Jason Kenney Thinks Gay Students Should Be Outed
- Thread starter tay
- Start date
Yes, because we *all know* what those clubs are *really* about...
Shhhhh but don't tell anyone.
Jason Kenney reminds me of Pence - terrified of his own homosexual urges because of his religious beliefs, he persecutes gays to assuage his guilt.
Homosexuality involves forms of neurosis and psychosis. There is nothing about it that is natural. 'Natural' or 'genetic' homosexuality is an oxymoron.
Active practice of homosexuality leads to lives of sickness, depression, solitude, delusion, substance abuse, suicide. Especially in men homosexuality puts enormous stress on their biological system.. leading to lives that often end in their 50s. It also represents a violent and desperate subculture.
I don't propose imposing natural and healthy sexuality on anyone. I don't propose recriminalizing sodomy. But i do resent the characterization of this, which is as destructive as any drug addiction, as somehow good for young people. Or something that forms part of their 'real' identity. It will alway be something that is deeply immoral, an intrinsic evil, with the most dire consequences.
The legitimization, institutionalization, sacralization of homosexuality is a sign of culture in the most profound and potentially fatal crisis. Only civilization of the verge of collapse embrace this.
Last edited:
Perhaps, we should be marching gays into gas chambers, for the purity of our species. That will do wonders for the health of our civilization.
You are full of$hit. Try reading something real instead of your holy roller crap.
The Church disagrees with your take. "Homosexuality" in and of itself is not a problem to the Church. You should know this.
I'd refer you to the real position of the Catholic Church on homosexuality, best expressed by Cardinal Ratzinger as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith (later Benedict XVI) in the Letter to Bishops on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons. It is most definitely a problem inside and outside the Church.
Although it rejects persecution, slander, isolation of homosexuals, it makes no bones about its real character as disordered, immoral, intrinsically evil and deeply alienating of the individual from the grace of God.
The Church is well aware of the peculiar psychological antecendents to the phenomenon homosexuality.. but in no case is it accepted as 'natural' or 'genetic'. And in no instance is it beyond the individual's Free Will and his/her responsibility to control and reject acts that are so inherently shameful and disgraceful to their person.
The so called friends of of homosexuals are doing them no favours by affirming and celebrating the practice of sodomy, which causes misery, illness, and alienation.. and shortens their life expectancy by decades.
Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons
And you can rely on that because the Catholic church has NEVER been on the wrong side of a scientific question.
As if modern science hasn't become a cult, that is accepted on the basis of faith alone.. in AGW, radical environmentalism, cosmology, various branches of physics, psychology and sociology (like that of homosexual theory).
These are either founded and proven on the basis of political agendas (for social sciences) or abstract mathematics (for the natural sciences). They consider themselves above and beyond the constraints of practical utility and reject need for empirical evidence or physical experiment as intrusions on their contemplative purity.
Can you really say that Science has always been on the 'right side' of the 'delusions' of faith.
I can say the earth orbits the sun and all your cardinals and popes are just wrong if they say otherwise.
And diseases are caused by microbes and viruses, not be demons or Gawd showing us how much he wubs us.
That would be Nurgle...
Buboes, phlegm, blood and guts! Boils, bogeys, rot and pus! Blisters, fevers, weeping sores! From your wounds the fester pours.
I've shed the spiritual teachings of Buddha for the religious teaching of Discordianism. I recently bought a Meade telescope so that i may witness the transit of Eris so that i may better plant my crops for an offer to the chaos gods of power.
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool." Richard Feyman ( an amazing human being and a brilliant mind)
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After you’ve not fooled yourself, it’s easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that.
I would like to add something that’s not essential to the science, but something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool the layman when you’re talking as a scientist. I’m not trying to tell you what to do about cheating on your wife, or fooling your girlfriend, or something like that, when you’re not trying to be a scientist, but just trying to be an ordinary human being. We’ll leave those problems up to you and your rabbi. I’m talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you’re maybe wrong, that you ought to do when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen.
For example, I was a little surprised when I was talking to a friend who was going to go on the radio. He does work on cosmology and astronomy, and he wondered how he would explain what the applications of this work were. “Well,” I said, “there aren’t any.” He said, “Yes, but then we won’t get support for more research of this kind.” I think that’s kind of dishonest. If you’re representing yourself as a scientist, then you should explain to the layman what you’re doing—and if they don’t want to support you under those circumstances, then that’s their decision.
One example of the principle is this: If you’ve made up your mind to test a theory, or you want to explain some idea, you should always decide to publish it whichever way it comes out. If we only publish results of a certain kind, we can make the argument look good. We must publish both kinds of result. For example—let’s take advertising again—suppose some particular cigarette has some particular property, like low nicotine. It’s published widely by the company that this means it is good for you—they don’t say, for instance, that the tars are a different proportion, or that something else is the matter with the cigarette. In other words, publication probability depends upon the answer. That should not be done.
I say that’s also important in giving certain types of government advice. Supposing a senator asked you for advice about whether drilling a hole should be done in his state; and you decide it would he better in some other state. If you don’t publish such a result, it seems to me you’re not giving scientific advice. You’re being used. If your answer happens to come out in the direction the government or the politicians like, they can use it as an argument in their favor; if it comes out the other way, they don’t publish it at all. That’s not giving scientific advice.
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After you’ve not fooled yourself, it’s easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that.
I would like to add something that’s not essential to the science, but something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool the layman when you’re talking as a scientist. I’m not trying to tell you what to do about cheating on your wife, or fooling your girlfriend, or something like that, when you’re not trying to be a scientist, but just trying to be an ordinary human being. We’ll leave those problems up to you and your rabbi. I’m talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you’re maybe wrong, that you ought to do when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen.
For example, I was a little surprised when I was talking to a friend who was going to go on the radio. He does work on cosmology and astronomy, and he wondered how he would explain what the applications of this work were. “Well,” I said, “there aren’t any.” He said, “Yes, but then we won’t get support for more research of this kind.” I think that’s kind of dishonest. If you’re representing yourself as a scientist, then you should explain to the layman what you’re doing—and if they don’t want to support you under those circumstances, then that’s their decision.
One example of the principle is this: If you’ve made up your mind to test a theory, or you want to explain some idea, you should always decide to publish it whichever way it comes out. If we only publish results of a certain kind, we can make the argument look good. We must publish both kinds of result. For example—let’s take advertising again—suppose some particular cigarette has some particular property, like low nicotine. It’s published widely by the company that this means it is good for you—they don’t say, for instance, that the tars are a different proportion, or that something else is the matter with the cigarette. In other words, publication probability depends upon the answer. That should not be done.
I say that’s also important in giving certain types of government advice. Supposing a senator asked you for advice about whether drilling a hole should be done in his state; and you decide it would he better in some other state. If you don’t publish such a result, it seems to me you’re not giving scientific advice. You’re being used. If your answer happens to come out in the direction the government or the politicians like, they can use it as an argument in their favor; if it comes out the other way, they don’t publish it at all. That’s not giving scientific advice.