Some of us have observed the homosexual movement from the very beginning. First, all they wanted to do was practice the sexual desires which “God gave them,” so they managed to get sodomy laws abolished. But that was not the end game.
Then they wanted to live with their heads held high, so they wanted to hold Gay Pride Parades. If you have ever been to a gay parade, you know that, it is not just a bunch of homosexuals on floats holding up banners saying, “I’m gay and loving it!” You will see all sorts of simulated sexual acts and men wearing clothing in such a way as to be erotically graphic. It is much more of an “in your face” approach. “This is what we are; deal with it.” But that was not the end game.
Now that gay pride parades are common—at least in some areas—there was the next step. So many male homosexuals had the love of their lives suffering in hospitals, and yet, they had no legal right to see this person, and family members were keeping them separated, and so they had to have civil unions or domestic partnership laws. The hospital scenario was presented again and again, although this was a situation that fewer than 1% of homosexuals had ever dealt with. Many had been to hospitals with ex-lovers dying of AIDS, but the number who had been banned from their “lifetime” partner was minuscule. However, by presenting that rarely occurring scenario, homosexuals gained quite a number of state laws which allowed them to become legally attached with the legal rights that they needed to have. But, that was not the end game.
And now, today, the big push is for marriage rights. Everyone has the right to marry the person that they love, except for gays; and it is so unfair! “It is a fundamental human right to marry the person you love!” they proclaim.
There are churches in every state—many of them headed by gay pastors—who are more than willing to perform a marriage ceremony, and pronounce them married at the end of the ceremony; and gays can tell everyone that they know, “This is my gay marriage partner” and they can demand such recognition from their friends and family. But, you know what is so terrible? The state will not proclaim them married! The federal government will not proclaim them married! Oh, dear, oh dear; this is such a violation of their civil rights! How can they really feel married unless the state or federal government recognizes them as married? Attending their own marriage ceremony in which they are pronounced married? Not good enough. Telling all of their friends and family that they are married? Not good enough. Marriage only counts, for some reason, if the state or federal government certifies them as being married.
But gay marriage is not the end game. No gay will ever tell you the end game, because if they did, you would never support gay marriage.
What gays like is more sexual partners. Whereas, it is very unusual for a heterosexual male to have 100 or more different partners, this is not unusual in the gay community. A study in 1978 said that 75% of gay men had over 100 sexual partners. And since gays make up only about 3% of the population, it is hard to find new gay men to have sex with. What is their approach? Some partially change themselves into women; they don’t go all the way (except for the very nutty ones), but they go far enough so that they can have sex with some straight men.
However, if marriage between gays becomes the law, and the state recognizes homosexual marriages to be legally equivalent to marriages between heterosexuals, then life in America is going to change dramatically. Gay marriage is not the end game; but once gay marriage is made legal, then gays can do a number of things they have been wanting to do.
First, because there are always been animosity among gays against Christians, the Bible will be proclaimed to be hate literature and any pastor who tries to teach portions of the Bible will be taken to court for teaching hatred. They could care less whether or not they win; sue a few small churches, and word will get around fast enough. Defending against such lawsuits is expensive, and few churches can afford to do it. We know this will happen because it already has. If marriage between homosexuals is “legalized” then, this opens up the opportunity to strike back at the church, and if a few congregations get shut down, who cares? These churches are nothing but disseminators of hatred.
However, attacking Christians and the Bible is not the end game; that is simply sport and revenge. The end game is, more homosexual partners. When a man has had 100 sexual partners, that has to be a clue that, having sex, and a lot of sex, is extremely important to the homosexual. If there is a way to expand the franchise, so to speak, that is seen as a great objective.
Sexuality is a complex thing, and homosexuals have found that, if a male is violated at a very early age, sexual gratification can be associated with homosexual behavior. This does not work in all cases, but it works in enough cases to make presenting homosexual behavior in the schools a worthy goal for the homosexual community. There are many schools today that teach, in sex education, that there are 3 types of sexual intercourse, and all 3 of them are equally valid. This is taught to as young an age as they can get away with.
