The young are regarded as the most tolerant generation. That's why results of this LGBTQ survey are

Wrangler said:

Math is not your strength is it?

Click to expand...

I do ok...

Since gays make up ~2% of the population, IF the proportion of criminal assault were the same, heterosexual assaults would be ~50x gays. Unfortunately, the rate is only ~7x. This means that gays commit 8x assaults per 100,000.

Click to expand...

Link?
How many of those Assaults are committed by Lesbians?
What is the percentage of Lesbian committed sexual assault compared to straight people?
The math you tout doesn't support your conclusions if you factor Lesbians in...

Your view only works if you make the ASSUMPTION that in Male > Boy Sexual Assault, the attacker is a Homosexual.

The data tells a different story
Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation

redleghunter said:

Your posts have been crystal clear to me. So have been the attempts to twist and manipulate what you have posted.

Click to expand...

I thank you for your encouragement and support. Please pray for me as I continue my interactions. It is going to be difficult confronting the "shaming" tactics waged by some with the confines of protocol on this thread but I will do the best I can. Forgive me if I happen to slip up.

I am sure my posts have not been the only ones twisted and manipulated by some who clearly have displayed LGBT behavior affirming sympathies.

PloverWing said:

Okay, yes, this is a phenomenon I've observed, and I've seen it often enough that it's good to go ahead and say it out loud and make it part of the discussion: I've heard men, on multiple occasions, express their revulsion about being approached by gay men.

I don't think the full "LGBT" acronym is useful here. I don't hear the same revulsion expressed about lesbians, or bi women. It's a revulsion expressed by men in particular, toward gay men in particular.

It baffles me a bit (I'm a straight woman), but it's a phenomenon that I do see. Possibly it's something like the feelings I have about being approached by a straight man who won't take no for an answer -- though that's fear more than revulsion, so perhaps not the same thing. Or possibly it's something complicated about male psychology.

Disclaimer: No overgeneralizations here! Of course not all men feel this way. (Hi, @FireDragon76 !) But I see it often enough that it's worth acknowledging and investigating.

Click to expand...

I have come across and have heard even women express the same personal disgust and revulsion about the thought of even Lesbians approaching them and attempting to engage in a relationship with them that they would only want from a man, even if you yourself have not.

It could very well be that heterosexual women may not be as open about any possible personal disgust they might have about a Lesbian approaching them for an intimate relationship as men might express about gay men approaching them for the same, even if there is no personal animosity towards the LGBT persons themselves.

“Possibly it's something like the feelings I have about being approached by a straight man who won't take no for an answer.”

It could be that you are either simply just not attracted to them or it could have to do with feelings and reasons that do not have solely have anything to do with physical attraction at all but that is going into an entirely different matter altogether.

But from the heterosexual perspective (man or woman), again, even if there is no personal animosity against LGBT persons themselves or against what they decide to do in regards to the relationships they choose, the thought of being involved in an LGBT relationship will cause a revulsion within them, even if they will not openly admit it.

FireDragon76 said:

I know what love is, and it doesn't involve demonizing a whole group of people for who they are.



I comprehend it. You find gays disgusting. That's a reflection on your prejudices, more than it is upon gay people.



No, that's not what you were implying. That's different from the kind of disgust your were insinuating was "natural".



Nobody is saying straight people are bigoted for being straight.

Click to expand...

“I know what love is, and it doesn't involve demonizing a whole group of people for who they are.”


Love does not involve affirming all kinds of behavior (1 Cor. 13:6) and it certainly does not involve giving affirmation to behavior that sentences people to eternal damnation among which includes LGBT behavior. (1 Cor. 6:9-10)


“I comprehend it. You find gays disgusting. That's a reflection on your prejudices, more than it is upon gay people.”


No, you don’t comprehend it. You have no interest in comprehending it. All you care about is acquiring affirmation for LGBT behavior, even from those who do not agree with it by any means that you can and saying whatever it is you can think of to “shame” people into affirming it who otherwise might not.

The revulsion that comes from the thought of being involved in an LGBT relationship from the perspective of the heterosexual has nothing to do with a personal prejudice against gay people themselves. The thought of the heterosexual themselves being subjected to an LGBT relationship is what disgusts them, not the people themselves.

In other words, the heterosexual may not care about the level of intimacy that takes place between LGBT people as long as they themselves are not made to be involved.


“No, that's not what you were implying. That's different from the kind of disgust your were insinuating was "natural".


Yes, that is EXACTLY what I was implying but your demand for the affirmation of LGBT behavior blinds you to it.


