More of "It's been my day to be attacked":
It's getting to the point where people can't even discuss issues anymore. Everything has to be so fake liberal. Liberal doesn't even mean liberal anymore. Liberal meant bountiful and beneficial and the exact opposite of vile and disgusting, as in anal sex and things of that nature.
Oh, mustn't say that. You can use the f-word all over the place, but mustn't even allude to anything disgusting about buggery. Well, I'm not a conformist. I'm a radical. I'm for root change. Anyone who says root change isn't possible is part of the problem and will be rooted out.
This was a Twitter post:
Statistics already show that children raised by homosexual couples are more likely to engage in homosexuality. That's an outcome.
Yesterday at 5:55am via FriendFeed Â· Comment Â· Like Â· View on FriendFeed
That Twitter post resulted in the following on Facebook:
Chris 'Pyrate' McCabe
I'd be more concerned about my kids being good, happy people. I wd be sad if my stepsons were homo, but only for the prejudice they might face. The Good Samaritan includes any despised group - it's what people do that counts.
19 hours ago Â· Like Â· 1 person Â·
Whose statistics? Who funded the study? These are questions that always go through my head when people say 'statistics show'.
15 hours ago Â· Like Â· 1 person Â·
Deirdre, I agree that such questions are commonplace. I do the same. My reply will go beyond addressing just you concerning this.
The stats were raised in a debate with homosexuals advocating against the freedom of psychology patients to choose to be aided by practicing, licensed psychologist to reduce or be rid of same-sex attractions. In fact, there is a movement within California to strip such psychologist of their licenses to practice. Are you aware of this? That's how far this thing has gone.
Concerning the study, I'm speaking from memory here. I don't have it in front of me.
The homosexuals replied in the debate that of course children raised by homosexuals would be "different" — more likely to engage in homosexuality or bisexuality. It wasn't disputed.
However, are you actually suggesting that it isn't obvious? I didn't need a study to tell me that, that is the likely outcome. Can you actually believe that the increase in homosexual "parent" couple households raising children to accept homosexuality as completely on a par with heterosexual parents isn't going to result in more homosexuality and other "experimentation"? I don't often resort to sarcasm, but you have to be kidding.
Do you actually believe that homosexual behavior is a static percentage in humanity down through the ages? I inform you that it has ebbed and flowed depending upon the moral climate. Everyone should know that intuitively. Children are impacted by what their parents allow or not.
As for the study, I could ferret out the info. I assume you can do the same. It is out there. Are you insisting that I go find the source for you? If I do and it bears out what I've said, will you concede? I don't want to waste my time here.
Anyway, I've written this not in a spirit of anger. I say that just in case you read in a gruff tone or whatever.
I know you are smart; so when I say that I have not advocated against being a Good Samaritan toward anyone, I know you'll see that that is true. However, as a Christian, surely you cannot deny that the gate is strait and the way is narrow that leads to God and that, that very fact discriminates. I am prejudice, but there is prejudice and then there is prejudice, as you know.
I am not advocating reverting to stoning homosexuals. I am advocating for those who profess Christianity and for others to realize that there are homosexuals who are attempting to push the pendulum to complete libertinism. They are not Christians. They rather hate Christ because adhering to his message necessitates keeping his commandments that include:
"And he answered and said unto them, 'Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.'" (Matthew 19:4-6)
Where in the world do you get that homosexual marriage is sanctified by Christ? It just isn't there or anywhere.
Some homosexuals are even trying to convince people that Jesus was a homosexual.
I also am advocating against the idea that homosexuality isn't a choice. It is a choice. Anyone may choose not to engage. Plenty of people change. Humans change from being lots of things. Does that mean that all temptation instantly disappears? Even Jesus faced temptations. The argument that a formerly practicing homosexual may feel twinges does not prove the homosexual position that therefore all homosexuals deserve affirmation. I am also advocating against the falsity that homosexual behavior is without harmful consequences.
