| Subject: Re: ? |
| From: "Karen Lancaster" <lancaster.karen@gmail.com> |
| Date: 8/6/08, 19:00 |
| To: "Barrett Brown" <barriticus@gmail.com> |
LoneRanger:
If the world had attacked AIDS as aggressively as they're attacking bird flu, the disease would have been completely eradicated within a few months. But the homosexual lobby and their gullible liberal supporters didn't allow it. So now, we have a situation where 25% of male homosexuals in San Francisco have AIDS. In Baltimore, that figure shoots to 40%. And that doesn't count IV drug users and careless heterosexuals. AIDS is devastating Africa. And all because homosexuals want the world to believe that their orientation is somehow "normal." It isn't, and here is why.
Homosexuality is a mental illness. Period. It is morally reprehensible to allow people with destructive mental illnesses to harm themselves. We frown upon neurotic teens cutting themselves. We treat eating disorders. We have laws against suicide. We even drug our children if they fidget in school. So, why do we allow people who get pleasure from deviant sexual practices to engage in destructive behavior that decimates their population? Long before the advent of AIDS, homosexuals were the walking wounded. Because of their perverse sexual practices, a large percentage of them were inflicted with gay bowel syndrome, a blanket term covering a large number of infections, illnesses, injuries, etc. Sex, when engaged in morally, properly and naturally, should not injure, infect, nor kill.
Homosexual apologists point to the fact that the American Psychiatric Association does not regard homosexuality as a mental illness. It is certainly true that the APA removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders in 1973. But this sudden change in attitude was not based on any new scientific evidence. It was a purely political move, induced by a relentless saturation campaign of deception, intimidation, and unethical collusion between the APA committee and activist homosexual groups. You can find plenty of evidence of this by simply looking for it. You're on the Internet, use it.
Just the concept of a group of medical professionals voting away an affliction is bizarre in the extreme. Why doesn't the AMA simply decide that cancer is not a disease? Voilà! Cancer is just a natural way of dying. No need to spend billions trying to find a cure!
Homosexuality is natural? What is the most basic function of every living thing on the face of the earth? Reproduction. Homosexuals do not reproduce -- not if they are strictly practicing their odd method of sexual relations. If all homosexuals were confined to a remote island, they would die out in one generation. Could anything be more unnatural? This is also an argument against homosexuality being hereditary. Since homosexuals do not typically reproduce, if there were a "gay gene," it would be bred out of the population in just a few generations.
The defenders of homosexuality also say that what consenting adults do in the bedroom is nobody's business. Says who? I don't believe I've seen that "right" in any of our Founding Documents. And since when have homosexuals been content to confine their activities to the bedroom? Or does that "right" extend to libraries, public restrooms, public parks, etc.?
Homosexuality is a sin. The Bible clearly states that homosexuality is not only a sin, but a mortal sin, resulting in the death of the eternal soul. But, this is an argument I never use. It's difficult enough to reason with unreasoning people without bringing God into the equation. When you do that, you suddenly have two arguments and have to convince a person that, say, abortion is murder, AND that God exists. He can simply dismiss both your arguments by saying he doesn't believe in God, or doesn't believe in your god, as if he could fly by not believing in gravity. God doesn't depend on people's belief to exist. He isn't Tinkerbell.
Yet, as obvious as all these facts are, nothing is obvious to liberals. Homosexuals, who comprise only about two percent of our population, are getting more and more powerful, now teaching their agenda to public school children as young as five. That's what happens when you have liberals with no moral compass in charge of our educational system or able to influence our medical system or any other institution in our country.
Liberalism is deadly.
Me:
"Just the concept of a group of medical professionals voting away an affliction is bizarre in the extreme."
It is not bizarre in the least, and used to be quite a common practice. This is why "being possessed by an evil spirit" is no longer considered to be a disease, either, but rather something that never happened in the first place but which had been considered to be a disease due to ignorance and superstition. Of course, demonology is still ascribed to by many Evangelicals, Catholics, Central African animists, and pagans. If any of these people would like to propose a vote at the next APA meeting to the effect that various demons are constantly taking over cerebral cortexes or some such, then, well, they (and you) better start hitting the books and applying for college loans, because not just anyone gets in to these sorts of things. The next major DSM redo is in 2012, so I think you may be able to make it if you get started quickly and really keep your eye on the ball.
