Senate passes same-sex marriage bill with bipartisan support

[Cameron143]

A lot of claims but no sources.

woudl you even look at the sources?

Lets find out

the "humiliation of attending a school named for an African American." comes from Michael Haverluck writing at OneNewsNow, June 20, 2018 OneNewsNow was the AFA's news blog

the views on Pocahontas is from Bryan Fisher the executive director of the AFA written on their websight on February 15 2011 "“It’s arresting to think of how different the history of the American settlement and expansion could have been if the other indigenous peoples had followed Pocahontas’ example. She not only recognized the superiority of the God whom the colonists worshipped over the gods of her native people, she recognized the superiority (not the perfection) of their culture and adopted its patterns and language as her own. In other words, she both converted and assimilated. ... Had the other indigenous people followed her example, their assimilation into what became America could have been seamless and bloodless."

(it ignores the fact she was imprisoned and denied food and water until she converted but ... who cares about that?)


only Christians should be allowed to immigrate to America was also from Bryan Fisher April 6 2011 in the AFA newsletter


"they rut like rabbits" also from the AFA newsletter September 6 2011 and agian by Bryan Fisher

“Muslim Americans do not have First Amendment rights,” was stated on Fox News May 8 2015 by Sandy Rios, Director of governmental affairs for the American Family Association


I assume you will ignore all this


they weren't seeking asylum they already had that and they lied to gain entrance to the country.[/QUOTE]
Christians are just as outraged about these things as you are. No one here has defended any of these practices. But neither are we like those people which you seem to be implying.
We recognize that many atrocities have been committed in the name of God. The Lord Jesus Christ was one such example. And history is full of this being the case against many people's. But because someone ascribes their motives to religious fervor and as representative of the will of God doesn't make it so.
If you really want for someone to receive your message, perhaps a more gentle and less accusatory tone would facilitate that.

 

[Scarecrow]

Very misleading since heterosexual men outnumber gay men. If heterosexual men outnumber gay men 11:1 then both groups are equally likely to be pedophiles.

Previous investigations have indicated that the ratio of sex offenders against female children vs. offenders against male children is approximately 2:1, while the ratio of gynephiles to androphiles among the general population is approximately 20:1. The present study investigated whether the etiology of preferred partner sex among pedophiles is related to the etiology of preferred partner sex among males preferring adult partners. Using phallometric test sensitivities to calculate the proportion of true pedophiles among various groups of sex offenders against children, and taking into consideration previously reported mean numbers of victims per offender group, the ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles was calculated to be approximately 11:1. This suggests that the resulting proportion of true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually. This, of course, would not indicate that androphilic males have a greater propensity to offend against children.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1556756/

I find it difficult to be impressed by a study that is older then I am.

Further if you read the study it states that all of the sex offenders studied were in an ongoing heterosexual relationship with a woman. Calling into question if any of the subjects were gay in the first place.

Generally when we say "heterosexual" we mean men attracted to women.

However, the definition of a pedophile is

They are sexually attracted to prepubescent children, and only prepubescent children. Showing no erotic interest in adults, they can only become sexually aroused while fantasizing about or being in the presence of prepubescent children, or both.

So it is absurd to talk of them as either heterosexual or homosexual which is why we have "gays against groomers".

So none of the men in the study you just cited could be classified as a pedophile

 

[Scarecrow]

Statistics say differently. With so much homosexual advocacy in recent times, there has been significant rise in the size of the homosexual community. If homosexuality was merely an innate characteristic, no amount of information would substantially increase the homosexual population. The increase is causal because homosexuality is large influenced by the environment and not innate.
You may say some of the environmental factors are not within the control of an individual, but homosexuality is a learned behavior.

or more likely the number of homosexuals is the same as it always was but more are willing to live openly because they can no longer be arrested and tortured just because they aren't in hiding

 

[Scarecrow]

I'll have to look up sources from earlier studies I've done but I will get back to you.
And no, it's not magic. It's tragic. Especially since a number of the causes bring deep psychological harm to those affected. Many of the causes are related to either absent fathers or domineering fathers. There are too many problems associated with both these conditions, homosexuality is merely one. Other social ills of our day are related to this as well. And as detrimental responses are normalized and even glamorized, they will be unfortunately chosen.

if this were true then there should be a large bubble of homosexual men who were young during WWII and so many of their fathers were absent.

