Why Homosexuality MUST Be Recriminalized! Part 5

[Arthur Brain]

I see that nothing has changed here...

Scrag! How are you doing?

:cheers:

 

[ragTagblues]

Scrag! How are you doing?

:cheers:

Oh you know how it is... same old same old! Though I’d give the old rose tinted glasses a spin! How are you old bean?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
As long as those "values" are pro homosexual/transgender.

The values are those of the patient, that is the difference.

And in case's with juveniles, where the values of the parents want to be addressed?

How about if the patient "values" the idea of diminishing or overcoming his or her homosexual desires, like so many other people have done through spiritual and psychological therapy?

If the patient's religious values are more important to them than their same-sex desires then the outcome would likely not be pro-homosexual.

Since it's been established that Sexual Identity Therapy (SIT) doesn't help diminish or change one's homosexual desires or gender identity confusion, what "outcome" are you talking about: Learning how to be content with his or her desires?


Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
You are partially correct. The SCOTUS ruling (as shown in earlier posts) didn't protect religious freedom. The real reason that Jack Phillips is "in trouble" is because homosexuality and transgenderism are legal and a protected status under the law, i.e. religious liberty and sexual deviancy can't 'coexist'.

You are correct though it doesn't mean they cannot necessarily coexist but there is clearly a conflict between the religous freedom and the civil rights protections represented in public accomodation laws...

Religious liberty vs pro homosexual public accommodation laws is the current topic, although it's been shown time and time again in other areas that the two can't 'coexist' (for instance in civil government and it's biblical role as seen in Romans 13:4).

As someone who embrasses civil liberties this is a difficult subject for me since I have sympathies for both sides of the issue.

Yeah, uh huh. I was reading an article by proud and unrepentant lesbian (the "L" in the LGBT acronym) Tammy Bruce who is a contributor to Faux News. In it she was defending Jack Phillip's religious freedom.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018...gh-court-ruling-is-under-renewed-assault.html

Here's my question to Tammy Bruce and hence you:

Tammy, when you were working with pedophile Larry "In those cases where children do have sex with their homosexual elders... I submit that often, very often, the child desires the activity, and perhaps even solicits it" Kramer at ACT-UP! terrorizing people who didn't embrace civil rights for homosexuals, were you concerned about their religious freedom then?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tammy_Bruce

My point? You're winning the culture war Kit and winning it by a long shot. If Christians got their act together and started winning this culture war, you and Tammy Bruce wouldn't be singing the "Why can't we all just get along?" Rodney King song and dance, you'd be engaging in 'gaystapo' terrorist activities to get you where you are today.

To me the best solution is to recognized that we are talking about primarily an individual right in religious freedom, though it can become collective in selected cases such as churches. As such, I think the best answer for this in the law is that Jack Phillips does not have to make this cake if it violates his religion but his business does have to provide said cake if it provides such a cake for others. This best honors the civil rights issues on both sides.

One would assume that he has plans for when he is sick or otherwise unable to do work and can assign the work to someone else or contract out the work.

So Masterpiece Cakeshop should cater to homosexual faux weddings, even though it's owner is a Christian who knows what the teachings of Jesus Christ are on the subject?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

So I have some questions. How would re-criminalizing homosexuality actual be brought about? Would it be federal law? State law?

Overturning Lawrence v Texas would be a good start, as there are numerous States that still have legislation against homosexuality. Electing God fearing men and women into public office who aren't afraid to speak the truth about homosexuality and the homosexual agenda is a must. Taking control of Education and the media is a must as well.
Changing our culture around to embrace biblical values has to be done. It took the secular humanist movement decades to get to where our country is today, it will take time to restore decency again.

What exactly will be criminalized? Just homosexual acts?

Here is what numerous States still have on their legislature books.

https://study.com/academy/lesson/sodomy-legal-definition-laws.html

Having attraction to the same sex?

You mean thought crimes? Can you name any criminal act where someone who thinks about doing it is charged with that criminal act?

What happens to someone caught of a homosexual act?

The same thing that happens when someone is caught in the act of incest or bestiality: They go through the criminal justice process.

