The topic of today’s Agenda Lies installment is the notion that declassification of homosexual behavior as a mental illness or disorder was a result of any scientific research or study. Here we have a former president of the APA saying exactly what I’ve stated in other posts and comments, which is that homosexuality was declassified as a mental disorder in 1973 in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders as the result of activism. What’s more, Dr. Nicholas Cummings supports the Agenda That Doesn’t Exist, but is honest enough to tell the truth.
(This also points to a common misconception regarding which side of the political divide rejects science in order to maintain a position. Once again we see it is the left that does this, not the right.)
Pressure from the homosexual activists is essential in overriding the logic, morality and science that supports the positions of their opponents. What else is left to them but to be obnoxious? As stated many times, if there was sound science upon which to rely, that science would be at the forefront of every debate related to the Agenda’s advancement. But we’re not graced with any such evidence from science. What passes for scientific evidence is the APA’s support. I guess because psychology and psychiatry are sciences, then it is enough for an association of those scientific practitioners to merely state that something is so for it to be regarded as scientific evidence. At least it’s enough for the supporters of the Agenda (and lefties in general) who would prefer no one look too deeply into an issue they support.
On a side note, there is a list of links to related articles at the bottom of the article to which I’ve linked above. One of them carried this:
“Statewide campaigns to deny same-sex couples legal access to civil marriage are a significant source of stress to the lesbian, gay, and bisexual residents of those states,” states the APA, which bills itself as “a strong advocate for full equal rights for LGBT people.”
Really? Do homosexuals often sit about anguishing over this issue to the point of being significantly stressed? There are laws in my state that deny me access to a few things, such as the right to carry a weapon to protect myself. Such denial has never been particularly stressful for me. What’s wrong with those people that they are so easily stressed? I thought they were no different than the rest of us.
Marshal Art's 
"Sure it is. Because they WOULD be real marriages."Nonsense. Even if the whole world deceives itself that SSM would be as real marriages, it would not be so. But worse, you seem to think that merely saying it is so would make it so. How childish and typical of the activist/enabler point of view."No one has to accept anybody's sexual behavior."Still you deny what is already going on in this country and worse in others that have given in to the corruption. People have been forced to accept the sexual behavior of homosexuals or suffer consequences from lawsuits to harassment and job losses. Must be that unique blend of yours again."They aren't forced to learn any such thing. Nobody tells children about ANY sexual behavior. They only learn that not all families are the same."More deceitful denial, as I have provided sources to prove it. And they don't just tell little kids that not all families are the same, but that they are all equally families. You're a liar."What worked? Pre-marital sex exists. Extra-marital sex exists. Get over it."It's not merely that it exists, you jackass, but that it became more accepted and tolerated in the manner that homosexuality is now. The results have been the over 50 million abortions since that became a "right", the spread of various STDs and to younger people, the amount of divorce, abuse and suicides all because of a loosened cultural attitude about human sexuality. Further straying from traditional notions of sexual morality will not make things better. But then, as a lib, you people often think doing the wrong thing more and bigger will make it eventually all work out. Typical stupidity."What "ills" of "the homosexual lifestyle"?"Incredibly stupid and purposely deceitful question which has been exhaustively answered in this and many other blogs and honest sources. To pretend they don't exist shows an incredibly perverse sense of concern for those pathetic people."What a bunch of horse shit. The gays I know are of outstanding character."Only if they are like the Mormon fellow highlighted in the link I provided above. Otherwise, if they are engaging in homosexual behavior, they are absolutely NOT of outstanding character. It would be like saying that the adulterers you know are of outstanding character, or the sluts you know are of outstanding character. What the hell do they teach you in your church, anyway? Anything Christian? "it DOES matter what our Bible says if we are Christians.Of course. If you are considering the lifestyle for yourself."Not of course. It matters in what you support as well. If you are supporting a behavior God regards as an abomination to Him, you might as well be living the lifestyle yourself. You should find a REAL Christian church. Or maybe you go there to take a nap. In either case, your understanding is incredibly unChristian."There is at least one other choice. Not being involved in or obsessed by someone else's life style."No one's suggested that you do, so that is irrelevant.
"Supporting it? I don't support it. I don't care about it. It may not be sinful, anyway. They could be atheists for all I know."Gee…lie or stupidity? So hard to tell. Of course you support it. Your every comment meant to discredit mine or Glenn's or anyone else who has posted in support of real marriage is proof of your support. I have no doubt that if two candidates were identical in every way but for their position on this issue, you'd vote for the one that supports the Agenda That Doesn't Exist. "I don't know of anybody forcing any abomination on anybody."It isn't a matter of who YOU know personally. But you're a liar if you pretend you don't know that the activists are trying to force their position on the nation."Because gays don't do anything "biologically" that heterosexuals don't also do."It's not what they do, but with whom they want to do it you lying asshole. THAT'S what determines their dysfunction and you damned well know that was my point. "Frankly I couldn't care less about what the APA says. Remember, I said it doesn't matter."You're lying again, or, you don't seem to think it matters if lunatics are given equal treatment as sane people. OR, you don't care because you know that the APA has no science behind their decision to reclassify the dysfunction as normal. Or, you're a bigger idiot than anyone's ever given you credit for being that you would speak of fairness regarding a behavior on which you have no solid basis for even taking a position. Yeah. That's likely it."I don't need you to validate my "claims"."I couldn't as I have no basis for doing so. But note that I mentioned that YOUR positions don't validate your claims of being a Christian. They refute those claims as your position is in opposition to Christian teaching.
Jim, No, it isn’t “real marriage,” because that requires opposite-sex couples.We are indeed being forced to accept the behavior. If I don’t want to photograph a queer wedding, I get fined. If I don’t want to make cookies for a queer event, I get fined. If I don’t want to sanction in any way homosexual behavior, I get fined. Also people have been forced to take indoctrination classes, have lost there jobs, have lost thousands of dollars in lawsuits, etc, for nothing more than refusing to sanction homosexual behavior. And you have the audacity to say it isn’t being force on us?!Children are taught in school about homosexuality and that it is normal. So, you want to place restrictions on who can be “married” and yet you arbitrarily say no such restrictions should be placed if it is two queers.The rest of your post is more repetition of the lies and self-denial of homosexualists and not worth responding to again.
