He is complety right. As a conservative christian, ive heard every anti-gay arguement, but the fact is history will not be on that side. One thing that always bugs me is the idea that marriage is a purely relgious creation that involves a man and women being bonded by God. Truth is this is a fiary tale. Marraige has been about money and power since the beginning of time. The divorce rate is above 50 percent! If a gay couple chooses to marry, more power to them.
Republicans need to wake up, smell the coffee. Gays make up around 10% of voters. The democratics already have the vast amount of that 10% on there side. Republicans can promote marriage as between a man and woman and still gain a great share of gay votes. Just give gays a voice in the party. Conservative gays like low taxes, small federal government, law and order, gun ownership rights and protection of the unborn. Just like straight conservatives. Marriage is one issue of many.
Sexual orientation is one of two things.. A personal choice, or something one is born with.
If you're born with your orientation, then homosexuals have equal rights to everything, including marriage, for the same reason that people of different racial backgrounds, or gender have equal rights.
If its a personal choice, then homosexuals have equal rights for the same reason that people of different religious CHOICES are allowed those rights.
I dont care what you like to put in your butt or mouth and who you sleep with, if you think your earnings should be your's and the government should spend less, im with you
@ginad17 replace republicans with neocons. There's plenty of republicans that support homosexual rights, and plenty of christians that do too... its usually the hard right neoconservative xian republicans that are the loud whining haters.
@ginad17 replace republicans with neocons. There's plenty of republicans that support homosexual rights, and plenty of christians that do too... its usually the hard right neoconservative xian republicans that are the loud whining haters.
@RapIsDeadly I find your ignorance amusing. You clearly don't know any gay people, nor do you know what it must be like to live in a world where institutionalized bigotry exists.
There is no gay agenda. All gay people want is to be treated as equal to straight people, it isn't about brainwashing children, I have heard that before, and it is a pathetic argument.
People don't choose to be gay, they know from a young age that they ARE gay, they understand more than you not to brainwash children.
Acutally I DO know some gay people very well. And YES it would be nice if all they wanted was to be treated the same as anyone else. But this is NOT the case. There are TOO many gay activists who are trying to shove your lifestyle down our throats. Look at LENO, the rep from CA. This guy does nothing but write laws for gay people.
In CA. the new textbooks MUST promote gays in the history books. WTF?
@RapIsDeadly It all comes down to the question ''do you want gay people to have equality or not?''
You see, the vast majority of gay people (almost all) are not trying to convert people to be gay. I don't know any that are. You see, gay people know that their sexuality is not a choice. Therefore understand the stigma about it and understand the harm of trying to change people's sexuality.
Many conservative straight people try to convert gays though, are you in favour of that?
#1 What equality are you talking about? Marriage? No, they can have civil unions but two men or women can never marry each other. Aside from that what inequalites are you talking about.
#2 Live your life and stop trying to jam your lifestyle down our throats. Hollywood has invaded television with gay shows to no end and it's very tiring. You've invaded our schools promoting homosexuality. Enough already.
@RapIsDeadly "two men or women can never marry each other. " Do not make statements without anything to back them up. Marriage has historically been polygamist, or arranged by parents. You do not have the authority to define marriage how you see fit, the moment JoPs started performing marriages, it became a legal contract condoned by the government, and therefore must be equally applied to all no matter sexual orientation.
@RapIsDeadly "two men or women can never marry each other. " Do not make statements without anything to back them up. Marriage has historically been polygamist, or arranged by parents. You do not have the authority to define marriage how you see fit, the moment JoPs started performing marriages, it became a legal contract condoned by the government, and therefore must be equally applied to all no matter sexual orientation.
@RapIsDeadly@RapIsDeadly "two men or women can never marry each other. " Do not make statements without anything to back them up. Marriage has historically been polygamist, or arranged by parents. You do not have the authority to define marriage how you see fit, the moment JoPs started performing marriages, it became a legal contract condoned by the government, and therefore must be equally applied to all no matter sexual orientation.
Robert Byrd wasn't the last elected Klan member, moron. Actually, Robert Byrd was never elected as a standing Klan member. Byrd had already left the Klan before he even took office and later denounced his ties to the group altogether. The last standing Klan member to be elected to office was Republican David Duke.
@MasterfulInsane Nobody leaves the Klan, moron. Nor does it mean that all Republicans support David Duke, nor does it mean that Republicans are all racists. But, I can tell you what party is the party of racism, treason, and immorality, and that is the Democratic Party. That is what they stand for each and every single time. They may change their tack, here and there, but there is no loyalty to America or to freedom in the Democratic Party. They're still the party of Slavery.
I see lots of sentences but all I got from it was "derp."
Of course you can leave the Klan. This isn't a pact with Bible-Devil. It's possible to leave and disassociate yourself with hate groups. (*gasp*) Maybe more of you ultra right wingers should try it.
@MasterfulInsane That's because reading comprehension is lost on you, because you're a leftist. Leftism doesn't require actual thought, only emotion. And no, you don't really leave a group like that, not unless they let you go, which, in Byrd's case, they did.
You ought to disassociate yourself from the Democratic Party. They're the biggest hate group there is, and coordinate their hatred in an effort to divide people through welfare, socialism, class warfare, and race baiting.
I don't think it was dumb at all. They acted on their convictions. A lot of conservatives are christian and had to act according to their conscience. Besides...a gay conservative group. What's wrong with just calling yourself "conservative" like the rest of us? Sounds like a bunch of fake conservatives trying to promote homosexuality to in the Republican party.
Good comment but I would argue that consciences are informed by reality and since homogenital acts are inconsistent with the biological facts of sexual anatomy, it is proper that the conscience be tethered to reason. Gay activists try and exploit the conscience angle by saying that conscience is a matter of opinion. So I think you can see the urgency of making sure you highlight the indifferent biological facts on this issue along with conscience problems.
@CatholicAmerican I agree. I just don't understand why they don't add their voices to the republican or conservative or whatever...organization that already exists. Then this divisive issue would be a non issue. I wouldn't have to be about their orientation at all. It seems like they are trying to force a political agenda . Is their personal identity ONLY wrapped around their orientation or can they just be people who are conservative minded. *shrugs* I don't get it.
@sheepinarowboat Yeah it's like how they are teaching 6 year olds about homosexuality. That paranoia has found its way into a class full of kids. Sure its fine if your gay but what are we doing talking about gay sex to kindergarteners. As you pointed out we don't go around calling ourselves "straight conservatives" or "straight green bay packers fans" or whatever else.
@meanlittledog yes I agree. I understand the desire to teach children to be kind to one another no matter what kind of family you hail from. I get that. But first of all, my husband and I are our children's parents. We decide what to teach them about morals and values, not the government or a school system, no matter how well meaning they are. Besides ...adults seem to have a hard enough time navigating this complicated subject. Let my kids alone until they are older and I'll teach them.
@sheepinarowboat "Fake conservatives"? You mean, pure SOCIAL conservatives, which are not fiscal conservatives, as your political positions usually consist of government impeding on your personal life (be it gay, sex education, etc...), and wasting tax payer money on the socialist military. Please let people know YOU are the fake conservatives, as you guys are small gov. in name only. You don't give a shit about spending, as long as it pushes a politically social conservative agenda.
@Orion1232 Having a military isn't socialist. We had armed forces since day one of our founding. Sex education isn't a "right". Forcing a homosexual education is impeding on my personal life and my kids. Civil liberties aren't just for liberals. Oh I absolutely do care about spending. The future is coming whether your a liberal or a conservative, and it'll be a much better future if we STOP spending at our children's and grand children's expense.
@sheepinarowboat Way to spin the language. Sure you got that from the Media outlets. Telling kids homosexuals exist is somehow "forcing" it on it people? LOL. I think you overly confuse being a social conservative, with being a fiscal one. Both are very different, and at times at odds with each other, especially in cases where social conservatives use government to impede on the lives of others.
@Orion1232 "got that from the Media outlets"???? Of course..that's where one views media. From media outlets. I don't get my values from them however. Not sure how to respond to the fiscal vs. social conservative comment. I can only speak for myself. I'm socially and fiscally conservative.
Lee. What you say @ 3:55 and 4:26 and 4:40 is a corruptive persuasion marketing technique aimed at normalizing homosexuality through emotion and it does not appeal to anything scientific.
You have completely side stepped the REAL issue of homogenital acts being disordered according to the science of biology, the structure of sexual anatomy, and the purpose and function of reproductive cells.
Your opinion about history necessitates that the future will be at war with biological fact.
@CatholicAmerican "biological facts"? since when does a catholic care about biological facts? On an evolution video you would change your tone in a hearbeat. and since when does mother nature give a damn what you do with you dick?
"Your opinion about history necessitates that the future will be at war with biological fact."
I once heard an athiest say this on an evolution vid.
They aren't wrong for not attending CPAC because of Goproud, they are making a statement about what they believe is right. Sodomy is not a republican platform point.
@TruthSayer2 You do realize that sodomy is, by definition, is anal or oral sex performed with a member of the same or opposite sex, don't you? Straight people can, and do, have anal sex
Dude, are you gay? Most of them brag about it but I deleted you long ago when I saw we didn't agree on some important stuff. Please respond CON servative.
CPAC banning GOPAC. Terrific news. Who cares if Andrew Breitbart does not attend. He is just one person and a libertarian, not a true conservative. Don't buy into the gay agenda, conservative people.
One of the biggest problems the Republican Party has is that the Religious Right is both a bedrock of grassroots support, and a millstone about its neck.
The debate of 2012 needs to be first and foremost about the budget, not the bedroom. Yet CPAC is foolishly shoving away supporters over a matter of what law-abiding people do in their spare time. Disappointing.
Wake up brain children. Every law is an act of discrimination. Laws are supposed to discriminate against erroneous behavior and because gay activists NEVER try to reconcile the homosexual impulse with the clear biological facts of human sexual anatomy and reproductive cells, the case is closed that same sex attraction is an unhealthy neurosis just like anorexia or other human mental conditions that precede erroneous and unnatural human behavior.
I wasn't aware the catholic church cared about clear biological facts, I was always under the impression they've been trying to suppress them throughout their entire history.
By the way, a number of other species also exhibit homosexuality, it's not just humans.
And yes, if you discriminate against a large group of innocent human beings because a 1700 year old book tells you so, you are in fact a bigot. By the way, God also says you should discriminate against women.
It's clear you are not a student of history because real historical figures like Fr. Gregor Mendal, the father of the study of Genetics is just one of thousands of Catholic pioneers of science.
Your rhetoric falls flat in the face of historical fact and you are also a classic example of dodging the foundational argument that gay activists always avoid reconciling the sexual behavior with the biological reality of anatomical structures.