Will they executed? Sent to prison? Offered counseling? How exactly will the state find homosexuals? Spying on people?

There are plenty of laws on the books that aren't being enforced today, such as public indecency laws and laws that prohibit contributing to the delinquency of a minor, which would adversely effect the LGBTQ movement.

Let me ask you this question in response to your scare mongering question:

Does the government "spy on people" who are charged with incest or bestiality?

Let me give an example of what would happen:

Let's say that ACT-UP! founder Larry Kramer met the love of his life (a 12 year old boy) while peeking through a glory hole in a public restroom toilet stall. After a few minutes of foot tapping, ole Larry the pedophile and the youngster meet up in one of the stalls and start engaging in homosexual sodomy. If they were caught, they would go through the criminal justice system, and hopefully the child would get spiritual and psychological counseling while child rapist Larry Kramer (who founded the homosexual organization ACT-UP!) would be subjected to laws and penalties dealing with child rape.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Originally Posted by The Berean
So I have some questions. How would re-criminalizing homosexuality actual be brought about? Would it be federal law? State law? What exactly will be criminalized? Just homosexual acts? Having attraction to the same sex? What happens to someone caught of a homosexual act? Will they executed? Sent to prison? Offered counseling? How exactly will the state find homosexuals? Spying on people?

It was previously done through state sodomy laws but the problem that arose was that there is nothing homosexuals do in the bedroom that heterosexuals don't also do.

Me thinkz that Kit better go back to 9th grade biology class if he doesn't know the difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality (let me help: the former brings about HIV/AIDS, etc. etc. etc., the latter a human being).

States found it increasingly hard to enforce sodomy laws against heterosexual couples who objected to the government intruding into their bedrooms.

While laws against cohabitation were overturned, you're not giving the LGBT 'gaystapo' credit. They worked very hard (assault, death threats, etc.) to overturn those laws, although as shown, there are at least a dozen States that still have laws against same sex sodomy on their books.

So the states stared just enforcing the laws against homosexuals. The courts eventually ruled this violated the Constitution's protections requiring equal treatment under the law. Thus sodomy laws became unenforceable.

Actually it fell under the supposed "right to privacy". All SCOTUS rulings in the past 50 years dealing with human sexuality (Roe v Wade, Lawrence v Texas, Obergefell v Hodges) are based on the supposed right to privacy.

The privacy issue combined with the equal treatment requirement means to recriminalize homosexuality would require reimposing sodomy laws on everybody, not just homosexuals and the general population will not stand for it.

Not true: While homosexuality inherently is an act of sodomy, married couples were pretty much protected under Hebrews 13:4.

 

[Kit the Coyote]

And in case's with juveniles, where the values of the parents want to be addressed?

The parent's values or desires are relevant only in how the patient wants to address them. Even assuming that sexual orientation is changeable, it is something that could only be accomplished if the subject strongly desires such a change. If the driving force is external to the subject, such as the subject only responding to the wishes of parents, the effort will not only likely fail but could do even more damage to the patient's mental health. This is why CT/RT is so dangerous for minors who often are only in the programs because of pressure from parents and others.

How about if the patient "values" the idea of diminishing or overcoming his or her homosexual desires, like so many other people have done through spiritual and psychological therapy?

Since it's been established that Sexual Identity Therapy (SIT) doesn't help diminish or change one's homosexual desires or gender identity confusion, what "outcome" are you talking about: Learning how to be content with his or her desires?

Since the objective in SIT is the helping the patient resolve the conflicts and achieve those values they want most, then if they value "the idea of diminishing or overcoming his or her homosexual desires, like so many other people have done" then that is the direction the likely outcome will move towards. From what I can gather this is how this outcome is achieved in CT/RT but without the inherent risks of those treatments.

Religious liberty vs pro homosexual public accommodation laws is the current topic, although it's been shown time and time again in other areas that the two can't 'coexist' (for instance in civil government and it's biblical role as seen in Romans 13:4).

Which is the reason we have the Courts and legislatures, to resolve such conflicts of coexistence.