Even today, there are schools where books about homosexual couplings are made a part of the curriculum for grammar school children. “And Tango Makes Three” is a popular book which has crept into the primary schools all over America.
There are many schools where homosexuals have pushed anti-bullying programs which, incidentally, present homosexual couples as normal. These programs are pushed with great enthusiasm, despite the meager evidence of bullying occurring because a child has two daddies. However, essentially to these anti-bullying programs is, a homosexual union is normal thing and a good thing.
Homosexuals know that young children, just reaching puberty, can be carefully navigated into trying homosexual acts. They know that, by using lies or trickery, make up and surgery, that additional males can be tempted into homosexual acts. This does not mean that such young men will be turned into homosexuals; it just means, they can be gotten to experiment, and that is the end-game. More gay experimentation and more gay partners.
Men are men, whether they are predominantly interested in homosexuality or heterosexuality; and, for many men, multiple partners is a desirable thing to them. This helps to explain why, even in “committed” gay relationships, fidelity is almost nonexistent.
This is why homosexuals have become so active in school curriculums, particularly on the grammar school level. This is why homosexuals are so interested in having gay marriage proclaimed as legal and equal to heterosexual marriage.
This is why they want homosexual acts to be presented side-by-side heterosexual acts in sex education.
Where is the best place for gays to encourage more gay behavior, which means more partners? On the grammar school level.
Here is exactly what they want; here is the end game:
(1) Sexual intercourse between males to be presented as exactly the same as sexual intercourse between a male and a female. No judgment. “You like coffee; I like tea; its all the same.” All of the resultant physical problems from anal intercourse will not be taught at any level. If there is any teaching about AIDS, it will be presented as a disease spread among all sexual relationships, and, all you have to do is, use a condom to prevent it. Furthermore, this must be presented to as young a group as possible. Preferably to children who do not even know what sexual relations are.
(2) A homosexual union must be presented as exactly equal to a heterosexual union. I have a few dozen Time-Life books on home repair, and, in more than half of the pictures, women are doing the work; laying brick, lifting up walls, drilling holes—this is what homosexuals want to see in our schools. If there is a book or a movie or an illustration which involves a family, they want to see a homosexual couple represented. From the earliest age possible, they want young 5 and 6 year old boys reading about gay penguins, or 10 year olds doing a math word problem which involves a homosexual couple Just like women construction workers are ubiquitous in my Time-Life books, they want to see homosexual couples ubiquitous in the public school curriculum. And if a school fails to do this, then they will go to court over it. Such a school would be teaching underlying or institutionalize bigotry, and that must be stopped. They cannot take such a school to court today, because gay marriage is not recognized by the state and federal governments. However, once that hurdle is made, then “institutional sexual bigotry” in the schools will be attacked via the legal system.
(3) Young males in particular must be raised in such a way as to think about their sexuality at a very young age; preferably before puberty, which will encourage experimentation. Whether you realize this or not, more homosexual behavior will be the result. Whether it sticks or not, is not important. It is the experimentation that counts. It is that discussion about sexual identify with a trusted adult that counts.
Homosexual marriage is not about love and commitment; anyone can do that, with or without the law. Passing homosexual marriage is really about recruiting more partners, the younger, the better.
These things are being done to a very limited extent at a handful of schools across the United States. However, once gay marriage passes (particularly, if it is done on the federal level), then these things will be pushed in a much more concerted way in our future, through the schools and the courts.