Is Andreas Vesalius, the Father of Modern Anatomy and Physiology not on your radar either?
What about all of the universities and hospitals that the Catholic Church has built throughout history? Do you ignore the concrete bricks that contradict your erroneous statement that attempts to revise history in order to fit your world view?
624 hospitals in the U.S. alone. Do you realize what percentage that is? The largest.
Your statement still avoids the purpose and function of anatomy
Just a few more real historical facts that combat your bigoted polemics.
The University of Paris, Universitas Magistrorum et Scholarium, Abbey of St. Denis, University of Reims, Collège de Bons Enfants, University of Cologne, University of Vienna, Charles University in Prague, Notre Dame, University of Dallas...How many brick buildings should I name? Because the list is far greater than several youtube comment boxes can hold.
The key highlight of your comment is where you say "I wasn't aware". Yes, this is painfully obvious to any student of history. It is also clear that your bigotry is trying to turn my question into a religious attack when in FACT there was no religious appeal at all. You are a real bigot.
I held fast to biological fact. You have not. You want to turn it into something about religion but you don't have to be religious to observe that homogenital acts are not ok in the biological order.
I know they built lots of hospitals and universities, I think that's great. I was referring to the church's denial of evolution.
I know that homosexuality doesn't serve the traditional purpose of sexual organs, I'm not denying that. What I'm saying is that when you act like they're lesser people that have something seriously wrong with them, it makes you a total bigot.
At the end of the day, they're human beings just like you and me and you should treat them with respect.
You are still making erroneous comments that are not grounded in historical reality.
I read things by the Dr. Martin Nowak, who has made discoveries in evolutionary dynamics, who is a real Catholic and who's work is encouraged by the Catholic Church.
I also know that the Catholic Church has donated money to the advancement of ADULT stemcell research which has produced over 75 treatments.
You cite no historical document that convicts the Catholic Church of denying evolution.
But let's look at the facts surrounding the Priest scandal. The majority of the victims were post pubescent so it is no longer pedophilia, and an even greater majority of the victims were boys so this objectively makes this a majority homosexual rape epidemic. Now these gay priests were being actively recruited by bishops and others who oppose Rome's teachings on homosexuality. Can't you see the reality that the facts show? Gay is not ok.
The comment is grounded in the biological fact that a man does not have a sex organ with which to receive the sex organ of another man.
Also the biological fact that homogenital acts render a person's reproductive cells to be a senseless fluke. But the reproductive cells are not a fluke, the behavior is the disorder not the anatomical structure or reproductive cell. Thus "gay is not ok" it is harmful to the person suffers from it because it pulls the person from objective reality.
"Go fuck yourself" Can you please make an effort not to deteriorate the conversation with base insults and curses? I have done nothing to incite such hate unless you insist that the rational pursuit of biological coherency is an offensive action. But then maybe I should get mad that you are trying to frustrate valid intellectual pursuits.
How does one reconcile homosexual desire with the reality of the purpose and function of human sexual anatomy and reproductive cells?
What kind of logic is that? There are just as many female victims as there are boys, if not more. So is heterosexuality not OK just because some of us choose to abuse it?
I reconcile homosexual desire with the reality of the purpose of human sexual anatomy because of the simple fact that homosexual people EXIST and will always exist. I accept them for who they are and don't demonize them simply because they are different, that's what bigots do.
Who cares if it doesn't fit the scientific purpose of reproductive organs? That doesn't mean they're not still people with personalities, hopes, aspirations and talents just like you and me.
Rapists exist, thieves, anorexics, agoraphobics, there are a great many disordered behaviors that exist, but their incompatibility with the natural order is what classifies them as disordered behaviors.
Let's be clear. The only demonizing that is going on here is the stuff that you and MasterfulInsane are perpetrating. You are the one offending here.
That's a completely ridiculous analogy. Rapists and thieves are people that CHOOSE to commit crimes. Homosexuals are people that have sexual desires for the same sex beyond their control. There's a big difference.
I'm not demonizing christianity, I'm demonizing the use of christianity to justify bigotry against entire groups of people.
You were fallaciously arguing that the mere existence homosexual activity is argument enough for socially accepting homosexuality as a natural act. That is no more true than it is for any other human action. All human actions are open for scrutiny and it is possible to conclude that a given action is harmonious with nature or if that action is inconsistent with the natural order.
That is not bigotry. It is healthy scrutiny and shame on gay activists who try to frustrate such scrutiny
There is no new taxonomic category in the science of biology for humans who display same sex behavior. Gay is not a race, it is a disordered sexual behavior. It is just one of many sexual dysfunctions and though wrong, isn't really that big of deal. What is a big deal is gay activism which seeks to force people to ignore the biological facts of human sexual anatomy and the purpose and function of reproductive cells to blindly condone homogenital acts. It is intellectually offensive.
Brainwashing at its finest. I can sympathize with your position, though. I mean, if a male Catholic priest touched me inappropriately, I'd probably spend my day formulating arguments on how "gay is not ok," too.
It's not a person's "personalities, hopes, aspirations and talents" that are under scrutiny here. It is the very specific action of homoSEXUAL activity. The point of departure is that homogenital acts are inconsistent with the purpose and function of human sexual anatomy and reproductive cells. Just like anorexia is inconsistent with the purpose and function of the human digestive tract. That casts no disparity on the person suffering from anorexia it simply localizes on a disordered behavior.
Of course, he's a bigot. Racists employ the exact same arguments. They're called "(pseudo) intellectual racists." In his case, we can replace racist with homophobia. He isn't making any ground breaking arguments. He's recycling and applying racist rhetoric to the new outrage du jour, homosexuality.
Oh, so I guess you've done a study and individually counted all the boys involved? Stop pulling facts from out of your ass. That isn't their normal origin.
Your religious institution is nothing more than a pedophile playhouse with a self-adsorbed Hitler Youth guarding the hen house.
I tried googling the Catholic church donating to stem cell research and found nothing. Please provide the link you're referring to.
And I just researched their current stance on evolution and you're right. As of 2 years ago the Vatican acknowledged that evolution is a scientific fact. That doesn't excuse their stance on it for the first 150 years that Darwin published his work.
You are still trying to go off topic with the adult stem cell question but if you are sincerely interested just look for the "RomeReports" youtube channel and watch the "Australian Archdiocese donates $100,000 for stem cell resear" video.
This was one of the first links I found when I google searched the topic.
When you're done, maybe you'd like to get back on topic. I'm going to keep pointing out your avoidance of the biological facts of human sexual organs and reproductive cells.
Haha, he's donating it to ADULT stem cell research, not embryonic. You know the difference between adult and embryonic stem cells, right? Adult stem cells are extremely limited in what they can become while embryonic stem cells can become any cell in the body. So basically, he's donating to the knives in a the gun fight
You do not have a functional grasp on the adult vs. embryonic stemcell debate and you are also AGAIN trying to change the topic from the crucial one at hand.
To hummer you, years ago, Dr. Shinya Yamanaka has successfully turned Adult stemcells into pluripotent stemcells thus making adult stem cells function on every level that scientists in the embryonic camp only claim embryonic ones can. Adult stem cells have produced over 75 treatments. Embryonic =ZERO.
And let's scrutinize my first comment on the subject shall we?
"the Catholic Church has donated money to the advancement of ADULT stemcell research which has produced over 75 treatments."
I capitalized all of "ADULT"
Now you're trying to spin some kind of rhetoric that attempts diminish this statement? Man, gay activist double talk is second nature to you isn't it. That's ok, people are wise to it now.
You have now consistently avoided the biological reality question.
What?! The "traditional" purpose of sexual organs?! I'm sure professors of biology are slapping their foreheads right now. There is no such thing as a "traditional purpose" you are mixing political rhetoric with an empirical science. Don't you realize that?
Your world view is tainting your ability to evaluate biological fact. Since biological fact stands in testimony of your world view, you now try to verbally engineer some new kind of biology? Have fun with that.
Using your logic, once a girl is able to conceive a child, she should be able to engage in intercourse. After all, the primary function of sex is reproduction. So, biologically speaking, I guess it's perfectly fine for a 10 year old to sleep with a 30+ year old? Right?
You are the only one who has stated that a homosexual is a "lesser people". I have been trying to get you to focus on the biological facts which is why there is so much confusion on this issue, because gay activists have made a cognitive effort to change the subject whenever someone brings up the biological inconsistency of homogenital acts.
Stating that other animals exhibit homosexual behavior does not reconcile the action with the purpose and function of anatomical structures, it only illustrates that disordered behavior stretches across species. If a lion has a penis, then the lion is behaving in a dysfunctional sexual manner if he goes after another male lion in a sexual way. The structure of a male lion penis is coherently designed to deploy a lion gamete in the sexual anatomy of a female lion.
Coating your bigotry in scientific language doesn't make it any less bigoted. That's something Christian pseudo-intellectuals don't seem to understand.
Biology is not "bigotry" and you have made no attempt to reconcile homogenital acts with the clear complementary of the male penis and the female vagina.
Do you deny that the purpose and function of human reproductive organs is to deploy a male gamete in close proximity of where a female gamete will arrive?
If you do then would't you agree that the burden of proof is on you to reconcile homosexuality with clear, non bias, biological human anatomical structures?
Repeat: Coating your bigotry in scientific jargon doesn't make it any less bigoted.
As human beings, we should aspire to be more than just inbred, 16th century-minded Catholic retards with Youtube pages. But, if that's all you've chosen to be, then so be it.
And again you take the dishonest, political activist, question dodge tactic.
You will make no attempt to reconcile the homosexual urge with the biological facts of human sexual anatomical structures because they are irreconcilable. So you abandon Biology, which focuses on REALITY and cling to and push a flawed and arbitrary version of psychology which tries to bully people into ignoring the biological facts. Shame on you. That is very intellectually dishonest.
Another religious fanatic co-opts science as a means of demonizing a human sect. Actual scientists rely upon science to explain the world around them; to discover ways of making society better. Religious fanatics either ignore science altogether or twist it to fit their ignorant view of minorities.
Psychology is not at war with Biology. Your arbitrary version of psychology is though and the fact that you avoid a biological discussion like the plague, even to the point of trying to turn it into an insult on religion, is damning evidence against your sophist activism.
You are the real bigot who has come here to preach hate. I have only made appeals to biology and somehow (as it always does with gay activists) it provokes a venomous hate filled response.
We're not bound to certain behavior simply because we were born with certain body parts. We do have the ability to choose/to adapt to a new lifestyle. Without that innate ability, evolution wouldn't be possible. You know it's none of your business what a same-sex couple does behind closed doors. That's why you're grasping at straws, trying to co-opt science for your own bigoted agenda.
