Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is This Gay Behavior Sick?
Too Good Reports ^ | November 21, 2001 | Henry Makow Ph.D.

Posted on 11/21/2001 6:50:27 AM PST by Stand Watch Listen

Imagine that an organism is sick. Imagine that the sick cells convince the organism that they were healthy, and in fact, the healthy cells are sick. The gullible organism would just get sicker and sicker.

This is the relationship between society and homosexuals today. Gays argue that same-sex behavior is no different than being left-handed. On the other hand, they say heterosexual behavior is not natural, but socially conditioned and “oppressive.” Heterosexual society and family are being ravaged. Our stupid, opportunistic and craven leaders have betrayed us. We don´t even know we are at war.

Let´s decide whom, in fact, is sick.

Let´s look at gay behavior as defined by two gays, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen Ph.D., authors of After the Ball: How America will Conquer its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90´s(1989).

In Chapter Six, they outline “ten categories of misbehavior,” drawn from their own experiences, wide reading and thousands of hours of conversation with hundreds of other gays. Their contention is that the gay lifestyle, not gay sexuality mind you, “is the pits.” They want gays to improve their image by addressing “what is wrong with a lot of gays.” (276)

What follows are some highlights. As you read this, ask yourself if there is another human community, including the Mafia that could make these generalizations about itself. Ask yourself if we haven´t caught this disease, or at least the sniffles.

•  The authors say “a surprisingly high percentage” of pathological liars and con men are gay. This results from a natural habit of self-concealment, and leads to a stubborn self-deception about one´s own gayness and its implications.

•  They say gays tend to reject all forms of morality and value judgments. Gay morality boils down to “If it feels good, I´ll do it!” If a gay feels like seducing a trusted friend´s lover, he´ll do it, justifying it as an act of “sexual freedom” and the friend be damned.

•  They say gays suffer from a “narcissistic” personality disorder and they give this clinical description: “pathological self absorption, a need for constant attention and admiration, lack of empathy or concern for others, quickly bored, shallow, interested in fads, seductive, overemphasis on appearance, superficially charming, promiscuous, exploitative, preoccupied with remaining youthful, relationships alternate between over idealization and devaluation.”

•  As an example of this narcissism, the authors say “a very sizable proportion of gay men” who have been diagnosed HIV positive continue to have unprotected sex.

•  They say the majority of gays are extremely promiscuous and self-indulgent. They must continuously up the ante to achieve arousal. This begins with alcohol and drugs and includes such “forbidden” aspects of sex as wallowing in filth (fetishism and coprophilia) and sadomasochism, which involves violence.

•  They say many gays indulge in sex in public bathrooms and think it is antigay harassment when it is stopped. Many think they have a right to importune straight males, including children.

•  Many gays are “single minded sexual predators” fixated on youth and physical beauty alone. When it comes to the old or ugly, gays are “the real queerbashers.” Disillusioned themselves, they are cynical about love.

•  “Relationships between gay men don´t usually last very long.” They quickly tire of their partners and fall victim to temptation. The “cheating ratio of ‘married´ gay males, given enough time, approaches 100%.”

•  Even friendships are based on the sexual test and hard to sustain. Unattractive gay men find it nearly impossible to find a friend, let alone a lover.

•  The authors say gays tend to deny reality in various ways: wishful thinking, paranoia, illogic, emotionalism and embracing crackpot ideas.

Is there any doubt that this behavior is sick? I feel no malice toward gays. I feel the same way about people who have the flu. I want them to get better and I don´t want it to spread.

Unfortunately, even the authors of this book are deceiving themselves. They claim that it is the gay lifestyle and NOT gay sexuality that is “the pits.” Who are they kidding? The two are inseparable.

The authors of this book are public relations experts who believe that “our problem is fundamentally one of bad image with straights.” The book details “a comprehensive public-relations campaign that should go a long way towards sanitizing our very unsanitary image:”

“Desensitization”: flooding straight America with advertising presenting gays in the “least offensive manner possible.”

“Jamming”: Advertising that equates fear of gays with hatred of Jews, Blacks and women.

“Conversion”: Presenting images of gays that look like regular folks. “The image must be the icon of normality.”

They say “it makes no difference that the ads are lies” because “we are using them to…counter negative stereotypes that are every bit as much lies.”