Deirdre, since you like citations, please read http://www.realliberalchristianchurch.org/2007/03/19/homosexuals-what-they-ignore.html "Homosexuals: What they ignore." It might end up being too "Christian" for you, but at least you'll see that I don't spout off that there is this study or that poll without having actually seen that they exist. I don't make things up as I go along. I rather hate that pattern in others.
I trust this is sufficient for now. Of course, if I need to find the source, I will. Perhaps I will anyway. I'll post it here if I do. I just need to get on, too.
You may also be interested in this: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=557363740&v=wall&story_fbid=414821978740
9 hours ago Â· Like Â·
Well, I decided to take a quick look. It will take quite a bit of effort to dig out the exact place where I saw the debate info. It's been many months, and there is so much written on the subject that choosing the exact narrowing key words and phrases to stumble upon the same web page might be pretty difficult.
In the meantime, here is an article that inversely makes the point and does reference various studies, etc. http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead2.html
I raise it here because it says, "...nor family factors are overwhelming." That means that family factors do factor in, and of course I mean here where the environment includes parents who are either pro- or anti- homosexual behavior. I trust you see my point.
I may dog this until I find the actual original where I saw exactly that to which I referred in my Twitter post that showed up here by way of Friendfeed. Bear with me.
Well, finding the Narth article made me try again, and voila, the Narth site has the info. http://www.narth.com/docs/does.html
8 hours ago Â· Like Â·
Chris 'Pyrate' McCabe
?.......& there are plenty of heteros seeking complete libertinism (I've experienced hetero child sexual abuse in care). My sexuality wasn't a choice, or I'd have chosen lesbianism some time ago, when I was sick of hetero men. But now I've a lovely partner, & I wdn't deny homo people the possible joy, pleasure, & companionship I've had in our long-term relationship. There's much more to a human being than sexuality - so many heterosexual men are homophilic, & don't actually like women!
Some of my homo friends tried to be 'normal', but they're just not wired that way.
8 hours ago Â· Like Â·
Of course there are heterosexuals who are libertines of a sort.
The idea that you couldn't have chosen to engage in lesbianism is a strange argument. Given enough pressure in one form or another, people can be conditioned into anything. Only the grace of God prevents the most evil of humanity taking over completely and forever.
What is denying someone something when one is opposed to coercion? If I don't stop them, how do I deny them doing what they are doing except that I say that what they are doing is a choice and that it would be proper were they to choose not to partake (not to reinforce the "wiring")?
As for wiring, wiring is not immutable. As a Christian, you should know that and believe it; else no "wired" killer could have a revelation; no "wired" addict could quit; no "wired" thief could stop, turn, repent, and atone. Come on. What are you saying here about the power of God, that God is not?
No wonder there are "no" miracles in this generation.
7 hours ago Â· Like Â·
?"As for the study, I could ferret out the info. I assume you can do the same. It is out there. Are you insisting that I go find the source for you? If I do and it bears out what I've said, will you concede?" It would depend, Tom, whether the group who funded and conducted the study had an agenda, and it would also depend quite strongly on the parameters of the study, and whether these parameters aspired sufficiently to objectivity. If the study was conducted by a right-wing think tank and only studied a small cross-section of homosexuals from one part of one city, I would have a problem with that. Parameters affect outcome, and sometimes these studies aren't even honest about their boundaries.
Everything you've said in your post indicates that you work from the assumption that homosexuals are inherently more promiscuous and morally lapse than heterosexuals, which to me is inherently problematic. There may be homosexuals who are promiscuous, but there are, proportionately, just as many heterosexuals who fall into that category, perhaps more. There are whole underground movements of heterosexual couples who meet in car parks in Europe, for example, to swap spouses. It's seedy and horrible, but somehow doesn't seem to offend people like you quite so much as when homosexuals engage in similar behaviour. The vast majority of gay people are in, or want, a long-term, loving, monogamous relationship in the long run, just like most healthy people in society, whatever their orientation. Like most healthy people, they also play the field when they're young.