The APA constantly reviews its DSM materials, changes designations, removes qualifications, recategorizes illnesses, and, yes, even "creates" new illnesses when the determination is made that they exist. Similarly, they merge and even "vote away" afflictions, as you say. Similar things are done in every other branch of science, which is why your doctor probably doesn't use leeches during routine exams.
This practice is no more "bizarre" than that time when major Evangelical and Catholic leaders came together in 1992 to re-affirm their view that "In, for instance, the formation of the canon of the Scriptures, and in the orthodox response to the great Christological and Trinitarian controversies of the early centuries, we confidently acknowledge the guidance of the Holy Spirit." The undoubtedly Holy Spirit-guided occurrences to which they refer are the intermittent Ecumenical Councils, convened by the Byzantine emperors to settle early theological disputes and which invariably decided these disputes in favor of whichever faction it was to which the emperor himself belonged. The first such council concerned the nature of the Trinity and resulted in what is today known as the Nicene Creed, as well as in the suspected poisoning of a presbyter named Arius who had led the less influential (and thus implicitly misguided) faction. Later, another Ecumenical Council was convened to further clarify exactly who among the losing party could come back from exile. And the seventh of these councils was intended to settle the question of whether or not the icon was holy or demonic, a controversy that had troubled the empire for several hundred years and which had recently broken out into riots, the persecution of monks, and the possibility of an east-west civil war. Things calmed down after a tacit compromise in 787 only to flare back up again in 813 upon the coronation of a new emperor who hailed from the icon-hating east and who was thus inclined to ban the damned things once and for all, thereby reigniting the squabble until this latest decision was reversed by yet another emperor, this time an admirer of the icon, in 843. The Holy Spirit is apparently to be pinned with the blame for all of this.
You yourself might be inclined to blame it on the homosexual lobby, though.
Anyway, welcome to science!
IamDavidH
I can't seem to read what your saying because I forgot my tinfoil hat but I'm pretty sure it's something like, "its puts the lotions on its skins." In which case I have to disagree.
Me:
Last two comments are references to Silence of the Lambs. Not sure how this happened; look, I just work here (soon, hopefully)."It responds to reasoned arguments with sophomoric insults; it does this whenever it is told."
"Please, mister, stop pointing out historical facts!"
"Can I get that lotion back, please? You're kind of, like, hogging it. Also, get out of that hole."
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 6:52 PM, Karen Lancaster <lancaster.karen@gmail.com> wrote:
Can you copy and paste into email for me?
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 5:51 PM, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:
You need to click on the "show replies" button under the reply to my original post about the APA and icons and science and whatnot.
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 6:49 PM, Karen Lancaster <lancaster.karen@gmail.com> wrote:
Nope, for some reason it's taking me to the homosexuality page. When I scroll to bottom, those retorts are not there.
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 5:24 PM, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:
Scroll down.
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 6:24 PM, Karen Lancaster <lancaster.karen@gmail.com> wrote:
I did that, but it took me to the homosexuality debate page.
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 5:23 PM, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:
You can click the "jump to debate" button below the comment to see the context. This one really does need some context.
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 6:20 PM, Karen Lancaster <lancaster.karen@gmail.com> wrote:
OK, now which debate did these go to?"It responds to reasoned arguments with sophomoric insults; it does this whenever it is told."
"Please, mister, stop pointing out historical facts!"
"Can I get that lotion back, please? You're kind of, like, hogging it. Also, get out of that hole."
--
KAREN LANCASTER, WRITER/EDITOR
3419 Westminster Ave., Box 25
Dallas, TX 75205
(214) 914-0455
lancaster.karen@gmail.com
--
KAREN LANCASTER, WRITER/EDITOR
3419 Westminster Ave., Box 25
Dallas, TX 75205
(214) 914-0455
lancaster.karen@gmail.com
--
KAREN LANCASTER, WRITER/EDITOR
3419 Westminster Ave., Box 25
Dallas, TX 75205
(214) 914-0455
lancaster.karen@gmail.com
--
KAREN LANCASTER, WRITER/EDITOR
3419 Westminster Ave., Box 25
Dallas, TX 75205
(214) 914-0455
lancaster.karen@gmail.com