But worse, you seem to think that merely saying it is so would make it so.It would be a real marriage because the state recognizes it as a real marriage and grants the couple every legal right that all married couples have. It doesn't matter at all what you think it is or whether it's real to you. You are not granting the legal rights of married couples. accept the sexual behavior of homosexualsNobody has to accept anybody's sexual behavior. You are so utterly hung up on what people do in private. You have no idea. For all you know they could just be spooning and leaving it at that. I'm sure that there are a lot of heterosexual married couples who engage in intercourse other than in the missionary position and that this is anathema to you. They aren't asking for your acceptance either. The issue isn't about sexual behavior. It's about legal rights. that they are all equally familiesWhich of course is absolutely true.You're a liar.And your an asshole. Nyah Nyah Nyah. for those pathetic people.I've had a total change of heart. I'm going to tell all my gay friends and associates how pathetic they are.What the hell do they teach you in your church, anyway?Well, they certainly don't tell me to refer to people as "pathetic" or "perverted". They tell me to love my neighbor, to do unto others as I would have them do unto me, and to judge not lest I be judged. You know, all that hippie/commie stuff. It matters in what you support as well.I support equal rights for gay couples. That's it. I frankly don't give a damn about what they do behind closed doors. Unlike you, I don't think about it.activists are trying to force their position on the nation.As I see it, it is YOU who is trying to force your position on the nation.THAT'S what determines their dysfunctionWhat dysfunction? you don't seem to think it matters if lunatics are given equal treatment as sane people.Oh THESE people are lunatics and the YOU are supposedly sane? It is to laugh. the APA has no science behind their decision to reclassify the dysfunction as normal. What science did they have to reach the original classification? If I don’t want to photograph a queer wedding, I get fined. If I don’t want to make cookies for a queer event, I get fined. If I don’t want to sanction in any way homosexual behavior, I get fined.Sounds like you should stop attending those Lions Club lunches, Glenn. Who else is requiring you to pay all these fines?So, you want to place restrictions on who can be “married” and yet you arbitrarily say no such restrictions should be placed if it is two queers.Uh, no. Nothing arbitrary at all. Same restrictions apply. As far as "queers" go, what restrictions were placed on your marriage?
Jim,Why can't you engage like an honest person, sort of as if you were indeed the church going man you claim to be?If the state decides that you are a horse, would you have to accept that you are indeed a horse? Words have meanings and "marriage" is a word that has always meant something specific, amongst which is the union of one man and one woman. This is a fact that is clear to honest people everywhere. Take a cue from such people."Nobody has to accept anybody's sexual behavior."Again you speak falsely, both in making that false statement and suggesting we're talking about being hung up on what two people do in private. The fact is, that honest people have given up on that long ago, if what people ever did in private sexually was a concern in the first place. This issue has ONLY been about the push for legitimacy of an illegitimate union, something honest people understand is both sinful, based on the teachings of the religions of people of faith, and a mental dysfunction based on the plain and obvious fact that human beings come in two genders biologically designed to be compatible and complimentary to each other. YOU think we're concerned with HOW they engage in sexual relations, when the proof of their sinfulness and mental dysfunction is manifested in with WHOM they have those relations. Honest people who are also rational don't base policy and legislation on mental dysfunction presented as normal, particularly when doing so provides no discernible benefits to society. Honest people who are also rational do not conflate rights with wants, particularly the wants of people who need counseling. Honest and rational people do not pretend black is white when doing so means they must also pretend that green is orange as we will have to pretend that polygamists and the incestuous are equal to real marital unions as well.What's more, marriage is not a "right" as much as religious expression is, or freedom of association is, or the freedom to express one's opinion is. All these are threatened by the granting the imagined "right" that homosexuals pretend they are being denied. This is the acceptance that will be forced upon honest and rational people as we have explained to you with real stories where refusal to live and do business on the terms of the homosexual has pushed those REAL rights to the side."I've had a total change of heart. I'm going to tell all my gay friends and associates how pathetic they are."Proving my conclusion that you are a liar. "They tell me to love my neighbor, to do unto others as I would have them do unto me, and to judge not lest I be judged."Someday, perhaps, they'll tell you what that stuff means. You clearly don't know yet if you think it means enabling bad behavior & NOT calling evil by its name.
"I support equal rights for gay couples. That's it. I frankly don't give a damn about what they do behind closed doors. Unlike you, I don't think about it."And you dare call ME an asshole. Not only do you lie, but you continue to say the same lies after having been corrected many times. First, they already have equal rights. Second, and here's why you're an asshole, we aren't talking at all about what they do in private. It's what they are demanding from the rest of society we oppose. "As I see it, it is YOU who is trying to force your position on the nation."The nation, in the range of at least 60% of it, still wishes to maintain the true definition of marriage. YOU, being an asshole, pretend it this segment of society that is in the wrong. It would be like saying that we're forcing our position on the nation if 2% of the population wished to return to a monarchy and we opposed THAT. "What dysfunction?"Again you're being a lying asshole as this has been explained many, many times. Though it's becoming more clear that you suffer from a dysfunction of your own."Oh THESE people are lunatics and the YOU are supposedly sane?"The only response to this is that like an asshole, you've taken this out of context as if to make a point that you couldn't support if I held a gun to your head."What science did they have to reach the original classification?"Now I'm leaning back toward you being just really, really stupid, though it is too obvious to be true, so I must stick with the lying asshole assessment. What science is required to classify any mental dysfunction as such, Jimmy? For example, did they have to spend decades in the lab to know that someone who, say, is too afraid to leave the house has a problem? Or perhaps years of study was required to know that a bus driver who thinks he's Napoleon Bonaparte might be a bit off?"Uh, no. Nothing arbitrary at all. Same restrictions apply."But that's just it, fool. On what basis can you restrict ANY arrangement of people from demanding the same "right" to marry? At this point, these people think gender doesn't matter. But it does. Grant this "right", and then the next group will insist that blood relation doesn't matter. Who are you to deny them? And of course, if gender doesn't matter, then why numbers of people? But the fact is that right now, ALL these scenarios can exist and if they were truly serious about being so "in love" that they are willing to commit their lives, what do they care if the state recognizes them or not? When will THAT question get answered, anyway? I don't know about you, but I was already committed to my wife before we got the license and said "I do" before witnesses. We said "I do" when we proposed to live together AS man and wife before we got the license to legally BE man and wife. But we were at that point man and wife. We were married right then and there because we made the commitment. But from the point of our legal marriage, the whole country and most of the world recognizes our marriage because we ARE married and our union IS a marriage. Even homos recognize it because it IS a marriage. It IS a marriage because our union fits the real definition of "marriage". Two of the same gender will NEVER fit that definition. The definition must change in order to make it work. Change it once for them and you MUST change it for every other group of people who demand it, because they can ONLY demand it using the exact same argument the homos are using. If you think that's just fine, then you definitely suffer from some mental dysfunction.