You express the view that somehow the children of homosexual couples are, by definition, given the green light to be more experimental sexually than the children of heterosexual couples. Where's the evidence for that? Anecdotal? Here's some more anecdotal evidence: there are some well-known gay couples in Ireland who have children. In one case, the couple has guardianship because the biological mother entrusted her children to her friend, a gay man, as a dying wish. One member of this gay couple, Colm O'Gorman, has done enormous good in Irish society in a variety of ways, and now heads up Amnesty International here. He is a man of great principle and courage. I've heard him speak about his children in interviews, and he has the same worries and concerns of any other parent. Similarly, I have seen a well-known lesbian couple in Ireland interviewed at length about their children, who are clearly very well-adjusted and who are all heterosexual.
Being gay isn't a choice for most people. It's a natural phenomenon, common throughout the animal kingdom. True Christianity does not discriminate against people because they are different. Sexual promiscuity is generally harmful - I agree with you on that point at the very least - not because of some holier-than-thou moral law, but because it does emotional damage to people. Due to the fact that vulnerable people are (generally) the ones who engage in such behaviour (just like prostitutes are usually vulnerable people), a culture of promiscuity may have existed in certain pockets of gay culture at certain times in history, particularly when homosexuality was by necessity underground due to social prejudice. Gay people were a vulnerable minority. However, it is not the nature of homosexuals to be promiscuous any more than it is my nature or your nature.
I don't doubt that there may be aspects of political correctness that go to extremes in the US, but it seems to me that you're universalising from particular observations of individual cases in what you're saying.
7 hours ago Â· Like Â·
BTW, Tom, I have to unfriend you due to your comment comparing homosexuality to bestiality, etc. It's disgusting and deeply hateful. There's nothing Christian about it.
7 hours ago Â· Like Â·
Chris 'Pyrate' McCabe
Given the level of homophobia in the UK when I was a young one, it'd be hard to see why anyone would choose that way of feeling. I'm a rubbish Christian, but it's wise to know people by their fruits (NO pun intended!), & if people are kind & helpful beyond what's necessary, then they're able to be on my friends shortlist.
If someone saves yr life, no matter if they're Muslim, Inuit, gay, albino, WHY.......Love & tolerance for fellow-humans is hugely important. Because homo marriage isn't 'sanctified by Christ', doesn't mean homos shldn't have the same human rights as heteros. The virginity or sex-life of Christ is none of my blimmin' business; the teachings are what count, & the words, 'Neither then do I condemn thee' are always in my mind.
I don't think you or anyone can *stop* people's homosexual inclinations.
3 hours ago Â· Like Â·
I will address your comment one comment-reply at a time.
Thank you for being "civil." I've had a rash of uncivil back-and-forths during the last 24 hours. I don't mind coming off as rude when that kind of rude is speaking truth to power and that sort of thing, but just being plain rude as if being that way scores points is, well, just plain rude.
So, I completely agree with you about studies. Methodology and assumptions going in, matter greatly. I received my degree in the field in fact. One of the areas I studied most was how to manipulate data while maintaining plausible deniability. I don't like tricky studies and don't rely upon them.
As you should have seen from the articles to which I linked, the sources were documented and even the sample sizes were discussed. The studies are not the end all be all, and the authors of the articles didn't appear to me to be painting them as such but rather strongly suggesting that they give reason for pause concerning certain common statements made about homosexuality that the studies that are out there don't appear to support. I have not seen NARTH for instance chiseling anything in granite concerning studies in the sense that NARTH would claim that no additional studies would shed any new or more light on things.
Now, NARTH is not Christian, per se. I though go at it from a Christian starting place. In fact, NARTH has recently been making noises that it wants to distance itself from all anti-homosexuality positions and wants rather to focus upon client choice.
