Judge: Put Gays in Mental Institutions

ABC News ^ | 4/12/02

[RobbyS]

Would it work the other way round? A judge says that gay partnetship ought to have the same respect as marriage, even though the law is still against it. Would that not also be prejudice?

[Maelstrom]

Not quite...what the homosexuals did was purchase some of the members, terrorize and intimidate the rest.

On this particular vote, had the majority won the day, "yea" and "nay" would have lost the vote. "Abstain" was the big vote-getter, and avoided a threatened riot.

[Maelstrom]

Because it's been proven that it is not a mental illness.

Blatantly untrue. Homosexuality was never proven to be anything less than a mental illness.

Even the guy who made the APA vote happen in '73 has admitted his mistake in doing so.

[RobbyS]

Even the guy who made the APA vote happen in '73 has admitted his mistake in doing so. And almost got run out of town by his erstwhile friends.

[Ron H.]

The sinful man all down through time has always tried to finds ways to justify his sinful and wicked ways but the Bible has never changed its commandments on sin. It is the same today as it was yesterday and it will still be the same tomorrow. Homosexuality is sinful and an abomination and the sinful will be called to account for their sinful lifestyle on the Day of Judgement.

OBTW. The judge was offering an opinion as a "private" individual wasn't he, not as a sitting Judge rendering an opinion on a case before him was he!? Is he not permitted to have an personal opinion if he says that he does not allow his personal opinion to interfere in his judicial decisions? Isn't that what all good Judges do?

[jeremiah]

What is scary, is the concept of sin, which implies a judgement, and reward or punishment. Liberals, whether they be good people, or evil, will not stand being judged, by God, or anybody else.

[jeremiah]

I'd be willing to bet that if the judge had uttered an opinion that gays should be allowed to marry, or adopt, he would be a media hero.

[jeremiah]

A literal interpretation of the bible will show that the earth is round. You erred with that statement, and many others. If you want to deride those that believe in the Bible, at least know the facts, and the context of verses you propose to know.

[southern rock]

You are being disingenuess. If you read the Bible - from start to finish, you will realize it is a narrative. The ending explains the begining. Therefore, not every quote is relevant today. The old Hebrew laws you are tossing around are not applicable to Christians, so please stop implying that they are, and that Christians are somehow hypocritical for not referring to every Old-Testament quote you throw our way. I'm sure you actually know better.

[Land of the Freep]

“If you read the Bible - from start to finish, you will realize it is a narrative. The ending explains the beginning. Therefore, not every quote is relevant today.”

You’re right, only the parts in Leviticus condemning homosexuality apply today. I think the applicable principle is: “The sin I am incapable of committing is the greatest sin.” Amen.

[nmh]

You:Posted by JediGirl to nmh

On News/Activism Apr 13 12:34 PM #57 of 70

You: see my above posts, he says that being with/touching a woman who is on her monthly cycle is an abomination as is masturbating to ejaculation.

Well do you actually think it's proper to have sex when she is having her period? UGH!

Could you also point out Scripture about when masturbating is an abomination?

You:Also: "When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets: then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her" (Deuteronomy 25:11-12).

You: So if a woman touches her husbands genitals while trying to ward off an attacker, her hand must be chopped off!

Huh? Where ever did you get that idea? Re-read the entire passage and maybe you'll see what is going on. In the meantime, rest assured your conclusion is ridiculous.

Do you yourself a favor and don't post on the Bible. Your Scripture twist is most unbecoming to you.

[aruanan]

But I thought the challenge for Calvinists was to reconcile free will with God's foreknowledge. I didn't know they just denied free will outright.

Well, there are, no doubt, a lot of lapsed Calvinists (in itself a funny concept) out there with only the single petal of perseverance of the saints left on their tulip who wouldn't say, as Calvin did:

"God of his own good pleasure ordains that many should be born, who are from the womb devoted to inevitable damnation. If any man pretend that God's foreknowledge lays them under no necessity of being dammed, but rather that he decreed their damnation because he foreknew their wickedness, I grant that God's foreknowledge alone lays no necessity on the creature; but eternal life and death depend on the will rather than the foreknowledge of God. If God only foreknew all things that relate to all men, and did not decree and ordain them also, then it might be inquired whether or no his foreknowledge necessitates the thing foreknown. But seeing he therefore foreknows all things that will come to pass, because he has decreed they shall come to pass, it is vain to contend about foreknowledge, since it so plain all things come to pass by God's positive decree." (Calvin's Institutes., c. 23, s. 6.)

"The devil and wicked men are so held in on every side with the hand of God, that they cannot conceive, or contrive, or execute any mischief, any farther than God himself doth not permit only, but command. Nor are they only held in fetters, but compelled also, as with a bridle, to perform obedience to those commands." (Calv. Inst., b. 1, c. 17, S. 11.)

On the one hand, we have the Arians who made Jesus to be a created being. On the other hand, we have Calvin who made the G-d of the Old and New Testaments into Allah. Calvin's has been the longer-lasting and more pernecious heresy.

[azhenfud]

"Do you follow this scripture:"

Yes, I follow: do I obey them? To a point, as much as is reasonably possible, yes. And you?
If we're told not to swear by the earth, for it is God's "footstool", I would then say that, figuratively, one could consider clouds are the dust of His feet. However, the author you quote appears to be revealing to the reader that everything we consider "high" and "lofty" is but dust to the magestical work of God. But since you mention literal interpretation, as you know, common sense, prayer, and study of scriptures coupled with devotion to God through Christ prove to be the best teacher....
Peace,
Az

[JCG]

Because it's been proven that it is not a mental illness.

Oh? And where, pray tell, is this "proof" published? I'd like to read it for myself.

America's Fifth Column ... watch PBS documentary JIHAD! In America
Download 8 Mb zip file here (60 minute video)

[Bill S]

Right on! Simple common sense supports your comments. The current trend towards "moral relativism" and "let everyone do their own thing" will destroy our civilation if not checked.

[azhenfud]

"Ask some of these militant anti-gays why Jesus never once talked about homosexuality at all, but did talk a lot about the great sin of divorce."

This could have been that the people of Israel had the common sense to understand what an "abomination" is/was and so homosexuality wasn't a debatable issue, dead, no grounds for any discussion; the bill of divorcement, however, was most often seen as a license to take oaths of marriage lightly and as such, Jesus condemned those who looked for self-justification by perverting God's law (Deut Ch 24 V 1-4)....
Az

[ConsistentLibertarian]

Thanks for taking the time to post that. It was very interesting. Best.

[in_troth]

You are being disingenuess. If you read the Bible - from start to finish, you will realize it is a narrative. The ending explains the begining.

Depends whose bible you read! You know the real Jewish version (and after all, the wrote the thing) doesn't go in the same order yours does.

[in_troth]

THEY wrote the thing, I mean (not "the"---duh).