So at this point, Jim, we're through here. Unless you can come up with some rationale for redefining "marriage" to satisfy this particular and extremely small group of people (because you certainly can't seem to come up with a reason why our arguments are irrational), then I don't see the point of carrying on with you.
Civil rights legislation was designed to protect individuals from being discriminated against on the basis of race, gender or religion but not lifestyle. The idea that people should be equal under the law does not necessitate a belief that all lifestyles are equal under the law. For instance, promiscuity is not equivalent to fidelity. Pornography is not equivalent to a real relationship with love. Fornication is not as equally desirable as chastity. Furthermore, marriage is not an inherent right to consenting adults in all types of relationships. Our government, for the good of society, correctly prohibits marriage in a variety of circumstances including incestuous couples, bisexual threesomes and polygamous heterosexual relationships. …it can be seen that the homosexual agenda is truly about legitimizing a lifestyle and not obtaining insurance and social security benefits. … Incidentally, it is interesting to remember that these same benefits that homosexuals claim they are denied are also denied to heterosexual single adults. The reason is simple. By definition, they are not qualified to receive them.Keith Gibson, Apologetics Resource Center, Kansas City Office. March/April 2004 ARC Newsletter.
Sounds like you should stop attending those Lions Club lunches, Glenn. Who else is requiring you to pay all these fines? You are such a liar. I cited factual examples and these people have indeed paid fines, paid “damages” in lawsuits and were forced to attend indoctrination classes. I have a whole file of cases where people have been financially harmed for not wanting to give sanction to homosexuality.
OOOOPPPPPSSSS, I just discovered my wife's blog was the one signed in on, so those comments by "The Piper's Wife" are actually by me.
I cited factual examples and these people have indeed paid finesYou didn't cite. You claimed. Without some kind of proof, I simply don't believe you, one liar to another.Lifestyle? What is all this about "lifestyle"? My closest gay friend lives in a house, owns a sailboat, works 40 hours or more a week, is on Facebook, likes to travel and cook, drives an Audi, and watches The View. What part of this lifestyle sets him apart from others? Oh, I know. He seldom wears socks with his loafers. How gay is that?More later. I'm in Vegas practicing debauchery. I won't be staying in Vegas. The debauchery is up for debate.
And once again, Jim enters with another example of his dishonesty. Homosexuals themselves speak of their sexual practices as a lifestyle (at least those who have left it do). Deceitfully, Jim likes to speak of things that have nothing to do with the issue at hand and pretend he has made a point that refutes the honest and truthful one. But to state it plainly again for his own edification, when he engages in sexual behavior with another of his own gender, it is THAT which sets him apart from normal people. Jim dishonestly likes to point to those normal things that abnormal people do to insist that they really are normal as well. Honest people are speaking only of the abnormal being put forth as normal.
lol.. another classic thread..
Links for the photographer incidenthttp://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/court-says-gay-rights-trump-religious-rights.htmlhttp://claytonecramer.blogspot.com/2012/06/elaine-photography-punished-for-failure.htmlAnd the following doesn’t include the very numerous examples from Europe.Generalhttp://carm.org/homosexual-persecution-of-christianshttp://www.overruledmovie.com/Job loss/shut down of services (including temporary loss)http://www.wnd.com/2010/12/236913/http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/canadian-court-rejects-legislation-allowing-marriage-commissioners-to-opt-ohttp://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2005/dec/05121302 shows the set-uphttp://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009/12/09/christian-man-fired-after-gay-rights-group-contacts-his-employer-to-complain/http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=1343950http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=1344772http://townhall.com/columnists/mikeadams/2011/06/16/the_cisco_kid/page/full/http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/top-sports-anchor-fired-over-beliefs-on-marriage-this-can-happen-to-youhttp://www.lifesitenews.com/news/new-york-clerk-resigns-over-gay-marriage-gov-cuomo-responds-the-law-is-thehttp://www.lifesitenews.com/news/florida-high-school-removes-teacher-for-criticizing-gay-marriage-on-faceboohttp://townhall.com/columnists/mikeadams/2011/08/29/bank_of_gay_america/page/full/http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/gay-activists-get-lifesitenews-translator-and-pro-family-activist-julio-sevhttp://www.onenewsnow.com/Education/Default.aspx?id=1471258http://blog.speakupmovement.org/university/freedom-of-speech/university-of-illinois-reinstates-dr-kenneth-howell/http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/get-in-line-or-resign-admiral-tells-military-chaplainFines/lawsuits and other judgments/school suspension – final or pendinghttp://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2005/nov/05113006http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/bed-and-breakfast-owners-fined-for-turning-away-gay-couplehttp://www.ruthblog.org/2011/03/08/homosexual-couple-files-complaint-against-dallas-morning-news/http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/vermont-inn-sued-by-aclu-after-refusing-lesbian-wedding-receptionhttp://www.lifesitenews.com/news/homosexual-couple-prepares-to-sue-two-illinois-bed-and-breakfastshttp://www.theblaze.com/stories/high-school-school-punishes-student-for-saying-homosexuality-is-wrong/http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/lesbian-couple-mulls-action-against-christian-wedding-cake-bakerhttp://www.kentucky.com/2012/03/26/2127245/hands-on-originals-t-shirt-company.htmlhttp://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/atty-says-school-threatened-punished-boy-who-opposed-gay-adoption.htmlhttp://www.volokh.com/2012/02/07/government-employer-free-to-fire-human-resources-officials-who-publicly-criticize-the-propriety-of-gay-rights-laws/http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/lesbians-sue-to-force-catholic-hospital-to-provide-same-sex-benefits-underm These should be enough to prove the point that people are being punished for nothing more than opposing or speaking out against same-sex behavior and/or fake marriage.
