Skip to comments.The cure for homosexuality: solution that brought him out of 'gay' life
Posted on 07/23/2002 2:04:07 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
click here to read article
That's not what the pedophiles say. They say it is a normal, consensual relationship between two people and no one is being harmed.
Surely you don't think we should be suspicious of some behavior when people say their seemingly abnormal behavior is presented as "normal". And surely you don't think that when someone is harmed by a type of behavior that we should automatically suspect that the behavior is wrong. Heaven forbid.
What about the pursuit of happiness for those who practice incest, bestiality, and pedophilia? What about their needs? Why do you protect one perversion over another?
I would say that in some states, laws were in effect for over a century that made acts of sodomy against the law because the general population believed it was wrong. There were even laws enacted AND enforced to combat adultery and fornication. Now you can say one of two things. Either the Founding Fathers, whose peers passed these laws, were not as 'enlightened' as folks have been over the past four decades OR that the morality in this nation has fallen to such a low that doing whatever you want is more important than following the precepts of the Constitution. Surely you're not going to suggest that the Founders of this nation established such Amendments as the 1st, 9th, and 10th, public or private, to condone and approve of the actions of homosexuals are you?
Some states also had laws banning interracial relationships for centuries, for the same reasons? Should those be banned as well or should everyone stay out of each others business and bedrooms?
Thomas Jefferson had a different take on the notion of "consenting adults" and the standing of sodomists before the law.
"Whosoever shall be guilty of Rape, Polygamy, or Sodomy with man or woman shall be punished, if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting thro' the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch diameter at the least."
Thomas Jefferson, A Bill for Proportioning Crimes and Punishments, 1778
Thats a lie and part of the deceit used to justify homosexuality. CONSENT is measured by mental capacity and legal mental capacity is measured by IQ. Many children have the minimum legal IQ for an emancipated individual, those are facts. Just because you keep repeating children cant consent over and over won't make it true no matter how much you want it to be so. Moral clarity for you extends only to the practice of certain perversions; too bad youre a hypocrite. Why dont you prove children cant consent instead of using it as a straw man?
Thomas Jefferson wasn't a Founder?
Wow, jump from immorality to different color of skin. Weak at best. While many in the past have used the Bible or some other sacred texts quite wrongly through misinterpretation to condone their racist views, unless you're on a NAMBLA or MCC sponsored site, I don't imagine that you will see any other interpretation condoning homosexuality. And while you may disagree with such texts the fact is that research by men such as M.E. Bradford have shown that over 90% of the men who signed the Constitution were active in their local churches. Not necessarily setting up a theocracy as much as establishing norms on a Judeo-Christian basis. Is there a basis for racism in the Bible or Torah? No. Homosexuality? Without a doubt, yes
Name a state where statutory rape is determined by I.Q. (other than the mentally challenged) versus age of consent, i.e. 16 or 18. If an adult has sex with a 14 year old it's rape whether her I.Q. is 90 or 150. That is the LEGAL realit, no matter how much you say otherwise.
Comparing wrong behavior with right behavior is a pathology, its like comparing homosexuality to heterosexuality or incest with heterosexuality or bestiality with heterosexuality or pedophilia with heterosexuality. .
I get it now!! The Constitution is a 'living breathing document' crap. If we can't make it fit our needs, and we can't get a Constitutional Amendment passed condoning it considering there are less than 2% of the population involved in this immorality, we'll just 'say' that it was in there and the Founders 'really meant' to cover it. Tell you what. Slavery was abolished by a Constitutional Amendment because it was wrong to own human beings. If you can find enough folks that have been brainwashed to condone sodomy as a natural act, why don't you start a push to get a Constitutional Amendment passed by 3/4 of the states? Much like the ever growing bureaucracy in Washington, the sickness is forced upon us until we accept it and become truly enlightened?
Only by arbitrary law. If there was a law saying legal age of consent was 9 or drinking age was 10, if its the law then those ages must be morally justifiable? Still waiting for you to prove children cant consent their Emmylou.
I see you're enjoying the blinders.
So do you consider incest between two consenting adults moral? Would you see anything wrong with me, a 29 yr. old woman having sex with my 31 yr. old brother? If so, then you are a hypocrite.
Child molestors will make the argument that we as a society set the age at which someone is considered an adult (and it has increased over time). They will make the argument that their is nothing morally wrong with "intergenerational sex." Society is the one that has attached a stigma to it (same argument homos make).
Freedom of religion is covered in the Constitution and while not exactly what the Founders had in mind from their belief systems, it still has been addressed by SCOTUS. Sodomy on the other hand has also been addressed by SCOTUS and the laws in effect against it have been found not to be unconstitutional. The only way you would get SCOTUS to change would be to hope for a liberal POTUS to be elected who would believe in such drivel to appoint judges to overturn such laws. And while Bush has become quite liberal on some issues in the past few months, I don't think he's that liberal
I want my sons to grow up to be noble, masculine men.
Sure, just as there are alcoholics who are quite happy to down a quart of vodka every day, and don't want anyone interfering with their lifestyle. But don't preach that condition as good and normal and something to be glorified and experimented with - particularly to impressionable kids. This is what's being done in schools (against parents' wishes) and in the theater and in many other places as well. Such is a form of child abuse.
That's an incredibly stupid question. I believe that every human being, male, female, slave, free, black, white, straight and gay should be afforded the same rights under the law.
I don't believe in special priviledges for any group. I don't believe in quotas for racial minorities. I don't believe in laws that would codify a woman's right to equal pay for equal work. I don't believe in laws that would redefine marriage to allow those in same-sex partnerships the same legal status as marrieds.
But that's not my point. My point is that American society in 2002 is in severe decline. As a conservative I'm interested in conserving the things that the Founders of our nation found essential to our country's stability.
You, on the other hand, seem to be interested in "progress" for "progress"' sake. How the proliferation of sodomy and homosexuality contributes to anything resembling "progress" is unfathomable.
Sure, just as there are alcoholics who are quite happy to down a quart of vodka every day, and don't want anyone interfering with their lifestyle.
I'll remember that the next time somebody tells me they're happy in their relationship. Instead of believing them and being happy for them, I'll mentally compare them to a raging alchoholic. Because, really, they're just alike!
Why is it that the standard (non-religious) argument against homosexuality is that its bad because other things are bad (incest! alchoholism! kleptomania!)? Well if you ask me, a homosexual relationship, even if it is not exactly like a heterosexual relationship, is a lot closer than it is to anything else in the usual "parade of horribles."