Posts
Saturday, June 18, 2011
The difference between race and homosexuality.
A person's sexuality can change; there are ex-gays in this world. Gender and skin color are innate, but, in the wrong circumstances, a person's sexuality can change from it's normal state.
Homofascists are now intentionally trampling the civil rights of parents by telling children in public schools that homosexuality is innate, WITHOUT parental consent. The African-American civil-rights movement didn't go after people's children behind the backs of their parents.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Your post is not factually correct. Homosexuality IS innate, & teaching the truth in no way violates anyone's civil rights. You can post the same BS over and over. It doesn't, however, make it true. Total Fail. And please, what legitimate evidence do you have to support your claims - and please drop the "molested as a child" nonsense, and the "no gay gene" arguments doesn't work either.
ReplyDeleteOh, civil rights movement most CERTAINLY went after southern white children against the wishes of their parents when they started to integrate schools. We both know that the issues are different, however, the discrimination is the same.
You're wrong. A male having sex with another male is a sinful BEHAVIOR. People have the right to shun someone for their behavior. Equating race with behavior is wrong. The glbt community has been caught STEALING the nobility of the African-American civil-rights movement. Equating sexual behavior with skin color is an absurd form of anti-Christ bigotry.
ReplyDeleteNo one is arguing that the act of intercourse is a choice, and you are free to believe that the BEHAVIOR is sinful. However, homosexuality (the attraction/orientation, not the sex act) is not a choice, but an innate characteristic (and as a matter of fact, the actual SEX ACT is one that gays and lesbians have a consticutional right to engage in). Beliving that gays & lesbians have the same rights to life, liberty, persuite of happiness and equal protection under the law is NOT anti-Christain bigotry, and no one is trying to take away the rights of Christians to believe what they want, or worship how they want. And, DESCRIMINATION against gays & lesbians is just as wrong as it was/is for blacks. The civil rights activists were call anti-christain by the whites in the south. You are doing the same in this instance. Pitty (and hypocritical) that you feel it was wrong for your community to suffer discrimination but are encouraging the discrimination of others. YOU have done more to harm the nobility of the civil rights movement that we have.
ReplyDeleteSame sex attraction is wrong. Humans are automatically born with a sexuality that will, eventually, lead them to the opposite sex. This natural sexual attraction to the opposite sex can be wounded or distorted by outside influences like sexual or emotional abuse. Some young boys mislabel their seduction into the homosexuality as an act of love, which is what gay pedophiles aim for.
ReplyDeleteWhites in the South misused Biblical scripture since the Bible does not exalt one skin color above another, and Biblical verses mentioning slavery were referring to paid laborers and not people taken by force. A person's skin color is not a sinful act as sexual sin.
Your willful sin is also revealed by the fact that I can and have denounced speaking to a child about heterosexuality or the teachings of Jesus Christ without the consent of their parents. As a homosexual who is dedicated to a certain agenda, you cannot denounce speaking to a child about homosexuality, WITHOUT the consent of that child’s parents. Or can you? If you don’t, you prove my point.
So will you denounce speaking to a child about homosexuality without the consent of that child’s parents like I have denounced speaking to a child about Christianity or heterosexuality without the consent of that child’s parents?
You can denounce anything you want. This is the USA, everyone has the right to free speach. You are also free to believe that Homosexuality is wrong, there are no thought police here either. However, dislikeing something or beliveing it is wrong does not make it a "choice". If you are making a claim that you wish others to consider as true, I would definitely recommend that you provide some concrete, credible evidence that supports that claim. You have not provided any, likely because there is none.
ReplyDeleteOh, and btw, my "willful sin" is also completely legal as well, as is my belief that it is not wrong.
You've denounced speaking to a children about Christianity and heterosexuality? I don't even know what you mean by that, or even what the point would be.
Jacob,
ReplyDeleteI believe that you wouldn’t hesitate to violate the civil rights of parents that don’t support the sexual activities of the glbt community by speaking to their children about homosexuality, WITHOUT their consent. So I ask again...
Will you denounce speaking to a child about homosexuality WITHOUT the consent of that child’s parents?
(I’m not going to post your comments until you give a clear yes or no to my question.)
I’ve seen your comment. I was almost certain that you were going to find a way to avoid disavowing speaking to a child about homosexuality without the consent of that child’s parents, and you’ve proved me right. Now you can see why I, unconditionally, disavowed speaking to a child about Christianity and heterosexuality without the consent of that child’s parents. It was to prove that my heteroseparatist philosophy respects the civil rights of others, while your homofascist philosophy does not.
ReplyDeleteThere are NO circumstances that child should be learning about sexual activities from adults WITHOUT the consent of that child’s parents. NONE. Your reluctance to disavow speaking to a child about sexual matters without the consent of that child’s parents shows that you are not only a danger to children, but that you are also ready to violate the civil rights of those who will not support your glbt community.
Until you can disavow speaking to a child about homosexuality without the consent of that child’s parents, your comments won’t be posted here. I do not associate with people who don’t respect the civil rights of others and, moreover, those who are a threat to children, whether they be straight or gay.
More evasiveness huh? You have the exact same marital options as me and every other man; to be married to one woman at a time. You are talking about REDEFINING marriage. Don't send me any more comments until YOU disavow speaking to children about homosexuality, WITHOUT the consent of that child's parents. One more comment from you that does not comply to that condition will cause me to not even respond to you anymore.
ReplyDelete