Does Religious Freedom Supercede Gender Identity?

What, specifically, did Jesus tell you regarding sexual orientation? I can find no account of his preferences, and he seemed to prefer male company. However, it's not my business.

Your need to label some other folks sinful does not make them so. There are Christians, including devout ministers and bishops, whose understanding is that they have been made by their god with a same-sex attraction.

Judge not, lest ye be judged. Matthew 7:1

 

Your source remains refuted because it 1) underestimates the percent of self assessed homosexuals in the general population; 2) assumes all males that assault prepubescent boys do so because they are homosexual; and 3) use self assessment as baseline criteria

I have provided a source, here are a few more:
https://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html
https://individual.utoronto.ca/james_cantor/blog1.html
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8008535

 

So you have evidence they do? Feel free to post some sources up that those images are photoshopped...

 

Nothing in my source was manipulated. You simply didn’t like what it says. That doesn’t make it manipulated. YOU in fact were attempting to manipulate the data by including all homosexuals and not simply homosexual males whom they were studying.

Source that claim. But, and I’ll adress this more in a minute, the California Supreme Court ruled that the primary purpose of marriage and the benefits that come with it were for procreation.

A gay couple in and of themselves are INCAPABLE of procreation. The only way they can do so is to abandon the homosexual paradigm and engage in a heterosexual relationship (at least in some level ie sperm and egg) in order to procreate. So it is not the gay couple procreating, it’s ONE person in the gay couple procreating with someone of the opposite sex who has NOTHING to do with the marriage which we are paying for.

As for heterosexual couples who are infertile, it is not feasible for us to test every single heterosexual couple every few months to determine if they’re fertile or willing to have a child. As such the entire group receives the benefit because it is prohibitively expensive to determine who can and will procreate. We don’t have that problem with homosexuals. We KNOW they can’t procreate in and of themselves.

 

New Living Translation
“Some are born as eunuchs, some have been made eunuchs by others, and some choose not to marry for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.”

Not seeing where homosexuality is mentioned here... feel free to point it out

 

1) moving them from 2% which the study used to 4% doesn’t change the numbers enough make it factually relevant.

2) A male who sexually assaults another male, REGARDLESS of age is either homosexual or bisexual. But he CANNOT be heterosexual.

3) Self assessment only means that you get less respondents in this type of study. It doesn’t change the actual numbers. Even if you did increase the % it 2% to match today’s numbers it doesn’t change the factual information that homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles.

And holy snotloller I LOVE IT. Earlier you said you didn’t EVER use Frank Kameny in your position to justify homosexuality. Why don’t you take a look at the sources for your UC Davis professor (who by the way is homosexual so his blog post means absolutely nothing). But the professor you’re referring to references Frank Kameny over and over and over again. A man who advocated for man-boy sex and whose shoddy work homosexuals consistently reference from the 1950s and 60s including your uc Davis link.

 

The data was absolutely manipulated, I have addressed how previously.

And the SCOTUS disagreed.

Which is the same for the infertile couple that you seem to have no issues paying for below... Strange where the line is drawn.

Which is why you glossed over “If you want to switch it to child care credits and remove all public subsidies to marriage I could support that — but that isn’t the goal is it?” Because your true agenda isn’t about the children, it isn’t about economic benefit, it is simply about denying gay couples — even the ones with children. At least be honest.

 

*slap forehead*
He references three different types of eunuchs. 1) He who was born that way. 2) those made eunuchs by others 3) those who chose to be eunuchs for The kingdom of heavens sake.

The first is the one in question so I’ll start with the other two. The second type of eunuch is the traditional understanding of eunuch. One who was castrated, usually so that he can become a servant or guard for a female.

The third is the individual who chooses to be celibate in order to remove the temptation from their lives and make it easier to enter heaven.

Now the first eunuch Jesus refers to as those who were born that way. There’s only two options here. Either he is referring to people born without testicles, which would have been an ABSURDLY small portion of the population and most likely no everyday person would have even known those types of people exist. The other option is that he’s referring to homosexuals. Those who were born from their mothers womb without the desire to have sex with women.

And what does it say? Jesus said it is better for them NOT to marry.

 

Nothing was manipulated as I just showed. The scotus did disagree in the early 2000s. When trump replaces Ginsburg and the other 80 year old liberal on the court with constitutional originalists, let’s see if they agree with the SCOTUS’ decision in the early 2000s.

No it’s not the same because we KNOW homosexuals can’t procreate in and of themselves. Without testing we can’t know about the heterosexual couple and the testing is prohibitively expensive.

I didn’t gloss over it. I simply ignored it because it’s irrelevant. I stated earlier NOONE should get marriage benefits. But if you’re going to do so you better have a good justification. And homosexuals have no justification.

 

So if my neighbor abused children I can't judge them or condemn them because my personal belief is children should not be abused?

 

It halves the corollary data, that you don’t feel halving a figure is “factually relevant” shows your complete bias.

Psychologists and behavior specialists disagree. But who are they to make such a determination, they only have their entire career and education to back views while you have.... your opinion...

