Christians sue for right to burn gay teen novel

reply to post by The All Seeing I


Title of this story reads "Christians sue for right to burn gay teen novel" but should really read "Christians sue for right to be uncomfortable about their own sexuality."

plucky whammo operating at peak efficiency.

[edit on 16-6-2009 by pluckynoonez]

Originally posted by pluckynoonez
reply to post by The All Seeing I

 

Title of this story reads "Christians sue for right to burn gay teen novel" but should really read "Christians sue for right to be uncomfortable about their own sexuality, so they want to burn gay teen novel."

plucky whammo operating at peak efficiency.

If operating at peak efficiency means not understanding that this is a setup for attention then you're doing a stellar job.

The whole thing smacks of a left-wing conspiracy - to me it sounds like a left-wing pro-gay rights group put these "old people" up to filing this ridiculous lawsuit just to spark outrage and garner attention.

Originally posted by The All Seeing I


Obviously this lawsuit is a crap-shoot and is likely to go no where... simply an attempt to terrorize/bully writers of this genre niche and push their narrow-minded values. As a publicity stunt i can only see this backfiring, sales of this book are likely to increase as a result and i fail to see how parading one's ignorance and hypersensitivity in the form of homophobia and bigotry in front of the rational secular world is going to benefit your childish cry baby cause.

These are the same zealots that have plagued us for centuries and they are the same zealots who want the government to censor the internet and who have been actively pestering our mods to censor everyone here. Don't forget what they did to the Dixie Chicks and anyone else who dared to speak out against the war... and these are the same closeted zealots here who advocate to stick our heads in the sand or up our own dairyaires.

www.examiner.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 15/6/2009 by Mirthful Me]

It is the media who are the pro gay zealots here, and you are exactly right, this story is designed to create exposure (parden the pun) for this book whilst at the same time fuel the fire for christian bashing. I see you say science has proven that homosexuality is nature not nurture, what is your source for this?

I have homosexual faimily members and friends, we never discuss our sexual behaviours, so why it needs to be roled out onto the world stage via the media and argued over is beyond me. Outside the bedroom we are all Homosapiens. Unfortunately homosexuals have branded thier sex acts by ripping the colours of the rainbow out of the sky perverting beautiful words like gay and shoving what they get up to down every bodies throats, we don't want to know people, we dont want or need to know.

I for one will not be leaving it up to the education system to teach my children sex education. I will be accepting of my children whatever way they turn out, but I know for a fact that if children are nurtured and loved in a normal family environment equally by both parents, when they reach puberty they will not erotisize a lack of parental love and nurture into heterosexual promiscuity and or homosexuality. There are numerous documented case studies that prove sexual behaviour is a direct result of nurture and not nature. My brother and I are living walking examples of that.

Please do not use this story as an agenda to Christian bash or gay bash, both are as futile as each other. Which is exactly what the corrupt media want, get the cannon fodder at each others throats. Live and let live people.

The suns shines on us all, and Christ came to save us all.

[edit on 16-6-2009 by Imago Dei]

Originally posted by The All Seeing I

Science has confirmed that homosexuality is determined by nature not nurture. So therefore introducing youth to stories that show empathy and compassion towards our fellow gay brothers and lesbian sisters is a progressive step away from ignorance, fear and hatred.

Nope sorry wrong. This myth is often repeated, but has largely been discredited. Just the opposite is true. In fact natural selection would select against homosexuality. It's just another straw man argument for folks to try to justify bad behavior with "I was born that way". That won't cut it on judgment day. You've got to manage the cards you've been dealt with and commit to staying within God's moral boundaries, no excuses unfortunately.

You need to discard some of your old spoon feed classifications of what constitutes a sin. For gays aren't hurting anyone by acknowledging and accepting who they are.

Discard them in favor of what? Your enlightened ideas lol. Seems to me we have been discarding old fashion morality at an amazing rate these days; and what have we to show for it? The utter destruction of the family, violence, disease and poverty. All of which can be directly blamed on moral failures starting with our corrupt politicians and working on down to our filthy entertainment and government controlled brainwashing, otherwise known as public education.

Have suddenly decided? We have a progressive party in rule now, they are only trying to do the right thing, while the iron is hot.

By progressive if you mean communist or far left oligarchs I agree. They rush to make us slaves now before we might wake up to their tricks.

Which polls are you going by?

Pretty much any poll that doesn't restrict itself to the castro district of San Francisco. As I recall 'progressive' CA recently voted against gay marriage. Polls in MA show that the populace is against their corrupt judges deciding gay marriage is cool by a dictatorial decree. yeah something stinks pretty badly in high placed IMHO.

