What's true?
|
What's true?
Do you even bother to read the nonsense you link? Of course the quotes are there, dear reader. I might add, dear reader, that I have rarely read an article any more devoid of scientific content than that one.Quote:
Those quotes weren't in the link I posted.
I reread my link. Nope. Nothing you quoted was there. By Charles Coddington:
"Homosexuality may be a political issue, which Joan Solms avers in The Voice, but it is most certainly not a moral one. Questions of morality involve conscious choices; one decides to become either moral or immoral depending upon his/her understanding of the current code of morality.
Codes of morality have been around for a long time, and they keep changing in content as ignorance and superstition give way to enlightenment and rationality. Once upon a time, it was perfectly acceptable for a man to beat his wife and children if they “misbehaved,” i.e did not do as he ordered them to do. It was perfectly acceptable to hang/burn at the stake a woman who acted “strangely” (“thou shalt not suffer a witch to live” – Exodus 22:18). It was perfectly acceptable to own slaves and to punish them severely if they got too “uppity,” i.e. protested their treatment. It was perfectly acceptable to send children off to factories for eight hours a day instead of sending them off to schools. It was perfectly acceptable to send a person to prison if he could not pay his debts. And it was perfectly acceptable for a rich man to have a mistress, and break his marriage vows, so long as he paid his taxes and tithed to his house of worship of choice.
We don’t do those things anymore, do we, dear reader? Well, maybe that last one is still “on the books”! Those things aren’t acceptable anymore. Our code of morality has changed radically since those practices once reigned supreme.
One piece of the old moral code still remains, however. I’m sure Ms Solms is familiar with Leviticus 20:13 – “If a man lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: They shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.” I don’t know how many “queers” Ms Solms has killed so far, you’ll have to ask her, but this is the moral code to which she subscribes. Others have obeyed this “commandment,” and they often brag about it, in private, of course, because it is no longer acceptable amongst a growing segment of the population.
Homosexuality, as I have alluded to above, does not derive from a conscious choice. No LGBTQ person wakes up one morning and says to him/herself, “I think I’ll become a queer, because it’s cool to be one.” LGBTQ people were born that way and thus have no control over how they feel. It’s in their genetic code.
The human body carries a number of chromosomes, thread-like structures consisting of proteins and one molecule of DNA. Chromosomes transmit information which determines the appearance and function of every part of the body; this information derives from the genetic make-up of one’s parents. Each individual carries 23 pairs of chromosomes, one set from each parent. The 23rd pair, the Y and the X, called such because of their shape from one’s father and mother, respectively, govern the physical gender of the child. These chromosomes therefore secrete hormones which affect one’s mental outlook, i.e. masculinity or femininity.
Sometimes, however, the chromosomes are affected adversely, a chemical imbalance in the body, exposure to harmful radiation, or ingestion of a toxic substance, creating a mutation and upsetting the natural order of genetics. In the case of the sex chromosomes, the X may gain a few extra molecules of material, causing it to become a Y; similarly, a Y may lose a few molecules of material, causing it to become an X.
Consequently, hormones which never should have been are secreted, and the child behaves accordingly despite his/her physical appearance.
This, dear reader, is why we have LGBTQ persons in our midst. The LGBTQ community might object to this analysis, but it is the only rational explanation of their condition. And besides, it serves to underpin their struggle to establish their identity in a hostile world. Misconceptions to the contrary notwithstanding, their lifestyle is not of their choosing. They must be what they are.
History has demonstrated that homosexuality was accepted in those nations where no patriarchal religion held sway and dominated the culture. In those nations, individuals were judged by how they behaved toward others, not by how they dressed or wore their hair; cosmopolitanism was the watchword (the so-called “Golden Rule,” if you will). Some day, it will be so in the U.S. of A., and enmity will be replaced by brother/sisterhood.
Just a thought."
Just to make your life a little easier, I underlined the sections I quoted. And you think I have reading comp problems??? Hopefully, you will admit your error.Quote:
I reread my link. Nope. Nothing you quoted was there. By Charles Coddingham:
"Homosexuality may be a political issue, which Joan Solms avers in The Voice, but it is most certainly not a moral one. Questions of morality involve conscious choices; one decides to become either moral or immoral depending upon his/her understanding of the current code of morality.
Codes of morality have been around for a long time, and they keep changing in content as ignorance and superstition give way to enlightenment and rationality. Once upon a time, it was perfectly acceptable for a man to beat his wife and children if they “misbehaved,” i.e did not do as he ordered them to do. It was perfectly acceptable to hang/burn at the stake a woman who acted “strangely” (“thou shalt not suffer a witch to live” – Exodus 22:18). It was perfectly acceptable to own slaves and to punish them severely if they got too “uppity,” i.e. protested their treatment. It was perfectly acceptable to send children off to factories for eight hours a day instead of sending them off to schools. It was perfectly acceptable to send a person to prison if he could not pay his debts. And it was perfectly acceptable for a rich man to have a mistress, and break his marriage vows, so long as he paid his taxes and tithed to his house of worship of choice.
