The LGBT stumbling block.


Phineas
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest MormonGator
41 minutes ago, SilentOne said:

The Southern Poverty Law Center sounds like it should have something to do with welfare or bankruptcy or something.

They started out with noble intentions but recently they've gone off the tracks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, SilentOne said:

The Southern Poverty Law Center sounds like it should have something to do with welfare or bankruptcy or something.

Sometimes things are labeled such that the intent is to deceive.  Like a title of "Family Planning" that is used more with the intent to avoid planning a family.  Sometimes the title of "freedom fighters" and "defenders of the faith" are similarly used to deceive.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Traveler said:

Sometimes things are labeled such that the intent is to deceive.  Like a title of "Family Planning" that is used more with the intent to avoid planning a family.  Sometimes the title of "freedom fighters" and "defenders of the faith" are similarly used to deceive.

Kinda like an organization that calls itself "Antifa" yet has more in common with Nazi Brownshirts than any actual group that opposes fascism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, unixknight said:

Kinda like an organization that calls itself "Antifa" yet has more in common with Nazi Brownshirts than any actual group that opposes fascism.

Good example.  Nazi is a self defined term for someone that believes that socialism is intended to advance workers (working class).  A Nazi was someone that belonged to the national socialist workers party of Germany.  But even worse; socialism (progressives) currently in the USA are intended more to benefit those that refuse to work than those that are willing to work.  I personally do not see any benefit to society from a government program that does not protect the working class before considering any benefit to any other citizen (or non citizen) class. 

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
On 3/14/2019 at 4:14 PM, Traveler said:

Good example.  Nazi is a self defined term for someone that believes that socialism is intended to advance workers (working class).  A Nazi was someone that belonged to the national socialist workers party of Germany.  But even worse; socialism (progressives) currently in the USA are intended more to benefit those that refuse to work than those that are willing to work.  I personally do not see any benefit to society from a government program that does not protect the working class before considering any benefit to any other citizen (or non citizen) class. 

 

The Traveler

I sometimes wonder if there is some sort of inherent relationship between socialism and anti-Semitism.  This only comes from two data points, so I realize that is pretty shaky ground upon which to make such a conclusion.  The worst examples (that I'm aware of and really feel) of both: Nazi Germany and the direction the Democratic Party is going.

Before you get all into a huff, I did not say that Democrats are Nazis.  I'm saying that the path the Democrats are currently taking are catering to the blind followers of propaganda who want a free meal.  And they are just now openly showing their anti-Semitism.  While they "sort of" condemned something like an idea that was akin to anti-Semitism, they felt they simply couldn't condemn anti-Semitism.  I wonder why that is?

I'm being serious about the "I wonder".  That was not sarcastic.  Why couldn't they simply condemn it?  I mean, I think it's pretty stupid that an act of Congress should even be had to simply "send a message".  But even as they were on the road to it, they felt they had to water it down to the point where it was even more meaningless than it already was.  What really happened?

Edited by Mores
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Mores said:

I'm being serious about the "I wonder".  That was not sarcastic.  Why couldn't they simply condemn it?  I mean, I think it's pretty stupid that an act of Congress should even be had to simply "send a message".  But even as they were on the road to it, they felt they had to water it down to the point where it was even more meaningless than it already was.  What really happened?

It's an interesting question and there may very well be lots in there.  

For me personally, I don't think there's a connection, other than possibly around the anti-Semitic stereotype that Jewish people are all about wealth and controlling everything… I can see how that would run afoul of socialist thinking.  

Honestly, I think the current wave of anti-Semitism has more to do with the far left's* extreme sensitivity toward anything they even remotely perceive as hostility to Muslims, and the tension between Israel and its neighbors.  

*I want to specify "far left" because I do not want to cast too wide a net.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
5 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Honestly, I think the current wave of anti-Semitism has more to do with the far left's* extreme sensitivity toward anything they even remotely perceive as hostility to Muslims, and the tension between Israel and its neighbors.  

This is something that gives me both confusion and pause.  Think about why they cow tow to Muslims.  Islam is completely incompatible with leftist ideology.  It is more incompatible than Republican ideology.