This book was written in 1989 and obviously a campaign similar to this has taken effect. Read what the authors say about it:

“By Conversion, we mean something far more profoundly threatening to the American Way of Life [than subversion] …We mean conversion of the average American´s emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media. We mean…to turn their hatred into warm regard whether they like it or not.” (153)

Thus gays want Americans to learn that something they naturally and justifiably regard as sick, is in fact healthy. Thus Americans will be defenseless to resist their importunities whether in parks, barracks, bathrooms or classrooms.

It is a measure of the authors´ cynicism and self-deception that THEY quote psychologist M. Scott Peck, who in People of the Lie characterizes people who suffer from “malignant” narcissism simply as “evil.”

Evil people, Peck says, have “an unshakable will to be right and will not consider the possibility that they are wrong…Their main weapon, interestingly enough is the lie with which they distort reality to look good to themselves, and to confuse others.” (297)

Gays can continue to fool themselves. But let us not. Some of these people are evil. Their behavior is sick. And it´s contagious.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS: dontbendover; gay; henrymakow; homosexual; homosexualagenda; lesbian; lgbt; skinheadsonfr; sodomy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-270 next last
To: GW in Ohio
Just about every reputable psychologist in the world disagrees with the assumption that homosexuality is a perversion.

Maybe YOU need to look at the facts. Up until the mid 1960's homosexuality WAS listed as a sickness, a perversion of a deviant mind. It was a "scientific book" by a known homosexual and pediphiliac that was pushed by the pro-homosexual crowd that browbeat the APA into removing it from the list of abnormal behavior.

My point is that just because the APA (which recently published a paper claiming that pediphelia was not harmful to children and was in fact, GOOD for them) says it is so, doesn't mean it is true.

Just because you call it a giraffe doesn't turn a horse into a giraffe.

101 posted on 11/21/2001 11:07:23 AM PST by Blood of Tyrants
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Romulus
Something that's the opposite of fun is misery....

No it isn't. When someone isn't having fun, that doesn't mean they are miserable. It doesn't mean they are even sad. It means, more closely, that they are serious.

What does "sacred" mean to you? What do you mean when you use that word?

When I say something is "sacred," I mean that it is worthy of serious thought, reflection and contemplation; that it is something not to be "sniffed" at or dismissed easily. The sacred evokes a serious emotion within one; it is something that has deep meaning and value; something that one values for its own sake. The sacred evokes a powerful serious emotion and I just can't see where "fun" enters into it.
102 posted on 11/21/2001 11:16:00 AM PST by BikerNYC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Hemingway's Ghost
I think the text of Leviticus 20:13 is sufficently clear and would be good form.
I'll have to check into getting this on my state's ballot.
103 posted on 11/21/2001 11:16:29 AM PST by Rightwing Conspiratr1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: FormerLib
"By the way, what exactly does the Bible say about homosexuality? It calls it an abomination."

Such a classic and correct response that I thought it should be posted again. Thanks for your eloquent response.

104 posted on 11/21/2001 11:18:28 AM PST by baxter999
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Rightwing Conspirator1
I think the text of Leviticus 20:13 is sufficently clear and would be good form.

I'm unfamiliar with the Bible. Could you sum this?

105 posted on 11/21/2001 11:18:49 AM PST by Hemingway's Ghost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: FormerLib
Homosexuality very well may be nature's way of stopping defective genes from being passed on. Normalizing the perversion would be a grave mistake.

Wait. If it's nature's way of stopping defective genes from being passed on, that's a good thing, no? It might also be nature's way of keeping some people childless so the community is not overburdened with children. In either case, how is normalizing it a bad thing if nature is using it as a tool to "advance" the species?
106 posted on 11/21/2001 11:20:52 AM PST by BikerNYC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Stand Watch Listen
Methinks Mr. Jim should ban anything from the Too Good Reports, just as he did with the Spotlight. Way too much uninformed, biased crap spewing from that rag!
107 posted on 11/21/2001 11:24:07 AM PST by eaglewatch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BikerNYC
That's a mighty private and arbitrary definition. If I wanted to be rude, I'd call it mush.

Most dictionaries will tell you the word's most often used in connection with the divine, and most especially with places, things, and acts set apart, reserved for the service, use, or worship of a god.

I happen to believe that human intercourse is sacred because it's reserved for the transmission of life, in the context of a marital union, an act of cooperation with God's creation (the fact that this sacred reservation is often violated doesn't vitiate it). And yes, it's frequently great fun.

108 posted on 11/21/2001 11:27:18 AM PST by Romulus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: BikerNYC
In either case, how is normalizing it a bad thing if nature is using it as a tool to "advance" the species?