We don’t do those things anymore, do we, dear reader? Well, maybe that last one is still “on the books”! Those things aren’t acceptable anymore. Our code of morality has changed radically since those practices once reigned supreme.
One piece of the old moral code still remains, however. I’m sure Ms Solms is familiar with Leviticus 20:13 – “If a man lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: They shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.” I don’t know how many “queers” Ms Solms has killed so far, you’ll have to ask her, but this is the moral code to which she subscribes. Others have obeyed this “commandment,” and they often brag about it, in private, of course, because it is no longer acceptable amongst a growing segment of the population.
Homosexuality, as I have alluded to above, does not derive from a conscious choice. No LGBTQ person wakes up one morning and says to him/herself, “I think I’ll become a queer, because it’s cool to be one.” LGBTQ people were born that way and thus have no control over how they feel. It’s in their genetic code.
The human body carries a number of chromosomes, thread-like structures consisting of proteins and one molecule of DNA. Chromosomes transmit information which determines the appearance and function of every part of the body; this information derives from the genetic make-up of one’s parents. Each individual carries 23 pairs of chromosomes, one set from each parent. The 23rd pair, the Y and the X, called such because of their shape from one’s father and mother, respectively, govern the physical gender of the child. These chromosomes therefore secrete hormones which affect one’s mental outlook, i.e. masculinity or femininity. (quote 1)
Sometimes, however, the chromosomes are affected adversely, a chemical imbalance in the body, exposure to harmful radiation, or ingestion of a toxic substance, creating a mutation and upsetting the natural order of genetics. In the case of the sex chromosomes, the X may gain a few extra molecules of material, causing it to become a Y; similarly, a Y may lose a few molecules of material, causing it to become an X. (quote 2)
Consequently, hormones which never should have been are secreted, and the child behaves accordingly despite his/her physical appearance.
This, dear reader, is why we have LGBTQ persons in our midst. The LGBTQ community might object to this analysis, but it is the only rational explanation of their condition. And besides, it serves to underpin their struggle to establish their identity in a hostile world. Misconceptions to the contrary notwithstanding, their lifestyle is not of their choosing. They must be what they are.
History has demonstrated that homosexuality was accepted in those nations where no patriarchal religion held sway and dominated the culture. In those nations, individuals were judged by how they behaved toward others, not by how they dressed or wore their hair; cosmopolitanism was the watchword (the so-called “Golden Rule,” if you will). Some day, it will be so in the U.S. of A., and enmity will be replaced by brother/sisterhood.
Just a thought."
"Homosexuality, as I have alluded to above, does not derive from a conscious choice. No LGBTQ person wakes up one morning and says to him/herself, “I think I’ll become a queer, because it’s cool to be one.” LGBTQ people were born that way and thus have no control over how they feel. It’s in their genetic code."
Plainly, it was a forlorn hope. I figured it was.Quote:
Hopefully, you will admit your error.
As to your quote above, it's just sheer guesswork, dear reader. It's just making a statement with no support provided at all. There is nothing of science at all.
Of course there is. Talk honestly with someone associated with PFLAG.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
PFLAG of Jackson, MS
1445 Clinton-Raymond Rd, Clinton, MS 39056
(601) 842-2274
After that useless article, you really think I'm going to do your research for you? Not very likely. Call them yourself if you are interested.
I would actually agree that homosexuals by and large don't choose their sexual preferences. Why they feel as they do is a puzzle. Probably genetics play some relatively small part. More likely it is social environment, and I only say that because the genetic link has turned out to be largely a dead end. I imagine there is also a spiritual component. But I am certainly not going to be foolish and appeal to such non-scientific rubbish as hormone producing chromosomes!!
But I could be wrong. I'm sure there is a great deal more to learn.
You really should admit to your error.
As I said, I'll consult with my very smart, savvy LGBTQ+ friends. You do the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I'll consult with the science. You do the same.
I'm speaking of the error of being so certain that my quotes were not in the article you linked when they very plainly were. A simple "my mistake" would have been appropriate.
(Added Friday morning) Dear reader, do you find it remarkable that you seem to be so incapable of defending a position you have held for years that you have to resort to your, "very smart, savvy" gay friends? If the past is any reliable indicator, then I don't know that I should expect to see any effective response, but perhaps you will prove me wrong. I certainly hope that will be the case.
Interesting article on the nature vs. nurture debate. https://www.theguardian.com/science/...strangers-film
My transgender woman friend has been through the entire medical process, is very well versed in what was done and why.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
And I haven't held this position "for years".