For a perfect example of the intolerance of the homosexualists, take a gander here:http://www.dennyburk.com/doug-wilson-takes-on-gay-activists-in-qa/
Thanks, Park! Isn't though?
Well, thanks for all these citations, Glenn. Clearly you've spent a lot of time on this subject.I didn't read them all but I did read a number of them. I noticed a common thread. In the case of the photography, the Knights of Columbus and similar situations, these businesses were providing a "public accommodation", and by doing so were subject to the laws of discrimination against protected classes. Sorry you don't like it that sexual orientation is a protected class, but it is. As it should be.As far as the Dr. Turek case, although I think that's going a bit overboard, I would be interested to hear from the person who complained what it was that the doctor said on his own time.For instance, if he found that Dr. Turek wrote on a blog or something similar, like this one, that gays are perverts, homos, queers, dysfunctional, despicable, pedophiles, etc., I would say he's perfectly justified in getting the guy fired.Homosexuals themselves speak of their sexual practices as a lifestyleGot a link for that?
Homosexuality should NOT be given special protection because it is a chosen sexual behavior. People who are just "oriented" but not practicing the behavior are not the problem. It is the sexually active ones who demand their sexual behavior and lifestyle be protect by anti-discrimination laws against all moral objections.There is no logical basis for giving homosexuality special protection. By do so you cannot logically deny anti-discrimination laws for other sexual behaviors, or any behavior for that matter. Behaviors are always chosen.
Homosexuality should NOT be given special protection because it is a chosen sexual behavior.So therefore, Catholicism should also NOT be given special protection because it is a chosen religious behavior. Homosexuals themselves speak of their sexual practices as a lifestyle (at least those who have left it do).Why on earth would we take these very rare people as authorities on the subject? Very likely they use that terminology because their gay healers have convinced them that being gay IS a lifestyle and therefore can be changed. when he engages in sexual behavior with another of his own gender, it is THAT which sets him apart from normal people.Sets him apart how? He works in the same office, drives his car on the same roads, shops at the same supermarket, watches the same TV shows, and walks on two legs. Is it the no socks thing? Because when I'm around him, that's the only thing I can think of that sets him apart from "normal" people.what do they care if the state recognizes them or not? When will THAT question get answered, anyway?Seriously? [Forehead slap here] States and the federal government grant legally married couples rights and privileges that non-legally married couples don't have. That is why. If it were simply a ceremony, this would all be moot.We were married right then and there because we made the commitment.I'm pretty sure your state and the Social Security Administration didn't think so.If the commitment is all that matters to you, if THAT is the real marriage to you, then why are you fighting the legality of the government-recognized piece of paper that is a marriage license. It makes no sense to so vehemently deny those folks the piece of paper that is apparently only an after thought for you.the whole country and most of the world recognizes our marriage because we ARE marriedNo. Your marriage is recognized because you have a license. Two of the same gender will NEVER fit that definition.That information is no longer up to date. Several states and a number of countries do say that couples who have a license and have completed a ceremony actually DO fit the definition of being married.The definition must change in order to make it work.Actually, I think it is the recent spate of anti=same sex laws that are "changing" the definition of marriage.I'd be interested in reading the actual state legislation existing 20 years ago that explicitly said that only a man and a woman could obtain a marriage license. I'm willing to bet that this was never an issue until some same sex couple decided they were going to try to get a license and were denied because the county clerk decided since he'd never given a license to a couple of queers before, he certainly wasn't going to start now. I'm guessing THAT's when people started saying we better change the definition of marriage on our books to mean the union of one man and one woman.Otherwise, why are states now passing laws and amendments saying that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. If that was already the definition, why the need to vote on it?So I say, just who is it that's trying to change the definition of marriage?
Well, Jim. Your desperation is apparent as is your lack of a coherent argument to refute our position or support whatever it is your think you're supporting. Very Parkie-like, but much more "wordy". As for THAT troll, he stops by to prove once again he has nothing to say. I'm convinced that he has no idea why he disagrees with us, is entirely incapable of providing ANY substantive comment, lacks any courage to attempt to do so, and is clearly one who takes a position based on which way the wind is blowing as far as he can feel it. If all the world began to think shoving kittens down their pants was the way to go, he'd make the same stupid comments to those who opposed THAT school of thought, without ever knowing why.This is who Jim thanks and with whom he agrees. Different events indeed.
Thanks to Glenn for all the links. I am sorry to say that Jim (and his pet monkey, Parkie) are too much the reprobates for any of that to have any positive effect. But thanks nonetheless for the effort and good intentions.