There is SOME other force at work.  Think of every single tenet of left.  What position (other than "tolerance of all but the Republicans") is there that Muslims share?  I can't think of one.   They share more with Republicans than Muslims.  Yet they go out of their way to protect Muslims while they attack Republicans.  Why?

I admit I lack some imagination.  But in the light of their recent anti-Semitic turn, I am beginning to believe that is the real reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
4 minutes ago, Mores said:

This is something that gives me both confusion and pause.  Think about why they cow tow to Muslims.  Islam is completely incompatible with leftist ideology.  It is more incompatible than Republican ideology.

There is SOME other force at work.  Think of every single tenet of left.  What position (other than "tolerance of all but the Republicans") is there that Muslims share?  I can't think of one.   They share more with Republicans than Muslims.  Yet they go out of their way to protect Muslims while they attack Republicans.  Why?

I admit I lack some imagination.  But in the light of their recent anti-Semitic turn, I am beginning to believe that is the real reason.

For the left, political correctness trumps everything. So they'll cut their own throats in order to seem tolerant and progressive. Like they are doing with Islam. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mores said:

There is SOME other force at work.  Think of every single tenet of left.  What position (other than "tolerance of all but the Republicans") is there that Muslims share?  I can't think of one.   They share more with Republicans than Muslims.  Yet they go out of their way to protect Muslims while they attack Republicans.  Why?

I think it may be as simple as low hanging fruit.  I have a leftist buddy who honestly believes that Christianity is a greater threat - and produces more terrorism.  Why?  Because even though Christianity is only a threat to him in a vague political sense (we tend to believe in, and vote for, things he doesn't agree with), there are Christians surrounding him whereas anything evil done in the name of Islam is far away in other lands, and can easily be written off as difference in culture, history, etc... anything but religion.  

And why are they so sensitive on behalf of Muslims?  Because modern leftists are always looking for a victim class to defend, and in Western society they perceive Muslims as being a victim class.  Muslims don't[ have enough political power in the west to bring about any real social changes (even though Muslims would vote alongside Christians in 99% of issues, if not even more conservatively) and so they aren't seen as a threat in that same way.

Here's the key:  In the mind of a leftist, there is no real distinction between a Muslim and a person with brown skin.  That's why they called the restrictions on travel from certain Middle Eastern countries "racist."  They perceived it as being a ban on Muslims and therefore, brown people.

Should Muslims gain a significant amount of political power in the west, you'll see leftist support for them change right on a dime I  guarantee it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
13 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Because modern leftists are always looking for a victim class to defend, and in Western society they perceive Muslims as being a victim class. 

This is very insightful.  One thing I recall from some study I did a while back is that the current practice of Islam includes claiming victimhood.  As I understand it, the actual Koran based Islam doesn't teach this.  Instead it teaches taking divine right (sounds familiar).  But the victimhood thing is really taking off.  A friend of mine who is an immigrant from Iran says that it is just a political ploy.  In their private lives they know they aren't victims of anything.  They just play the victim card for pure propaganda.  Nothing more.

13 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Here's the key:  In the mind of a leftist, there is no real distinction between a Muslim and a person with brown skin.  That's why they called the restrictions on travel from certain Middle Eastern countries "racist."  They perceived it as being a ban on Muslims and therefore, brown people.

That is quite myopic of them.

13 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Should Muslims gain a significant amount of political power in the west, you'll see leftist support for them change right on a dime I  guarantee it.

I don't believe that for a second. 

Women and minorities are already in power in the Democrat party.  And they're not complaining about that.  As I recall, a recent announcement was made by key Democrats that the male presidential candidates should step aside and let the women handle the election.  No men.  I don't see any protests from any men about that.  I don't see anyone coming across party lines over that.

Instead, I see Jewish Democrats siding with Muslims over anti-Semitic remarks made by members of Congress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mores said:

I sometimes wonder if there is some sort of inherent relationship between socialism and anti-Semitism.  This only comes from two data points, so I realize that is pretty shaky ground upon which to make such a conclusion.  The worst examples (that I'm aware of and really feel) of both: Nazi Germany and the direction the Democratic Party is going.