If the hypothesis is correct, normalizing it would expand the behavior, causing healthy specimens to be destroyed as well.

109 posted on 11/21/2001 11:27:48 AM PST by FormerLib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

Comment #110 Removed by Moderator

To: eaglewatch
Way too much uninformed, biased crap spewing from that rag!

The fact that it's ticking off the pro-homo cheerleaders is an excellent argument for keeping it though! ;-)

111 posted on 11/21/2001 11:29:44 AM PST by FormerLib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Hemingway's Ghost
Oh here's a handy link to a book and chapter index of the King James Bible. Just find Leviticus and click on the number 20. The quote you are looking for is on line 13. Thus Leviticus 20:13. Don't be afraid to continue reading. Oh and if you have sound, if you click on the speaker symbol, God will talk directly to you. :-) *just kidding*
112 posted on 11/21/2001 11:32:19 AM PST by Rightwing Conspiratr1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: FormerLib
BUMP!!
113 posted on 11/21/2001 11:35:51 AM PST by EdReform
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Romulus
Things "sacred" are too important to be limited by a concept of a deity. "Sacred" has great meaning to both theist and atheist.

...places, things, and acts set apart, reserved for the service, use, or worship of a god.

So, you would find a Taliban holy place used to worship god sacred? Let me guess that you wouldn't. Not because it is not a place to worship a god, since it is. But because it has no value for you, it evokes no emotion of serious contemplation.

The fact that something is set up to worship a god IN NO WAY makes it sacred to you, unless that particular place evokes in you a sense of value and seriousness which I described in my post.

And you think that intercourse is a way to worship god? That's what can make it sacred?
114 posted on 11/21/2001 11:36:55 AM PST by BikerNYC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

Comment #115 Removed by Moderator

To: FormerLib
If the hypothesis is correct, normalizing it would expand the behavior, causing healthy specimens to be destroyed as well.

Destroyed? Where did that come from? You said that it could be a way to prevent unhealthy genes from reproducing. Not destroyed...just not reproduced. And so what? Do you have a personal worry that this may happen to you? I don't think so. Do you seriously think that 90% of the population will suddenly be attracted to members of their own sex should this be "normalized?"
116 posted on 11/21/2001 11:40:35 AM PST by BikerNYC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

Comment #117 Removed by Moderator

To: eaglewatch
Methinks Mr. Jim should ban anything from the Too Good Reports, just as he did with the Spotlight. Way too much uninformed, biased crap spewing from that rag!

Especially crap from Makow.

From an Amazon.com review of his book A Long Way to Go for a Date:

"The story comes unwound by the second half of the book. Makow, after convincing the reader of the legitimacy of his mission, comes off as particularly unlikable as he continuously bullies and manipulates his 18 year old fiancee/wife in petty arguments. He is chauvinistic to a fault. When she herself proves to be just as selfish and immature, one can hardly blame her. After all, she has the excuse of being a teenager. For all his advantage of wealth, age, and education, Makow is eventually subdued and humiliated by his child-bride.

This is unfortunate. It is a simple fact that thousands of Western men like myself have found true fulfillment in romance and marriage with Asian women through experiencing the beauty and synchronicity of cross-cultural romance. The author foolishly marries an immature teenager yet seems genuinely upset with her when she begins acting like one. Makow's book, though at times insightful, reveals him to be a poor specimen of Western male and a poor spokesperson for those of us who have found real love and fulfillment in a foreign land. "


118 posted on 11/21/2001 11:42:13 AM PST by Hemingway's Ghost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: BikerNYC
I hope you don't mean to suggest that it is not deviant when a woman puts her mouth over the organ a man uses to urinate, simply because a woman happens to be the one doing it.

You know what, only you could glean that kind of foul analogy from my point, what part of “normal man/woman relationship” didn't you understand? Still frequenting the sodomy threads to justify your brother’s filthy perversion I see?

119 posted on 11/21/2001 11:48:17 AM PST by Clint N. Suhks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: BikerNYC
Do you seriously think that 90% of the population will suddenly be attracted to members of their own sex should this be "normalized?"

It seems unlikely that such a percentage could be indoctrinated into such a perverse mindset, but, then again, it also seems unlikely that you could get a nation to sit idly by while the government sent people to death camps.