Let's look at some of Jim's stupidity and save the rest for tomorrow."In the case of the photography, the Knights of Columbus and similar situations, these businesses were providing a "public accommodation", and by doing so were subject to the laws of discrimination against protected classes."And as stated, this imagined "right" now trumps ACTUAL enumerated rights in the US Constitution, such as freedom of religion, freedom of speech and freedom of association. And what's worse is that the litigants in these cases are almost ALWAYS able to get what they want from other business owners who aren't religious or religious enough to stand firmly against sexual immorality. The case of the photographer, for example, was not merely a case of not wanting to do business with lesbians, but a case of being forced to participate in a celebration of their immoral union. This is a direct violation of the rights of the photographer, but real enumerated Constitutionally protected rights are forced to take a back seat to this imaginary "right" to have people treat abnormal people and their sexual desires as equal to normal people. What's more, Obama's politically motivated pandering to 2% of the population for their votes by signing into law special protections for these sad people was a scam action. It was added to a much needed military spending bill that provided income guarantees for the very people who put their lives on the line to safeguard actual rights of Americans. This is the type of snake-like tactics constantly employed by Democrats in general, and this lobby in particular to get their way: Make legislators choose between a real need and an incredibly unnecessary one, complete with bullshit rhetoric that states a lie put forth as honorable and honest intentions. Typical and losers like Jim use it to pretend special protected status for these unfortunate individuals is a good thing."As far as the Dr. Turek case, although I think that's going a bit overboard, I would be interested to hear from the person who complained what it was that the doctor said on his own time.""OVERBOARD"?? It's reprehensible and absolutely unAmerican to do what the employer did to Turek over some bullshit notion of "diversity" and "equality". Google his name, jerkwad, and you'll see what he says about sexual immorality. Then try to make the case that there was anything logical, ethical or righteous in his dismissal. OR, try to defend the asinine notion that it is OUR side that is trying to force anything upon anyone. "For instance, if he found that Dr. Turek wrote on a blog or something similar, like this one, that gays are perverts, homos, queers, dysfunctional, despicable, pedophiles, etc., I would say he's perfectly justified in getting the guy fired."That's because you're an idiot. A clinical one like your buddy, Parkie. You both suffer from your own mental dysfunction. Trying to justify someone's firing due to the proper use of any of those terms is requires you to make a case. For instance, you decry the use of the word "pathetic" in relation to the condition of homosexuals. You are obviously unaware of the meaning of the term, or, like libs are wont to do, are choosing to redefine the word or insisting on only one usage of the word ANY TIME it is used in order to demonize your opposition. This is the type of dishonesty that makes dealing with lefties on important issues problematic. More later…
Jim, you are a complete ass.Religion is NOT a behavior – it is a philosophy. Your ignorance – or intentional stupidity – is astounding.As noted to you before, if the state calls something a marriage, that doesn’t make it true. Same-sex unions will never be marriage. The state can call a dog’s tail a leg, but it will never be a leg. Calling a dandelion a rose doesn’t change its status as a week.The reason why no one had to pass an amendment to define marriage in the past was because everyone KNEW what the definition of marriage is. But when people try to change the definition, laws have to be made to stop the insanity.
Indeed, Glenn. "Ass" must be the term that best exemplifies Jim as a debater at least. He is unafraid to say the most stupid and/or dishonest things in order to fail to refute our position. Case in point:"Homosexuals themselves speak of their sexual practices as a lifestyle (at least those who have left it do).""Why on earth would we take these very rare people as authorities on the subject?"Note how my main point was that homosexuals speak of their practices as a lifestyle. Then in parentheses I suggest "at least" those who have left the lifestyle do. Jim then pounces on this and pretends it means that ONLY those who left the lifestyle refer to their way of living as a lifestyle. Worse, he thinks it matters that the numbers of those people is very small. So apparently, percentages only matter when the opinion expressed is a percentage JIM decides is too small. 2-3% is huge enough for Jim to overturn the Church and thousands of years of understanding. This mentally challenged thinking is then followed by this:"…when he engages in sexual behavior with another of his own gender, it is THAT which sets him apart from normal people.""Sets him apart how?"The "how" is in the statement Jim questions. Normal people are attracted to and engage in sexual activity with members of the OPPOSITE sex. It is normal because that is what nature calls for. Same sex attraction is abnormal because it is counter to the reason there are two genders in the first place. An obvious problem never addressed by those who wish to pretend that homosexual attraction is normal. But for Jim, the knowledge of his co-worker's "orientation" isn't blatant enough for Jim to understand what sets the co-worker apart from normal people."what do they care if the state recognizes them or not? When will THAT question get answered, anyway?""Seriously? [Forehead slap here] States and the federal government grant legally married couples rights and privileges that non-legally married couples don't have."First, I doubt you slapped yourself with the force your stupidity deserves. Secondly, your response suggests that their alleged love for each other is not main thing but that they are seeking monetary gain and/or forcing the state to recognize their unions as normal and equal to real marriages. Thirdly, the state confers unto real marriages that which it does not confer on single people, either. The reasons for this have been explained ad nauseum and your side, you and Parkie least of all, have ever presented reasons (based on anything tangible) to show how those reasons are present in same sex unions."We were married right then and there because we made the commitment.""I'm pretty sure your state and the Social Security Administration didn't think so."The point, as Jim well knows but pretends otherwise, is that what exists between my wife and I is not based on any state sanctioning at all, but on the commitment we made to each other, the vows we could have taken (and pretty much did) without a legal representative of the gov't to presiding.
"If the commitment is all that matters to you, if THAT is the real marriage to you, then why are you fighting the legality of the government-recognized piece of paper that is a marriage license."Because, lamebrain, as has been repeated and supported by actual facts for so long now, the state has a vested interest in promoting traditional marriage because if its unique nature and what doing so does for society that is not replicated by all the many alternative arrangements such as SSM and all those other groups of people waiting in the wings to use the same arguments that must allow their demands as well.Now I know you will likely want to try that old canard about people who can't, won't or no longer can produce children. But the state isn't required to fine tune every law in order to suit every possibility. In each of those situations, the possibility still exists for children to be a part and enjoy the benefits of having both a father and a mother as each child has a right to have. THAT right, is far more significant and of importance to society in general than the demands of a small group of people whose "orientation" is both a mental dysfunction as well as likely to result in sinful behavior. "Two of the same gender will NEVER fit that definition.""That information is no longer up to date."That info is ignored without basis in favor of forcing the (im)morality of one tiny segment of society upon the majority. This, BTW, flies in the face of liberal protests against the alleged attempts of the conservative Christians over forcing morality upon society. The truth is obvious. The left will do all it can to disrupt all true notions of virtue and morality to suit its own selfish ends. Here is the biggest lie of all:"So I say, just who is it that's trying to change the definition of marriage?"As Glenn said so accurately, marriage needed no codified definition because it was not an issue what the word meant UNTIL homosexuals and leftist enablers lacking moral understanding (or the desire to adhere to any) decided that human sexuality was not a moral issue. Little Jimmy thinks he is being clever by calling me a sex nazi because I uphold traditional notions of morality and encourage others to do so as well, while never once suggesting any legislation to prevent sexual deviants, anarchists and those obsessed with sexual gratification from pleasuring themselves either alone or with any number of consenting "adults". This is not the case with the true fascists, the left, who are forcing their immorality upon the the nation.