So Masterpiece Cakeshop should cater to homosexual faux weddings, even though it's owner is a Christian who knows what the teachings of Jesus Christ are on the subject?

If they provide wedding cakes and the request is no different than for cakes they provide other couples then yes.

 

[Kit the Coyote]

Me thinkz that Kit better go back to 9th grade biology class if he doesn't know the difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality (let me help: the former brings about HIV/AIDS, etc. etc. etc., the latter a human being).

As far as the physical acts involved the only difference is the genders of the participants. Since Heterosexuals also can have HIV/AIDS, etc. etc. etc., your defining help is not so helpful.

Actually, it fell under the supposed "right to privacy". All SCOTUS rulings in the past 50 years dealing with human sexuality (Roe v Wade, Lawrence v Texas, Obergefell v Hodges) are based on the supposed right to privacy.

Actually, it was both, particularly in Lawrence the Court was clear in raising the question of why the law singled out homosexuals for the same acts heterosexuals engage in. In Obergefell, the same question from the other direction, why was the legal protections and benefits of marriage limited to only heterosexual couples. Privacy was the major factor put forward in the decision but unequal treatment under the law was a consideration as well.

Not true: While homosexuality inherently is an act of sodomy, married couples were pretty much protected under Hebrews 13:4.

And heterosexual couples who are not married? Since sex outside of marriage is not illegal in the US, that married couples might be exempt does not change my point. Question: are married same-sex couples exempt then?

By the way, Hebrews has no force under US Law, can you cite the reference in US Code that exempts married couples from sodomy laws?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
And in case's with juveniles, where the values of the parents want to be addressed?

The parent's values or desires are relevant only in how the patient wants to address them.

Does the juvenile get to decide what's best for him or her when parents takes him or her to alcohol or drug abuse counseling? How about other things in life that might not bring about an early death as well as spiritual death like homosexuality does? (getting out of bed and going to school, etc.).

Being a parent isn't a democracy. Unlike homosexual pedophile Larry Kramer (who founded the homosexual organization ACT-UP! and is quoted saying that some children "solicit sex with adults"), they have the best interest of their child at heart.

One of the mainstays of your LGBT movement is taking rights away from parents, which you've shown should continue to be done.

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
How about if the patient "values" the idea of diminishing or overcoming his or her homosexual desires, like so many other people have done through spiritual and psychological therapy?

Since it's been established that Sexual Identity Therapy (SIT) doesn't help diminish or change one's homosexual desires or gender identity confusion, what "outcome" are you talking about: Learning how to be content with his or her desires?

Since the objective in SIT is the helping the patient resolve the conflicts and achieve those values they want most, then if they value "the idea of diminishing or overcoming his or her homosexual desires, like so many other people have done" then that is the direction the likely outcome will move towards. From what I can gather this is how this outcome is achieved in CT/RT but without the inherent risks of those treatments.

Again, how would the therapists using SIT deal with laws that prohibit counseling juveniles from diminishing or overcoming their same sex desires or gender confusion?


Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Religious liberty vs pro homosexual public accommodation laws is the current topic, although it's been shown time and time again in other areas that the two can't 'coexist' (for instance in civil government and it's biblical role as seen in Romans 13:4).

Which is the reason we have the Courts and legislatures, to resolve such conflicts of coexistence.

And how did the recent SCOTUS ruling on Masterpiece Cakeshop vs the CO Civil Rights Commission "resolve" the conflict? It didn't, your gaystapo is still hard at work suppressing religious freedom.


Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
So Masterpiece Cakeshop should cater to homosexual faux weddings, even though it's owner is a Christian who knows what the teachings of Jesus Christ are on the subject?

If they provide wedding cakes and the request is no different than for cakes they provide other couples then yes.

Thank you for admitting (in your roundabout way) that the supposed rights of those who engage in sexual perversion override religious freedom.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Me thinkz that Kit better go back to 9th grade biology class if he doesn't know the difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality (let me help: the former brings about HIV/AIDS, etc. etc. etc., the latter a human being).

As far as the physical acts involved the only difference is the genders of the participants. Since Heterosexuals also can have HIV/AIDS, etc. etc. etc., your defining help is not so helpful.