Before you get all into a huff, I did not say that Democrats are Nazis.  I'm saying that the path the Democrats are currently taking are catering to the blind followers of propaganda who want a free meal.  And they are just now openly showing their anti-Semitism.  While they "sort of" condemned something like an idea that was akin to anti-Semitism, they felt they simply couldn't condemn anti-Semitism.  I wonder why that is?

I'm being serious about the "I wonder".  That was not sarcastic.  Why couldn't they simply condemn it?  I mean, I think it's pretty stupid that an act of Congress should even be had to simply "send a message".  But even as they were on the road to it, they felt they had to water it down to the point where it was even more meaningless than it already was.  What really happened?

It appears to me that the basic concepts of religious charity are directly in competition to socialism.  So much so that many have attempted to argue that the charity of religion is in direct competition to politically controlled socialism.  Some imply that the two are indistinguishable.  In essence  the two cannot exist in the same society.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mores said:

This is very insightful.  One thing I recall from some study I did a while back is that the current practice of Islam includes claiming victimhood.  As I understand it, the actual Koran based Islam doesn't teach this.  Instead it teaches taking divine right (sounds familiar).  But the victimhood thing is really taking off.  A friend of mine who is an immigrant from Iran says that it is just a political ploy.  In their private lives they know they aren't victims of anything.  They just play the victim card for pure propaganda.  Nothing more.

That's probably cultural and not religion per se, since it's not found in the Qu'ran.  Just a guess though.  But yeah this sort of thing isn't new.  Hamas has been playing the sympathy card against Israel for decades.  Even Saddam Hussein tried it.

1 hour ago, Mores said:

That is quite myopic of them.

Indeed it is, but it's an effective tactic because nobody likes to be called a racist.  Even when the accusation is nonsense, it still works because when someone's called a racist, their inclination is to immediately go into defensive mode to show they aren't, in fact, racist.  At that point the argument is lost because they've lost all momentum and are now arguing a point that cannot be won, to an opponent who actually knows already but will interpret the defensiveness as guilt.

1 hour ago, Mores said:

I don't believe that for a second. 

Women and minorities are already in power in the Democrat party.  And they're not complaining about that.  As I recall, a recent announcement was made by key Democrats that the male presidential candidates should step aside and let the women handle the election.  No men.  I don't see any protests from any men about that.  I don't see anyone coming across party lines over that.

Instead, I see Jewish Democrats siding with Muslims over anti-Semitic remarks made by members of Congress.

That's true but it's easy to defer to someone when you feel like you could take that power back anytime you wanted it.  Once they can't anymore, they'll squawk.  I also don't really agree that women are in power.  There's a lot of lip service paid, but right now Harris is the only semi-serious Democrat candidate for 2020.  The others are Biden and O'Rourke... White men.  In fact, even in 2016 the field of candidates before the Democrat primary was much less diverse than the Republican field.  They make a big show about being for diversity, but it isn't reflected in the actual leadership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Mores said:

I'm being serious about the "I wonder".  That was not sarcastic.  Why couldn't they simply condemn it?  I mean, I think it's pretty stupid that an act of Congress should even be had to simply "send a message".  But even as they were on the road to it, they felt they had to water it down to the point where it was even more meaningless than it already was.  What really happened?

 

3 hours ago, unixknight said:

It's an interesting question and there may very well be lots in there.  

For me personally, I don't think there's a connection, other than possibly around the anti-Semitic stereotype that Jewish people are all about wealth and controlling everything… I can see how that would run afoul of socialist thinking.  

Honestly, I think the current wave of anti-Semitism has more to do with the far left's* extreme sensitivity toward anything they even remotely perceive as hostility to Muslims, and the tension between Israel and its neighbors.  

*I want to specify "far left" because I do not want to cast too wide a net.  

 

3 hours ago, Mores said:

This is something that gives me both confusion and pause.  Think about why they cow tow to Muslims.  Islam is completely incompatible with leftist ideology.  It is more incompatible than Republican ideology.

