Obama Calls For End To LGBT Conversion Therapy

a reply to: greencmp

Certainly, "culture" (wherever it is found) is an invention of humanity and is based upon a set of commonly agreed principals and accepted behavior.

And yet, "culture" is found everywhere humans are! It seems that "culture" naturally arises from human interaction.

a reply to: greencmp

I think "unnatural" may be the wrong term actually. Being that we humans are "natural" and we act in ways which are "natural" for us that would mean our social constructs would have to be "natural" as well.

However, a more correct term that would apply to our culture would be "artificial".

Almost the same thing but not quite. Our social bonding in it's various forms is "natural" but also "artificial" in that we actively take what is "Natural" and modify it into an "Artificial" culture which we can define.

a reply to: greencmp

It means attacking the person instead of the content of the statement which you continue to do.

You mean like you did when you called windword a liar?


You completely lost all credibility after that.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: greencmp

Certainly, "culture" (wherever it is found) is an invention of humanity and is based upon a set of commonly agreed principals and accepted behavior.

And yet, "culture" is found everywhere humans are! It seems that "culture" naturally arises from human interaction.

Yes, in the sense that you mean, humans tend to want to communicate with one another and will develop some form of language to that end.

a reply to: greencmp

Thanks for your answer.

I shall honor my promise.

a reply to: greencmp

I contend nearly everything is natural. How can it not be? What would be defined as unnatural? There are approximately 118 known elements in the Periodic Table. Of those, only a dozen or so are "Man made". Cars? Natural. We shape them from the Iron of the earth, the silicon of the sand.

Skyscrapers? We sculpt them again with iron and concrete. Even dangerous chemicals, no matter how heinous they are, are natural. Because they are made from natural stuff.

There are great apes that use tools. They shape their land to a degree. Beavers singlehandedly change eco-systems. Are they not natural? We humans are only using the tools available to us to shape the world as we see fit. How is it not natural?

I know in hindsight this doesn't relate exactly to the homosexuality debate, but I thought I would go all Plato for a minute.

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: greencmp

It means attacking the person instead of the content of the statement which you continue to do.

You mean like you did when you called windword a liar?


You completely lost all credibility after that.

Are you saying that I had "credibility" here before I challenged what I took to be a lie?

Could such "credibility" be regained having walked back that challenge?

Clearly not but, thanks for joining the party.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: greencmp

I think "unnatural" may be the wrong term actually. Being that we humans are "natural" and we act in ways which are "natural" for us that would mean our social constructs would have to be "natural" as well.

However, a more correct term that would apply to our culture would be "artificial".

Almost the same thing but not quite. Our social bonding in it's various forms is "natural" but also "artificial" in that we actively take what is "Natural" and modify it into an "Artificial" culture which we can define.

Yes, artificial is a more descriptive term in this case. It is certainly natural for humans to interact and communicate, what specific culture arises is anyone's guess.

All right, getting back toward the topic.

The White House through Ms. Jarrett stated a new Administration policy regarding minors and "conversion therapy."

There are no new laws made by that announcement.

There are no new Federal rules and regulations made by that announcement.

The announcement was a direct response to a petition at the We The People section on the WH website: signed by 120,958 Americans. White House site

Still waiting for seabag to tell us which book in the bible tells us gay people are wrong....any Christians willing to find it seeing seabag ran away?.

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: redhorse

This may be why it has persisted to be represented at all; further, with human beings so dependent upon cooperation it may be why it is so widespread among our species.

I imagine it existed in harems as well. I imagine intimate physical bonds between women living together as wives to one man would be common. I've never heard any story of the lesbian wives of one man being stoned to death as punishment in the Bible.

Yes, it requires the imposition of an unnatural social construct in order to be passed down to another generation.

If it isn't genetic, all bets are off but, again it is self correcting.