Remove the moral constraints from such sexual deviations, teach pubescent males that such behavior is acceptable, and, yes, I believe you will see an increase in homosexual activity (and all of the social pathologies that come along with it). Don't bother asking if I think this could have happened to me as I was raised in a society that celebrated America's Judeo-Christian moral heritage and would have been largely immune from the perverse indoctrination programs that our children are currently subjected to.

This nation's Judeo-Christian moral foundations have served us well thus far. Only the foolish and the perverse would suggest abandoning them now.

120 posted on 11/21/2001 11:51:00 AM PST by FormerLib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: GW in Ohio
I think between the two of you - the pervert is pretty obvious - hmmmmm!
121 posted on 11/21/2001 11:53:36 AM PST by csistrueblue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Stand Watch Listen
Evil people, Peck says, have “an unshakable will to be right and will not consider the possibility that they are wrong…Their main weapon, interestingly enough is (REASON)the lie with which they distort reality to look good to themselves, and to (try)confuse others.” (297)
122 posted on 11/21/2001 11:54:01 AM PST by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: f.Christian
And a bump to a great quote. Yes, many of the actions of the pro-homo cheerleaders make sense when you consider the possibility that they are "People of the Lie."
123 posted on 11/21/2001 11:55:42 AM PST by FormerLib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Stand Watch Listen
How about Is This Gay Behavior Sick?
124 posted on 11/21/2001 11:55:48 AM PST by Old Professer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks
Afraid to answer, huh? Afraid to be seen as the self-proclaimed moralist to all that will listen? Some of us are beyond you and your trite answers to complicated questions, always with the attitude that you (yes you, lucky for us to be alive when you are here to pronounce your solutions) have solved profound questions that have been debated for thousands of years.

Do a self-search, buddy, and see how many times you have visited FR's "sodomy threads." What you will find will not surprise me.

To quote a very thoughtful author:

"You are never dedicated to something you have complete confidence in. No one is fanatically shouting that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. They know it's going to rise tomorrow. When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kind of dogmas or goals, it's always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt."

I perfect description of your own fanatical obsession with this issue.
125 posted on 11/21/2001 11:57:26 AM PST by BikerNYC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Stand Watch Listen
Support the Boy Scouts of America. For victory & freedom!!!
126 posted on 11/21/2001 11:59:53 AM PST by Saundra Duffy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hemingway's Ghost
Huh? You compare a tv show to the real world? That makes no sense at all! The 'Sopranos' is MAKE-BELIEVE. Join the real world, it's more fun, anyway.
127 posted on 11/21/2001 12:00:07 PM PST by dixierat22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: BikerNYC
"When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kind of dogmas or goals, it's always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt."

So, when people suggest that we must defend our Constitution against the intrusion of increased Federal power, it is your belief that they believe the goals and rights enshrined in the Constitution are wrong and not because there really is a threat?

I believe this piece of anti-Christian doggerel can be tossed on the heap with all the rest.

128 posted on 11/21/2001 12:00:37 PM PST by FormerLib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks
Obviously, we have a true believer in the "right-to-buggery" wars here. I don't think you should waste anymore time upon he/she/it.
129 posted on 11/21/2001 12:02:12 PM PST by FormerLib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: GW in Ohio
Just about every reputable psychologist in the world disagrees with the assumption that homosexuality is a perversion.

"Reputable" = submits to peer pressure about what a psychologist is supposed to believe.

One very reputable psychologist (I have forgotten his name) did some research on ex-homosexuals and concluded that they were indeed former homosexuals who were now completely heterosexual. He was surprised by the findings - he expected to find something else. So he asked the APA if he could have a forum to discuss his results. They denied him and he is now a non-"reputable" psychologist.

Sticking that word "reputable" in your statement showed your true colors, GW.

Shalom.

130 posted on 11/21/2001 12:02:45 PM PST by ArGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: GW in Ohio
I think there is more to your equation than meets the eye - certain customs and traditions have taboos for practical reasons that are relevant still today -

Why do you think Jews and Muslims don't eat pork? Most likely because many became ill or died when they ate tainted or uncooked pork. It may not be relevant today, but it still exists.

On the other hand why was homosexuality taboo? Could it be because of the numerous diseases associated with anal intercourse?

Why is beastiality taboo? Because of syphillis and other diseases associated with it - Take pedophila or incest - Why are they taboo? Could it have to do with the resultant consequences of that type of activity?

In my opinion - and I'm not being judgmental here - The next taboos to fall are pedophillia and beastiality - We're already seeing that in some of the more "fashionable" advertising....