Back to the original topic. Extreme hardship has resulted from wars, hurricanes, floods, gang violence. It isn't people looking for a handout.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
So your TG friend is well versed? And we should just accept that? Uhm…don’t think so.
umm eunuch has nothing to do with homosexuality . It's means he has had his gonads castrated . I was saying we have raised a generation of men with no balls . If I was going to be polite about it I would say they lack courage .It completely disgusts me that people watched and even videoed a rape and did nothing to stop it .
For many people it would only be serious if Trumps name had been involved or Kavanaugh had been accused of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
The narrative that passengers watched a man rape a woman on a train in suburban Philadelphia last week and “filmed it for their own gratification instead of calling the police” is false, the prosecutor handling the case said Thursday as he asked witnesses to come forward.Quote:
It completely disgusts me that people watched and even videoed a rape and did nothing to stop it .
That they stood by for over thirty minutes and did nothing is beyond dispute and appalling. That he is an illegal alien is beyond dispute. That he had been arrested on a number of occasions before is beyond dispute. We will see about the cell phones.
The quote in your post did not come from the account in the post you referred to.
Why didn't she move to a different seat or just get off at the next stop? How was there room for these activities? Why didn't she yell for help?
Yep. It was all her fault in your view. She had it coming didn’t she!! You ever try just getting off at the next stop while being raped?
It didn't get that far when it started happening to me. I moved away immediately.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
NBC reported the account here .
Police say riders didn't help woman raped on train. Does the 'bystander effect' explain why? (nbcnews.com)
Did they mention that according to WG, it was all the woman's fault?
It wasn't her fault. We women know men have uncontrollable lusts (and have been blaming us since the Fall). We learn to move away and disappear. Why didn't she? I figure she was next to the window and his sweaty body was blocking her. If that would have been the case with me, I'd have screamed. Why didn't she? Bet he had a knife on her. (I feel a mystery novel beginning to take root!)Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Sure appears to be a case of blaming the victim. In a civilized world there are laws against acting out of one's uncontrollable lusts(if there is such a thing as an "uncontrollable " lust ) ,Those who can't control their sexual lusts serve notice on society that they are a threat that has to be removed . Real men would not sit idle by and watch such an attack or video it . Even if the motive is to have evidence of the attack on record ,it is not a sufficient response . So if there were men in the car ,I continue to call them gutless eunuchs
Bagdad Bob Psaki strikes again and again technically she is right . When asked why Quid has not been to the border ,she quickly defended him and said yes he had been to the border ........13 years ago . She was serious too . This was to question why he told Anderson Cooper during his sad and pathetic performance during the recent CNN Town Hall that he had been to the border .
See the exchange here
White House says Biden drove by the border in 2008 - CNNPolitics
"He did drive through the border when he was on the campaign trail in 2008. And he is certainly familiar with the fact -- and it stuck with him -- with the fact that in El Paso, the border goes right through the center of town"
How can she say that with a straight face ?
In 2008 Quid flew into El Paso and then drove to a political rally in New Mexico . That was his visit to the border in 2008. That trip made him an expert . It is like saying Mayor Pete is an expert about Transportation because he drove in a car pool in Afghanistan , Mayor Pete knows more about how a male breast feeds twins than he does about transportation .
Quid said during the Town Hall that he probably should go to the border . But he doesn't have enough time for that,
Quid :
I’ve been there before, and I haven’t — I mean, I know it well. I guess I should go down. But the — but the whole point of it is: I haven’t had a whole hell of lot of time to get down. I’ve been spending time going around looking at the $900 billion worth of damage done by — by hurricanes and floods and — and weather, and traveling around the world.
But I plan on — now, my wife, Jill, has been down. She’s been on both sides of the river. She’s seen the circumstances there. She’s looked into those places.
Jill Biden has not been to the border since her 2019 campaign visit when she visited a "refugee " camp in Matamoros Mexico, across the border from Brownsville, Texas . Not as First Lady as Quid implied in his comment .
As for our border czar Kam the Sham ;she has plans to travel to Europe ;but none to go to the border .
Not sure how this can be viewed as anything other than a "blame the victim" narrative from beginning to end. What should we think if a person suggests, "Oh, there wasn't enough room for a rape to occur." Good grief. What a line of questioning. It just goes to show that, for some people, the idea of an illegal breaking the law is just unthinkable, so it had to be the woman's fault. That guy better be glad he isn't a white fundamentalist, Trump supporter. He would've been blasted. Come to think of it, if the illegal had been a little quicker on his mental feet, he would have self identified as a woman. That would have virtually guaranteed the support of the Biden DOJ!Quote:
Why didn't she move to a different seat or just get off at the next stop? How was there room for these activities? Why didn't she yell for help?
Sadly true.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:15 AM. |