I could be more definitive in the differences between homosexuality and heterosexuality, but I need to eat later today and don't want to ruin my appetite discussing what homosexuals do.


Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Actually, it fell under the supposed "right to privacy". All SCOTUS rulings in the past 50 years dealing with human sexuality (Roe v Wade, Lawrence v Texas, Obergefell v Hodges) are based on the supposed right to privacy.

Actually, it was both, particularly in Lawrence the Court was clear in raising the question of why the law singled out homosexuals for the same acts heterosexuals engage in.

Cite please.

In Obergefell, the same question from the other direction, why was the legal protections and benefits of marriage limited to only heterosexual couples. Privacy was the major factor put forward in the decision but unequal treatment under the law was a consideration as well.

In any event it's a crazy world we're living in when legislatures and courts rule that heterosexuality and homosexuality are equivalent.

If you need more evidence that they aren't, I'll gladly provide it.


Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Not true: While homosexuality inherently is an act of sodomy, married couples were pretty much protected under Hebrews 13:4.

And heterosexual couples who are not married? Since sex outside of marriage is not illegal in the US, that married couples might be exempt does not change my point. Question: are married same-sex couples exempt then?

As I've asked below: Provide evidence that those (outside of acts of prostitution) who engage in heterosexual acts were arrested in their home for sodomy.

By the way, Hebrews has no force under US Law, can you cite the reference in US Code that exempts married couples from sodomy laws?

Instead of me going back centuries showing British Common Law, how about you provide evidence where a married couple were arrested in their home for committing sodomy?

 

[Kit the Coyote]

Does the juvenile get to decide what's best for him or her when parents takes him or her to alcohol or drug abuse counseling? How about other things in life that might not bring about an early death as well as spiritual death like homosexuality does? (getting out of bed and going to school, etc.).

In the long run, yes. You can detoxify the addict and try to help them as best you can but in the end it is that person who will decide whether or not to take that next drink or drug.

Again, how would the therapists using SIT deal with laws that prohibit counseling juveniles from diminishing or overcoming their same sex desires or gender confusion?

I don't see that will be an issue since SIT is not trying to force that outcome but if it does become a problem, the courts and legislatures will have to resolve that conflict. Just as the disapproval of the major medical associations of CT/RT played a major role in banning them, the approval of those same agencies for the SIT approach should resolve the issue in favor of SIT.

And how did the recent SCOTUS ruling on Masterpiece Cakeshop vs the CO Civil Rights Commission "resolve" the conflict? It didn't, your gaystapo is still hard at work suppressing religious freedom.

You are quite right, it didn't but that is not because of the 'gaystapo' but the way the Courts work when dealing with issues related to civil rights. The Court essentially used the case to hand an admonishment to the lower courts that the religious freedom side of the debate must be treated and considered fairly and returned the issue to lower courts to perculate some more. This is quite common when the High Court feels the issue has not yet been adequately debated in the lower courts before rendering a decision.

Thank you for admitting (in your roundabout way) that the supposed rights of those who engage in sexual perversion override religious freedom.

Except I did not say that. A business is not a person, it does not have a soul or a religion, with a few exceptions, and thus has no religious freedoms. I am all for protecting Mr. Phillip's right not make the cake himself. Admittedly the Hobby Lobby ruling has muddied these waters a bit and it might wind up in the end that a small business where the entire ownership shares a religious objection might be exempted. If that is the case then I for one can live with that.

 

[Kit the Coyote]

Cite please.

As an alternative argument in this case, counsel for the petitioners and some amici contend that Romer provides the basis for declaring the Texas statute invalid under the Equal Protection Clause. That is a tenable argument, but we conclude the instant case requires us to address whether Bowers itself has continuing validity. Were we to hold the statute invalid under the Equal Protection Clause some might question whether a prohibition would be valid if drawn differently, say, to prohibit the conduct both between same-sex and different-sex participants.