131 posted on 11/21/2001 12:11:32 PM PST by M. Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: BikerNYC
You are never dedicated to something you have complete confidence in.

I'm not sure this is on topic, and maybe I'm misunderstanding your point, but I am totally dedicated to Jesus Christ and I have complete confidence in Him. I would tell anyone who will listen that He is The Way, The Truth, and The Life and the only way to receive abundant life is through Him. On the other hand, I don't feel threatened when people disagree. If they don't want to believe me, that's their problem, unless they are a friend about whom I care very much.

Similarly, I would tell anyone that the sun comes up every morning. But if some idiot told me it didn't, I'd let him enjoy his fantasy world. Would it be my place to disabuse him?

Shalom.

132 posted on 11/21/2001 12:13:46 PM PST by ArGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: GW in Ohio
You are very confused, my friend. The very foundation of material reality as applied to creatures is a testament that homosexuality is deviant and a perversion of normality. Historical and current observations are a testament that it is socially and personally destructive.

The only people who are able to tunnel their vision around these observable and unarguable truths are homosexuals and idiots. Homosexuality is and always has been, in every civilization on the planet past and present, uniformly denounced and that denunciation is part of the wisdom of the race along with the nature of women and men.

Homosexuality is simply mental sickness, an identity crisis. To think otherwise, socially, is equivilent to, individually, deciding you can fly and jumping off a cliff. The fall is the epitome of freedom itself, until the bottom arrives.

133 posted on 11/21/2001 12:15:51 PM PST by William Terrell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: BikerNYC
Things "sacred" are too important to be limited by a concept of a deity.

Rubbish. You're proposing a definition so broad and slack that, at bottom, all it really means is "important, only in a deeply meaningful way that I nevertheless find impossible to express". This is high school romanticism -- and public high school at that. You might as well say that hunger's too important a concept to be limited to food, or wind too important to be circumscribed by an awareness of air.

The sense of sacredness cannot be severed from the concept of the divine without its meaning evaporating altogether. It can't be done.

Let me remind you that this discussion was started when you tossed off a wisecrack about the Church being anti-sex because it's fun. What makes you such an authority on what the Church teaches anyway? I ask only for information.

134 posted on 11/21/2001 12:20:00 PM PST by Romulus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

Comment #135 Removed by Moderator

To: FormerLib
Ref #111: If you replace the words "pro-homo cheerleaders" with the word "Jew," you will get my point about the Spotlight.
136 posted on 11/21/2001 12:21:46 PM PST by eaglewatch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: allend
Ref. 110: If your studied the Bible, you would understand that the "Sodomite sin" had nothing to do with homosexuals. It is the same sin that prevents the Afghan Muslims from turning over Bin Laden. READ - it is good for you!
137 posted on 11/21/2001 12:24:54 PM PST by eaglewatch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Stand Watch Listen
Whereas I think that homposexual tendencies are a continum, a bit of gay-basing and harrassment might save those on the margin.
138 posted on 11/21/2001 12:26:16 PM PST by rightofrush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GW in Ohio
Ref. #135: BIG BUMP on that one!
139 posted on 11/21/2001 12:27:50 PM PST by eaglewatch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: upchuck
Gotta agree with your first point Bob. But no way is queerism Satan's most proud achievement. That would be The SCUMBAG and The Hildebeaste.

You may have me there!

140 posted on 11/21/2001 12:36:34 PM PST by Buffalo Bob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

Comment #141 Removed by Moderator

To: FormerLib; Blood of Tyrants
A person whose work you should look into is Dr. Charles Socarides. He has done a tremendous amount of work regarding what causes men to engage in homosexual activity: recruitment, molestation, lack of strong/any father figure, overdomineering mother, etc.

Homosexuality is like smokers, alcoholics, drug addicts, certain sexual fetishes, or other unhealthy behavior. The people who engage in these behaviors either think that what they do is perfectly normal, or they have no way to stop doing what they are doing. Because homosexual activity is so emotionally based, it requires more intensive therapy to change the behavior.

Regarding the APA, Time Magazine, back in the early 1970s, reported on the gay activists demonstrating outside of the APA's meeting, which got violent. It was through threats, not any scientific research, which got the APA to take the behavior off of its abnormal list. Look at all of the so-called studies in recent years - none of them state they show conclusively that homosexuality is genetic, and none of the favorable ones have come even close to being duplicated by other researchers. But you wouldn't know that from the media and the activists.