...and the gay community could say the hetero agenda has been shoved down theirs. You know the world doesn't solely revolve around us heteros?

There is no hetero agenda. There is no conspiracy against homos, however there is a conspiracy against any moral standard of decency in our fallen society.

See now this is the same reactionary alarmist paranoia i was referring to just a couple posts ago. It is this exact position that gives us all good reason to be worried, for while you are distracted by this non-issue, real issues are not getting addressed.

This is issue is fundamental to the big picture. Deviancy is being pushed on our society by a cadre of elitists. It is being done on purpose. Ask yourself why congress deliberately included pedophiles as a protected sexual orientation in their new psychotic hate crimes bill? Once homo becomes the norm they can let in pedophilia, necrophilia, polygamy, sado-masochism, bestiality and any other other bizarre practice that can be imagined by a perverted mind.

Soon there will be a pedophile pride parade and people will be granted the right to marry their lawn furniture. The only thing that must never be done is allude to the possibility of moral standards set by a higher authority, ie God. The Bible and it's adherents will be the only thing outlawed.

reply to post by sos37


Projecting at all there?

Just because you might be capable does not mean everyone else would be capable.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and ask how you came to the summation?

I lot of people are not aware of the evidence for a physical/biological cause for homosexuality. I wonder how much of an effort is being made in taking an honest open-minded objective look?... it only took me 15 minutes to find the following current studies that have been published in the past year:

Scans see 'gay brain differences' BBC 2008

Genes that make some people gay make their brothers and sisters fecund The Economist 2008

Paul T, Schiffer B, Zwarg T, et al. Brain response to visual sexual stimuli in heterosexual and homosexual males. Hum Brain Mapp. Jun 2008;29(6):726-735.

Savic I, Lindstrom P. PET and MRI show differences in cerebral asymmetry and functional connectivity between homo- and heterosexual subjects. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. Jul 2008;105(27):9403-9408.

[edit on 16-6-2009 by The All Seeing I]

"the plaintiffs, all of whom are elderly, claim their mental and emotional well-being was damaged by this book at the library."

Oh wow, if they think that gay teen novels sitting in a library is damaging to their mental and emotional health, they're going to have a nervous breakdown when they get shoved into a government run care home by their kids.

Thanks for the links.

reply to post by Imago Dei

Originally posted by Imago Dei

The heathen have an interesting track record for demonizing Christ and Christianity, particularly with the propesterous lie that Christ and satan are one in the same

Yes, and the Christians have an even more interesting track record for rewriting history. It is well known that the words of the Bible are not what they started out as. It's a documented fact that what we see today as the New Testament was heavily edited at the Council of Nicaea, ordered by the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great in order to resolve the differences between the many religious factions and make Christianity the state religion. It was in Nicaea where books were burned and the text and meaning of the Gospel was edited and altered. There is also, for instance, a very strong case for the fact that last part of the Gospel of Mark was fraudently added to the Bible centuries after the original writing.

Some links that I've found (there are so many):
www.bible-researcher.com...
www.seedofabraham.net...
www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

Christians today really haven't the right to be throwing stones or judging anyone. The religion has a very bad track record for persucution and deception. If only we could ask the likes of Joan of Arc or Galileo Galilei or the millions of others who died under the hand of the Church what they thought of this great religion.

Burning books is just another of a long line of misdeeds the Church is doing in the name of Christ. I can only hope that Christ Himself will one day look at what's been done in his name and forgive them all.




[edit on 16-6-2009 by Neo__]

Originally posted by UltraAgentGirl


You ever consider charm school honka? You may wanna do that inlieu of cosmetology school first.

hah...

Don't take it too personally UAG...

I don't work for anyone but myself...

plus I'm about to turn 40! Long over due for school lol...

Pregnancy Boom at Gloucester High School: Evidence of No Moral Understanding

17 teenage mothers are expecting: 'They're so excited to finally have someone to love them unconditionally'

Originally posted by Witness2008
reply to post by UltraAgentGirl

 

I'm going to let you exhaust yourself with all the copying and pasting. I think I will simply continue to remind you of the utter frivolity of pushing your hatred on this particular thread.

Has it occurred to you that all of your time and effort here has gotten you no-where? Except maybe confirming for the rest of us how utterly ridiculous your notions are.

EVERYTHING about this thread and the Godless liars in it who keep boasting they are the victims of rabid Christians literally shoving bibles down your throats yet how many of you on a day to day basis are given a religious tract or how many of you in one the last year had a Christian knocking at your door. Once? Twice?