Equality of treatment and the due process right to demand respect for conduct protected by the substantive guarantee of liberty are linked in important respects, and a decision on the latter point advances both interests. If protected conduct is made criminal and the law which does so remains unexamined for its substantive validity, its stigma might remain even if it were not enforceable as drawn for equal protection reasons. When homosexual conduct is made criminal by the law of the State, that declaration in and of itself is an invitation to subject homosexual persons to discrimination both in the public and in the private spheres. The central holding of Bowers has been brought in question by this case, and it should be addressed. Its continuance as precedent demeans the lives of homosexual persons.

Opinion of the Court, Lawrence V Texas

As I've asked below: Provide evidence that those (outside of acts of prostitution) who engage in heterosexual acts were arrested in their home for sodomy.



Instead of me going back centuries showing British Common Law, how about you provide evidence where a married couple were arrested in their home for committing sodomy?

You did not that the fact that it is not enforced against heterosexual and particularly married couples in their homes is the basis for the equal treatment claim in Lawrence?

At the Lawrence was decided, 17 states had sodomy laws on the books that applied to married couples even if they were not enforced.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Does the juvenile get to decide what's best for him or her when parents takes him or her to alcohol or drug abuse counseling? How about other things in life that might not bring about an early death as well as spiritual death like homosexuality does? (getting out of bed and going to school, etc.).

In the long run, yes. You can detoxify the addict and try to help them as best you can but in the end it is that person who will decide whether or not to take that next drink or drug.

Would you not agree that counseling sooner than later (as a youth as opposed to as an adult) would be more likely to have a positive outcome for the patient?
I should also point out that in many cases the patient might not live into adulthood if the behavior that they're engaging in isn't addressed while in his or her youth.

Many EX homosexuals have testified had they not been able to seek therapy for their same sex desires, they would have committed suicide.


Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Again, how would the therapists using SIT deal with laws that prohibit counseling juveniles from diminishing or overcoming their same sex desires or gender confusion?

I don't see that will be an issue since SIT is not trying to force that outcome but if it does become a problem, the courts and legislatures will have to resolve that conflict. Just as the disapproval of the major medical associations of CT/RT played a major role in banning them, the approval of those same agencies for the SIT approach should resolve the issue in favor of SIT....

Once again as you've stated above (but threw in the word "force" to demean RT/CT therapy): Sexual Identity Therapy doesn't offer diminishing or overcoming same sex desires or overcoming gender confusion as part of their therapy. Again, if they do, please show where it's written.


Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
And how did the recent SCOTUS ruling on Masterpiece Cakeshop vs the CO Civil Rights Commission "resolve" the conflict? It didn't, your gaystapo is still hard at work suppressing religious freedom.

You are quite right, it didn't but that is not because of the 'gaystapo' but the way the Courts work when dealing with issues related to civil rights. The Court essentially used the case to hand an admonishment to the lower courts that the religious freedom side of the debate must be treated and considered fairly and returned the issue to lower courts to perculate some more. This is quite common when the High Court feels the issue has not yet been adequately debated in the lower courts before rendering a decision.

The admonishment was against the Colorado Civil Rights Commission for the way they handled the case (they weren't "neutral", as if that is possible in a case like this). Unlike Roe v Wade, Lawrence v Texas and Obergefell v Hodges, SCOTUS didn't set any legal precedence or rule against current laws that prohibit discrimination against those who engage or promote homosexual behavior or transgenderism. It wasn't a victory for Jack Phillips, it was a victory for your LGBT movement.


Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Thank you for admitting (in your roundabout way) that the supposed rights of those who engage in sexual perversion override religious freedom.

Except I did not say that. A business is not a person, it does not have a soul or a religion, with a few exceptions, and thus has no religious freedoms. I am all for protecting Mr. Phillip's right not make the cake himself. Admittedly the Hobby Lobby ruling has muddied these waters a bit and it might wind up in the end that a small business where the entire ownership shares a religious objection might be exempted. If that is the case then I for one can live with that.

The Hobby Lobby ruling essentially said that you can't force a business to use their money for things that go against their religious moral code. The ruling is worlds apart from the Masterpiece Bakeshop case and other Christian businesses that refused to supply services (which they would be paid for) for things that go against Judeo-Christian doctrine.