“Nobody is saying straight people are bigoted for being straight.”


But whose to say that they will not be accused of hate and bigotry for refusing to participate in anything pertaining to LGBT behavior, especially if they have to fend of an LGBT person who tries to force themselves upon them?

Contenders Edge said:

When I was referring to the rights of LGBTs, I was referring to the choices they make between choosing behavior that that is sinful in the eyes of God and that which is holy and pleasing in His sight.​

Click to expand...

So do I.

Or do you only bristle at and rail against SOME behaviors that are sinful in the eyes of God, while others you quickly “give a pass” to or perhaps even seek to acquire affirmation for?

How many Threads on the Disgusting, immoral choice of Gluttony have you chimed in on, registering your righteous indignation for?

Contenders Edge said:

But from the heterosexual perspective (man or woman), again, even if there is no personal animosity against LGBT persons themselves or against what they decide to do in regards to the relationships they choose, the thought of being involved in an LGBT relationship will cause a revulsion within them, even if they will not openly admit it.

Click to expand...

Not sure I follow your logic.

The thought of me Being Involved in Garbage collection, or sewer repair causes revulsion within me and I would never say yes to anyone who approaches me to become involved in it... I still appreciate Garbage collectors and sewer repair people, And I certainly don’t judge them harshly for choosing to engage in a behavior that I personally find repulsive and disgusting.

As the other poster suggested, If a woman solicits any intimate involvement with me that I'm not interested in, I'm first flattered, and then I simply say no thanks.

Same if it were a man.

The logic you are employing just doesn't make any sense.
If a gay person makes an unwanted advance, their gayness is to blame, but if a straight person makes an unwanted advance, their straightness is NOT to blame?

Isn't the unwanted advance itself the problem, and not the Sexual orientation?

A woman is exponentially more likely to have to fend off unwanted advances from a heterosexual man, than she is from a lesbian.

Astronomically so.

FireDragon76 said:

This is just not true. There is a difference between preference and disgust.

Click to expand...

I don't personally obsess over another consenting adult's sex life, gay or not. I realize that the sex life of another consenting adult is actually none of my business and I therefore mind my own business.

Contenders Edge said:

But from the heterosexual perspective (man or woman), again, even if there is no personal animosity against LGBT persons themselves or against what they decide to do in regards to the relationships they choose, the thought of being involved in an LGBT relationship will cause a revulsion within them, even if they will not openly admit it.

Click to expand...

Based on my own experiences and the conversations I've had with others, I think the range of sexual orientations and associated emotions is broader than the above sentence suggests. In my conversations, I've encountered:

- Attracted to the opposite sex and indifferent to the same sex
- Attracted to the opposite sex and revolted by the same sex
- Attracted to both sexes (perhaps one more strongly than the other)
- Attracted to the same sex and revolted by the opposite sex
- Attracted to the same sex and indifferent to the opposite sex
- Indifferent to both sexes

I haven't personally encountered "revolted by both sexes", but I'll include it for completeness.

People in the first two categories above would probably describe themselves as heterosexual, as would (I suspect) some of the people in the "indifferent to both" category. I agree that the feeling described in your post is one that many people have, but it's not the only feeling found among people who identify as straight.

PloverWing said:

Based on my own experiences and the conversations I've had with others, I think the range of sexual orientations and associated emotions is broader than the above sentence suggests.

Click to expand...

Makes sense. The sin of lust knows no bounds.

“You can enter God’s Kingdom only through the narrow gate. The highway to hell is broad, and its gate is wide for the many who choose that way.
Matthew 7:13 (NLT)

say cruel things about others, and hate God. They are proud, conceited, and boastful, always thinking up new ways to do evil. These people don't respect their parents.
Romans 1:30 (CEV)

Contenders Edge said:

“I know what love is, and it doesn't involve demonizing a whole group of people for who they are.”


Love does not involve affirming all kinds of behavior (1 Cor. 13:6) and it certainly does not involve giving affirmation to behavior that sentences people to eternal damnation among which includes LGBT behavior. (1 Cor. 6:9-10)

Click to expand...

I do not recognize your God as real.

The God I believe in loves everything God made and declared it good, and that includes gay people.

You believe in a notion of God that is a reflection of your need to have clear categories of right and wrong behavior so that you can give up a sense of personal responsibility over your own life. I believe we have enough understanding of psychology to know those are primitive human cultic instincts of purity/impurity and do not reflect some kind of superhuman consciousness.

FireDragon76 said:

The God I believe in loves everything God made and declared it good, and that includes gay people.

Click to expand...