Why bother trying to have an intellectual dialog with liberals and homosexuals? The truth is revealed only after hard work and perseverance. Opposite to this fact is the left wing liberals who do not want the truth or work hard. They want to wallow in sin and pity waiting for a handout from the hard working God fearing individuals (Conservatives) that made the USA the greatest nation in the world.
Indeed, if it was not for conservatives, liberals would parish!
You need liberals to oppose empirical truths because it helps to better illustrate what is true and what is false.
Let all things good or bad be used to reveal what is fact and what is opinion. And always try to do it with charity because in this case, same sex attracted people are often verbally abused by people who don't suffer from the neurosis and this perpetuates the problem.
The solution is to insist that laws reflect coherent biological fact.
@CatholicAmerican "the case is closed that same sex attraction is an unhealthy neurosis just like anorexia or other human mental conditions that precede erroneous and unnatural human behavior."
I think I know of a few major medical, psychological, and sociological organizations in the U.S. that disagree with your statement and have the evidence to back their claims up
Really? 4:40 are you really pushing that kind of Saul Alinsky talk Lee?
In order for your statement to be a correct one then History is going to have to go to war with biological fact. You have swallowed LGBT propaganda hook line and sinker.
Human sexual anatomy and reproductive cells have a specific observable purpose and function. Ever notice how Psychiatrist who are gay activists never try and reconcile their erroneous teachings with observable biological fact?
Perhaps Conservative means more than fiscally conservative, but also socially. Gay marriage is not best for children, as they have a right to be raised by their mother and father. The government has a vested interest in protecting such unions, not in creating unions which are not in the best interest of children. We can see the negative social impact from fatherless households. Certifying gay marriage will only approve of bad environments for children.
Why don't they outlaw single parents then? Because that's such a bad environment for children, the only thing kids in that situation have ever achieved is being the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
Children can also grow to lead great fulfilling lives when raised by two men or two women. A good friend of mine has two gay moms and he is now excelling in med school.
You have absolutely no evidence to back up that statement, you're just talking out of your bigoted ass.
@yeebuddeh1 Single mothers are tough and brave people who must battle against the odds to raise good kids. However, it's not seen as an ideal situation, but rather as a deficient one, ultimately a problematic one. The government does not endorse or encourage single parenthood. It's something people must sometimes live with for various reasons.
From statistics, we know a disproportionate number of children who are violent, delinquent, drug users, etc. did not have a father in the household.
I see that a lot of comments below condemn Christians.... That's fine. The same people that mock religion and the belief in God always point to science to try and make their point. One example is Darwin's theory. Funny how the same people ignore basic biology in regards to homosexual activity. From a scientific/biological standpoint, homosexual activity makes no sense and is meaningless.. I find the hypocrisy amusing...
@MasterfulInsane Bigotry?? I'm just bringing up biology... Why not focus on my comment and not resort to personal attacks? Was my comment factually incorrect? Anti religion people always try and use science to TRY and disprove the existence of God... I use science to outline that homosexual activity is biologically meaningless, and am called a bigot! By your standards, you are a bigot as well... One thing is on my side. Facts. Human anatomy doesn't lie...
@MasterfulInsane Just so you know, I feel that gays SHOULD be afforded the same rights under the law as normal couples.. We live in a country of laws. The law of this country dictates that all people are equal... So please dispense with the "right wing" shit.. With that said, my previous comments are spot on accurate. Homosexual activity, from a scientific perspective, is meaningless... It cannot sustain human existence.. Please point out how I am wrong in this regard..
Yes, if you look at a strictly from a scientific perspective, homosexual sex might seem meaningless to you. Let's say I agree and it is meaningless. And? When have you ever heard of someone getting into a relationship as a way of conforming to biological "normalcy"? People get into a relationship because they either love or lust after that person.
"biological normalcy"? You're twisting elements here. Biology in this case is simply the standard for categorizing sexual acts as ordered or disordered in the natural realm. It is empirical. The plumbing works one way and it doesn't work another way.
Psychology studies and tries to philosophize on the origin and nature of the desire. It is not empirical and dabbles much in subjective opinion.
Is the human species on the verge of extinction? No. So what does is it matter to you if 10% (or however many there are) of the population decides to take themselves out of the child-bearing/rearing game? The answer is: it doesn't. But because your fairy tale book condemns the act of homosexuality, you think it's your duty to make homosexuality out to be some sort of threatening aberration.
@MasterfulInsane My original comment points out the hypocrisy of how the anti religious bring up science to try and prove God doesn't exist, yet ignore science in regards to homosexual activity... . Now you bring up love. Love falls under the umbrella of human psychology.. I have never condemned homosexuality nor do I think it is a threat of any kind. I simply pointed out that is is biologically meaningless... You are yet to outline how I am wrong....You are on the losing end of an argument...
masterfullnsane won't address your point of departure with him because I think he knows that Psychology can not Trump Biology and any philosophical assertions about homosexuality that a psychiatrist or the APA must still be reconciled with observable biological fact or else it is junk psychiatry.
I'm sure you've noticed that gay activists always change the topic when biological dynamics are brought up.
After all the ridiculous arguments you've made today, I think you ought to ban yourself from this discussion. I'm still waiting for you to address your other ridiculous assertion, about how pedophiles in your own church prove that "gay is not ok."
Your comments are the equivalent of "so tell me when you started beating your wife".
They are statements out of nowhere and they are crafted solely to try and disparage character or detract from a substantive argument. Shame on you. It is repugnant youtube behavior.
And once again, you avoid the reality of how homogenital acts are completely disordered according to the science of biology.
Nature does not provide for homogenital acts. The study of biology is clear on the subject. Human sexual anatomy is designed with a very specific purpose and function. The same is true for reproductive cells. Homosexual attraction is disordered acording to these empirical biological facts.
The plumbing doesn't work that way and no amount of wishful thinking changes that. This is the biological grounds for classifying it as a neurosis. Just like anorexia.
You're talking in circles and rambling on about how I've avoided the conversation in spite of having done that yourself. They call that projecting, I believe.
When you are the one who won't address the first premise of our point of departure, the only thing I can do is to keep pointing out how you are avoiding a first principle and simply resigning yourself to character attacks.
You have consistently retreated from every question of science.
You have consistently engaged in character attack.
Please concede that you are in the wrong. That is the honorable thing to do. Name calling and spinning words is dishonorable.
Haven't retreated at all. You said "gay was not ok" because your church is a pedophileland. I responded pointing out that, outside of church, there are just as many female victims of pedophilia. You misunderstood and posted something specifically about the pedophiles in your church. After that, all I heard was crickets. I then asked you if you were in favor of 10 yo having sex with 30+ year olds, since most of them are capable of fulfilling the purpose of sex. No response.
Lol. You haven't earned the position to start a new topic because you have avoided the very root of the debate and you have avoided it from the very beginning.
The church has nothing to do with the biological fact that human sexual anatomy is designed to deploy the male gamete in close proximity to where a female gamete may arrive. Homogenital acts are disordered because they are not grounded in the biological reality of human anatomical structures. The impulse is a neurosis.
Psychology is not an empirical science and so it can not trump what is observed in the biological order.
Gay activists only make appeals to authorities in Psychology but those authorities have always avoided reconciling their opinions on homosexuality with the Biological order. That is intellectually dishonest. And your continued attempts at changing the topic is just another spotlight on this gay activist tactic at avoiding reality.
"Homos are dumb" is your statement and it's a very insensitive one.
Same sex attraction is just one of many sexual dysfunctions that a person can suffer from. It doesn't make them dumb.
Now if a person chooses to ignore biological facts that contradict their world view, then yes, they are being "dumb" but it's unproductive to dwell on that. It's better to keep presenting the biological facts in hopes that the person or group will abandon their disordered pursuits.
"Gay is not ok" is ACTUALLY one of your statements, not something made up and falsely attributed to you. PedophileAmerican is doing Bible-God's work. He needs his brain trust to critique, criticize, bash, demonize his "dysfunctional" creations. Familiarize yourself with what quotations mean and how they're used in contexts such as this. Hopefully you won't make that mistake again, you kiddy-fiddling weasel.
You can keep trying to change the subject to the Church if you want but we all see that it is just you trying to run from the root of the debate.
Gay activists will always do what you are doing here. If somebody brings up the biological facts of sexual anatomy, then the gay activist must try and change the subject or else loose the debate.
You will consistently observe this fact when every you watch a debate on TV.
It's very dishonest of you and other gay activists.
"Root of the debate." Which is what? Since you're doing it, I'll do it. Re-post: "The biological purpose of sex is reproduction." Therefore.....what? *crickets*. That's where your argument stops. We don't have to engage in something simply because our bodies (not our minds) were designed for it, just like a child, 10 years old, doesn't have to sleep with a 30+ year old because she's capable of conceiving.
Reproduction is the result of when a male and female gamete join.
Don't put quote marks around things that I didn't say. That is repugnantly dishonest of you.
I have focused on the very thing that reveals homosexuality to be a neurosis and that is the misuse of anatomical structures. Reproduction is not a the first principle because reproduction is the effect of healthy anatomical structures and reproductive cells.
"Uh oh, you've violated 'anatomy'...." is a quote of yours either, you simple fuck. In that case, I was paraphrasing your argument. That is essentially what you're saying. No, it's exactly what you're saying.
"reproduction is the result of when a male and female" Which must make the primary function of sex reproduction. Your problem with that is? If that isn't your position, then you really don't have leg to stand on, not that you did anyways.
You are trying to engineer words in order to try and find an out. I have been completely transparent in my approach and committed no deception.
Your words are at war with biological facts and they are at war with my person. You are trying to change this to something personal when biological science is an impersonal discipline. You either adhere to reality or you don't. If you choose not to then don't try and force society to condone your choice.
This is your problem, my dumb little religious fanatic/conservative friend. You think that the fact that we're born with opposing body parts means we're pigeonholed into certain behavior. There's nothing to adhere to. Repost: "[..] if every animal did ONLY what came natural to them, then evolution, adaptation would not take place."
So you think that the more men have sex with men, the more human sexual anatomy will change to conform to the desire of those men?
That's a new one. Have I misrepresented you?
So instead of homosexuality being an objective neurosis, what it really is is people ushering in human evolution.
Then why is there no such thing as a gay gene? The human genome project is finished. No gay gene was found because human sexual anatomy is biologically designed for coitus. That's it.
"change to conform to the desire of those men." Nothing needs to change. Gays will still be gay, gays will still have sex, and gays will still be accepted by us non-rednecks. The all-powerful "human sexual anatomy entity" will just have to deal, I guess. :'-(
People don't care if homosexuality doesn't mesh with anatomy. That's certainly no reason to state that "gay is not ok." This is what I was talking earlier when I used the term governing body. "Uh oh, you've violated "anatomy". You're in trouble now!" Oh wait, no they're not, it's just another one of PedophileAmerican's silly arguments.