A business reflects the values of it's owner. If Masterpiece Bakeshop starts making cakes for homosexuals who are mocking God's institution of marriage or those who are celebrating having their genitals mutilated, then it's a reflection on it's owner values.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Cite please.

As an alternative argument in this case, counsel for the petitioners and some amici contend that Romer provides the basis for declaring the Texas statute invalid under the Equal Protection Clause. That is a tenable argument, but we conclude the instant case requires us to address whether Bowers itself has continuing validity. Were we to hold the statute invalid under the Equal Protection Clause some might question whether a prohibition would be valid if drawn differently, say, to prohibit the conduct both between same-sex and different-sex participants.

Equality of treatment and the due process right to demand respect for conduct protected by the substantive guarantee of liberty are linked in important respects, and a decision on the latter point advances both interests. If protected conduct is made criminal and the law which does so remains unexamined for its substantive validity, its stigma might remain even if it were not enforceable as drawn for equal protection reasons. When homosexual conduct is made criminal by the law of the State, that declaration in and of itself is an invitation to subject homosexual persons to discrimination both in the public and in the private spheres. The central holding of Bowers has been brought in question by this case, and it should be addressed. Its continuance as precedent demeans the lives of homosexual persons.
Opinion of the Court, Lawrence V Texas

Thank you for pointing out that activist Judges have stated that those who engage in sexual perversion (in this case, homosexuality...other sexual perversions will follow) holds the same status as those who engage in a behavior which creates another human being.

Unfortunately for SCOTUS, the CDC doesn't agree with them.

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
As I've asked below: Provide evidence that those (outside of acts of prostitution) who engage in heterosexual acts were arrested in their home for sodomy.

Instead of me going back centuries showing British Common Law, how about you provide evidence where a married couple were arrested in their home for committing sodomy?

You did not[e] that the fact that it is not enforced against heterosexual and particularly married couples in their homes is the basis for the equal treatment claim in Lawrence?

At the Lawrence was decided, 17 states had sodomy laws on the books that applied to married couples even if they were not enforced.

Thank you for pointing out that some States have laws on the books that prohibit married couples from committing acts of sodomy. I would like to see if those laws were ever enforced (cases please), as you're well aware that cases of same sex sodomy (homosexuality) were.

Why weren't they? Hebrews 13:4 ("honored by all", including civil government). The traditional family was the nucleus of society (and still is) and civil government had no compelling interest to punish what a husband and wife did in the confines of their marriage bed.

 

[Kit the Coyote]

Would you not agree that counseling sooner than later (as a youth as opposed to as an adult) would be more likely to have a positive outcome for the patient?
I should also point out that in many cases the patient might not live into adulthood if the behavior that they're engaging in isn't addressed while in his or her youth.

Many EX homosexuals have testified had they not been able to seek therapy for their same sex desires, they would have committed suicide.

Yes I would agree provided that the treatment is effective and does not pose a significant risk to the patient. Which is why SIT appears to be the better approach. Until the proponents of CT/RT do the hard work to prove their approach is safe for minors, can we agree that given you points above SIT is the best approach till they reach adulthood and follow up with CT if they so wish?

Once again as you've stated above (but threw in the word "force" to demean RT/CT therapy): Sexual Identity Therapy doesn't offer diminishing or overcoming same sex desires or overcoming gender confusion as part of their therapy. Again, if they do, please show where it's written.

I do not say that SIT does those things.

The admonishment was against the Colorado Civil Rights Commission for the way they handled the case (they weren't "neutral", as if that is possible in a case like this). Unlike Roe v Wade, Lawrence v Texas and Obergefell v Hodges, SCOTUS didn't set any legal precedence or rule against current laws that prohibit discrimination against those who engage or promote homosexual behavior or transgenderism. It wasn't a victory for Jack Phillips, it was a victory for your LGBT movement.

It wasn't really a victory for either, I am fairly sure the LGBT movement would have had no problem with the way Colorado handled the case so it is hard to see how it is a victory for them. It is exactly as you and I both said, a narrow ruling that set no precedent or rule.