There is SOME other force at work.  Think of every single tenet of left.  What position (other than "tolerance of all but the Republicans") is there that Muslims share?  I can't think of one.   They share more with Republicans than Muslims.  Yet they go out of their way to protect Muslims while they attack Republicans.  Why?

I admit I lack some imagination.  But in the light of their recent anti-Semitic turn, I am beginning to believe that is the real reason.

Think GLOBALIST.  By the way, this is not just Democrats or far leftist.  It is more Establishment.  You can add the Bushes to that group.  This is tied to Immigration as well.  Climate Change is also tied to this.

Anyway, this is the purpose:  The Globalists want to move money out of economic power bases.  They do this using several methods one of which is Climate Change Narrative.  But the age-old method is to foment war around the world.  Israel is an easy bogeyman.  They've been doing this for a century.  There are 2 war arenas - Islamic and Communist.  I know this because the Philippines is one country that has a microcosm of these 2 general wars in one tiny area being in a very strategic location (it's our bane and our strength... the reason US took it from Spain instead of Cuba).  These wars, in the same manner as Climate Change, creates the mechanism to move economic power from one system to another globally.  Socialism is the ideal - when economy becomes easy to grab for control by a centralized power.  But - the organization that grabs control has to be tied to the globalist cabal.  Gadaffi was not in the cabal.  We don't know if Maduro is in that cabal yet.  But things are working there such that, if he wants to survive, he'll have to join the cabal.  The Scandinavian Socialists may not be in that cabal.  But the cabal has ties to the EU and the UN.  And that's the reason Socialism has infiltrated schools - the powers that be realized it is easier to convert people through education than to colonize.

These wars have created mass migration.  Globalists have used mass migration to weaken existing power bases and install globalists in their place.  In the US, mass migration has been promoted, not just by Democrats but by globalist players in all levers of government.  I am going to posit that this is the main reason there is an all out attack on Trump - even the CIA/FBI/NSA/DOJ is out to get him.  He's a very charismatic guy who established himself as anti-globalist.  Americans may never realize exactly what they have done when they elected Trump President - his presidency caused a domino effect all around the globe.

So... Muslims.  Globalists can't vilify Muslims because they are a big faction of mass migrants.  They want people to take them in.  Democrats have put themselves on the wall due to Obama's minority quilt constituency.  He got into power by leveraging the Black vote.  They're now trying to stay in power by stitching together a constituency of minorities through oppression olympics.  That's why Obama and Clinton - both expressing opposition to gay marriage and illegal immigration in the past - changed their tunes to get more minorities.  This is a globalists' dream scenario.  So globalists have easy control of the Democratic Party and can shape the narrative - Muslims are good, we want Muslims.  It helps them continue the movement of people that would bring opposition to topple existing power bases.  It's harder to make the Republican Party dance to globalist music.  They got Trump at the helm and a lot of conservatives are naturally opposed to globalist agenda.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores

I'm getting pretty tired of the old yarn that helping LGBTQ people embrace their sin and depravity is the best way to love them.

Sorry if that's triggering.  I just got a message from an old friend who told me about some of the guys we used to hang out with.  One of them apparently moved to San Francisco a while back after deciding to go into a life of hedonism.  During all that time family and friends loved him and cared about him and did their best not to be critical of him.  Encouraged him to come back and emphasized how much they loved him.  It still didn't bring him back from that life.

Just a few years ago, he got caught up in all the "gender dysphoria" hoopla.  He got convinced that he was a woman in a man's body.  Mind you, we all knew him very well.  He was our friend.  We treated him as a friend.  He was happy.  There was nothing about him that ever would have clued anyone in that he had gender dysphoria.  He was a completely normal guy who we cherished as one of our band.  He never had gender dysphoria.  He was convinced he did.  And no one in San Francisco would tell him otherwise.

He ended up getting a sex change operation.  He was so happy for about two months.  Then the reality of what he had done finally sank in.  He killed himself just a year ago.

Yeah, help them embrace it. Encourage it.  That will lead them to happiness.  Try convincing me of that.  Go ahead.  Bring my friend back from the dead.  Do it.  I dare you.  Tell me this was just a "harmless path" as a consenting adult.  Tell me that it was something else that made him kill himself.