Well, not sure what personal God you are inventing here. However, the God of the Bible loves us but hates sin, especially sexual sin like homosexuality.

It is not 'gay people' but people who ACT gay. Gay or straight, where you put your genitals is a choice. The Bible says homosexuals will not inherent the kingdom of God. If you repent of your sins, then only are you welcome to where sin is not allowed.

The Barbarian said:

I think you're way overstating the case. I, for example, have publicly said I consider homosexual behavior to be sinful, although I would not interfere with the right of people to sin without imposing on others. So far, no one's been after me. Might be the tone of my statement, you think?

Click to expand...

I would be surprised if you do not know anyone through your extended family or your church who is not in the position of having to consider how they would respond if requested to be involved in the celebration of a LGBT event as an employer or employee. I am aware some Christians regard any reluctance to be involved in such events as discriminatory but most of the Pentecostal & evangelical Christians I know would have a problem with it.

We had the same issues with race a couple of generations ago. Took a while to sort out the rights of everyone, but no one seems to have problems with that, now. If it hadn't been for the practice of abusing people in each case, there wouldn't be any problems.

Click to expand...

The difference between race and homosexuality is that the latter is explicitly described as sinful in the New Testament and people who accept the authority of the Bible will resist being compelled to be involved in LGBT events.

Funny thing, though. When I run down the particulars, it's schools teaching kids not to be racists and not to abuse people who are different. What do you have? Checkable sources would help your case.

Click to expand...

If you skip your way through this video you will probably pick up some ideas.

There isn't any evidence for "decreasing levels of tolerance." There was an uptick in the number of younger adults who were not comfortable interacting with homosexuals. Which is quite another thing. I'm old and remember when it was just fine to harm anyone identified as a homosexual; I'm not completely comfortable with them. That's a long way from wanting to take away their rights.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure how you are defining tolerance but "not comfortable interacting with" seems to be a reasonable indication of decreasing tolerance to me.

I am also old but I cannot remember it ever being "just fine" to harm anyone identified as a homosexual. Certainly insulting language was not uncommon but physical harm was condemned by all decent folk.

Most people would agree with not "wanting to take away their rights" but draw the line at those rights infringing upon the Christian conscience of believers and the right to protect their children from ideology which normalizes sin.

creslaw said:

I would be surprised if you do not know anyone through your extended family or your church who is not in the position of having to consider how they would respond if requested to be involved in the celebration of a LGBT event as an employer or employee.

Click to expand...

Actually, my daughter while in college, something like that happened. She was managing a fundraising effort for a specific charity. She had gotten a number of businesses in the community to donate volunteer time, food, etc. for the fundraiser. A dean of one of the colleges objected, citing the CEO of one of the companies was notoriously homophobic. She pointed out that while the CEO might be morally objectionable, his company did not in any way discriminate against homosexuals, and she saw no reason to exclude it.

Went all the way to the top, and she won. Even at 20, she was not an easy opponent.

I am aware some Christians regard any reluctance to be involved in such events as discriminatory but most of the Pentecostal & evangelical Christians I know would have a problem with it.

Click to expand...

There's a thin line between "leave me alone" and illegal discrimination. That's what courts are for, to deal with those cases of conflicting rights.

The difference between race and homosexuality is that the latter is explicitly described as sinful in the New Testament

Click to expand...

Can you tell us where Jesus said homosexuality is sinful? He seems to be much more concerned about other sorts of sin. What do you have?

If you think the video has some good points, why not tell us about them? Since I've had all kinds of approaches from Amway and the like where they say "just watch the video", I avoid that kind of thing.

I'm not sure how you are defining tolerance

Click to expand...

Tolerance is "I don't like ______, but long as you leave me out of it, I don't care if _______." You've confused tolerance with acceptance.

but "not comfortable interacting with" seems to be a reasonable indication of decreasing tolerance to me.

Click to expand...

Not unless you confuse tolerance with acceptance.

I am also old but I cannot remember it ever being "just fine" to harm anyone identified as a homosexual.

Click to expand...

The Stonewall riots were precisely because harming homosexuals was condoned. The Stonewall bar in New York was a known homosexual hangout. Police, on a slow night would raid the place, cuff around a few customers, and then leave. One night, they had enough, and the police got cuffed around instead. It became a major riot as more and more people vented their anger.

Most people would agree with not "wanting to take away their rights" but draw the line at those rights infringing upon the Christian conscience of believers and the right to protect their children from ideology which normalizes sin.

Click to expand...

