Homosexual Activists Attack Christian College (20 Arrested at Liberty University)

[sister_maynard]

This isn't a thread for you to air your views about that. If you want to debate, head over to Ethics & Morality and be prepared to back that up with evidence.

 

[Ceris]

This isn't a thread for you to air your views about that. If you want to debate, head over to Ethics & Morality and be prepared to back that up with evidence.

Thank you sister maynard, you are correct in this matter.

MOD HAT:



Everyone, please keep debate out of this. A friendly reminder that is against the rules to debate the morality of such things as homosexuality, abortion, polygamy, etc. (See Rule 4.2 for details) in any forum except Ethics and Morality, Christian Philosophy, and Liberal Theology.


Thank you.

Also - debate of ANY kind is not allowed in News and Current Events.

-Ceris

 

[MichaelFJF]

Also - debate of ANY kind is not allowed in News and Current Events.

Ok seriously - you have to either enforce that or let it go.

 

[Ceris]

Ok seriously - you have to either enforce that or let it go.

I'll PM you about this so that we won't take this thread off-topic.

 

[sister_maynard]

Would you mind sending me the same thing? It's a bit confusing.

 

[I <3 Abraham]

Few people realize that the removal from the rolls of mental illnesses was pulled off mainly by gay activists protesting and a handfull of gay psychologists complaining about it from within the profession.

Do you have any evidence for this? Or maybe it's just another spook story like a huge radical feminist movement mounting a "full frontal assault" on the existence of families.

 

[trunks2k]

Ooooh, does that mean that the CHristians who go into universities, trying to bring their agenda to those who are not interested, can be arrested for trespassing as well? Awesome.

Actually, at my school, they can get arrested. My school is in the city, so the sidewalks belong to the city, not the school. When we had a couple really annoying preachers come around (the "all gays should die" type), they would stay on the sidewalk. Campus security and the police were standing right there, ready to have anyone of them that stepped off the sidewalk onto school property arrested.

 

[notto]

This kind of reminds me about that time that Christian activists attacked and stormed the Mormon church and were arrested.

 

[Shane Roach]

Do you have any evidence for this? Or maybe it's just another spook story like a huge radical feminist movement mounting a "full frontal assault" on the existence of families.

I posted a link on that thread that you basically just refuse to acknowledge.

I imagine your interest in the truth of that last statement will be equally resistant to quots and recorded statements and facts, but yes, there is actually no evidence that I am aware of to the contrary.

http://www.psych.org/pnews/98-07-17/dsm.html

If you find anything there other than, "and so, psychologists decided it was not a pathology," you let me know. The core of the argument is that unless is causes some harm to the individual, it's not a problem. But it doesn't seem to then translate that if an individual actually DOES have a problem with their own homosexuality that it should then be treated as such.

There was no research done. It was simply a shift led largely by homosexual psychologists and activists.

 

[Shane Roach]

And for the record, the reason this is tresspassing whereas it would not usually be is because this is a private university and not a public one, so I wouldn't look for any landmark cases against people protesting, whatever their political leanings, anytime soon.

 

[Shane Roach]

You're right, they did break the law, and they should get in trouble for it.

I must question your motives though, when you say that you are concerned about property rights, but you never seem to post any articles about all the Christians who "attack" abortion clinics and illegally step all over their property rights. It seems to me that you only care when they are gay people.

Funny how no one saw this as some sort of "debating". I know, I know, it's only debating if it's not mocking traditional Christian values....

I've been all through this here.

 

[Shane Roach]

Matter of fact, the whole fist half of this thread was "debating" against the idea that this could even be seen as any sort of serious breach - something that frankly % agreed with. It's the MOMENT anyone posted a retort to the blatant pro-gay protesters slant, answering accusations of being somehow hateful to gays, that all of a sudden there is this cry of, "No debating!"

 

[Thirst_For_Knowledge]

Matter of fact, the whole fist half of this thread was "debating" against the idea that this could even be seen as any sort of serious breach - something that frankly % agreed with. It's the MOMENT anyone posted a retort to the blatant pro-gay protesters slant, answering accusations of being somehow hateful to gays, that all of a sudden there is this cry of, "No debating!"

You've been here long enough to know that the rules are so vague that anything can be interpreted to mean anything at any given time of day.

 

[Thirst_For_Knowledge]

Funny how no one saw this as some sort of "debating". I know, I know, it's only debating if it's not mocking traditional Christian values....

I've been all through this here.

I find it funny that you think that anything I said even involved anything to to with any sort of Christian value. How interesting. Perhaps you would like to reread what I said, and see if those are actual Christian values.

 

[SummerMadness]

Haha, I've see little kids attack my front yard everyday when they step on the grass on the way to school. I've considered sending out a pack of wild dogs to get them to respect my property, but some say that's a bit overboard. Why is there such hypebole and false statements placed in the subject line of this thread?

 

[george78]

Since when is stepping foot on a university campus "attacking" Christians? If I go and join a protest at my university (say over certain university policies), and then step foot on the campus am I attacking Christians since my university is a "Christian" school?

If I go back to my old high school to visit, but forget to pick up a visitor pass at the office, am I attacking the students?

If I go back to my parents house and do not like something they are doing, am I attacking them by stepping onto the property?

I think the difference here is that the activists stormed onto Campus AFTER it was made clear to them that they were not permitted on site.