Homosexuality is usually not a binary concept, it is on a spectrum, a continuum. A man can be 70% gay so to speak. He will choose a man over a woman 2 times out of 3 but he can still reproduce. Many people, regardless of sexuality are still driven to have children. Homosexuals can and will make an exception to their dominant orientation in order to reproduce, not that all of them do, but many will. In the past there was more of a need to reproduce and so there was more social pressure that way, but many allowances were still built into many cultures to accommodate more fluid sexuality. For many homosexuals there is a push-pull between those biological drives; their sexual orientation and the desire to have children. This is a natural bottle-neck that limits it hereditarily speaking, but it doesn't mean it is wrong or unnatural, just less common.

It is clear that homosexuality is a natural and normal part of the human condition, even if the phenomenon is in the minority (as it probably always will be). It has been a successful and even necessary contributing factor to the survival of the human race. No matter how much you personally don't like, it is here to stay. It does not take an unnatural social construct to maintain it, in fact, historically and even contemporarily speaking, modern western culture is weirdly squeamish about homosexuality compared to most others.

You are talking out both sides of your mouth, saying it is unnatural on one side and acknowledging that it has evolved within the species out the other. The cognitive dissonance itself is not surprising, but the mental gymnastics for this particular manifestation of it are breathtaking.

Of course, we all realize that the real issue here is the concept of "children's or minor's rights."

Which of course, will send all the "spare the rod and spoil the child" believers over the moon.

And of course, soon to follow is "fetal rights" ... which is why we probably can't even discuss the matter.

Because you know, the cavalcade of "egg that wants to be fertilized" rights and so forth.

Ah, the simultaneous backwardness and the sublimity of our culture.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Of course, we all realize that the real issue here is the concept of "children's or minor's rights."

Which of course, will send all the "spare the rod and spoil the child" believers over the moon.

And of course, soon to follow is "fetal rights" ... which is why we probably can't even discuss the matter.

Because you know, the cavalcade of "egg that wants to be fertilized" rights and so forth.

Ah, the simultaneous backwardness and the sublimity of our culture.

Male masturbation is genocide.

a reply to: redhorse

If that is how you respond to people who agree with you*, maybe I should disagree?

So, here goes, I don't generally hear your claim of de facto bisexuality from homosexuals. Indeed, my friends have gone to great lengths to convince me that they are actually disgusted by the anatomy of the opposite sex.

Some even go so far as to set themselves apart from "breeders" (those aren't my friends obviously).

There isn't much substance to your statement beyond that.

*Price equation

a reply to: redhorse

I'll risk a deletion:

MAN that was an awesome post ... full of factual information and directed right at the heart of the issue.

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: redhorse

If that is how you respond to people who agree with you*, maybe I should disagree?

So, here goes, I don't generally hear your claim of de facto bisexuality from homosexuals. Indeed, my friends have gone to great lengths to convince me that they are actually disgusted by the anatomy of the opposite sex.

Some even go so far as to set themselves apart from "breeders" (those aren't my friends obviously).

There isn't much substance to your statement beyond that.

*Price equation

What sample size would you describe for the set of your friends?

Are you really trying to expand that to the general population?

a reply to: Gryphon66

I am in Cambridge, MA.

a reply to: windword

Honestly as much as I dont like the pres, I fully support this.

Not as a mandate mind you, since there is no legal authority for the federal government to do this as I see it, but as something states should be asked to follow suit with.

Its barbaric. This nonsense is a violation of peoples basic rights. Its entirely un-american.

a reply to: tadaman

I agree.

i wonder what he will do about:

yt: Former Homosexual Speaks Out Part 1
youtu.be...

yt: Ex Homosexual Testimony / Spiritual Warfare Freedom From Spirits Influencing Thoughts & Desires
youtu.be...

yt: Jesus Christ Saved Me from 27 Years of Homosexuality
youtu.be...

yt: Former Gay Man Explains Transition to Heterosexuality
Michael Glatze, pastor in Wyoming, co-founder of Young Gay America, and former gay rights advocate joins David to discuss no longer identifying as gay
youtu.be...