Your exaggerations and sensationalized hyerdrama including but certainly not limited to your misrepresentations of my posts I have asked you time and time again to show the copy pasted quotes of not just all but ANY! of my alleged improprieties you have frothing at the mouth.

is it any wonder why Gays are losing ground just when they were on the right track, people started getting sick and tired of their constant whining and bitching using that silly idea they are a special case a special class with their special sexual "Ori" .

They live by the most dichotomously extreme set of double standards and you would THINK that male whores like matthew shepard (ooops did I say whore?) YES ! Yes I think I did I would think that BY NOW they would have figured out that when it comes to the violence towards gays if they were HONEST with themselves they would know that is is OTHER GAYS that are the ones beating the crap out of them and the statistics for that are overwhelming yet who is it they blame?

Christians?

It was Christians faults when Prop 8 didn't turn out right for them and while MOST self respecting people know the worst thing you can do to garner the very support from the very voters they need, they go off pushing old ladies around like bullies raiding church services pulling fire alarms and sending mail with white powder in the envelopes to all those who were on their "hit list" they didn't like because they gave money or support to family values organizations.

Then when it comes time to vote you demand tolerance from those who would have NO idea you were gay or lesbian if it was not for their typically repugnant overt public displays of affection, which they take to the extreme in a measure to test our tolerance when it is our patience that is saying GET A DAMN ROOM!

Proposition 8 has nothing to do with religious intolerance. Nothing. First of all, marriage is not a "right." I don't know where that notion that marriage was a "right." If it were a "right" the county wouldn't issue a license. You only get a license when you QUALIFY for whatever you are applying for. That's why in order to get a Driver's license, you have to pass a test. Not everybody qualifies for a Driver's license. You can't drive? Sorry. No license. You can't see? Sorry, no license.

Actually, it is the other side ( presumably YOUR side...) the one that has been making a wonderful display of intolerance and lack of respect for those in arguably the most secular state in the country when it quietly told them NO.

Matthew Shepard was a young man depicted as a troubled homosexual wrestling with his personal hell and torment of the sexual bent he was already very well known for engaging in no hangups no rednecks harrassing him. Just some other degenerate sexually depraved pervert on a meth-amphetamine binge. Seems that is the drug of choice among young gays and straight metrosexual males who do it with guys on the "down low" yet because of the relaxed social acceptance of this debauchery, MOST of them don't consider themselves to be gay OR even bi-sexual! How can this be?? How detatched from reality do people have to get before the rest of us who don't drink, don't do drugs, don't sleep around on our spouses, pay our taxes, raise our kids the best way we can have to tolerate the idea that such metrosexual orientations have to be categorized as,, Well?? Something?

I know people who are so wrapped up in sexually debased lifestyles they usually like to keep that stuff under their hats BUT NOT GAYS! NOooOOo they got to make it an actual genetically programmed attribute using lies about over population suggesting blind aimless natural selection actually took a census and expressed the gene when NO such proof is to be found and all of it is the speculation of imbeciles.

If YOUR way was so damn right so progressive so tolerant of others,,

I sure as hell don't see it.

What I see is a bunch of tag teaming beliegerant posts being made behind the guise of some book burning allegedly by evil Christians that ALL of you for some reason have had to resort to using lies and deceit talking about all this ultra vulgarity I am "spewing" while ignoring your own. Denying to prove it with just one of the many times I have asked to show the quote from one of your lies you have not. So what could I possibly say that would give you the dignity and innocence to even feel comfortable criticizing when you are so deep in tactless machinations of manipulating the opinions of readers while oblivious to the monumental hipocrisy you are buried under?

Does it ever occur to gays that it isn't so much the sexual ori they are on a mission to introducing to every aspect of our lives and given the fact they make up a small fraction of the population, it is their loud mouths that personify the axiom,, "The squeeky wheel gets the grease." but I am more aware that it is the general public


that is getting "hosed"

I've read every single post on this thread and I don't want to sound repetitive. My first thoughts were "Christian's" Hmm sounds more like Nazis. I hope they get their case thrown out of the lobby of the court room. Hmm that is ugly

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by watchtheashes

 

Watch, homosexuality being a sin makes no sense at all. Homosexuality is a physiological attribute as much as height or skin colour. It's something that between 5-10% of people are born with, and 30-40% of people are born with a varying degree of. By being anti-homosexuality, you aren't railing against behaviours or sins of people, what you are doing is demonising a cross-section of humanity for simply existing. If someone is racist towards black people, they hate black people for something that the black people didn't even get to choose. It's no different to anti-homosexuality. Sure you can tell gays to not have gay sex and get married to the opposite sex and force themselves to procreate with their partners, but that is like telling black people to get their skin bleached.