Here is a good article about the definition of marriage:http://www.mikeleake.net/2012/06/marriage-defined.html
From Glenn's article on the "definition" of marriage:Marriage is a binding covenant created by God between one man and one woman for our holiness, for our joy, as a picture of the gospel to spread the glory of God.So marriage only applies to believers? When couple goes to city hall to get a license, the clerk asks them if they believe in God? Is that how it works?refute our positionActually I'm refuting your so-called "positions" left and right. And quite handily, I might add.a case of being forced to participate in a celebration of their immoral union.It wasn't the photographer's job to pass judgement on the celebration, it was his job to take pictures of it.Obama's politically motivated pandering to 2% of the population for their votes by signing into law special protections for these sad people was a scam action.I'm pretty sure that sexual orientation was a protected class years before Obama had anything to do with it.Make legislators choose between a real need and an incredibly unnecessary one,Like this has never happened in the entire history of legislation in the US.unfortunate individualsI just sent an email to my friend to inform him that he is an "unfortunate individual".I can't find much of anything about what Dr. Turek says, only how he was fired. A link would help.Trying to justify someone's firing due to the proper use of any of those terms is requires you to make a case.There you go (I think it was you) with the old "proper use" canard again. Do you know of any medical text or reputable medical journal which would use the terms despicable, pathetic, queer or homo, much less consider describing homosexuals with those words.Religion is NOT a behavior – it is a philosophy.I'd say it's both. You don't see atheists praying or Buddhists genuflecting, do you?Faith or behavior, it's still a choice.if the state calls something a marriage, that doesn’t make it true.Actually, yes it does. When it comes to taxes, Social Security, survivor benefits, and medical decisions and much more, what the state calls marriage does, in fact, make it true.everyone KNEW what the definition of marriage is.Everyone knew what THEIR definition of marriage was. Some apparently defined it differently from others. The state didn't say one way or the other. So people felt compelled to change it to make it fit THEIR definition.Then in parentheses I suggestThat, I would suggest, is a very important qualification of your statement.overturn the Church and thousands of years of understanding.Church? As far as the state is concerned, marriage is a civil contract. It doesn't care if your ceremony includes taking communion or stomping on a glass, or even if a cleric is involved. Therefore, what the church says is irrelevant, freedom of religion and all that.But for Jim, the knowledge of his co-worker's "orientation" isn't blatant enough for Jim to understand what sets the co-worker apart from normal people.If you met him, how could you tell that he was "set apart" from normal people? Except for the no socks thing.Am I supposed to proactively set him apart from the others on my floor because I happen to know he is gay? If he can vote, drive a car, buy a home, and shop at the supermarket like everyone else, how would he be set apart?their alleged love Alleged? You are the judge of whether or not another person loves?
Thirdly, the state confers unto real marriages that which it does not confer on single people, either.Uh, that's because they are married. And that's why gays who are couples want to be able to have the same things conferred to them when they are no longer single.show how those reasons are present in same sex unions.Every one of them is present. They can provide a stable household, they can own a home together, they can raise their children, send them to school and college, and have a dog.what exists between my wife and I is not based on any state sanctioning at all.Your Social Security survivor's benefits and IRS tax rates are.state has a vested interest in promoting traditional marriageFine. Why does that mean that only "traditional marriages" should be allowed? Is there a quota for the number of marriage licenses states can issue and the feds can recognize?But the state isn't required to fine tune every law in order to suit every possibility.Fine tuning is what YOU want. Including people is the opposite of "fine tuning".the benefits of having both a father and a mother as each child has a right to have.So if a mother dies in childbirth, what happens? Divorce? No can do because that deprives a child of a right? I know the Declaration says that all men have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but I missed the part about the right to a mommy and a daddy. Likewise, the Constitution has free speech and religion, free guns, and few other things, but which amendment has the daddy and the mommy?THAT right, is far more significant and of importance to society in general than the demands of a small group of peopleWhat does one have to do with the other? Nothing. A gay couple with a marriage license in now way denies a child of your mythical right.forcing the (im)morality of one tiny segment of society upon the majority.I've never heard of anyone forcing you to be immoral. Is someone forcing you to be immoral? If so, are you not strong enough to resist?
I haven't gotten to any of Glenn's links or articles, but this is another example of Jim's inability to engage honestly:"So marriage only applies to believers?"I don't even think it's necessary for me to read the article to know with absolute certainty that no such notion was put forth or even hinted. This makes the following line more laughable than it would normally be:"Actually I'm refuting your so-called "positions" left and right. And quite handily, I might add."Not even close. The above example, for instance, shows only the lengths you'll go to try to make a point that rational people wouldn't make by reading the article. It's not even a good straw man, but Jim will go with it anyway believing, as if he was Parkie, that he's on to something. Glenn can correct me if I'm wrong, or if I get the chance to read the article, I might find cause to correct myself, but I'm quite sure the idea was to simply provide an example of a definition that matches that which has been commonly understood for eons. "It wasn't the photographer's job to pass judgement on the celebration, it was his job to take pictures of it."Her job is not for you to define. Where do you find the right to dictate to a photographer what jobs she is required to take? What law exists that does this? Her reasons are reasons of conscience that no one has the right to override, and as a private enterprise is fully within her rights to refuse. That you would support any law that would do such a thing shows clearly that you support the activists forcing their immorality on society. She could have lied and said she was already booked. What that suit you better than risking offending these mentally dysfunctional souls who apparently cannot handle rejection, because they're oh so sensitive and offended that another human being objects to their lifestyle? Who the hell are you or they to demand that anyone lives on YOUR terms?"I'm pretty sure that sexual orientation was a protected class years before Obama had anything to do with it."My last minuter research said otherwise. If you have a link to something that contradicts what I've said, bring it on and I'll look at it to see how you've misinterpreted it."Like this has never happened in the entire history of legislation in the US."All too often. I'm not surprised you fall back on the two wrongs make a right ideology."I just sent an email to my friend to inform him that he is an "unfortunate individual"."Too bad you're too morally corrupt to competently explain how and why. Now he's even more unfortunate than he was before you told him. Way to go."I can't find much of anything about what Dr. Turek says…"Try harder. I've barely time for my own research."There you go (I think it was you) with the old "proper use" canard again."Canard? I don't need any medical text to know that I'm using the words I use properly. What is more accurate to say is that you DON'T understand the proper use. Are homosexuals mentally dysfunctional or disordered? They are according to all those who tried to block the activists who influenced the APA vote to remove the condition from the list. The are according to those in the field who still offer counseling and therapies to help those who are honest enough to know the score. All other words I've been using have also been appropriate and used according to their definitions. But it is typical of the lefty to accuse the user of such properly used words of bad intention, as if they were mere epithets. That's part of the deceit and dishonesty so typical of you and libs in general which makes progress on any issue so difficult.