 

[Scarecrow]

I just Googled a nice research paper called "What Caused Homosexuality " by A. People that presents both sides of the argument and the research done and what it means.
Too much to digest at once and the author is critical of the biological studies but it looks pretty good.

its not a research paper its just something from the Family Research Council a known hate group.

 

[Scarecrow]

Christians are just as outraged about these things as you are. No one here has defended any of these practices. But neither are we like those people which you seem to be implying.
We recognize that many atrocities have been committed in the name of God. The Lord Jesus Christ was one such example. And history is full of this being the case against many people's. But because someone ascribes their motives to religious fervor and as representative of the will of God doesn't make it so.
If you really want for someone to receive your message, perhaps a more gentle and less accusatory tone would facilitate that.

you do understand that the American Family Association is a Christian organization withe several hundred thousand members and an annual income form donation in excess of 210 million dollars...right?

and you are aware that the original claim here was that the AFA is being falsely persecuted as a hate group...right?

 

[Gojira]

Sexual orientation is not a behavior or an action. your own orientation requires no action for you to be heterosexual. You didn't have to have any sort of sex or engage in any emotional bonding or romantic behaviors to be heterosexual.

All, and i do mean all of it All of the evidence says that orientation is an inborn and immutable trait, just like race or right/left handedness or eye color or blood type.


and if a baker believes that people of color are condemned by God to be the social and moral inferiors to whites does that give that baker the right to put out a "white's only" sign on his store?

If you are going to go into business providing the public with goods and services then you get to do that for all people, even the ones you don't happen to like. If you can't set aside your prejudices and treat everyone who comes into your business with the same courtesy and respect then you shouldn't be in business.



you mean they refused to provide the same service they were happily providing to everyone else.

why should you have the special right to discriminate?

and the constitution says that everyone is equal in the eyes of the law and no one gets to discriminate against a minority period.


you are free to believe what you wish and dislike anyone you choose but discrimination is something someone does, not who they are or even what they believe. Discrimination is an action and actions have consequences.

you discriminate against people, your justifications for choosing to discriminate don't change discrimination into something good its still discrimination.

This whole conversation comes down to your definition of bigotry. "Discriminating" against a same-sex wedding is not in the same universe as discriminating against an interracial wedding. I know, you think it is, and I do not. I've made my case, you refused to hear it. Moving on.

So, it then comes down to people in power who do not respect 1st amendment rights. The government is supposed to respect a citizen's religious beliefs and allow them to practice them freely -- barring public safety concerns, such as an edict that calls for human sacrifice.

Now, you do not want the Bible to be the law of the land, but you sure have no problem telling a Christian business owner when and where they're permitted to practice their beliefs and where they're not. That's unconstitutional and it's fascistic. It also assumes you to be God, since you apparently can override Him. That wall of separation that Jefferson wrote about in his letter to the Danbury Baptists seems to only block in one direction for the Left -- and you. Funny how that works.

If a business discriminates against me, I'll move on and give my money to another more accommodating. I'm not going to punish them with a lawsuit because my feelings are hurt, and because of some silly, unconstitutional public accommodation mantra. Their "discrimination" and my myriad choices in a capitalistic society is called freedom, something the Left -- and you -- do not respect.

Side note...There are Muslim service-providers out there who will likewise not cater to same-sex weddings. But, no one's suing them. Wonder why. Could it be an anti-christian bigotry? Nah... the secularist is too enlightened for that. Besides, everybody knows you can't discriminate against a Christian, but you can a Muslim. That's called Islamophobia. And as we all know, there's no such word as Christophobia, so therefore you can discriminate against Christian businesses, but that's a legitimate discrimination -- the only one the Left will accept. Not like there's a hateful double-standard or anything here.