"Oh I'm just warning you." You say. We know that the book says. The fact that we aren't followers means something. We simply do not care what it has to say because we disagree.

[edit on 16-6-2009 by Welfhard]

Are you trying to find a correlation between one's skin colour and one's decision to have sexual intercourse with the same sex? Unlike clear and irrefutable evidence which shows that things like colour of skin, mental disorders such as depression and OCD are genetic and beyond the person's control, homosexuality is not in the same category.

Being homosexual is a choice - it does not make someone evil or inhumane. But to say it is caused by a genetic factor is scientifically incorrect and misleading. Having sexual intercourse with somebody of the same sex is an active choice made by the individual. Yes, being heterosexual is also a choice, but it is a natural one which is why people don't make a fuss when the majority of people in this world have sex with people of the opposite sex.

And no, I am not homophobic. I have gay relatives and still enjoy spending time with them because of their character as a person. But whenever the subject of "gay rights" is brought up, it usually gets a little heated. In the end I say what feels true to my heart: "I do not agree with your sexual orientation, but the person you are is more important to me that who you have sex with." This brings a smile to both our faces because at the end of the day, we have our differences but are still human beings with blood relations.

It's always sad to see people put religion and politics above their love of their own family members.

Originally posted by The All Seeing I
I lot of people are not aware of the evidence for a physical/biological cause for homosexuality. I wonder how much of an effort is being made in taking an honest open-minded objective look?... it only took me 15 minutes to find the following current studies that have been published in the past year:


[edit on 16-6-2009 by The All Seeing I]

Yeah and isn't it interesting you choose the debunked pro gay studies that NO ONE in Science using the scientific method agrees with. You are promoting bunk junk science but I expected as much from you.

obviously you haven't read research from Narth

Understanding the Theory


There are only two major principles that need to be carefully understood in order to see through the distortions of the recent research. They are as follows:


1. Heritable does not mean inherited.

2. Genetics research which is truly meaningful will identify, and then focus on, only traits that are directly inherited.


Almost every human characteristic is in significant measure heritable. But few human behavioral traits are directly inherited, in the manner of height, for example, or eye color. Inherited means "directly determined by genes," with little or no way of preventing or modifying the trait through a change in the environment.




How to "Prove" That Basketball-Players are Born that Way


Suppose you are motivated to demonstratefor political reasons--that there is a basketball gene that makes people grow up to be basketball players. You would use the same methods that have been used with homosexuality: (1) twin studies; (2) brain dissections; (3) gene "linkage" studies.


The basic idea in twin studies is to show that the more genetically similar two people are, the more likely it is that they will share the trait you are studying.


So you identify groups of twins in which at least one is a basketball player. You will probably find that if one identical twin is a basketball player, his twin brother is statistically more likely be one, too. You would need to create groups of different kinds of pairs to make further comparisons--one set of identical twin pairs, one set of nonidentical twin pairs, one set of sibling pairs, etc.


Using the "concordance rate" (the percentage of pairs in which both twins are basketball players, or both are not), you would calculate a "heritability" rate. The concordance rate would be quite high--just as in the concordance rate for homosexuality.


Then, you announce to the reporter from Sports Illustrated: "Our research demonstrates that basketball playing is strongly heritable." (And you would be right. It would be "heritable"--but not directly inherited. Few readers would be aware of the distinction, however.)


Soon after, the article appears. It says:


"...New research shows that basketball playing is probably inherited. Basketball players are apparently 'born that way!' A number of outside researchers examined the work and found it substantially accurate and wellperformed..."

But no one (other than the serious scientist) notices the media's inaccurate reporting.

What All Neuroscientists Know:
The Brain Changes with Use

Then you move on to conduct some brain research. As in the well-known LeVay brain study which measured parts of the hypothalamus, your colleagues perform a series of autopsies on the brains of some dead people who, they have reason to believe, were basketball players.
Next, they do the same with a group of dead nonbasketball players. Your colleagues report that, on average, "Certain parts of the brain long thought to be involved with basketball playing are much larger in the group of basketball players."
A few national newspapers pick up on the story and editorialize, "Clearly, basketball playing is not a choice. Not only does basketball playing run in families, but even these people's brains are different."
You, of course, as a scientist, are well aware that the brain changes with use...indeed quite dramatically. Those parts responsible for an activity get larger over time, and there are specific parts of the brain that are more utilized in basketball playing.
Now, as a scientist, you will not lie about this fact, if asked (since you will not be), but neither will you go out of your way to offer the truth. The truth, after all, would put an end to the worldwide media blitz accompanying the announcement of your findings.