At one time, I think homosexuals would have been content just to be left alone. Now they expect to be treated like everyone else. As I said, that brings up issues of colliding rights. Courts are going to have to adjudicate those.

The Barbarian said:

Can you tell us where Jesus said homosexuality is sinful? He seems to be much more concerned about other sorts of sin. What do you have?

Click to expand...

Jesus confirmed the story of Sodom's destruction - some of His closest followers explain Sodom was destroyed because of sexual perversion (2 Peter 2:7, Jude 1:7).
Jesus gives a comprehensive list of sins in Mark 7:21-23 including sexual sins which under the Law included homosexuality ... but it is well to remember we all fit in one or other of the categories.

If you think the video has some good points, why not tell us about them? Since I've had all kinds of approaches from Amway and the like where they say "just watch the video", I avoid that kind of thing.

Click to expand...

I've learned to skip through videos ... a bit like skim reading. Anyway if you're interested go to 5:50 for one example - the book "It's Perfectly Normal" for 9-10 year olds.

At one time, I think homosexuals would have been content just to be left alone. Now they expect to be treated like everyone else. As I said, that brings up issues of colliding rights. Courts are going to have to adjudicate those.

Click to expand...

The courts are doing a very poor job that is why cases have gone to SCOTUS with Masterpiece Cakeshop winning, and the case of Arlene's Flowers being returned for reconsideration.

There is an aggressive gay activism that is attempting to force their ideology on others ... but not all LGBT folk are like that ... Dave Rubin, a well known married gay man, has criticized this lawfare approach which is causing resentment rather than tolerance ... or acceptance (however you choose to define it).

Barbarian asks:
Can you tell us where Jesus said homosexuality is sinful? He seems to be much more concerned about other sorts of sin. What do you have?

creslaw said:

Jesus confirmed the story of Sodom's destruction - some of His closest followers...

Click to expand...

So...nothing? He spent a long time, ministering to His people. And you're telling us that he never said anything about it? What did He spend all his time talking about? Might be worth your time to go and find out.

So a book that says homosexuality is perfectly normal? That's it?

The courts are doing a very poor job that is why cases have gone to SCOTUS with Masterpiece Cakeshop winning, and the case of Arlene's Flowers being returned for reconsideration.

Click to expand...

It's always a tough call when you're balancing conflicting rights. If people hadn't persecuted homosexuals so badly for so long, this wouldn't be happening. So far the courts have been pretty reasonable applying the cases to the Constitution.

There is an aggressive gay activism that is attempting to force their ideology on others

Click to expand...

And there is aggressive homophobia that is attempting to suppress homosexuals. The courts are working it all out. Eventually homosexuals will have all their rights, and those who hate them will be perfectly justified in keeping their caves free of homosexuals.

Wrangler said:

Well, not sure what personal God you are inventing here. However, the God of the Bible loves us but hates sin, especially sexual sin like homosexuality.

Click to expand...

ESPECIALLY?
So God Thinks certain sins are REALLY BAD, while other sins are just Kinda Bad?

Does the unrepentant thief wind up in a different part of the lake of Fire than the unrepentant homosexual does? Does the unrepentant heterosexual adulterer go to the "hetero-not-so-bad" part of the lake of fire, while the Homosexual goes to a worse section, since God hates THEIR particular sin "Especially"??
Those two unrepentant sinners suffer a different fate from one another?

I'd like to see the Scripture for that please.

The Bible says homosexuals will not inherent the kingdom of God.

Click to expand...

When I read the scriptural criteria here, for which people go where, Sexual orientation, or where they chose to put their willie, seems to be missing...

Matthew 25:34-46
34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

If you repent of your sins, then only are you welcome to where sin is not allowed.

Click to expand...

ALL sins? or just the really bad ones that God hates "Especially"?

The biggest club on Earth is the "my sins are nicer than your sins" club.

I think it's more to do with us getting tired of having their agenda thrown in our faces, shoved down our throats and blasted in our ears. We get it! You're gay; you're whatever. Cool. Why do you need to tell us? You know how you eliminate hate and conflict? Stop talking about it and throwing it in everyone's face. It makes things worse

Sir Robbins said:

I think it's more to do with us getting tired of having their agenda thrown in our faces, shoved down our throats and blasted in our ears. We get it! You're gay; you're whatever. Cool. Why do you need to tell us? You know how you eliminate hate and conflict? Stop talking about it and throwing it in everyone's face. It makes things worse

Click to expand...

Back to the closet? I don't think that's going to happen. I don't care to watch it, either. Fortunately the law applies to them, just as it does to heterosexuals.