You are trying to use political speak when debating a scientific topic and that is why you are so inconsistent.
We can't really interface if you refuse to stay on topic. The only thing I can do is to make an example of your errors and attempts to avoid conceding your errors.
I might be on the losing end of an argument (yeah, right), but you're on the losing end of life and history. This would explain your feverish attempts to malign gay people.
"Gay is not ok because of my church and its pedophiles."
When a person realizes their mistake then the noble thing is for them to turn and strengthen their brothers and sisters, not to go on an all out dishonest attack of them.
Have I attacked your person? No I have made every appeal to your cognitive ability. I have tried to make biological science crystal clear for you and you have responded at every occasion to slam down a personal attack or a misrepresentation of me.
I'm sorry you choose this but science doesn't change.
This is just natural, PedophileAmerican. The same happenswith all groups. Take African-Americans. Slavery - Jim Crow - Affirmative Action. With gays, it's: Assaults/complete ban on homosexuality - legalization/legitimization of homosexual sex - civil unions - acceptance in the army - gay marriage? :'-(
The art of persuasion can be used to usher in things that are good, but corrupted this art brings about tyranny and disorder.
The more the U.S. constructs laws that depart from natural reality, them ore people come off the fence and start to scrutinize those laws.
Homosexuality is a revolt against the natural order. Human sexual anatomy is designed for coitus. This act is the coherent fulfillment of of anatomical parts. That's your biology lesson for today.
You've been listen to too much Ryan Sorba (either him or David Duke).
An entire region scrutinized civil rights legislation. Many of them still do. It passed in spite of them. Your revolt would consist of toothless, drunken neoconfederates.
Your movement has no more legs. The authority that all gay activists used to cite now says gays can change and his opinion is grounded in biological fact.
And every year, thousands more men and women successfully receive psychiatric treatment for same sex attraction and go on to lead a fulfilling life that is consistent with biological reality.
What great hope people who suffer from same sex attraction should have! Psychiatry is getting better by the minute.
Gays are not born gay. Same sex attraction is an environmentally conditioned learned pattern of behavior just like anorexia. They don't choose it, they are afflicted with it
Obviously not. We're at the point in history where we actually have conservatives, such as Ann Coulter, running to the defense of GAY groups. We're at the point where a significant number of American support gay marriage, with even more of them supporting civil unions. We're at he point where it's acceptable to have gay characters in movies, gay television shows, even entire gay networks. Etc.
Who is Ann Coulter and what does she have to do with the biological facts of human sexual anatomy?
Has she reconciled homogenital acts with their inconsistency in the natural order? I would be impressed to read that. But if you are simply talking about another person's ungrounded opinion, then you are once again avoiding the science of biology in favor of arbitrary opinion.
@CatholicAmerican I'm getting a kick out of your debate with Masterfullnsane! He is doing exactly what a person on the losing end of an argument does. That is, change the subject and hurl insults... He enjoys bashing the Church by saying pedophilia is "rampant" within the Church. That is an absolutely ridiculous statement. . I find it hysterical the way people like him point to science to try and disprove the existance God, yet ignore science in regards to homosexual activity! Funny...
Your argument, if you want to call it that, is both a straw man and a red herring. You don't need for something to be "meaningful" on a biological level to engage in it, obviously. Doing so doesn't violate some mythical scientific code. If anything, it proves we're not all running off a program, and that the human brain is capable of more than just rudimentary tasks.
This, to everyone out there, is what's called grasping at straws. You don't have a real argument, so you have to resort to making petty arguments about the meaningfulness of homosexuality. Absolutely pathetic.
Science doesn't dictate that everything we do as humans must be meaningful according to how we were made. As I told PedophileAmerican below, if every animal did ONLY what came natural to them, then evolution would not take place.
He's going to say he's not arguing for anti-gay legislation. Basically, he's arguing for the sake of arguing. This is the state of the anti-gay movement. It's not as acceptable to frame your argument around the term faggot anymore, so they're reduced to evoking anatomy, as if that is some sort of governing body in and of itself. "The biological purpose of sex is reproduction." Therefore....what? *crickets*
@MasterfulInsane You really make me laugh. I am on the record saying that Gays should be afforded the same rights under the law as normal couples. Most people do not take that position. But we live in the US and we live free and equal... I don't hate gays. I never said sex is limited to just reproduction. I am simply pointing out that from a biological standpoint, homosexual activity is abnormal. You arguing that FACT is making you look silly..
So is mindlessly making the same statement over and over. Abnormalities are nothing new and surely nothing that needs highlighting. What exactly is your point? "It's a abnormal!" Therefore what? That's where your "point" stops.
He is complety right. As a conservative christian, ive heard every anti-gay arguement, but the fact is history will not be on that side. One thing that always bugs me is the idea that marriage is a purely relgious creation that involves a man and women being bonded by God. Truth is this is a fiary tale. Marraige has been about money and power since the beginning of time. The divorce rate is above 50 percent! If a gay couple chooses to marry, more power to them.
db3991 1 week ago
Republicans need to wake up, smell the coffee. Gays make up around 10% of voters. The democratics already have the vast amount of that 10% on there side. Republicans can promote marriage as between a man and woman and still gain a great share of gay votes. Just give gays a voice in the party. Conservative gays like low taxes, small federal government, law and order, gun ownership rights and protection of the unborn. Just like straight conservatives. Marriage is one issue of many.
mindinsolitude 1 week ago
Sexual orientation is one of two things.. A personal choice, or something one is born with.
If you're born with your orientation, then homosexuals have equal rights to everything, including marriage, for the same reason that people of different racial backgrounds, or gender have equal rights.
If its a personal choice, then homosexuals have equal rights for the same reason that people of different religious CHOICES are allowed those rights.
antipryzm 3 weeks ago
I dont care what you like to put in your butt or mouth and who you sleep with, if you think your earnings should be your's and the government should spend less, im with you
Pwnstar57 3 weeks ago
that was so stupid its making the republicans look anti gay when we are not GOProud is a great organization
ryannewellisg 1 month ago
Republicans discriminating against gay people is not news, its just how they work and think.
ginad17 5 months ago 2
@ginad17 replace republicans with neocons. There's plenty of republicans that support homosexual rights, and plenty of christians that do too... its usually the hard right neoconservative xian republicans that are the loud whining haters.
antipryzm 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ginad17 replace republicans with neocons. There's plenty of republicans that support homosexual rights, and plenty of christians that do too... its usually the hard right neoconservative xian republicans that are the loud whining haters.
antipryzm 3 weeks ago
@sellingmypokecards
Their agenda is to have as many popular gay YouTube channels. DONE
To have primetime gay shows. DONE (Glee takes the cake, Ellen, etc)
To continue to put gay marriage on the ballet. DONE
To teach small children that a gay lifestyle is just another acceptable lifestyle. DONE
You can't see how they want to shove their shit down your throat?
RapIsDeadly 6 months ago
@RapIsDeadly I find your ignorance amusing. You clearly don't know any gay people, nor do you know what it must be like to live in a world where institutionalized bigotry exists.
There is no gay agenda. All gay people want is to be treated as equal to straight people, it isn't about brainwashing children, I have heard that before, and it is a pathetic argument.
People don't choose to be gay, they know from a young age that they ARE gay, they understand more than you not to brainwash children.
ec123456789able 1 month ago
@ec123456789able
Acutally I DO know some gay people very well. And YES it would be nice if all they wanted was to be treated the same as anyone else. But this is NOT the case. There are TOO many gay activists who are trying to shove your lifestyle down our throats. Look at LENO, the rep from CA. This guy does nothing but write laws for gay people.
In CA. the new textbooks MUST promote gays in the history books. WTF?
Just live your life and stop whining.
RapIsDeadly 1 month ago
@RapIsDeadly It all comes down to the question ''do you want gay people to have equality or not?''
You see, the vast majority of gay people (almost all) are not trying to convert people to be gay. I don't know any that are. You see, gay people know that their sexuality is not a choice. Therefore understand the stigma about it and understand the harm of trying to change people's sexuality.
Many conservative straight people try to convert gays though, are you in favour of that?
ec123456789able 1 month ago
@ec123456789able
#1 What equality are you talking about? Marriage? No, they can have civil unions but two men or women can never marry each other. Aside from that what inequalites are you talking about.
#2 Live your life and stop trying to jam your lifestyle down our throats. Hollywood has invaded television with gay shows to no end and it's very tiring. You've invaded our schools promoting homosexuality. Enough already.
RapIsDeadly 1 month ago
@RapIsDeadly "two men or women can never marry each other. " Do not make statements without anything to back them up. Marriage has historically been polygamist, or arranged by parents. You do not have the authority to define marriage how you see fit, the moment JoPs started performing marriages, it became a legal contract condoned by the government, and therefore must be equally applied to all no matter sexual orientation.
antipryzm 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RapIsDeadly "two men or women can never marry each other. " Do not make statements without anything to back them up. Marriage has historically been polygamist, or arranged by parents. You do not have the authority to define marriage how you see fit, the moment JoPs started performing marriages, it became a legal contract condoned by the government, and therefore must be equally applied to all no matter sexual orientation.
antipryzm 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RapIsDeadly @RapIsDeadly "two men or women can never marry each other. " Do not make statements without anything to back them up. Marriage has historically been polygamist, or arranged by parents. You do not have the authority to define marriage how you see fit, the moment JoPs started performing marriages, it became a legal contract condoned by the government, and therefore must be equally applied to all no matter sexual orientation.
antipryzm 3 weeks ago
@MaxxTheMerciless
Robert Byrd wasn't the last elected Klan member, moron. Actually, Robert Byrd was never elected as a standing Klan member. Byrd had already left the Klan before he even took office and later denounced his ties to the group altogether. The last standing Klan member to be elected to office was Republican David Duke.
MasterfulInsane 6 months ago
@MasterfulInsane Nobody leaves the Klan, moron. Nor does it mean that all Republicans support David Duke, nor does it mean that Republicans are all racists. But, I can tell you what party is the party of racism, treason, and immorality, and that is the Democratic Party. That is what they stand for each and every single time. They may change their tack, here and there, but there is no loyalty to America or to freedom in the Democratic Party. They're still the party of Slavery.
MaxxTheMerciless 6 months ago
@MaxxTheMerciless
I see lots of sentences but all I got from it was "derp."
Of course you can leave the Klan. This isn't a pact with Bible-Devil. It's possible to leave and disassociate yourself with hate groups. (*gasp*) Maybe more of you ultra right wingers should try it.
MasterfulInsane 6 months ago
@MasterfulInsane That's because reading comprehension is lost on you, because you're a leftist. Leftism doesn't require actual thought, only emotion. And no, you don't really leave a group like that, not unless they let you go, which, in Byrd's case, they did.