Without getting too much into Catholic theology regarding human sexuality, all of our body parts perform basic biological functions. The human behind is used for removing waste from our bodies. It is not built for intercourse, and is greatly harmed by those who engage in placing things there. Other body parts give pleasure as well, but, again, that's not allowed, either (Catholic theology coming into play). How anyone could say homosexual activity is anything but abnormal, I'll never know.

142 posted on 11/21/2001 12:59:02 PM PST by GreatOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: BikerNYC
When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kind of dogmas or goals, it's always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt."

From your post I have no idea what side of this issue you are taking, but this statement is wisdom.

143 posted on 11/21/2001 1:04:02 PM PST by TightSqueeze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: FormerLib; GW in Ohio
Actually, I believe the injunctions against eating shellfish, the injunction to make animal sacrifices to God, and whatever injunctions there are against homosexuality are all found in the Old Testament.
Yes, those are all aspects of the Lord's Covenant with the Jews.

Some are and some aren't. Some of Gods commands existed before they were given to Jews.

So are we saying those are all antiquated now?

No, but as those of us who know the Bible can tell you, the only aspects of the Judaic law that are binding on the Christian are those involving sexual morality.

Technically, no aspects of Judaic law apply. Realistically, when one knows God through Christ he will find it difficult to violate the 10 commandments as laid out in the old testament and further amplified and expanded by Jesus in the new testament.

As I said above, there were other laws and commandments that existed before the Jews and were practiced by the early church.

By the way, what exactly does the Bible say about homosexuality?

It calls it an abomination.

Homosexual sex is a sin. But so is heterosexual sex outside of marriage. And so is lusting after other woman (or men) when you're married. The point being that everyone sins. It's part of human nature to sin. All sin is the same in Gods eye. Any sin makes us unworthy of God.

If you two really want to discuss belief, go to this thread:

The NeverEnding Story (The New Christian Chronicles)

I guarantee you'll find people to agree and disagree with.

144 posted on 11/21/2001 1:08:38 PM PST by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell
To think otherwise, socially, is equivilent to, individually, deciding you can fly and jumping off a cliff. The fall is the epitome of freedom itself, until the bottom arrives.

The problem in-a-nutshell is... In this life even if you don't try to fly, the bottom arrives anyway. Nobody escapes the bottom.

145 posted on 11/21/2001 1:09:06 PM PST by TightSqueeze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: GW in Ohio
Oh contraire! The psychiatric assosication took a poll of members in the early 70’s to determine if homosexuality was in fact a mental disorder. Only 10% of the members replied with only 55% agreeing that it was not a perversion – vawla! It was announced that the American psychiatric association no longer considered homosexuality a mental disease. So there you have it, less than six percent of psychiatrist thought that homosexuality was a perversion, the rest just went along with the decree. As far as I am concerned homosexuals have NO credibility as long as they accept the NAMBLA organization as just another life style. Even though they decry molestation.
146 posted on 11/21/2001 1:09:06 PM PST by roylene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: TightSqueeze
Nobody escapes the bottom.

But few want it to come so quickly and so messy.

147 posted on 11/21/2001 1:11:35 PM PST by William Terrell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC
Homosexual sex is a sin. ... Any sin makes us unworthy of God.

Which is why decent people must condemn the homosexual lifestyle. Nothing good can come from such poisonous weeds.

148 posted on 11/21/2001 1:18:50 PM PST by FormerLib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: eaglewatch
If your studied the Bible, you would understand that the "Sodomite sin" had nothing to do with homosexuals.

Oh no, are you one of those guys that actually bought into the idea that God destroyed Sodom because they were inhospitable! LOL!

149 posted on 11/21/2001 1:20:12 PM PST by FormerLib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: GW in Ohio
Pardon me if I step on any of your toes, but I think any religion that condemns homosexuality as "an abomination" is a pretty crappy religion, and you can have it.

Pardon me if I find your touching and clearly deep concern for homosexuals absurd, as they push the homosexual agenda into the public schools and continue to attack the Boy Scouts, among other outrages from this tiny group of perverts.

Your angry anti-Christianity speaks for itself.

Christians consider the bible the Word of God and the naming of homosexual behavior as an abomination was from God, not man. Your casual, sneering rejection of that fact is offensive and no, for that you are not 'pardoned'.

150 posted on 11/21/2001 1:50:00 PM PST by Jim Scott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-270 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson