

Stop equating the difference between color of skin and the fundamental difference between the opposite sexes.
That is so ridiculous

Loving v Virginia established that marriage was a Civil Right, not that it was between a man and woman, as the ruling was to determine if an inter-racial couple could get married or not.

And the fight for Equality can certainly be compared to racial Civil Rights as well, as both race and sexuality are an inherent, unchangable aspect of an individual.

Even the reprehensible "ex-gay" ministries proves this...
http://www.truthwinsout.org/history-of-the-ex-gay-ministries/

 

[soleil10]

1898 - The APA is born.

1953 - The APA begings sending out questionaires asking its mebmership to merely lsit what their patients see them about, and the frequency of patients in that catagory. As gays have been oppressed and persecuted in this Nation sicne day one, they of course show up often.
Homosexuality makes it into the DSM as a result.
1973 - Thanks to the APA taking up modern clinical research methods, homsoexuality is removed from the DSM as it is seen now for what it is, a perfectly naural, if uncommon, occurance among human beings.
Homosexuality is removed from the DSM.
So, mind showing us where this "recent flip-flop" from the APA occured?

Why are you stopping in 1973. That is over 35 years ago. Keep going ..

They finally had to admit in a politically correct document that they could not find a gene. That is part of the last one. There is one more before that in the 90s

 

[soleil10]

SS marriage isn't an oxymoron when you consider that in this country marriage is a secular institution of the state. It might be an oxymoron in your limited, dogmatic religious view, which I agree, all homosexuals should leave Christianity immediately. Why would they want to be in a religion that hates them so?

When nothing else work, attack religion and use the "hate" argument . Why not use common sense ?

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Why are you stopping in 1973. That is over 35 years ago. Keep going ..

They finally had to admit in a politically correct document that they could not find a gene. That is part of the last one. There is one more before that in the 90s

They couldn't find a gene, so what? Who says it has anything to do with genes? It could be to do with anything, like the chromosomes an egg recieves when it is fertilized, the level of testosterone, anything. It doesn't have to be a "gene" to not be a choice.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

When nothing else work, attack religion and use the "hate" argument . Why not use common sense ?

Well if the shoe fits. All I ever see Christianity doing is putting gay people down and trying to limit our rights in politics while the country has much more pressing matters at hand. I said what I meant, all gay people should leave Christianity.

 

[AxisMundi]

Of course it redefines marriage. ss "marriage" is an oxymoron. Every time people vote on it, they reject it.
Activist courts and judicial fiat are not impressive.

Even the supreme court of California had to surrender to the will of the people.
:faint:

Civil Rights shoudl never be opened to the democratic process, as the majority will always seek to keep the minority down.

Six states, listed in a post you have either not seen yet, or have ignored, have drug themselves into the 21st century.

And as this country is a secular Constitutional Repiblic, religious dogma is not permitted to be made into laws, a concept that has been worn away in theopolitical motivations present in this nation since day one.

Prop 8 simply did not have the numbers to pass until religious organizations pumped tens of millions into the "Gathering Storm" propeganda campagin, many of those religious organizations were from out of state as well.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Yes, religious dogmas are not permitted to be made laws, but somehow it happens anyway. The Republican party is the most uncostitutional thing there is

 

[AxisMundi]

Why are you stopping in 1973. That is over 35 years ago. Keep going ..

They finally had to admit in a politically correct document that they could not find a gene. That is part of the last one. There is one more before that in the 90s

Was there a point about your "gay gene", something looked for mainly by intolerant, hateful people looking for a "gay cure"?

I provided a link to the APA statement.

Where are your links?