You ought to disassociate yourself from the Democratic Party. They're the biggest hate group there is, and coordinate their hatred in an effort to divide people through welfare, socialism, class warfare, and race baiting.
MaxxTheMerciless 6 months ago
I think the GOP needs to set a small government precedent by letting them attend. It would also be a good precedent to vote for Gary Johnson in 2012.
krakatoa0mikel 6 months ago
Sodomites have no place in politics, sorry. I would also boycott it if I knew the sodomite group were going to be there.
bachmann4president 6 months ago
Bible makes it very clear that homasexuality is wrong.
CambridgeHeights 6 months ago
I don't think it was dumb at all. They acted on their convictions. A lot of conservatives are christian and had to act according to their conscience. Besides...a gay conservative group. What's wrong with just calling yourself "conservative" like the rest of us? Sounds like a bunch of fake conservatives trying to promote homosexuality to in the Republican party.
sheepinarowboat 7 months ago
@sheepinarowboat
Good comment but I would argue that consciences are informed by reality and since homogenital acts are inconsistent with the biological facts of sexual anatomy, it is proper that the conscience be tethered to reason. Gay activists try and exploit the conscience angle by saying that conscience is a matter of opinion. So I think you can see the urgency of making sure you highlight the indifferent biological facts on this issue along with conscience problems.
CatholicAmerican 7 months ago
Comment removed
meanlittledog 6 months ago
@CatholicAmerican I agree. I just don't understand why they don't add their voices to the republican or conservative or whatever...organization that already exists. Then this divisive issue would be a non issue. I wouldn't have to be about their orientation at all. It seems like they are trying to force a political agenda . Is their personal identity ONLY wrapped around their orientation or can they just be people who are conservative minded. *shrugs* I don't get it.
sheepinarowboat 6 months ago
@sheepinarowboat Yeah it's like how they are teaching 6 year olds about homosexuality. That paranoia has found its way into a class full of kids. Sure its fine if your gay but what are we doing talking about gay sex to kindergarteners. As you pointed out we don't go around calling ourselves "straight conservatives" or "straight green bay packers fans" or whatever else.
meanlittledog 6 months ago
@meanlittledog yes I agree. I understand the desire to teach children to be kind to one another no matter what kind of family you hail from. I get that. But first of all, my husband and I are our children's parents. We decide what to teach them about morals and values, not the government or a school system, no matter how well meaning they are. Besides ...adults seem to have a hard enough time navigating this complicated subject. Let my kids alone until they are older and I'll teach them.
sheepinarowboat 6 months ago
@sheepinarowboat "Fake conservatives"? You mean, pure SOCIAL conservatives, which are not fiscal conservatives, as your political positions usually consist of government impeding on your personal life (be it gay, sex education, etc...), and wasting tax payer money on the socialist military. Please let people know YOU are the fake conservatives, as you guys are small gov. in name only. You don't give a shit about spending, as long as it pushes a politically social conservative agenda.
Orion1232 6 months ago
@Orion1232 Having a military isn't socialist. We had armed forces since day one of our founding. Sex education isn't a "right". Forcing a homosexual education is impeding on my personal life and my kids. Civil liberties aren't just for liberals. Oh I absolutely do care about spending. The future is coming whether your a liberal or a conservative, and it'll be a much better future if we STOP spending at our children's and grand children's expense.
sheepinarowboat 5 months ago
@sheepinarowboat Way to spin the language. Sure you got that from the Media outlets. Telling kids homosexuals exist is somehow "forcing" it on it people? LOL. I think you overly confuse being a social conservative, with being a fiscal one. Both are very different, and at times at odds with each other, especially in cases where social conservatives use government to impede on the lives of others.
Orion1232 5 months ago
@Orion1232 "got that from the Media outlets"???? Of course..that's where one views media. From media outlets. I don't get my values from them however. Not sure how to respond to the fiscal vs. social conservative comment. I can only speak for myself. I'm socially and fiscally conservative.
sheepinarowboat 4 months ago
Lee. What you say @ 3:55 and 4:26 and 4:40 is a corruptive persuasion marketing technique aimed at normalizing homosexuality through emotion and it does not appeal to anything scientific.
You have completely side stepped the REAL issue of homogenital acts being disordered according to the science of biology, the structure of sexual anatomy, and the purpose and function of reproductive cells.
Your opinion about history necessitates that the future will be at war with biological fact.
CatholicAmerican 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CatholicAmerican "biological facts"? since when does a catholic care about biological facts? On an evolution video you would change your tone in a hearbeat. and since when does mother nature give a damn what you do with you dick?
"Your opinion about history necessitates that the future will be at war with biological fact."
I once heard an athiest say this on an evolution vid.
meanlittledog 6 months ago
They aren't wrong for not attending CPAC because of Goproud, they are making a statement about what they believe is right. Sodomy is not a republican platform point.
TruthSayer2 7 months ago
@TruthSayer2 You do realize that sodomy is, by definition, is anal or oral sex performed with a member of the same or opposite sex, don't you? Straight people can, and do, have anal sex
PeachesNPlumz 7 months ago
@PeachesNPlumz
Sodomy is masturbation by way of the digestive tract. It is not sex. It is an imitation of sex. An imitation is not the real thing.
Human sexual anatomy is designed for coitus. How other people use or misuse it, doesn't change the biological facts.
The penis delivers male gametes to where a female gamete arrives. Biology does not provide for homogenital acts in any way.
CatholicAmerican 7 months ago
Dude, are you gay? Most of them brag about it but I deleted you long ago when I saw we didn't agree on some important stuff. Please respond CON servative.
Licmycat 7 months ago
one of your best in a long time
corenothing 7 months ago
the comments...
haters gunna hate
or
alex jones,bible and mah rifle (note no gay on list)
TrollySam 7 months ago
@TrollySam
Gay is not ok.
Derp.
MasterfulInsane 7 months ago
@MasterfulInsane gay like in ur butt gay?
Herp
TrollySam 7 months ago
@TrollySam
No, gay like in you ear.
Jesus Fish.
MasterfulInsane 7 months ago
CPAC banning GOPAC. Terrific news. Who cares if Andrew Breitbart does not attend. He is just one person and a libertarian, not a true conservative. Don't buy into the gay agenda, conservative people.
southwoodside 7 months ago
I like conservative economic ideas, but i just can't bring my self to vote for one because their war against gays
BorgKing001 7 months ago
i have never had gay sex, to keep my dick from stinking i guess i would have to be a receiver.
datzfast 7 months ago
@datzfast
Oh, lawdy! :'-D
MasterfulInsane 7 months ago
@datzfast
Try shemales. If you only look at the boobs, you might be able to retain a sliver of your dignity.
MasterfulInsane 7 months ago
@MasterfulInsane i guess i could be the shemale i like boobs.
datzfast 7 months ago
One of the biggest problems the Republican Party has is that the Religious Right is both a bedrock of grassroots support, and a millstone about its neck.
The debate of 2012 needs to be first and foremost about the budget, not the bedroom. Yet CPAC is foolishly shoving away supporters over a matter of what law-abiding people do in their spare time. Disappointing.
bar1scorpio 7 months ago
Wake up brain children. Every law is an act of discrimination. Laws are supposed to discriminate against erroneous behavior and because gay activists NEVER try to reconcile the homosexual impulse with the clear biological facts of human sexual anatomy and reproductive cells, the case is closed that same sex attraction is an unhealthy neurosis just like anorexia or other human mental conditions that precede erroneous and unnatural human behavior.
That's not "bigotry" as some of you insist.
CatholicAmerican 7 months ago
Comment removed
yeebuddeh1 7 months ago
@CatholicAmerican
I wasn't aware the catholic church cared about clear biological facts, I was always under the impression they've been trying to suppress them throughout their entire history.
By the way, a number of other species also exhibit homosexuality, it's not just humans.
And yes, if you discriminate against a large group of innocent human beings because a 1700 year old book tells you so, you are in fact a bigot. By the way, God also says you should discriminate against women.
yeebuddeh1 7 months ago
@yeebuddeh1
It's clear you are not a student of history because real historical figures like Fr. Gregor Mendal, the father of the study of Genetics is just one of thousands of Catholic pioneers of science.
Your rhetoric falls flat in the face of historical fact and you are also a classic example of dodging the foundational argument that gay activists always avoid reconciling the sexual behavior with the biological reality of anatomical structures.
CatholicAmerican 7 months ago
@yeebuddeh1
Is Andreas Vesalius, the Father of Modern Anatomy and Physiology not on your radar either?
What about all of the universities and hospitals that the Catholic Church has built throughout history? Do you ignore the concrete bricks that contradict your erroneous statement that attempts to revise history in order to fit your world view?
624 hospitals in the U.S. alone. Do you realize what percentage that is? The largest.
Your statement still avoids the purpose and function of anatomy
CatholicAmerican 7 months ago
@yeebuddeh1
Just a few more real historical facts that combat your bigoted polemics.
The University of Paris, Universitas Magistrorum et Scholarium, Abbey of St. Denis, University of Reims, Collège de Bons Enfants, University of Cologne, University of Vienna, Charles University in Prague, Notre Dame, University of Dallas...How many brick buildings should I name? Because the list is far greater than several youtube comment boxes can hold.
You are the real bigot. You speak to deceive.
CatholicAmerican 7 months ago
@yeebuddeh1
The key highlight of your comment is where you say "I wasn't aware". Yes, this is painfully obvious to any student of history. It is also clear that your bigotry is trying to turn my question into a religious attack when in FACT there was no religious appeal at all. You are a real bigot.
I held fast to biological fact. You have not. You want to turn it into something about religion but you don't have to be religious to observe that homogenital acts are not ok in the biological order.
CatholicAmerican 7 months ago
@CatholicAmerican
I know they built lots of hospitals and universities, I think that's great. I was referring to the church's denial of evolution.
I know that homosexuality doesn't serve the traditional purpose of sexual organs, I'm not denying that. What I'm saying is that when you act like they're lesser people that have something seriously wrong with them, it makes you a total bigot.
At the end of the day, they're human beings just like you and me and you should treat them with respect.
yeebuddeh1 7 months ago
@yeebuddeh1
You are still making erroneous comments that are not grounded in historical reality.
I read things by the Dr. Martin Nowak, who has made discoveries in evolutionary dynamics, who is a real Catholic and who's work is encouraged by the Catholic Church.
I also know that the Catholic Church has donated money to the advancement of ADULT stemcell research which has produced over 75 treatments.
You cite no historical document that convicts the Catholic Church of denying evolution.
CatholicAmerican 7 months ago
@CatholicAmerican
I've seen no historical documents proving that Catholic priests like anything but young boys.