"Faith or behavior, it's still a choice."What point are you trying to make here? Are you trying to equate living by one's faith as equal to living by one's base desires? Here's two problems with this stupidity: 1) Living by one's faith is counter to one's base desires, even normal heterosexual desires. It is to transcend one's base desires to become something better than what is naturally predisposed to doing. Homosexuals, by engaging in homosexual behavior, do exactly the opposite, just as a hetero does when having out of wedlock or adulterous affairs. 2) You have just equated them as behaviors that are choices, which flies in the face of the activists' claims. As a hetero, assuming you are one, you are not forced by your "orientation" to ever engage in sex at all, much less sex that the religion to which you claim to adhere prohibits. One's "orientation" does not justify anything regarding whether the behavior desired as a result of the orientation should take place or is beneficial for society to tolerate, sanction or accept as normal. "if the state calls something a marriage, that doesn’t make it true.""Actually, yes it does."No. It doesn't. It only means that one can legally refer to it as such. That doesn't mean the arrangement is actually a marriage. As I said earlier, if the state said you were a horse's ass, it wouldn't mean that a veterinarian would agree, even though it would seem obvious to anyone who read your words. And you could certainly have that on your business cards, but again, you wouldn't literally be a horse's ass just because the state passed some kind of law that so stated you are one. The is in regards to what honest people know to be true. The state cannot dictate that."everyone KNEW what the definition of marriage is.""Everyone knew what THEIR definition of marriage was. Some apparently defined it differently from others. "Nonsense. EVERYONE knew that marriage was a union between one man and one woman. EVERYONE. What's more, the state would not license every individual's personal definition, so the state indeed defined what constituted a legal marriage. This had been going on for centuries. It is not a new development. And regardless of whether or not a given society allowed multiple wives, it was always the union of one man and one woman, then, the union of that same man and one other woman, but still one man/one woman. Try to be at least a little bit honest and less Parkie-like. "Then in parentheses I suggest""That, I would suggest, is a very important qualification of your statement."Absolutely not. It is an addendum at best. The bottom line was what came before and that is factual.
Jim, You are being intentionally stupid.People don’t have to believe in God to do things for HIS glory and to represent what HE wants represented. Marriage was designed by God for a purpose, and whether you believe that or not doesn’t alter the fact of it. Truth is truth regardless of belief about it.You’ve not refuted any position of ours – all you have done is demonstrate how abjectly stupid and ignorant you are.The New Mexico photographers had the right to determine whether or not they wanted to participate in the fake wedding ceremony. According to the defense’s legal brief, these Christians also “discriminate” when they “will not take photographs of situations that will promote or depict favorably such practices as unmarried cohabitation, polygamy, polyamory, no-fault divorce or same-sex 'marriage,' regardless of the sexual orientation of the people in the photographs." They also “discriminate” when they refuse to photograph people nude, or subjects which would show abortion or pornography in a good light. But this sort of discrimination is apparently okay with the NM Human Rights Commission since they were never fined for any of these. I hire out to play at weddings but I would turn down a fake wedding – should I then be fined, jailed or otherwise punished? By being there it would demonstrate my tacit approval, which is why I could not morally be there. I have actually been asked to play for a Celtic polygamous “hand-fasting” ceremony and refused. I also refuse to play religious tunes at funerals of non-believers, refuse to play for cult groups (including Masons). So are you then saying I have no right to choose who I want to give my personal approval to?Federally, sexual orientation was not protected before Obamanation. In some cities it has been. However, everywhere sexual “orientation” has been designated a protected class, the only “orientation” protected is homosexuality. Pedophiles, polyamorous, zoophiles, necrophiliacs, etc aren’t protected – proof of the bigoted agenda of the queers.Medical texts will not use words of morality to describe sexual behavior – they make no moral judgments. I like the word “queer” because it means “strange, odd.” Homosexual is an adjective or adverb and yet the homosexualists have taken it to be a noun. But no one is “homosexual,” they are humans who like homosexual behavior or lust homosexually. “gay” means happy, but the queers stole that word and I refuse to let them keep it. Other good words would include perverts, sodomites, sexual degenerates, etc.
But no one is “homosexual,” they are humansI take it then, that you are NOT a musician but a human who sits on a porch and plays a banjo (since your customer base is getting smaller all the time).
Homosexual was never a noun. It describes behavior. Queers are always wanting to change definitions to fit their agenda.I am a musician because I play an musical instrument – and that word has always been a noun.My customer base is as large as it has always been. Shows your ignorance in your assumptions.
Another example of being punished for being against same-sex behavior.There is no reason the course she was taking should have required her to practice counseling with queers.http://www.theblaze.com/stories/christian-student-expelled-over-her-views-on-homosexuality-loses-lawsuit-against-ga-university/
Are you trying to equate living by one's faith as equal to living by one's base desires?Uh, no. Nor am I trying to equate apples to tse-tse flies.The context was that sexual orientation should not be protected because it was a choice. I countered that if "choice" was a disqualification for protected class status, then Catholics should also be disqualified because they choose to practice their faith.It only means that one can legally refer to it as such.Bingo! That settles that argument. Thank you.Ha! I REALLY love this one:And regardless of whether or not a given society allowed multiple wives, it was always the union of one man and one woman, then, the union of that same man and one other woman, but still one man/one woman.Oh man!Homosexuals themselves speak of their sexual practices as a lifestyle…that is factual.Links?
Jim, You are again being intentionally stupid.Choices in philosophy and choices in behavior are two different things. And no one is protected due to their “orientation,” because if that is all it was no one would no a person’s orientation. No, what they are protecting is the behavior, because everything they want sanctioned is based on behavior.Behaviors are what we control, what we discriminate. After all, we wouldn't want society to approve of murder, theft, rape and riot – and those are also chosen behaviors. Not all behaviors are worthy of protecting.