Edited by Mores
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 3/10/2019 at 5:44 AM, LiterateParakeet said:

It's a bit more complicated than that.  A heterosexual member needs to abstain from sex until they are married.  An LGBTQ person is expected to abstain for life.  Yes, I know, if a heterosexual never marries, they would abstain for life...but the thing is, they still have the hope of finding love.  Hope is so important.  

That was my point about despair. Despair is the loss of hope.  An LGBTQ person should maintain hope of an eternal family and it will be worked out, most likely in the next life. The 13th article of faith states that we should maintain that hope for ALL things.  The test isn't just abstaining from certain acts, it is also hoping for something that seems impossible and opposite of what the body desires while abstaining.  The hope should be directed towards an eternal family as that described by the proclamation to the world. An LGBTQ person can find hope in that, if not, it is despair. Despair is the tool of Satan. He wants people to feel like things are impossible so why try?   

Edited by Fifthziff
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores

The thinking about SSA is completely messed up.  Why is it that people think that homosexuals need to be celibate all their lives?  That's like saying that if we are prohibited from drinking alcohol and hot drinks that we are also prohibited from drinking anything.  Ahem, we still need water to live.

No, they need to change.  That's what this life is all about.  We throw off the natural man and become a new person.

Quote

 I have not come to torment your natural self, but to kill it. No half-measures are any good...Hand over the whole natural self, all the desires which you think innocent as well as the ones you think wicked--the whole outfit. I will give you a new self instead. In fact, I will give you Myself: my own will shall become yours.

 -- CS Lewis

This is what it means to be a disciple of Christ.  Simply being celibate is keeping the grass mowed.  But to completely kill the grass, replow, and plant wheat... that is a much greater task.  But it is what Christ asks of us.  The sad part is that most of us don't do that for anything so we simply don't understand what it is to completely change.  But we must.  That is what "finding a hope in Christ" means.

"But it's sex!!!  We can't change our sexual nature!!!"  Really?  Transgenders can't change anything?  "Gender Fluid" doesn't mean anything?  The entire movement is self-contradictory and no one will admit it.  Either we can change, or we can't.  Which is it?  Why is it that we see a SEVERE uptick in the number of LGBT individuals in the past decade?  It isn't because people were simply "in the closet".  The REAL numbers have gone up because people were told it is a "better" way to be.  REAL numbers have gone up because people who could really have gone either way have chosen to be homosexual because it is fashionable.  And we're even being told that being heterosexual automatically makes you worse because of intersectionality.

Christ's mission was all based on the principle of our ability to change -- especially with the help of Heaven.  And here comes this movement promoting one of the gravest of sins as something "we can't change".  Do you believe in the philosophies of men?  Or do we believe in the redeeming power of the Savior?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Fifthziff said:

That was my point about despair. Despair is the loss of hope.  An LGBTQ person should maintain hope of an eternal family and it will be worked out, most likely in the next life. The 13th article of faith states that we should maintain that hope for ALL things.  The test isn't just abstaining from certain acts, it is also hoping for something that seems impossible and opposite of what the body desires while abstaining.  The hope should be directed towards an eternal family as that described by the proclamation to the world. An LGBTQ person can find hope in that, if not, it is despair. Despair is the tool of Satan. He wants people to feel like things are impossible so why try?   

Not to mention that Lit Par is playing that age-old lying game of saying one thing and then turning it to mean something else. What she's really saying is: "they still have the hope of finding love [having sex].  Hope is so important."

Really? So having hope that someday we'll be able to have sex with someone who really turns us on is "important"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Mores said:

That's like saying that if we are prohibited from drinking alcohol and hot drinks that we are also prohibited from drinking anything.  Ahem, we still need water to live.

Obligatory Studio C post

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
48 minutes ago, SilentOne said:

Obligatory Studio C post

While I can't view streaming video with my current connection, I'm guessing this was the "Mormon Misunderstanding" skit?  Yes, I had that one in mind when I posted what I did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share