MasterfulInsane 7 months ago
@MasterfulInsane
Typical off topic slander remark.
But let's look at the facts surrounding the Priest scandal. The majority of the victims were post pubescent so it is no longer pedophilia, and an even greater majority of the victims were boys so this objectively makes this a majority homosexual rape epidemic. Now these gay priests were being actively recruited by bishops and others who oppose Rome's teachings on homosexuality. Can't you see the reality that the facts show? Gay is not ok.
CatholicAmerican 7 months ago
@CatholicAmerican
I thought you weren't a bigot, I thought you were just pointing out biological facts.
Now all of a sudden you say "gay is not ok"
Go fuck yourself
yeebuddeh1 7 months ago
@yeebuddeh1
The comment is grounded in the biological fact that a man does not have a sex organ with which to receive the sex organ of another man.
Also the biological fact that homogenital acts render a person's reproductive cells to be a senseless fluke. But the reproductive cells are not a fluke, the behavior is the disorder not the anatomical structure or reproductive cell. Thus "gay is not ok" it is harmful to the person suffers from it because it pulls the person from objective reality.
CatholicAmerican 7 months ago
@yeebuddeh1
"Go fuck yourself" Can you please make an effort not to deteriorate the conversation with base insults and curses? I have done nothing to incite such hate unless you insist that the rational pursuit of biological coherency is an offensive action. But then maybe I should get mad that you are trying to frustrate valid intellectual pursuits.
How does one reconcile homosexual desire with the reality of the purpose and function of human sexual anatomy and reproductive cells?
CatholicAmerican 7 months ago
Comment removed
MasterfulInsane 7 months ago
@CatholicAmerican
"gay is not ok"
What kind of logic is that? There are just as many female victims as there are boys, if not more. So is heterosexuality not OK just because some of us choose to abuse it?
MasterfulInsane 7 months ago
@MasterfulInsane
Not according to the John Jay study of the actual facts. How about you cite your source now.
"The Causes and Context
of Sexual Abuse of Minors by
Catholic Priests in the
United States, 1950-2010"
CatholicAmerican 7 months ago
@CatholicAmerican
I was referring to victims in GENERAL, not just in the Pedophile Church, dingus.
MasterfulInsane 7 months ago
@CatholicAmerican
I reconcile homosexual desire with the reality of the purpose of human sexual anatomy because of the simple fact that homosexual people EXIST and will always exist. I accept them for who they are and don't demonize them simply because they are different, that's what bigots do.
Who cares if it doesn't fit the scientific purpose of reproductive organs? That doesn't mean they're not still people with personalities, hopes, aspirations and talents just like you and me.
yeebuddeh1 7 months ago
@yeebuddeh1
Existence doesn't reconcile anything.
Rapists exist, thieves, anorexics, agoraphobics, there are a great many disordered behaviors that exist, but their incompatibility with the natural order is what classifies them as disordered behaviors.
Let's be clear. The only demonizing that is going on here is the stuff that you and MasterfulInsane are perpetrating. You are the one offending here.
CatholicAmerican 7 months ago
@CatholicAmerican
That's a completely ridiculous analogy. Rapists and thieves are people that CHOOSE to commit crimes. Homosexuals are people that have sexual desires for the same sex beyond their control. There's a big difference.
I'm not demonizing christianity, I'm demonizing the use of christianity to justify bigotry against entire groups of people.
yeebuddeh1 7 months ago
@yeebuddeh1
You were fallaciously arguing that the mere existence homosexual activity is argument enough for socially accepting homosexuality as a natural act. That is no more true than it is for any other human action. All human actions are open for scrutiny and it is possible to conclude that a given action is harmonious with nature or if that action is inconsistent with the natural order.
That is not bigotry. It is healthy scrutiny and shame on gay activists who try to frustrate such scrutiny
CatholicAmerican 7 months ago
@CatholicAmerican
So what exactly is your stance on homosexual people?
yeebuddeh1 7 months ago
@yeebuddeh1
There is no new taxonomic category in the science of biology for humans who display same sex behavior. Gay is not a race, it is a disordered sexual behavior. It is just one of many sexual dysfunctions and though wrong, isn't really that big of deal. What is a big deal is gay activism which seeks to force people to ignore the biological facts of human sexual anatomy and the purpose and function of reproductive cells to blindly condone homogenital acts. It is intellectually offensive.
CatholicAmerican 7 months ago
@CatholicAmerican
Brainwashing at its finest. I can sympathize with your position, though. I mean, if a male Catholic priest touched me inappropriately, I'd probably spend my day formulating arguments on how "gay is not ok," too.
MasterfulInsane 7 months ago
It's not a person's "personalities, hopes, aspirations and talents" that are under scrutiny here. It is the very specific action of homoSEXUAL activity. The point of departure is that homogenital acts are inconsistent with the purpose and function of human sexual anatomy and reproductive cells. Just like anorexia is inconsistent with the purpose and function of the human digestive tract. That casts no disparity on the person suffering from anorexia it simply localizes on a disordered behavior.
CatholicAmerican 7 months ago
@yeebuddeh1
Of course, he's a bigot. Racists employ the exact same arguments. They're called "(pseudo) intellectual racists." In his case, we can replace racist with homophobia. He isn't making any ground breaking arguments. He's recycling and applying racist rhetoric to the new outrage du jour, homosexuality.
MasterfulInsane 7 months ago
@CatholicAmerican
Oh, so I guess you've done a study and individually counted all the boys involved? Stop pulling facts from out of your ass. That isn't their normal origin.
Your religious institution is nothing more than a pedophile playhouse with a self-adsorbed Hitler Youth guarding the hen house.
MasterfulInsane 7 months ago
@CatholicAmerican
I tried googling the Catholic church donating to stem cell research and found nothing. Please provide the link you're referring to.
And I just researched their current stance on evolution and you're right. As of 2 years ago the Vatican acknowledged that evolution is a scientific fact. That doesn't excuse their stance on it for the first 150 years that Darwin published his work.
yeebuddeh1 7 months ago
@yeebuddeh1
You are still trying to go off topic with the adult stem cell question but if you are sincerely interested just look for the "RomeReports" youtube channel and watch the "Australian Archdiocese donates $100,000 for stem cell resear" video.
This was one of the first links I found when I google searched the topic.
When you're done, maybe you'd like to get back on topic. I'm going to keep pointing out your avoidance of the biological facts of human sexual organs and reproductive cells.
CatholicAmerican 7 months ago
@CatholicAmerican
Haha, he's donating it to ADULT stem cell research, not embryonic. You know the difference between adult and embryonic stem cells, right? Adult stem cells are extremely limited in what they can become while embryonic stem cells can become any cell in the body. So basically, he's donating to the knives in a the gun fight
yeebuddeh1 7 months ago
@yeebuddeh1
You do not have a functional grasp on the adult vs. embryonic stemcell debate and you are also AGAIN trying to change the topic from the crucial one at hand.
To hummer you, years ago, Dr. Shinya Yamanaka has successfully turned Adult stemcells into pluripotent stemcells thus making adult stem cells function on every level that scientists in the embryonic camp only claim embryonic ones can. Adult stem cells have produced over 75 treatments. Embryonic =ZERO.
CatholicAmerican 7 months ago
@yeebuddeh1
And let's scrutinize my first comment on the subject shall we?
"the Catholic Church has donated money to the advancement of ADULT stemcell research which has produced over 75 treatments."
I capitalized all of "ADULT"
Now you're trying to spin some kind of rhetoric that attempts diminish this statement? Man, gay activist double talk is second nature to you isn't it. That's ok, people are wise to it now.
You have now consistently avoided the biological reality question.
CatholicAmerican 7 months ago
@yeebuddeh1
What?! The "traditional" purpose of sexual organs?! I'm sure professors of biology are slapping their foreheads right now. There is no such thing as a "traditional purpose" you are mixing political rhetoric with an empirical science. Don't you realize that?
Your world view is tainting your ability to evaluate biological fact. Since biological fact stands in testimony of your world view, you now try to verbally engineer some new kind of biology? Have fun with that.
CatholicAmerican 7 months ago
@CatholicAmerican
Using your logic, once a girl is able to conceive a child, she should be able to engage in intercourse. After all, the primary function of sex is reproduction. So, biologically speaking, I guess it's perfectly fine for a 10 year old to sleep with a 30+ year old? Right?
MasterfulInsane 7 months ago
@yeebuddeh1
You are the only one who has stated that a homosexual is a "lesser people". I have been trying to get you to focus on the biological facts which is why there is so much confusion on this issue, because gay activists have made a cognitive effort to change the subject whenever someone brings up the biological inconsistency of homogenital acts.
CatholicAmerican 7 months ago
@CatholicAmerican
Then what exactly is the purpose of you pointing out the biological facts of reproduction?
yeebuddeh1 7 months ago
@yeebuddeh1
Stating that other animals exhibit homosexual behavior does not reconcile the action with the purpose and function of anatomical structures, it only illustrates that disordered behavior stretches across species. If a lion has a penis, then the lion is behaving in a dysfunctional sexual manner if he goes after another male lion in a sexual way. The structure of a male lion penis is coherently designed to deploy a lion gamete in the sexual anatomy of a female lion.
That's not bigotry.
CatholicAmerican 7 months ago
@CatholicAmerican
Coating your bigotry in scientific language doesn't make it any less bigoted. That's something Christian pseudo-intellectuals don't seem to understand.
MasterfulInsane 7 months ago
@MasterfulInsane
Biology is not "bigotry" and you have made no attempt to reconcile homogenital acts with the clear complementary of the male penis and the female vagina.
Do you deny that the purpose and function of human reproductive organs is to deploy a male gamete in close proximity of where a female gamete will arrive?
If you do then would't you agree that the burden of proof is on you to reconcile homosexuality with clear, non bias, biological human anatomical structures?
CatholicAmerican 7 months ago
@CatholicAmerican
Repeat: Coating your bigotry in scientific jargon doesn't make it any less bigoted.
As human beings, we should aspire to be more than just inbred, 16th century-minded Catholic retards with Youtube pages. But, if that's all you've chosen to be, then so be it.
MasterfulInsane 7 months ago
@MasterfulInsane
And again you take the dishonest, political activist, question dodge tactic.
You will make no attempt to reconcile the homosexual urge with the biological facts of human sexual anatomical structures because they are irreconcilable. So you abandon Biology, which focuses on REALITY and cling to and push a flawed and arbitrary version of psychology which tries to bully people into ignoring the biological facts. Shame on you. That is very intellectually dishonest.
CatholicAmerican 7 months ago
@CatholicAmerican
Another religious fanatic co-opts science as a means of demonizing a human sect. Actual scientists rely upon science to explain the world around them; to discover ways of making society better. Religious fanatics either ignore science altogether or twist it to fit their ignorant view of minorities.