In your examples, they seem to be innocent mistakes, here the activists were warned beforehand that they were not welcome, they purposely chose to ignore the warning, and did what they wanted too anyway, nevermind the private property rights of the school.

On top of it, they brag about how they are going to do the same things at other schools that told them they are not welcome.

Thats why it turns into an attack IMO.

 

[SimplyMe]

I posted a link on that thread that you basically just refuse to acknowledge.

I imagine your interest in the truth of that last statement will be equally resistant to quots and recorded statements and facts, but yes, there is actually no evidence that I am aware of to the contrary.

http://www.psych.org/pnews/98-07-17/dsm.html

If you find anything there other than, "and so, psychologists decided it was not a pathology," you let me know. The core of the argument is that unless is causes some harm to the individual, it's not a problem. But it doesn't seem to then translate that if an individual actually DOES have a problem with their own homosexuality that it should then be treated as such.

There was no research done. It was simply a shift led largely by homosexual psychologists and activists.

This is only partially true. While it is true there was no massive study done, the fact is that there couldn't be. It's the same as someone being put into a mental hospital who is normal and then having him try to "prove" he is not insane. You can't prove the negative.

An even better example is being left-handed, something that has also been considered abnormal. In fact, the medical term for left handed is "sinistral", which has the same Latin root as the word "sinister", to be left-handed was considered evil. As science progressed, "left-handedness was thought to be a pathological condition arising from damage to the brain suffered in the womb or postnatally. This theory was supported with the evidence that a greater number of epileptics and schizophrenics were left-handed." link Eventually people started realizing that being left-handed wasn't evil and it didn't cause problems, but it wasn't because of any new research but rather by observing left-handed people and finding, other than the hand they used more often, left-handed people were just the same as right-handed people.

The same process occurred with homosexuals. The basis of homosexuality being in the DSM was the idea that a person could not lead a happy life, be a productive citizen, and be a homosexual. Your document states, "Spitzer -- armed with research showing there were no valid data to link homosexuality and mental illness -- advocated forcefully for the strategy of deleting homosexuality from the disorders list and replacing it with a new one called 'sexual orientation disturbance.'" Further, "In 1972, for the first time, the annual meeting featured exhibits and discussions spotlighting positive aspects of the lives of gay individuals." They basically proved the DSM wrong, that gays could lead happy and productive lives and still be homosexual.

Last, you claim:

Few people realize that the removal from the rolls of mental illnesses was pulled off mainly by gay activists protesting and a handfull of gay psychologists complaining about it from within the profession.

Again, your own document refutes that claim. While the move to remove homosexuality from the DSM may have been started by a small vote, your document clearly says, "In a key vote in December 1973, the Board of Trustees overwhelmingly endorsed Spitzer's recommendation. Opponents of the decision attempted to overturn it with a referendum of the APA membership in early 1974-just as Sabshin was beginning his 23-year tenure as APA medical director. The Board's decision to delete homosexuality from the diagnostic manual was supported by 58 percent of the membership." It was a vote of the full body of the APA that approved the change of the DSM, not just a few gay psychologists. I'm not aware of any major medical organization that claims homosexuality is any type of illness and have seen statements stating this from both APAs (Psychological and Psychiatric), AMA, WHO, and the AAP.

 

[SimplyMe]

I think the difference here is that the activists stormed onto Campus AFTER it was made clear to them that they were not permitted on site.

In your examples, they seem to be innocent mistakes, here the activists were warned beforehand that they were not welcome, they purposely chose to ignore the warning, and did what they wanted too anyway, nevermind the private property rights of the school.

On top of it, they brag about how they are going to do the same things at other schools that told them they are not welcome.

Thats why it turns into an attack IMO.
[/size][/color][/font]

You mean like these conservative Christians, "The group had been distributing evangelical Christian literature during the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' semiannual General Conference. Members of the group twice refused to leave the plaza before they were arrested, said Salt Lake Police Sgt. Fred Louis."

In the few years I lived in Utah, it seemed like everytime the Mormons had one of their conferences there were Christians being arrested. So, what makes these gays any different from these conservative Christians, other than the Mormons showed more restraint?

 

[outlaw]

That's exactly the problem I have with that story.

I am against gay marriage, gay adoption, and indeed homosexuality in general, but lying is just bad policy, and sloppy use of language makes a person look like a liar even if they don't intend it that way.

This is not aimed at George, by the way. I'm pretty sure he's a fellow who read the story at face value.

I get tickled when homosexuals get offended when their behavior is not some sort of "sickness" and yet insist it is entirely out of their control. The complete inability to react normally to the opposite sex is not some sort of sickness or abnormality? Few people realize that the removal from the rolls of mental illnesses was pulled off mainly by gay activists protesting and a handfull of gay psychologists complaining about it from within the profession.

Nevermind a lot of gays would much rather not be gay... it's perfectly normal... just deal with it. That's what passes for professionalism in modern science.

I’m confused….in one sentence you decry lying as morally wrong but then you go on to post “The complete inability to react normally to the opposite sex is not some sort of sickness or abnormality? Few people realize that the removal from the rolls of mental illnesses was pulled off mainly by gay activists protesting and a handfull of gay psychologists complaining about it from within the profession.” So why is one lie bad but another morally ok?

 

[shinbits]

They were told beforehand that they were not permitted on the grounds of the private campus. 20 of the activists ignored the law and stormed onto the campus anyway.

Sounds like extremist Christians in reverse.