The Hobby Lobby ruling essentially said that you can't force a business to use their money for things that go against their religious moral code. The ruling is worlds apart from the Masterpiece Bakeshop case and other Christian businesses that refused to supply services (which they would be paid for) for things that go against Judeo-Christian doctrine.

A business reflects the values of it's owner. If Masterpiece Bakeshop starts making cakes for homosexuals who are mocking God's institution of marriage or those who are celebrating having their genitals mutilated, then it's a reflection on it's owner values.

The Hobby Lobby ruling was based on the company being a 'closely held' company, in that it was not a public business and all the owners were of the same religious belief. That is a very narrow and rare circumsstance for a medium to large business but more likely for a small family business. Which is wny I said that based on that ruling an excemption for small business might come out of the eventual case law when the courts finally settle on the issue.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Oh you know how it is... same old same old! Though I’d give the old rose tinted glasses a spin! How are you old bean?

I'd go back to the purple ones Rag but then hey...

Not too bad here although don't really want to derail aCW's blog too much old chap!

:cheers:

 

[Kit the Coyote]

Thank you for pointing out that activist Judges have stated that those who engage in sexual perversion (in this case, homosexuality...other sexual perversions will follow) holds the same status as those who engage in a behavior which creates another human being.

Unfortunately for SCOTUS, the CDC doesn't agree with them.

Unfortunately for your argument, your opinion of CDC statements or those statements themselves does not overrule SCOTUS rulings.

Thank you for pointing out that some States have laws on the books that prohibit married couples from committing acts of sodomy. I would like to see if those laws were ever enforced (cases please), as you're well aware that cases of same sex sodomy (homosexuality) were.

Do feel free to research it, it makes no difference to my point concerning equal treatment, indeed it bolsters it if they are no such cases.

Why weren't they? Hebrews 13:4 ("honored by all", including civil government). The traditional family was the nucleus of society (and still is) and civil government had no compelling interest to punish what a husband and wife did in the confines of their marriage bed.

I would mostly agree with this, though I hope you would agree that if a husband is beating or raping his wife society does have a compelling interest?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Would you not agree that counseling sooner than later (as a youth as opposed to as an adult) would be more likely to have a positive outcome for the patient?
I should also point out that in many cases the patient might not live into adulthood if the behavior that they're engaging in isn't addressed while in his or her youth.

Many EX homosexuals have testified had they not been able to seek therapy for their same sex desires, they would have committed suicide.

Yes I would agree provided that the treatment is effective and does not pose a significant risk to the patient.

I would say that 'gay' youth suicide, which is running rampant inside the LGBT so-called 'community', poses a 'significant risk'.

Which is why SIT appears to be the better approach.

i.e. 'Gay' affirmation under another name.

Until the proponents of CT/RT do the hard work to prove their approach is safe for minors, can we agree that given you[r] points above SIT is the best approach till they reach adulthood and follow up with CT if they so wish?

While homosexual pedophile Larry Kramer (who founded the homosexual organization known as "ACT-UP!"), would agree with SIT/'Gay' Affirmation Therapy for children who have homosexual desires, those of use who believe in God and the fact that He gives mankind free will to change desires and behaviors, don't agree.



Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Once again as you've stated above (but threw in the word "force" to demean RT/CT therapy): Sexual Identity Therapy doesn't offer diminishing or overcoming same sex desires or overcoming gender confusion as part of their therapy. Again, if they do, please show where it's written.

I do not say that SIT does those things.

Again: It's 'gay' affirmation therapy under another name. If it isn't provide evidence to the contrary.



Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
The admonishment was against the Colorado Civil Rights Commission for the way they handled the case (they weren't "neutral", as if that is possible in a case like this). Unlike Roe v Wade, Lawrence v Texas and Obergefell v Hodges, SCOTUS didn't set any legal precedence or rule against current laws that prohibit discrimination against those who engage or promote homosexual behavior or transgenderism. It wasn't a victory for Jack Phillips, it was a victory for your LGBT movement.

It wasn't really a victory for either, I am fairly sure the LGBT movement would have had no problem with the way Colorado handled the case so it is hard to see how it is a victory for them. It is exactly as you and I both said, a narrow ruling that set no precedent or rule.