MasterfulInsane 7 months ago
@MasterfulInsane
Psychology is not at war with Biology. Your arbitrary version of psychology is though and the fact that you avoid a biological discussion like the plague, even to the point of trying to turn it into an insult on religion, is damning evidence against your sophist activism.
You are the real bigot who has come here to preach hate. I have only made appeals to biology and somehow (as it always does with gay activists) it provokes a venomous hate filled response.
CatholicAmerican 7 months ago
@CatholicAmerican
We're not bound to certain behavior simply because we were born with certain body parts. We do have the ability to choose/to adapt to a new lifestyle. Without that innate ability, evolution wouldn't be possible. You know it's none of your business what a same-sex couple does behind closed doors. That's why you're grasping at straws, trying to co-opt science for your own bigoted agenda.
MasterfulInsane 7 months ago
@CatholicAmerican
Why bother trying to have an intellectual dialog with liberals and homosexuals? The truth is revealed only after hard work and perseverance. Opposite to this fact is the left wing liberals who do not want the truth or work hard. They want to wallow in sin and pity waiting for a handout from the hard working God fearing individuals (Conservatives) that made the USA the greatest nation in the world.
Indeed, if it was not for conservatives, liberals would parish!
bllmcclure6 7 months ago
@bllmcclure6
You need liberals to oppose empirical truths because it helps to better illustrate what is true and what is false.
Let all things good or bad be used to reveal what is fact and what is opinion. And always try to do it with charity because in this case, same sex attracted people are often verbally abused by people who don't suffer from the neurosis and this perpetuates the problem.
The solution is to insist that laws reflect coherent biological fact.
CatholicAmerican 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CatholicAmerican "the case is closed that same sex attraction is an unhealthy neurosis just like anorexia or other human mental conditions that precede erroneous and unnatural human behavior."
I think I know of a few major medical, psychological, and sociological organizations in the U.S. that disagree with your statement and have the evidence to back their claims up
PeachesNPlumz 7 months ago
Really? 4:40 are you really pushing that kind of Saul Alinsky talk Lee?
In order for your statement to be a correct one then History is going to have to go to war with biological fact. You have swallowed LGBT propaganda hook line and sinker.
Human sexual anatomy and reproductive cells have a specific observable purpose and function. Ever notice how Psychiatrist who are gay activists never try and reconcile their erroneous teachings with observable biological fact?
Poor form Lee.
CatholicAmerican 7 months ago
Perhaps Conservative means more than fiscally conservative, but also socially. Gay marriage is not best for children, as they have a right to be raised by their mother and father. The government has a vested interest in protecting such unions, not in creating unions which are not in the best interest of children. We can see the negative social impact from fatherless households. Certifying gay marriage will only approve of bad environments for children.
phil8888 7 months ago
@phil8888
Why don't they outlaw single parents then? Because that's such a bad environment for children, the only thing kids in that situation have ever achieved is being the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
Children can also grow to lead great fulfilling lives when raised by two men or two women. A good friend of mine has two gay moms and he is now excelling in med school.
You have absolutely no evidence to back up that statement, you're just talking out of your bigoted ass.
yeebuddeh1 7 months ago
@yeebuddeh1 Single mothers are tough and brave people who must battle against the odds to raise good kids. However, it's not seen as an ideal situation, but rather as a deficient one, ultimately a problematic one. The government does not endorse or encourage single parenthood. It's something people must sometimes live with for various reasons.
From statistics, we know a disproportionate number of children who are violent, delinquent, drug users, etc. did not have a father in the household.
phil8888 7 months ago
I see that a lot of comments below condemn Christians.... That's fine. The same people that mock religion and the belief in God always point to science to try and make their point. One example is Darwin's theory. Funny how the same people ignore basic biology in regards to homosexual activity. From a scientific/biological standpoint, homosexual activity makes no sense and is meaningless.. I find the hypocrisy amusing...
imax1971 7 months ago
@imax1971
Kind of sad how Christian cons have to resort to co-opting and distorting the other sides positions to justify their bigotry.
MasterfulInsane 7 months ago 2
@MasterfulInsane Bigotry?? I'm just bringing up biology... Why not focus on my comment and not resort to personal attacks? Was my comment factually incorrect? Anti religion people always try and use science to TRY and disprove the existence of God... I use science to outline that homosexual activity is biologically meaningless, and am called a bigot! By your standards, you are a bigot as well... One thing is on my side. Facts. Human anatomy doesn't lie...
imax1971 7 months ago
@imax1971
Trying to reason with you is hopeless and meaningless, but I still do it.
Doing something you (notice how I say "you"?) consider meaningless shouldn't make them the object of your ultra right wing moonshine fueled scorn.
MasterfulInsane 7 months ago
@MasterfulInsane Just so you know, I feel that gays SHOULD be afforded the same rights under the law as normal couples.. We live in a country of laws. The law of this country dictates that all people are equal... So please dispense with the "right wing" shit.. With that said, my previous comments are spot on accurate. Homosexual activity, from a scientific perspective, is meaningless... It cannot sustain human existence.. Please point out how I am wrong in this regard..
imax1971 7 months ago
@imax1971
Pointless point is pointless.
Yes, if you look at a strictly from a scientific perspective, homosexual sex might seem meaningless to you. Let's say I agree and it is meaningless. And? When have you ever heard of someone getting into a relationship as a way of conforming to biological "normalcy"? People get into a relationship because they either love or lust after that person.
MasterfulInsane 7 months ago
@MasterfulInsane
"biological normalcy"? You're twisting elements here. Biology in this case is simply the standard for categorizing sexual acts as ordered or disordered in the natural realm. It is empirical. The plumbing works one way and it doesn't work another way.
Psychology studies and tries to philosophize on the origin and nature of the desire. It is not empirical and dabbles much in subjective opinion.
Psychology can't trump Biology.
CatholicAmerican 7 months ago
@imax1971
Is the human species on the verge of extinction? No. So what does is it matter to you if 10% (or however many there are) of the population decides to take themselves out of the child-bearing/rearing game? The answer is: it doesn't. But because your fairy tale book condemns the act of homosexuality, you think it's your duty to make homosexuality out to be some sort of threatening aberration.
MasterfulInsane 7 months ago
@MasterfulInsane My original comment points out the hypocrisy of how the anti religious bring up science to try and prove God doesn't exist, yet ignore science in regards to homosexual activity... . Now you bring up love. Love falls under the umbrella of human psychology.. I have never condemned homosexuality nor do I think it is a threat of any kind. I simply pointed out that is is biologically meaningless... You are yet to outline how I am wrong....You are on the losing end of an argument...
imax1971 7 months ago
@imax1971
masterfullnsane won't address your point of departure with him because I think he knows that Psychology can not Trump Biology and any philosophical assertions about homosexuality that a psychiatrist or the APA must still be reconciled with observable biological fact or else it is junk psychiatry.
I'm sure you've noticed that gay activists always change the topic when biological dynamics are brought up.
CatholicAmerican 7 months ago
@CatholicAmerican
After all the ridiculous arguments you've made today, I think you ought to ban yourself from this discussion. I'm still waiting for you to address your other ridiculous assertion, about how pedophiles in your own church prove that "gay is not ok."
MasterfulInsane 7 months ago
@MasterfulInsane
Your comments are the equivalent of "so tell me when you started beating your wife".
They are statements out of nowhere and they are crafted solely to try and disparage character or detract from a substantive argument. Shame on you. It is repugnant youtube behavior.
And once again, you avoid the reality of how homogenital acts are completely disordered according to the science of biology.
It's like the 4th time you've avoided it.
CatholicAmerican 7 months ago
@CatholicAmerican
Not out of nowhere. It's a fact that your religion is plagued with old men who like to play kiddy-fiddler at night time.
MasterfulInsane 7 months ago
@MasterfulInsane
Nature does not provide for homogenital acts. The study of biology is clear on the subject. Human sexual anatomy is designed with a very specific purpose and function. The same is true for reproductive cells. Homosexual attraction is disordered acording to these empirical biological facts.
The plumbing doesn't work that way and no amount of wishful thinking changes that. This is the biological grounds for classifying it as a neurosis. Just like anorexia.
CatholicAmerican 7 months ago
@CatholicAmerican
You're talking in circles and rambling on about how I've avoided the conversation in spite of having done that yourself. They call that projecting, I believe.
MasterfulInsane 7 months ago
@MasterfulInsane
When you are the one who won't address the first premise of our point of departure, the only thing I can do is to keep pointing out how you are avoiding a first principle and simply resigning yourself to character attacks.
You have consistently retreated from every question of science.
You have consistently engaged in character attack.
Please concede that you are in the wrong. That is the honorable thing to do. Name calling and spinning words is dishonorable.
CatholicAmerican 7 months ago
@CatholicAmerican
Haven't retreated at all. You said "gay was not ok" because your church is a pedophileland. I responded pointing out that, outside of church, there are just as many female victims of pedophilia. You misunderstood and posted something specifically about the pedophiles in your church. After that, all I heard was crickets. I then asked you if you were in favor of 10 yo having sex with 30+ year olds, since most of them are capable of fulfilling the purpose of sex. No response.
MasterfulInsane 7 months ago
@MasterfulInsane
Lol. You haven't earned the position to start a new topic because you have avoided the very root of the debate and you have avoided it from the very beginning.
The church has nothing to do with the biological fact that human sexual anatomy is designed to deploy the male gamete in close proximity to where a female gamete may arrive. Homogenital acts are disordered because they are not grounded in the biological reality of human anatomical structures. The impulse is a neurosis.
CatholicAmerican 7 months ago
@CatholicAmerican
So you won't answer either question? No surprise there. Correction: You tried to answer it but stopped once you actually understood it.
MasterfulInsane 7 months ago
@MasterfulInsane
Psychology is not an empirical science and so it can not trump what is observed in the biological order.
Gay activists only make appeals to authorities in Psychology but those authorities have always avoided reconciling their opinions on homosexuality with the Biological order. That is intellectually dishonest. And your continued attempts at changing the topic is just another spotlight on this gay activist tactic at avoiding reality.
CatholicAmerican 7 months ago
@CatholicAmerican
"The plumping works THAT way, not THAT way. Yeah! I got 'em! *snort*. Homos are dumb and 'not ok.'"
That's what's going on in your head. Funny how the Pedophile Church breeds some of America's most notorious haters.
MasterfulInsane 7 months ago
@MasterfulInsane
"Homos are dumb" is your statement and it's a very insensitive one.
Same sex attraction is just one of many sexual dysfunctions that a person can suffer from. It doesn't make them dumb.
Now if a person chooses to ignore biological facts that contradict their world view, then yes, they are being "dumb" but it's unproductive to dwell on that. It's better to keep presenting the biological facts in hopes that the person or group will abandon their disordered pursuits.
