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. But due to the lobby efforts of the homosexual community, there has been a re-defining of such. 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. 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. And of course if one allows the practice thereof they are breaking the decrees of the creator. 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.

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. This indeed is why the right of women suffrage did not occur until after the fact of Blackstone's Commentaries on the Law ceased being the reference source to the decisions made by the Supreme Court of these United States. And just as in the noted population of the entire world "feminine ideology" now engulfs upwards of 50% of national politics, after the unconstitutional right to vote was granted women(if it had not been found to be unconstitutional, no amendment would have been needed), in the fact there is a direct decree from the creator that no woman should hold a position of authority over man. 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. BD

Homosexuality simplified:

It doesn't matter which side of nature vs. nurture on this debate and here is why.....


1. If you think homosexuality is due to NATURE then also understand Nature has chosen (natural selection) to remove these gene pools from the human race for any number of reasons. Nature obviously does not want them reproducing.

2. If you think NURTURE causes homosexuality that would mean they were born normal but somehow, some way emotional and/or mental problems created homosexuality and should be corrected so this person once again becomes normal.


Now, Take you pick but remember, both look grim.

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?

Homosexuality is due to nature, and is most likely (at least in my opinion) its way of keeping us from procreating more than we should. That means yes, nature doesn't want them reproducing, because all the heterosexual folks are humping each other so much that it's starting to become a problem.

Why of course I follow the example of the Creator of all nature, who better to know than He? You do not see any animals declaring equality in the nature of their natural leadership roles do you? For instance in a pride of lions, do you see the male assume dominance when the time comes for the female to lead them in the hunt? Of course not, for that is the way that nature intended. The male simply lays back on large flat rock and enjoys his solitude. Why should I question any example established by the creator? BD

I've been wondering about that too.

I mean, with gay sex, there's no possibility of having a child in the first place. Heterosexual intercourse without reproducing means actively preventing this from happening, even though that's the whole point of it existing! How bad is that?!

That's what I love about "creators". People just start believing one of their choice (good selection out there), and then whatever happens is the will of said creator. No thinking. No opinions. The creator works in strange ways. No asking why. If it's there, it's the will of the creator, and anyone who disagrees just hasn't been enlightened yet.

Of course, leave it to the mere mortals to decide what is an actual creation of the creator, and what is an abomination that seeks to conquer the creator's world.

Um, because animals have gay sex. If you accept them as your example on one thing, why not all things?

Because sex is not found in the scriptures to be for "reproductive" reasons only, but for the equal gratification of both the male and the female in the legal relationship of marriage. Read l Cor. 7:2-9, or Proverbs 5:18-19. Whats bad, is your ignorance of scripture. BD

Well, you are certainly proof a diseased mind can exist.

__________________
"If you're going to tell people the truth, be funny or they'll kill you." -- Billy Wilder

"Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied." -- Otto Von Bismark