From Conservative Review #166
http://kukis.org/blog/ConservativeReview166.htm
http://kukis.org/blog/ConservativeReview166.pdf
A retired math teacher who spends most of his time exegeting the Old Testament and, once a week, puts out an ezeen.
playwithfire; why do you want to normalize sodomy?
homosexuals arent normalizing it, but instead it is heterosexuals who are normalizing by the increased numbers of heterosexuals who are indulging in it each year. in the 70’s it was deep throat. in 2010 its anal sex.
numbersa wise there are more heterosexuals engaging in anal sex than homosexuals.
are you going to credit us extraordinary telepathic powers coercing heterosexuals to engage in anal sex.
I think there is a lot more evidence that too much lead poisoning from lead-lined water systems led to the fall of Rome over the prevalence of homosexuality.
There were, what? 90% slaves and less than 10% free men who could vote in Rome?
That also had a lot to do with it.
Encroaching hoards of what the Romans called barbarians had to be dealt with even if the government coffers were bare.
That had a lot to do with it.
Lots of factors helped Rome fall.
Jim Hlavac feels like Custer apparently
Me against the world, egad!
daH
DAH IN RESPONSE TO NAN’S COMMENT ON THE ROMANS EMPIRE.
ANOTHER FACT : it was heterosexual promiscuous sex that contributed to 30 million orphans in africa
@Tom: You said:
I know you asked Gary, but I easily found this study about homosexual men and the pedophilia debate.
Here, in part is what the study says:
It is no doubt Tom that you will deride Regent University because it is a Christian College. But there is no way that you can label it a “gay hating organization.”
Additionally, this study by Dr. Gene Abel, director of the Behavorial Medical Institute of Alanta shows the same elevated rate of homosexual pedophilia:
This is what the psychiatric community says about Dr. Abel:
Hardly a “gay hater.”
Then you have this paper by Frank V. York and Robert H. Knight:
Another report showing an abnormally high incidence of pedophilia among homosexual men –
http://www.theinterim.com/2002/sept/02study.html
So yes Tom, there IS an unusually high pedophilia rate among homosexuals. It is a scientifically proven fact, and for recognizing that fact, you label us as “gay haters.”
Where is the civility that President Obama called for, Tom? Or does that civility only apply when folks on the right are talking?
AIDS AIDS AIDS – as if this is the be all and end all of the discussion.
But long before AIDS came along in 1981 — you were against us.
You hated and despised us.
As many expressed here today.
Don’t blame AIDS —
if AIDS had never happened you would be against us:
Face that fact at least.
Be honest!
You arrested us and beat us.
Long before AIDS.
You imprisoned us and institutionalized us.
Long before AIDS.
Then — after the stop of the police state against us —
After a tiny riot;
You did not realize that we were like kids in a candy store with a $100 bill.
And not a parent in sight to give us a hand in understanding what this meant.
Yes, we were like children —
We were bereft of anything less than condemnation.
Instead of giving us guidance and support;
Instead of a moment’s compassion;
Instead of any positive word —
Instead of leading us to our happiness —
Which even we were not sure were it lay —
You continued on your rampage against us —
Emotional for sure — witness here today the attacks on me and my kind –
And I the only one to defend us!
Less so physically, for the bar raids and beatings had stopped.
And we went crazy, as “kids” are wont to do.
You had no idea what it was like —
To feel the lifting of the police state.
You had no idea —
All your talk is nothing as to what I experienced.
I lived it — you all scarcely imagine and nothing more.
Did you give us succor?
No — you told us we’re still crazy but you would no longer stomp on us too much.
Did you give us guidance?
No, you disparaged us still.
Did you give us a helping hand?
So that we might find the man of our dreams?
No, you did as you do today — Condemn with ferocity.
So, yes, we went nuts.
We went into a happiness you could not believe;
For never before were we allowed to smooch —
Without fear of being beaten.
Beaten and arrested and incarcerated and subject to cruel and unusual punishments and subject to indignities you can scarce imagine.
Oh you perfect ones.
And from it came AIDS.
From our lack of guidance by you, this came AIDS.
We begged for manna.
We begged for pastoral care.
We begged for any sort of understanding of our otherness;
And we prayed to God Almighty for your help in dealing with whom we are.