CatholicAmerican 7 months ago
@CatholicAmerican
"Gay is not ok" is ACTUALLY one of your statements, not something made up and falsely attributed to you. PedophileAmerican is doing Bible-God's work. He needs his brain trust to critique, criticize, bash, demonize his "dysfunctional" creations. Familiarize yourself with what quotations mean and how they're used in contexts such as this. Hopefully you won't make that mistake again, you kiddy-fiddling weasel.
MasterfulInsane 7 months ago
@MasterfulInsane
You can keep trying to change the subject to the Church if you want but we all see that it is just you trying to run from the root of the debate.
Gay activists will always do what you are doing here. If somebody brings up the biological facts of sexual anatomy, then the gay activist must try and change the subject or else loose the debate.
You will consistently observe this fact when every you watch a debate on TV.
It's very dishonest of you and other gay activists.
CatholicAmerican 7 months ago
@CatholicAmerican
"Root of the debate." Which is what? Since you're doing it, I'll do it. Re-post: "The biological purpose of sex is reproduction." Therefore.....what? *crickets*. That's where your argument stops. We don't have to engage in something simply because our bodies (not our minds) were designed for it, just like a child, 10 years old, doesn't have to sleep with a 30+ year old because she's capable of conceiving.
MasterfulInsane 7 months ago
@MasterfulInsane
That's not a quote of mine you blatant liar!
Reproduction is the result of when a male and female gamete join.
Don't put quote marks around things that I didn't say. That is repugnantly dishonest of you.
I have focused on the very thing that reveals homosexuality to be a neurosis and that is the misuse of anatomical structures. Reproduction is not a the first principle because reproduction is the effect of healthy anatomical structures and reproductive cells.
CatholicAmerican 7 months ago
@CatholicAmerican
"Uh oh, you've violated 'anatomy'...." is a quote of yours either, you simple fuck. In that case, I was paraphrasing your argument. That is essentially what you're saying. No, it's exactly what you're saying.
"reproduction is the result of when a male and female" Which must make the primary function of sex reproduction. Your problem with that is? If that isn't your position, then you really don't have leg to stand on, not that you did anyways.
MasterfulInsane 7 months ago
@MasterfulInsane
*is not a quote
MasterfulInsane 7 months ago
@MasterfulInsane
You are trying to engineer words in order to try and find an out. I have been completely transparent in my approach and committed no deception.
Your words are at war with biological facts and they are at war with my person. You are trying to change this to something personal when biological science is an impersonal discipline. You either adhere to reality or you don't. If you choose not to then don't try and force society to condone your choice.
CatholicAmerican 7 months ago
@CatholicAmerican
"adhere"
This is your problem, my dumb little religious fanatic/conservative friend. You think that the fact that we're born with opposing body parts means we're pigeonholed into certain behavior. There's nothing to adhere to. Repost: "[..] if every animal did ONLY what came natural to them, then evolution, adaptation would not take place."
MasterfulInsane 7 months ago
@MasterfulInsane
So you think that the more men have sex with men, the more human sexual anatomy will change to conform to the desire of those men?
That's a new one. Have I misrepresented you?
So instead of homosexuality being an objective neurosis, what it really is is people ushering in human evolution.
Then why is there no such thing as a gay gene? The human genome project is finished. No gay gene was found because human sexual anatomy is biologically designed for coitus. That's it.
CatholicAmerican 7 months ago
@CatholicAmerican
"change to conform to the desire of those men." Nothing needs to change. Gays will still be gay, gays will still have sex, and gays will still be accepted by us non-rednecks. The all-powerful "human sexual anatomy entity" will just have to deal, I guess. :'-(
MasterfulInsane 7 months ago
@CatholicAmerican
People don't care if homosexuality doesn't mesh with anatomy. That's certainly no reason to state that "gay is not ok." This is what I was talking earlier when I used the term governing body. "Uh oh, you've violated "anatomy". You're in trouble now!" Oh wait, no they're not, it's just another one of PedophileAmerican's silly arguments.
MasterfulInsane 7 months ago
@MasterfulInsane
You are trying to use political speak when debating a scientific topic and that is why you are so inconsistent.
We can't really interface if you refuse to stay on topic. The only thing I can do is to make an example of your errors and attempts to avoid conceding your errors.
CatholicAmerican 7 months ago
@CatholicAmerican
I might be on the losing end of an argument (yeah, right), but you're on the losing end of life and history. This would explain your feverish attempts to malign gay people.
"Gay is not ok because of my church and its pedophiles."
MasterfulInsane 7 months ago
@MasterfulInsane
Is history at war with biology?
CatholicAmerican 7 months ago
@MasterfulInsane
When a person realizes their mistake then the noble thing is for them to turn and strengthen their brothers and sisters, not to go on an all out dishonest attack of them.
Have I attacked your person? No I have made every appeal to your cognitive ability. I have tried to make biological science crystal clear for you and you have responded at every occasion to slam down a personal attack or a misrepresentation of me.
I'm sorry you choose this but science doesn't change.
CatholicAmerican 7 months ago
@CatholicAmerican
Neither do bigots. They tend to die off. Then, a newer, more tolerant generation replaces them. You're a dying breed. :'-(
MasterfulInsane 7 months ago
@MasterfulInsane
Humm. people who reproduce are a "dying breed".
That's so oxymoronic that it's funny.
Thanks for the giggle.
CatholicAmerican 7 months ago
@CatholicAmerican
Your belies are dying. So, in effect, you're dying. Good riddance.
MasterfulInsane 7 months ago
@MasterfulInsane
Your comment is an exercise in self delusion.
Nature has always bulldozed nations that have adopted disordered practices. From Egypt, to Greece, to Rome.
Reality doesn't change no matter how many arbitrary laws are made and no matter how much social conditioning a movement is able to effect.
Reality is elegant that way.
CatholicAmerican 7 months ago
@CatholicAmerican
This is just natural, PedophileAmerican. The same happenswith all groups. Take African-Americans. Slavery - Jim Crow - Affirmative Action. With gays, it's: Assaults/complete ban on homosexuality - legalization/legitimization of homosexual sex - civil unions - acceptance in the army - gay marriage? :'-(
MasterfulInsane 7 months ago
@MasterfulInsane
The art of persuasion can be used to usher in things that are good, but corrupted this art brings about tyranny and disorder.
The more the U.S. constructs laws that depart from natural reality, them ore people come off the fence and start to scrutinize those laws.
Homosexuality is a revolt against the natural order. Human sexual anatomy is designed for coitus. This act is the coherent fulfillment of of anatomical parts. That's your biology lesson for today.
CatholicAmerican 7 months ago
@CatholicAmerican
You've been listen to too much Ryan Sorba (either him or David Duke).
An entire region scrutinized civil rights legislation. Many of them still do. It passed in spite of them. Your revolt would consist of toothless, drunken neoconfederates.
MasterfulInsane 7 months ago
@MasterfulInsane
Wow. Such a character attack.
Ok, I'll bring out a big gun. Youtube search
"Dr. Robert Spitzer - Homosexuals Can Change"
Your movement has no more legs. The authority that all gay activists used to cite now says gays can change and his opinion is grounded in biological fact.
You are exercising self delusion.
CatholicAmerican 7 months ago
@MasterfulInsane
And every year, thousands more men and women successfully receive psychiatric treatment for same sex attraction and go on to lead a fulfilling life that is consistent with biological reality.
What great hope people who suffer from same sex attraction should have! Psychiatry is getting better by the minute.
Gays are not born gay. Same sex attraction is an environmentally conditioned learned pattern of behavior just like anorexia. They don't choose it, they are afflicted with it
CatholicAmerican 7 months ago
@CatholicAmerican
"People don't care..." - Me
Obviously not. We're at the point in history where we actually have conservatives, such as Ann Coulter, running to the defense of GAY groups. We're at the point where a significant number of American support gay marriage, with even more of them supporting civil unions. We're at he point where it's acceptable to have gay characters in movies, gay television shows, even entire gay networks. Etc.
MasterfulInsane 7 months ago
@MasterfulInsane
Who is Ann Coulter and what does she have to do with the biological facts of human sexual anatomy?
Has she reconciled homogenital acts with their inconsistency in the natural order? I would be impressed to read that. But if you are simply talking about another person's ungrounded opinion, then you are once again avoiding the science of biology in favor of arbitrary opinion.
CatholicAmerican 7 months ago
@CatholicAmerican I'm getting a kick out of your debate with Masterfullnsane! He is doing exactly what a person on the losing end of an argument does. That is, change the subject and hurl insults... He enjoys bashing the Church by saying pedophilia is "rampant" within the Church. That is an absolutely ridiculous statement. . I find it hysterical the way people like him point to science to try and disprove the existance God, yet ignore science in regards to homosexual activity! Funny...
imax1971 7 months ago
@imax1971
Your argument, if you want to call it that, is both a straw man and a red herring. You don't need for something to be "meaningful" on a biological level to engage in it, obviously. Doing so doesn't violate some mythical scientific code. If anything, it proves we're not all running off a program, and that the human brain is capable of more than just rudimentary tasks.
MasterfulInsane 7 months ago
@imax1971
This, to everyone out there, is what's called grasping at straws. You don't have a real argument, so you have to resort to making petty arguments about the meaningfulness of homosexuality. Absolutely pathetic.
Science doesn't dictate that everything we do as humans must be meaningful according to how we were made. As I told PedophileAmerican below, if every animal did ONLY what came natural to them, then evolution would not take place.
MasterfulInsane 7 months ago
@imax1971 If you think it's "meaningless" stop arguing in favor of "meaningless" legislation.
smiledammit24 7 months ago
@smiledammit24
He's going to say he's not arguing for anti-gay legislation. Basically, he's arguing for the sake of arguing. This is the state of the anti-gay movement. It's not as acceptable to frame your argument around the term faggot anymore, so they're reduced to evoking anatomy, as if that is some sort of governing body in and of itself. "The biological purpose of sex is reproduction." Therefore....what? *crickets*
MasterfulInsane 7 months ago
@MasterfulInsane You really make me laugh. I am on the record saying that Gays should be afforded the same rights under the law as normal couples. Most people do not take that position. But we live in the US and we live free and equal... I don't hate gays. I never said sex is limited to just reproduction. I am simply pointing out that from a biological standpoint, homosexual activity is abnormal. You arguing that FACT is making you look silly..
imax1971 7 months ago
@imax1971
"homosexuality is abnormal."
So is mindlessly making the same statement over and over. Abnormalities are nothing new and surely nothing that needs highlighting. What exactly is your point? "It's a abnormal!" Therefore what? That's where your "point" stops.
MasterfulInsane 7 months ago