Unequivocally false. If that was the case you would not see higher rates of people acknowledging they are homosexual or bisexual as stigma decreases. Kinsey tests and plethysmography have put the figure around 10% for decades.

First, I am not justifying homosexuality — that is an absurd statement. Second, feel free to ignore it then, the last result should interest you since it is from the same source you posted to justify your narrative only two years newer, “Using the data from our study, the 95% confidence limits, of the risk children would identify recognizably homosexual adults as the potential abuser, are from 0% to 3.1%. These limits are within current estimates of the prevalence of homosexuality in the general community.

CONCLUSIONS:
The children in the group studied were unlikely to have been molested by identifiably gay or lesbian people.”

Thats why I have numerous sources vs your single one, that has been discredited.

 

Unfortunately for you, halving it doesn’t change the fact that they’re still GROSSLY overrepresented. The numbers are simply too far in my favor.

Another deception. Not all psychologists agree. The only ones who agree do so because they’re basing their ideology on political correctness as opposed to ACTUAL scientific evidence. As they WILLFULLY admitted after the 1973 vote to remove homosexuality from the dsm.

The Kinsey “test” was developed in 1948. Weren’t you just telling me how psychological determinations from that far back aren’t relevant? Convenient how its relevant now lol. But as the Kinsey institute EXPLICITLY states, there is no actual “Kinsey test” contrary to what the internet tells you. Homosexuals simply like to use it because it makes their representation appear larger.

So many problems with your interpretation of that study. First of all as they said the children IN THAT GROUP were not molested by an identifiable homosexual. This probably has something to do with the fact that they had 230 females and 68 males. 35 of whom were determined to not be assaulted, some of whom I’m sure were males.

First of all, they determined the orientation of the offender by SELF identification, which as you already pointed out in the 1990s was not likely to be that accurate.

And we know the numbers are off because:

“Abuse was ruled out in 35 cases. Seventy-four children were allegedly abused by other children and teenagers less than 18 years old. In 9 cases, an offender could not be identified. In the remaining 269 cases, two offenders were identified as being gay or lesbian. In 82% of cases (222/269), the alleged offender was a heterosexual partner of a close relative of the child. Using the data from our study, the 95% confidence limits, of the risk children would identify recognizably homosexual adults as the potential abuser, are from 0% to 3.1%. These limits are within current estimates of the prevalence of homosexuality in the general community.“

So the other 45 cases, what were they? They were the homosexuals who didn’t report themselves as homosexuals and so the study couldn’t call them “identifiable homosexuals”. If the 45 or even let’s say 30 instead of all 45, are added to the numbers it brings their representation up to far closer to what it ACTUALLY is and that the other study said it would be. Thanks for confirming the data.

 

As I've said before, when archaeologists a thousand years from now dig up Bruce Jenner's bones and test them for DNA, they will say he was a man.

 

So you use a study that uses self identification when homosexuality was illegal as the premise of your entire argument and then dismiss others because they use self identification.



Bravo

 

No I’m happy to use today’s numbers if you’d like. Because even doing so they’re still grossly overrepresented as both child molesters and pedophiles.

 

Link, please.

But let's assume that what you're saying is true, that Democrats originally got the States involved in marriage for racist purposes and as recently as ... well, you don't say when but I assume post Civil War. If that's the case, then we need to undo the racist Democrat interference into private lives and get the government out of marriage in every case.

 

Sure, feel free to post a study within the last decade that does not automatically label all male - male pedophile as a homosexual and if they do the subsequent percentage is added into the estimated number of self assessment to homosexuality.

Bet you cannot find a single one.

 

I directly quoted the passage, it did not mention homosexuals, you are inserting your agenda into the passage.

 

Same sex marriage isn’t going anywhere, it has close to 75% approval, even higher with younger population groups. Rights, once issued are almost impossible to remove.

 

As TheImmortal already said, there are zero examples of animals performing anal or oral sex on each other. That's the problem with the homosexual agenda - everything, in their view, is homosexual. They "out" historical figures who never outed themselves so they're making it up and destroying reputations to expand their influence. Animals are homosexual. Straights are homosexual. Everyone and everything is homosexual except child molester homosexuals, those they pretend are not part of them. Back to the sex-is-as-sex-does guy, when a man wants to have oral sex with male sexual organs in their mouth, that's homosexual, regardless of the age of the organ in their mouth.

 

No, it's more like claiming that homosexuality is natural is good science but the sun moving around the earth proves that science is mostly driven by ignorance.

 

So the basis of your argument is some book said so, you’ve already confirmed that non of the book is factual,

 

Great then what was Jesus referring to when he said a eunuch born thus from his mothers womb.

 

Lol what does its approval have to do with anything if it’s not constitutionally protected? Which it’s not.

And it’s not impossible. With a 7-2 advantage on the SCOTUS. It’s very possible. All it takes is a new judgment. Especially given that one of trumps appointments already hinted he had a problem with it.

 

It doesn’t mean homosexuals:
https://www.christianity.com/wiki/people/what-is-a-eunuch-in-the-bible-definition-and-examples.html