As we do today, still:
And you said “No. Never.”
And then came AIDS:
For we wound up smooching too much.
For we were beyond glee and joy in being Free, free, free at last.
From the torture, the raids, the beatings, the incarcerations.
But gayness never brought AIDS —
it was the lack of guidance to us weak pitiful Pink Sheep of God
which brought our licentiousness.
And you told us that’s what we should be.
As Mr. Kukis says here today —
You told us that’s whom we are.
Even to this day you say this:
And deny any recognition of any relationship we might have.
You fight tenaciously against any true relationship we might have;
and then you accuse us of not having relationships.
The audacity is amazing; and we forgive you.
For we are a confusing people to behold;
This we admit.
If gayness brought AIDS —
Then it would have come long before 1981.
Back when it wasn’t even called AIDS:
But GRID — Gay Related Immune Deficiency.
Yet, even today, with some 15,000,000 gay folks;
Only 400,000 of us have AIDS.
Which is hardly the automatic death sentence you pretend.
And as we lie dying back then many of you were thrilled.
Absolutely thrilled.
But you know who were the best?
St. Vincent’s Hospital on 14 Street in NYC.
A Catholic institution which came to us in a compassion we never felt before;
They did not deny us anything;
But did what they could to give us balm.
Nun and priest, counselor and social worker; lay man and clergy —
they walked with us into the valley of death.
To whom I am forever grateful.
They were there for us in a way the Catholic Church actually despised.
Those Catholics there at St. Vincents were on our side,
For once. And almost only once.
We felt we had a friend to understand our plight.
Never before or since have we felt such Godly Holiness towards us.
You are clueless.
Absolutely clueless.
Never have any treated us so well,
as when we were there in St. Vincent’s with our friends dying.
You know nothing of this.
You are innocents in this matter.
Speak not of which you do not know.
Those people there at St. Vincent’s denied us nothing.
Nothing. But held us in tight embrace.
In a compassion you cannot, will not, ever understand.
But still we were despised by society;
Hated, as Mr. Kukis and many of you have expressed.
But I was there – a native New Yorker —
with friend dropping dead by the dozens.
You were not.
You know nothing.
You “believe.”
I “know.”
Conservatives “know.”
Liberals “believe.”
Aye, there’s a difference.
Where on earth is your guidance to us sissies?
To find our prince charming?
‘Tis no where.
For you wish us gone, one way or the other.
Alas, to you, we will not go.
Ever.
Are You All still whipping this Dead Horse?
The Perpetual Victim Thread here. There are States that Offer You the Marriage situation that you desire.
You may find a more tolerant atmosphere there. 6 States.
@playwithfire: You said:
\
Sorry, wrong answer. See my comment #106 for several links to credible studies that show the abnormally high rate of pedophilia in the homosexual community.
@pastol: You said:
Once again, See my comment #106 for several links to credible studies that show the abnormally high rate of pedophilia in the homosexual community.
Really, you two do nothing but show not only a lack of knowledge on the subject, but you do the homosexual community a disservice by your words.
*I think this thread has become a bunch of long opinionated paragraphs with no hard facts, I am bored to tears just reading it, but here you all go:
Should it truly matter if one is homo? Should not one find a common bond with a law abiding patriot? I pity the fool who would not stand and fight beside a patriot & I truly pity the fool who would not because of patriot on the basis of race, religion, or even orientation.
I believe America is the greatest country on gods green earth, I believe the constitution to be the finest document ever written, I believe the pledge of allegiance is the sweetest sound to have touched my ears. If you believe this also I would offer you a nod a handshake and above all.. hope; for the future. Whoever you are.
@Jim Hlavac: You said:
So by your own words, you are a “mere 5% of the nation,” yet you want to force the other 95% to change their views on marriage to suit you, a self professed minority.
Interesting.
I would imagine that the number of folks who think the federal government uses microwave radiation to implement thought control is a very small percentage. Tell me, should we get rid of all microwave communication towers in the country?