"There may be homosexuals who are promiscuous, but there are, proportionately, just as many heterosexuals who fall into that category, perhaps more." I am well aware of heterosexual promiscuity, but the "scientists" haven't given any indications that homosexuals are more honest in admitting promiscuity. The data I've seen is silent on the issue, and many heterosexuals readily tell the researchers of their indiscretions when assured that it will remain confidential (they won't be outed to their spouses for instance).
The studies show much greater promiscuity amongst non-heterosexuals. If you have other methodologically reasonable data, a link would be appreciated.
I've written about swapping, and you are underestimating my Christian prohibition against adultery and likely fornication among other things.
"The vast majority of gay people are in, or want, a long-term, loving, monogamous relationship in the long run, just like most healthy people in society, whatever their orientation." You don't divide those who are "in" as opposed to "want." It matters. Regardless though, wanting doesn't create a stable sexual mind for gaining the same. That's the point of data.
"You express the view that somehow the children of homosexual couples are, by definition, given the green light to be more experimental sexually than the children of heterosexual couples. Where's the evidence for that?" I thought that was the basis for your asking for the citation in the first place. That's what's in the original-source data-analysis. It's not even refuted by the homosexuals who took issue with NARTH and others. It's not anecdotal. That was the point. It's rather common knowledge. However, you sort of tweak the point.
"Experimental" the way you used it isn't focused on homosexual behavior whenever. I was saying that people raised in homosexual houses will be more inclined to believe that it's acceptable. Now that some governments are stating that openly, what are the children to believe? Will they not be more likely to try it and not be shamed or whatever? The most important aspect though is what will happen to those individual children as a result and also all the children in the aggregate. Will they suffer from it? I say that they will. I say that historically, societal acceptance of homosexuality has always been associated with decay and the fall of nations. It has never been a benefit.
As for the children, we aren't talking about exceptions here but rather averages and modes, etc. The studies cited did say that there are children who come out heterosexually inclined even when raise in a house with a homosexual parent. Of course, never in history has there been a time when homosexual marriage has been openly sanctioned and such couples have been allowed to adopt en masse. Now that it is happening when all the data will only grow and analysis will only increase, we will surely see.
The aforementioned though doesn't go to the heart of the issue of selfishness within and the inherent harm even if some children come out heterosexuals. The comparisons must be apples to apples, not apples to oranges. Which children who come out homo or bi would not have otherwise? That's were the significance lies societally and individually.
Now, you're arguing that homosexuality isn't a choice for most people; but neither is abuse often a choice, and abuse is tied to homosexual outcomes. What is the result of abuse that changes someone into a more psychologically unstable person (we're talking cohorts here and not individual exceptions) other than something that needs healing? Simply affirming the condition as genetic, which huge numbers of psychologists want to do, doesn't seem to fit with your views about the issue. You appear to disagree with them since many, even a majority in power in California, want to make it a crime for a psychologist not to affirm homosexuality no matter its cause, whether abuse or anything else.
As for animals, they get sick too, you know. Human beings aren't to take their cues from animals when it comes to moral decisions. I understand the reverence for nature and even appreciate the balance, which humans are throwing off. Human beings are endowed with brain matter unique on the planet. No other creature has our cerebral cortex and other higher, more evolved parts. We are to use them to rise above the animal state - to actually be a spiritual light to the animals. It's biblical. There are cannibals in the animal kingdom. There are cannibal human beings. Surely you don't grant them rights to eat our fellow humans, do you? Don't you rather insist that they become more enlightened as to the selfishness and harmfulness of their behavior and change? You don't say that they could not change? They did.
So when you read a laundry list of health complications associated with long-term anal intercourse amongst homosexuals, don't you arrive at the same conclusion, or do you look to some other species that buggers each other to say that it's sanctified by God or should be sanctified under the law?