Not setting a legal precedence or overturning current laws that prohibit discrimination against those who engage in or promote homosexual behavior or transgenderism isn't seen as a victory for your LGBT movement? Care to see pictures of LGBT celebration when Lawrence v Texas and Obergefell v Hodges were ruled?

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
The Hobby Lobby ruling essentially said that you can't force a business to use their money for things that go against their religious moral code. The ruling is worlds apart from the Masterpiece Bakeshop case and other Christian businesses that refused to supply services (which they would be paid for) for things that go against Judeo-Christian doctrine.

A business reflects the values of it's owner. If Masterpiece Bakeshop starts making cakes for homosexuals who are mocking God's institution of marriage or those who are celebrating having their genitals mutilated, then it's a reflection on it's owner values.

The Hobby Lobby ruling was based on the company being a 'closely held' company, in that it was not a public business and all the owners were of the same religious belief. That is a very narrow and rare circumsstance for a medium to large business but more likely for a small family business. Which is wny I said that based on that ruling an excemption for small business might come out of the eventual case law when the courts finally settle on the issue.

"At issue in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (previously Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores), is the Health and Human Service (HHS) Mandate which would have required David and Barbara Green and their family business Hobby Lobby to provide and facilitate four potentially life-terminating drugs and devices in their health insurance plan, against their religious convictions, or pay severe fines. The Greens argued that the mandate substantially burdened their religious beliefs in violation of a federal law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
http://hobbylobbycase.com/the-case/the-decision/

"Provide" as in pay for.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Thank you for pointing out that activist Judges have stated that those who engage in sexual perversion (in this case, homosexuality...other sexual perversions will follow) holds the same status as those who engage in a behavior which creates another human being.

Unfortunately for SCOTUS, the CDC doesn't agree with them.

Unfortunately for your argument, your opinion of CDC statements or those statements themselves does not overrule SCOTUS rulings.

i.e. in this day and age judicial activism outweighs medical science.

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Thank you for pointing out that some States have laws on the books that prohibit married couples from committing acts of sodomy. I would like to see if those laws were ever enforced (cases please), as you're well aware that cases of same sex sodomy (homosexuality) were.

Do feel free to research it, it makes no difference to my point concerning equal treatment, indeed it bolsters it if they are no such cases.

Usually it's the one who makes the claim that is responsible for providing evidence to back that claim. I can provide many cases where homosexual sodomy laws were enforced. Ever heard of Lawrence v Texas?


Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Why weren't they? Hebrews 13:4 ("honored by all", including civil government). The traditional family was the nucleus of society (and still is) and civil government had no compelling interest to punish what a husband and wife did in the confines of their marriage bed.

I would mostly agree with this,

I couldn't care less if you agree or not. I'm not here to win you over.

though I hope you would agree that if a husband is beating or raping his wife society does have a compelling interest?

Is this a pathetic attempt at derailing the meaning of Hebrews 13:4 ? It sure looks like it.

 

[Kit the Coyote]

i.e. in this day and age judicial activism outweighs medical science.

More correctly, the CDC which is a sub-component of the Executive Branch, cannot dictate to the Judicial Branch how it should rule, it can only provide information.

Usually, it's the one who makes the claim that is responsible for providing evidence to back that claim. I can provide many cases where homosexual sodomy laws were enforced. Ever heard of Lawrence v Texas?

I never claimed they were not enforced, I claimed they were not enforced equally in violation of the Equal Protection Clause and provided the text in the Lawrence findings that supported that position.

Is this a pathetic attempt at derailing the meaning of Hebrews 13: 4? It sure looks like it.

Is this a pathetic attempt to use Hebrews 13:4 to justify a man beating and raping his wife? It sure looks like it.

Why do you feel the need to make a stupid misdirecting attack like this instead of simply addressing a valid point?

 

[Kit the Coyote]

I would say that 'gay' youth suicide, which is running rampant inside the LGBT so-called 'community', poses a 'significant risk'.

I would agree but applying a therapy that will very likely increase that risk particularly when there are safer alternatives available is not a helpful approach.