People don’t have to believe in God to do things for HIS gloryIf they are doing things FOR His glory, then they must believe in Him.You’ve not refuted any position of oursMaybe not, but I have shown how silly they are.By being there it would demonstrate my tacit approvalNo it wouldn't. Nobody cares if you approve or not. Being there would demonstrate that you are a (I assume) competent human who takes pictures or human who plays music. You don't have to approve tacitly or explicitly. If you like, you can demonstrate your disdain before your customers and guests and then see what kind of referrals you get from them.So are you then saying I have no right to choose who I want to give my personal approval to?No approval is required. If you own a motel, you don't have to approve of interracial couples, but you do have to rent rooms to them.Federally, sexual orientation was not protected before [President Obama].Guess he was catching up with the states.I like the word “queer” because it means “strange, odd.”Then it could be applied to you as well.
You are again being intentionally stupid.Another nonsensical statement. Fits right into the thread.And no one is protected due to their “orientation,” because if that is all it was no one would no [sic] a person’s orientation.Sure they would, if a person declared themselves to be gay.No, what they are protecting is the behavior, because everything they want sanctioned is based on behavior.No, it's based on their commitment to a person of the same sex. What they do in private is of no consequence.After all, we wouldn't want society to approve of murder, theft, rape and riot – and those are also chosen behaviors.That's because the government has a public interest in prosecuting and punishing these behaviors. The government has no demonstrated public interest in discriminating against gays.
Here is one incredibly idiotic piece of nonsense:"You’ve not refuted any position of ours.""Maybe not, but I have shown how silly they are."Absolutely not the case at all. You HAVE shown, however, how silly YOU are by demonstrating how low you'll stoop in trying to defend bad behavior. You take things out of context, conflate what is unrelated with that which is relevant and never take any steps to provide any counter evidence or substantive argument in support of your position or to contradict ours.Here's more idiocy:"overturn the Church and thousands of years of understanding.""Church? As far as the state is concerned, marriage is a civil contract."Note how I stated Church AND thousands of years of understanding. Here's a helpful hint: If you're going to take something out of context, you do yourself no service by presenting the entire context. What's more, Jim, you are willing to pounce on anything Obama says as fact and truth and worthy of attention, but this same president speaks of respecting the faiths of Americans, particularly muslims, but shows no desire by his positions of respecting the Judeo-Christian traditions upon which this country has relied in so many ways. Not surprising of lefties to talk out of both sides of their mouths, but to do so in such an obvious manner is telling."If you met him, how could you tell that he was "set apart" from normal people?"My personal knowledge of the orientation of another has nothing to do with whether or not that orientation sets him apart from normal people. This is a very stupid question. You continually prove an inability of understand plain English, whether in reference to a particular word's definition or its usage. Here's another clear example:"Alleged? You are the judge of whether or not another person loves?"The word "alleged" signifies a decided lack of judgement on my part. I have no way to prove whether or not ANYONE is truly in love or just saying so. I have no way of knowing with certainty whether or not a person can distinguish between love, lust or infatuation. Thus, to speak of their "alleged" love for each other is appropriate especially considering their arguments suggest love is not as important as cultural recognition and state provided benefits.
You know, I have wasted too much time with the fool Jim. He is unteachable, makes things up out of whole cloth, thinks he has the moral high ground, can't understand logical discussions and is intentionally being stupid.Good luck, Marshall.
"Thirdly, the state confers unto real marriages that which it does not confer on single people, either.'"Uh, that's because they are married."Uh, the point here that you deceitfully evade or lack wisdom to see is that the state sees a benefit from legitimate traditional marriages that other lifestyles to not provide. Single people are merely another example of such lifestyles so lacking. Single people, regardless of their aspirations or conscious decision to do so, are committed to their single status. Some for life. This is not a commitment the state finds worthy of special considerations as it lacks unique benefits to the state that would provoke such. Neither do weak imitations of marriage such as SSM or polygamy."show how those reasons are present in same sex unions.""Every one of them is present."Really? "Their" children are the result of their sexual behavior? Their unions provide the best environment for children as all reputable professionals have concluded? Their unions tie the adults to the children their sexual behavior produced? You're an idiot."what exists between my wife and I is not based on any state sanctioning at all.""Your Social Security survivor's benefits and IRS tax rates are."Irrelevant to the point I made. Try paying attention. More accurately, try being honest.Gotta go. I'm sure Jim will add more inanity that he thinks makes US look silly. The irony!
Jim,I deleted your last comment for it's peculiar Parkie-like quality of offering nothing in support of what you think was a refutation of the partial and mostly out-of-context excerpts of comments you highlighted. I probably should have done that for most, if not all of your comments, but I needed the entertainment of seeing just what stupidity you'll come up with next. I will say that your every comment HAS been a tacit support for homosexual behavior and without a doubt, support for the Agenda That Does Not Exist. You seem to think that saying otherwise overrides the implications of your Parkie-like commentary. It doesn't. It just gives credence to the charge that you are dishonest and/or stupid.
Clearly the comment scored a mortal blow to your argument. Personally, I think the Brady Bunch analogy simply short-circuited what was left of your mental wiring because there was just no possible way for you to come up with a counter argument for it.Deleting that comment was such a chicken s**t thing to do.I win!
I did not, however, delete your nonsensical comment from my email in-box. Thus, I can re-read it and just wonder that you think you've actually scored points. I am aware of the premise of the Brady Bunch TV show and it's not surprising you would look to bad television to validate your baseless assertions. Keep in mind again, I am not missing the fact that you take points out of context and act as if they stand alone as an argument for the overall position. Childish at best.The fact is that as with all normal marriages where adopted or step children are involved, they are still granted the benefit of being raised by a mother AND a father which is best for their development. Thus, your attempt to pretend the Brady Bunch example does any damage at all to the cause of defending the logic and righteousness of traditional marriage fails as do all of your other weak attempts. Try again.
they are still granted the benefit of being raised by a mother AND a father which is best for their development.Sometimes the "best" is not available. In that case, one parent is better than two?In fact, my Brady Bunch example expressly refuted what you suggested a traditional marriage offered that a "non-traditional" one didn't when you wrote:Really? "Their" children are the result of their sexual behavior? … Their unions tie the adults to the children their sexual behavior produced? And if you didn't like The Brady Bunch how about Yours, Mine, and Ours?