How The Public Was Misled

In July of 1993, the prestigious research journal Science published a study by Dean Hamer which claims that there might be a gene for homosexuality. Research seemed to be on the verge of proving that homosexuality is innate, genetic and therefore unchangeablea normal variant of human nature.
Soon afterward, National Public Radio trumpeted those findings. Newsweek ran the cover story, "Gay Gene?" The Wall Street Journal announced, "Research Points Toward a Gay Gene...Normal Variation."
Of course, certain necessary qualifiers were added within those news stories. But only an expert knew what those qualifiers meant. The vast majority of readers were urged to believe that homosexuals had been proven to be "born that way."
In order to grasp what is really going on, one needs to understand some littleknown facts about behavioral genetics.
Gene Linkage Studies
Dean Hamer and his colleagues had performed a common type of behavioral genetics investigation called the "linkage study." Researchers identify a behavioral trait that runs in a family, and then:
a) look for a chromosomal variant in the genetic material of that family, and
b) determine whether that variant is more frequent in family members who share the particular trait.
To the layman, the "correlation" of a genetic structure with a behavioral trait means that trait "is genetic"-in other words, inherited.
In fact, it means absolutely nothing of the sort, and it should be emphasized that there is virtually no human trait without innumerable such correlations.
Scientists Know the Truth about "Gay Gene" Research
But before we consider the specifics, here is what serious scientists think about recent genetics-of-behavior research. From Science, 1994:
Time and time again, scientists have claimed that particular genes or chromosomal regions are associated with behavioral traits, only to withdraw their findings when they were not replicated. "Unfortunately," says Yale's [Dr. Joel] Gelernter, "it's hard to come up with many" findings linking specific genes to complex human behaviors that have been replicated. "...All were announced with great fanfare; all were greeted unskeptically in the popular press; all are now in disrepute."[1]
Homosexual Twin Studies
Two American activists recently published studies showing that if one of a pair of identical twins is homosexual, the other member of the pair will be, too, in just under 50% of the cases. On this basis, they claim that "homosexuality is genetic."
But two other genetic researchers--one heads one of the largest genetics departments in the country, the other is at Harvard--comment:
While the authors interpreted their findings as evidence for a genetic basis for homosexuality, we think that the data in fact provide strong evidence for the influence of the environment.[2]
The author of the lead article on genes and behavior in a special issue of Science speaks of the renewed scientific recognition of the importance of environment

www.narth.com...

[edit on 6/17/2009 by UltraAgentGirl]

reply to post by UltraAgentGirl


Whoa whoa whoa, back it up. Do you agree with this book burning or not (to get back to the main topic).

reply to post by UltraAgentGirl

Yeah and isn't it interesting you choose the debunked pro gay studies that NO ONE in Science using the scientific method agrees with. You are promoting bunk junk science but I expected as much from you.

I'd like to see this statement qualified.

So you think homosexuality is a product of nurture?

reply to post by Dark Ghost

Are you trying to find a correlation between one's skin colour and one's decision to have sexual intercourse with the same sex?

No not the decision to have sex with the same sex but the state of being attracted to one's own sex, which is quite different. And not a correlation but a similarity, at least in the similar veins of bigotry that face both.

Being homosexual is a choice - it does not make someone evil or inhumane. But to say it is caused by a genetic factor is scientifically incorrect and misleading. Having sexual intercourse with somebody of the same sex is an active choice made by the individual. Yes, being heterosexual is also a choice, but it is a natural one which is why people don't make a fuss when the majority of people in this world have sex with people of the opposite sex.

Firstly, I never said it was a genetic or inherited attribute like skin colour, but like skin colour it's a physiological attribute. Sexual behaviour in general is a choice but actually 'being' gay is not a choice. You don't choose who you are attracted to.

[edit on 17-6-2009 by Welfhard]

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by UltraAgentGirl

 

Whoa whoa whoa, back it up. Do you agree with this book burning or not (to get back to the main topic).

This question was asked and answered twice by me

second line

reply to post by UltraAgentGirl


Jez, can you at least link it? Your posts are dishearteningly long.

Originally posted by UltraAgentGirl

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by UltraAgentGirl

 

Whoa whoa whoa, back it up. Do you agree with this book burning or not (to get back to the main topic).

This question was asked and answered twice by me

second line

I seriously hope you aren't trying to represent any particular religion... because if you are then you should be aware of the fact that you are acting like a complete arse.

But if you are trying to disparage any religion, you are doing a perfect job.


[edit on 17-6-2009 by HunkaHunka]