"True Christianity does not discriminate against people because they are different." I don't know where you got that idea. Christianity is the most discriminating religion of all. It is all about the separation. The separation is the salvation. It is true that as a Christian, I am not supposed to attempt to pull up the tares. I don't. I don't advocate it, and many people come after me for it calling me a sinner for not killing the evil. Even as Christians are to discriminate, they are to do unto others.... This is a true paradox. It is completely reconcilable. I have done it. Have you?
"Sexual promiscuity is generally harmful - I agree with you on that point at the very least - not because of some holier-than-thou moral law, but because it does emotional damage to people." Look, there is no moral law that isn't about damage/harm. The whole of Jesus's message is centered on this. The ultimate perfection that we are to seek is the least harmful state possible.
Many people hate this. They get extremely upset at pacifists for not stopping harm with violence. Christianity though is knowledge in spirit that transcends the flesh and can do with the flesh what God did with the dead who were raised. It is because of that faith that we know that homosexuals can surely change.
"However, it is not the nature of homosexuals to be promiscuous any more than it is my nature or your nature." I don't agree with that at all. I believe that the orgiastic mind goes hand-in-hand with more and more trying different forms of sexual release. I think that's self-evident. I don't need a study to be done to know it. In fact, I've been around enough to know it.
As to your next comment:
You have misused the term "comparing." As for your finding bestiality disgusting but not two men doing anal sex on each other, well, that's a strange line you've drawn. I find both disgusting. You think a penis in an anus is correct? It is not correct. It is confusion. Moses was completely right about that. His prescription was not Christian however.
Anyway, since you have said in your next comment that you "have to unfriend," I retract the "civil" credit that I extended to you above.
I have given you facts and answered each of your points with valid responses. If you choose to unfriend me, so be it. It marks you with your spirit. It certainly doesn't indicate that I'm wrong.
Well, the prophecy isn't that everyone sees the light before it's too late for them. If you think the unrepentant homosexuals who have been told to stop what they are doing will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, I won't be seeing you there. That's for sure.
There isn't the spirit of homosexuality in Heaven, just as there is no spirit of greed or violence.
So, bless them that curse you. I hope God blesses you with the truth about all of this. You don't have it now, but you've been told because I just did.
I don't subscribe to the term homophobia. It's pop science at best. Phobias are irrational fears. I don't know what people think they are doing when they apply that term to everyone who simply doesn't agree that homosexuality is just fine. It was word-gaming, just as was the introduction of the term gay, as if.... and that has all but ruined the original meaning that certainly doesn't necessarily apply to homosexuals. Gay means happy, and being opposed to homosexuality isn't irrational. Political correctness though, which is irrational, doesn't allow for proper uses of terms.
Fear is a complex term when used in a Christian context, as you know. Fearing God is not as fearing in the common parlance. It is more at familial respect for wisdom and the consequences brought on by evil for disregarding sage, divine advice.
Look, Chris, I can't take away anyone's human rights. I'm not coercive, and I don't advocate coercion. Democracy is coercive. There are homosexuals who have told me that they can hardly wait until they can persecute me for being a Christian and not affirming homosexuality. Where will you be when they are doing that? Will they get that fascistic power? Will you allow it? I don't persecute them. I tell them that I don't buy it that people can't change or that homosexuality is harmless or that Jesus sanctions it or that Jesus himself was a homosexual. They hate that I say that, but am I to lose my human rights so homosexuals will not hear anyone saying that what they do is wrong? What kind of society are you constructing? When will you too not be allowed? You have already seen people wanting to cover their ears even though I've given rational, substantiated, thorough answers.
As I've wrote on another post, I judge and condemn no man.
"I don't think you or anyone can *stop* people's homosexual inclinations." You don't even think the spirit of Jesus Christ and God Almighty can stop homosexual urges. That's a shame. Perhaps you'll change your mind.
Anyway, I think we've covered it. If you want to add more, I may or may not reply, depending.
2 minutes ago Â· Like Â·
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)