So, my dear hay-filled friend, you seem to be blessed with an abundance of free time (any wonder with the nature of your employment) and an inability to hear anything I've said. So, I need to move on.

 

[ZNP]

I find it difficult to be impressed by a study that is older then I am.

Further if you read the study it states that all of the sex offenders studied were in an ongoing heterosexual relationship with a woman. Calling into question if any of the subjects were gay in the first place.


So none of the men in the study you just cited could be classified as a pedophile

Then produce a more credible study, you were the one that made the claim that the heterosexual pedophiles outnumbered the gay ones, did you make that up? If not produce the source.

 

[Dude653]

So your reference to your brother realizing he was gay at 5 was basically just a distraction?

distraction from what?
It was relevant to the question I was asked

 

[ZNP]

distraction from what?
It was relevant to the question I was asked

The question is whether or not people are born gay or if their environment is a factor or even the major factor.

Referring to your brother is anecdotal and you have made that very clear in all discussions on the Covid19 pandemic that anecdotes are not proof for any theory.

So then your brother would be relevant to the discussion if this has led you to study the issue further and you have something that would be considered proof.

 

[Dude653]

The question is whether or not people are born gay or if their environment is a factor or even the major factor.

Referring to your brother is anecdotal and you have made that very clear in all discussions on the Covid19 pandemic that anecdotes are not proof for any theory.

So then your brother would be relevant to the discussion if this has led you to study the issue further and you have something that would be considered proof.

Reading is fundamental that's why I said I don't know for sure but I think it possibly could be... It's not a distraction if it's on the topic of the question I was asked unless you don't know the definition of distraction

 

[ZNP]

Reading is fundamental that's why I said I don't know for sure but I think it possibly could be... It's not a distraction if it's on the topic of the question I was asked unless you don't know the definition of distraction

It isn't evidence. That is a point I thought you understood since you have told us that for the last year whenever we point to a hundred athletes falling down dead or young healthy people.
Could you possibly have forgotten? If so you need to check that out! Massive memory loss on top of your paranoia, that is something a doctor would definitely want to check out.

 

[Dude653]

It isn't evidence. That is a point I thought you understood since you have told us that for the last year whenever we point to a hundred athletes falling down dead or young healthy people.
Could you possibly have forgotten? If so you need to check that out! Massive memory loss on top of your paranoia, that is something a doctor would definitely want to check out.

I haven't forgotten. The numbers still don't support your argument.
Out of the billions of people worldwide who have taken at least one dose of the vaccine only about 3 million have died
No 3 million is a lot of people but that's minuscule compared to billions
But let's not derail the thread. Let's stay on topic

 

[kaylagrl]

Really? all those southern baptists weren't actually Christian? That is amazing.

William Lloyd Garrison moved to Boston in 1828. His profound sense of Christian morality led him to become an advocate for the abolitionist cause, and in 1831, with the support of the black abolitionist community, he founded the anti-slavery newspaper The Liberator. Through the paper, which would become one of the most influential publications of the movement, Garrison propagated his view that "moral suasion" and nonviolence would be effective methods to promote abolition. He was one of the founding members of the American Anti-Slavery Society in 1833.


The daughter of one of the wealthiest slave-owning families in Charleston, South Carolina, Angelina Grimké was deeply religious; she believed slavery was a sin, and that God would punish those who owned and enslaved other human beings. Resolving to leave Charleston and the pollutions of slavery, Angelina moved to Philadelphia in 1829, where she ultimately became actively involved in the abolitionist and women's rights movements, despite the shame it brought her family. Her pedigree among the slaveholding aristocracy was a weapon that few other abolitionists could claim, and it lent credibility to her anti-slavery views and to the movement as a whole.


John Brown was raised by devout Calvinists who believed in treating people of all races fairly. As a child, Brown witnessed the cruel mistreatment of an enslaved boy. From that time onward, he believed fervently that slavery was evil.


