Oh, I should mention that IMO there probably is a biological attribute that can explain the homosexual urgings of some, but regardless my post is about what the person does with these urgings. It definitely is a choice that you have whether to act upon a given urge or not. All people experience inappropriate urges in response to temptations; not just gays. "Normal" people have just learned to control themselves in these area. Of course there are other deviant behaviors that people succumb to, but it still always comes down to the choices they make.
My perceptions of the gay community are based on their actions. I haven't seen the Mormon's marching up and down main street in San Fran decrying homosexuality. Yet, I continually see "innocent" gay guys "inadvertantly" stumbling on various Church's property (in this case in the heart of Mormonville) to cause trouble. I am losing patience for that as is just about all my associates, and I suspect the rest of real America...
heh heh, Well just because you declare I'm a homophobe doesn't make it true. Here's some truth for you that I suspect will cause hysterical close-minded arm flapping to the contrary:
There is a great deal of research about the causality of Homosexuality although much of the interesting stuff is suppressed due to the sensitive nature of our left leaning press. However, the "facts" are there is evidence that a lot of homosexuals developed their leanings from:
1) Sexual abuse as a child by a bully (relative & authoritative figures included).
2) Single parent households - yes, the genders are not the same contrary to popular myth. A child raised without positive male and female role models is at risk of a number of disorders.
3) Early exposure to pornography can retard sexual development.
Note that homosexuality was considered a mental illness until the 70s when the push for Political Correctness started to take hold.
Well, you're reading the "defense" to the statute - not the statute itself. You are allowed to enter private property open to the public until the owner asks you to leave. However, that owner can ask you to leave for any number of reasons he/she chooses, and if you don't leave, you're committing trespass. Same as a guest in your home. They have to leave when you ask. If they do leave, they cannot be convicted of trespassing.
If they would have left when they were asked to leave, they could not be arrested. If they would have refused to leave when asked (which these guys did refuse), they are committing trespass.
Have you ever put any thought at all into what you possibly might be "enabling." This Church didn't go looking for these guys because they weren't like them; it was the gay guys that went on the Church's property to execute on behavior that they knew was against that Church's belief system. The last I looked, people in America still have freedom to believe and choose any way they like (at least for a little while longer). I honestly don't understand this gay community activism drive to force their filthy behavior into the mainstream and pretend its somehow normal. And speaking of "not like us" - go check your history, Mormons are one of the most persecuted U.S. Citizen groups ever in the U.S. because of narrow minded people like you who only see "right" as what you rationalize it to be.
You're right, but they were doing illegal activity. At a minimum they were trespassing on private property and shouting profanities when asked to leave. Yep, this is illegal even in "enlightened" Washington. Tell you what, have them come to my property and do their vile flth and I'd set my dogs on them if they wouldn't leave. They were lucky they were on a Church's property.
I was deeply pained and moved too by these gay guys doing inappropriate things on private grounds which they knew their behavior would cause a raucous. They were on a private Church's property shouting profanities. Poor Matt and Derek, but I'm glad you're saying prayers for them. Too bad you're a narrow minded bigot and can only see the corridor from one direction eh? "Certainly cemented my perception" - sheesh - the holocaust started that way.
Actually, the vast majority of military lifers are NOT officers. The same statistic that the vast majority of active duty military are Enlisted. The basic rule for enlisted retirement is they have to retire after a maximum of 30-years service assuming they made the req'd senior enlisted ranks (E-8 & E-9) to stay in that long. Else they have to retire after 20-years. Its very very rare to see a 60-year old active duty person in the military as usually they can't physically hack it, and the high year tenure rules I just briefly described pushes them out. The oldest person in the active duty military I personally knew was 55 when he retired, and thats only because he was enlisted for 15-years, converted to officer through ECP, and then managed to spend an additional 22-years in service as an officer before being forced to retire as a Navy Commander.
Who are "they?" And who are "we?"
We don't know excess C02 destroys ozone, as a matter of FACT, what you just said doesn't even make sense chemically. C02 has never been shown to destroy ozone and at a molecular level it can't. "We" don't know how much C02 is "excess" and the FACTS are that natural processes produce more C02 in one day than mankind has managed to produce from the start of the industrial revolution until now. Maybe if you looked into the actual scientific discussions you would see that the "FACTS" aren't facts at all, but best guesses that certain scientists are using to gain funding for their point of view. And yes, science is becoming politicized. Maybe everyone should pull their heads out of the sand and quit listening to agenda propoganda on both sides eh?
I think he understands and appreciates the difference just fine - its you who seems to be quite confused.
![[Avatar]](/images/avatar26.png){kind=avatar}
Creation