Originally Posted by Agent_Grey

Being "homosexual" is in fact a form of mental illness and was addressed as such until the early 1970s by all knowledgeable mental health professionals.

The fact that psychology has been willing to examine and revise itself since its inception is not proof of anything relevant. Given that you trusted those same knowledgeable mental health professionals when they classified it one way, it is unclear to me why you choose to abbandon them in the wake of their new perspective.

But due to the lobby efforts of the homosexual community, there has been a re-defining of such.

Lobbies work to put pressure on politicians. How did the homosexual community so succesfully put pressure on a school of medicine?

But, in reality, the human mind controls all aspects of ones sexuality as it is indeed a persons "greatest" sexual organ, as pain, pleasure and sexual orientation comes from such cognation of reason as presented in the human mind.

Interesting that you should raise that as a point. which variations are deviant and which are not? Is single-position heterosexual vanilla sex the only form of intercourse that is acceptable?

Therefore I find that it should be addressed as nothing less than the deviant variation form normal cognation to reason that it represents. But to declare it a normal practice of society is nothing but a political statement grounded in propaganda.

You're not really giving much in the way of a motive. I would argue that the need to find acceptance for a virtually unalterable aspect of the human condition gave birth to what you call "propoganda" not the other way around.

And of course if one allows the practice thereof they are breaking the decrees of the creator.

I hate to drag out a tired argument, but its one I've never heard refuted with any strength; why does this one little sliver of leviticus and corinthians amount to such powerful resistance? How is it that we accept *some* of what the bible said to be rooted in its time and not neccesary for the modern era, yet cling to this as gospel? Could it be because gays make us feel icky?

Its true that beneath the mask of homosexuality rests a human, and as such they should be considered as nothing less than human, but the practice of that mental orientation is indeed made by "choice" as is any decision to engage in sex in any form, if not, then we are witness to the crime of "rape". No one needs to engage in sex to have continued life existence, therefore it is not of any humanitarian concern in the preservation thereof.

Well then why is heterosexual sex without immediate intent to reproduce more acceptable in the eyes of the conservative community?


In fact I find all people that practice liberalism to be of a "feminine nature" as they deal with reality in the emotional sphere of their cognation to any mental reasoning.

As we've covered above, conservatives respond to gays with an emotional, hysterical, dare I say it, "feminine" level of reactiveness. In my estimation, if they took more time to think and less time to feel, they would not come to the same conclusion.

(Sorry to truncate some of this, I'm going to run out of character space)in the fact there is a direct decree from the creator that no woman should hold a position of authority over man.

How can you make THAT claim from an intellectual, cognative place? If the creator descended tomorrow and said that men in fact had to live in total subservience to women, then would that simply BECOME the right course of action? Would you submit to it willingly?

Thus, homosexuality is merely another presentation of feminine politics presented to the American public at large, just as is the Nanny State of Communism, the murder of the innocent unborn in the self professed declaration of "female choice" being presented as paramount to even life itself. Just another step that feminine liberalism has led us down in damning our national morality.

Sounds like you've got more than a few issues locked up in this. I'm willing to take those on too, but not all in this limited space. I find it strange one would find the inevitable progress of the modern world to simply be a feminized amoral thing.

And my god... did you *have* a mother? Did she deserve a life of total subservience and sadness at the hands of a masculine society? Should women's dreams be crushed and ground to dust simply because some men cannot concieve of a world that they contribute to in a meaningful fashion?