As a young woman in Cincinnati, Harriet Beecher Stowe -- daughter of the influential minister, Lyman Beecher -- shared her father's opposition to slavery in principle, but agreed with him that abolitionist activists were "unfashionable" and "reckless." In 1833, Stowe's opinions began to change when she travelled to Kentucky and saw slavery up close for the first time... she was inspired to write Uncle Tom's Cabin. Published in 1852, the novel was both a heartbreaking portrayal of the suffering of enslaved people and a plea for whites to assume their Christian duty to end slavery forever.

Lucretia Mott was a leading social reformer of her time...Mott was strongly opposed to slavery and a supporter of William Lloyd Garrison and his American Anti-Slavery Society. She was dedicated to women's rights.Mott became a Quaker minister, noted for her speaking abilities.

Thomas Wentworth Higginson was an American Unitarian minister, author, abolitionist, politician, and soldier. He was active in the American Abolitionism movement during the 1840s and 1850
Following the war, he wrote about his experiences with African American soldiers and devoted much of the rest of his life to fighting for the rights of freed people, women, and other disfranchised peoples.

English Anglican clergyman and poet John Newton... Newton began studying Christian theology and later became an abolitionist. He had previously been a captain of slave ships and an investor in the slave trade. He served as a sailor in the Royal Navy (after forced recruitment) and was himself enslaved for a time in West Africa. He is noted for being author of the hymns Amazing Grace and Glorious Things of Thee Are Spoken.

 

[ZNP]

I haven't forgotten. The numbers still don't support your argument.
Out of the billions of people worldwide who have taken at least one dose of the vaccine only about 3 million have died
No 3 million is a lot of people but that's minuscule compared to billions
But let's not derail the thread. Let's stay on topic

The topic is your brother does not support your argument. Even if 1% of the people on earth are homosexual that is still 80 million.

 

[kaylagrl]

[ you've tried to make this claim before, it still isn't true.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...iles-California-getting-year-prison-time.html

 

[ZNP]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...iles-California-getting-year-prison-time.html

How is rape of a kid under 14 not considered a violent crime? The people in California responsible for this are evil.

 

[Dude653]

The topic is your brother does not support your argument. Even if 1% of the people on earth are homosexual that is still 80 million.

Yeah that's why I said I don't know for sure but I think it could possibly be
Actually a lot of neuroscientists are of the opinion that Free Will is an illusion because we have no control over the chemical and electrical impulses in our brains that produce thoughts in the first place
I can't say for certain that they're right because I'm not a neuroscientist but I'm just basing this on what I have read on the subject

 

[Gojira]

I haven't forgotten. The numbers still don't support your argument.
Out of the billions of people worldwide who have taken at least one dose of the vaccine only about 3 million have died
No 3 million is a lot of people but that's minuscule compared to billions
But let's not derail the thread. Let's stay on topic

Dude, please though also be aware that a lot of the fallout from these shots hasn't always been about death, but about crippling side effects that still leave the patients alive.

 

[ZNP]

Yeah that's why I said I don't know for sure but I think it could possibly be
Actually a lot of neuroscientists are of the opinion that Free Will is an illusion because we have no control over the chemical and electrical impulses in our brains that produce thoughts in the first place
I can't say for certain that they're right because I'm not a neuroscientist but I'm just basing this on what I have read on the subject

Oh, like us when we were seeing people die and saying "I don't know for sure but I don't trust this vaccine"

My understanding is that you have a choice. The spirit and the flesh are battling. We don't all have the same temptations. Some are covetous, not all. Some are disobedient and rebellious to parents, not all. Some are adulterers, fornicators, homosexuals, not all. We each are sinful and we each have to deny the flesh and the promise is that the Lord does not put us through more than we can handle.

On the one hand some Christians have been too judgemental of sin condemning others for things that they themselves have done, and hence come across as hypocritical. Other Christians have been compromising with sin. They go along to get along. The way of the cross deals with sin, it deals with flesh, it deals with the world.

The Lord makes it very clear that as He has forgiven us we should forgive others. Well the way He forgives us is He requires us to confess and repent. So yes, we need to forgive all who sin, regardless of the sin. But the way in which we do it is that they must confess and repent.