Zac, keep dodging those cowpies here. This thread is played out. Unless You need a lecture on the subject. I really don’t see anything new or revealing here.
Old trooper I think your right.
@Zac: You said:
I guess you must have missed my comments that are chock full of links to studies – scientific studies.
Sorry; I would expect facts from you. However I got through a couple of posts that were written since I left and didn’t see anything the usual FA caliber.
@Antics
Ok. There’s lots of ‘studies’ on the internet. Did you do even a minimal amount of due dilligence?
What I can call them is an organization with a political agenda that could be characterized as decidedly hostile toward gays, thus rendering anything they produce on the topic highly suspect. . Here’s one description of the CNP.
Dr Gene Abel might not agree with your conclusions
Gregory M. Herek, Ph.D, Professor of Psychology at the University of California at Davis (UCD):
@Tom: What on earth? I’m a friggin’ queer — I know queers, queers are friends of mine — trust me – we hate kids — we don’t want to make ’em, we don’t want to be near them – -we have nothing to do with them! I love your kids — as far away from me as possible.
Even more amazing — gay men joke that we have an inability to withstand the high pitched whines of rugrats.
Never before have people so removed from children been accused of attacking them so much.
It’s absurd in its monstrosity!
@Jim Hlavac: OK that was harsh, sorry — no but really — we’re not near kids — and any kids who grow up gay were just like us — they were gay from the get go — why — they find us! Often from good families who throw them out — but also just standing on a store check out line — some kid will figure out I’m gay and start talking to me about it — and I freak and run away
People — nothing is more fearful to a gay adult than a gay kid — for we’ll be accused of “recruiting” him. —
It’s not recruiting — it’s mentoring if given the chance — but we’re not — so we don’t
Gay men are so far away from kids that not a Nancy Grace or John Adams show has ever been given over to us — all those guys on Dateline are molesting girls — not boys!
We want nothing to do with your kids — until they wind up in a gay bar at 21, so we can teach them how to survive. We’re not teaching “gayness” or “homosexuality” — we’re teaching survival in a hostile world.
Egad – -how many times must we say this? How many?
@Tom: Its obvious that you did not read all of the studies I linked.
RE: Dr. Gene Abel
Nice try, but once you have read the studies I posted – credible studies by the way – then we can have this discussion. Until then, I will file your comments under “M,” for moonbat.
@Tom: You know what is hysterical — to us gay guys – about all these studies “about” us — not a one — not a blessed one — is “with” us. You don’t to talk to us. You want to talk about us – in learned terms for sure – -but wholly divorced from our reality.
I was attacked repeatedly for being a sissy from 3rd grade until 9th grade — until I finally beat the snot out of Michael Henderson and Allan Rolli – -two boys who would torment me forever if given the chance. I was a friggin’ sissy folks — pummeled by family, church, school and schoolmates until I exploded in unresolved rage. You all have no idea.
We keep saying we’re gay from the get go — and you’ll discuss it with no conclusion — expect that mine cannot be true! And yet — every single gay guy tells me the exact same story — without exception — and regardless of your studies — we knew we were gay from the time puberty hit — earlier even. We just knew. Why do you not believe this?
What do you know that we cannot? We lived the life. You have your studies. This is our complaint. You study incessantly and come to no conclusion and we tell you we’re gay from day one — and we’re wrong and you’re right.
It’s mind boggling. Truly mind boggling.
And people wonder why I’m annoyed, aggravated and cranky?
Listen to you!
You “know” — what you “believe”
And we live the damn thing — egad, folks — face reality.
Yeesh.
@Jim Hlavac: You said:
How do you think they get the data from those studies? They interview gay men.
I guess it isn’t your fault that you don’t understand how psychological and sociological studies are conducted. I understand that you have anecdotal evidence to the contrary, but facts are facts. There are more incidents of pedophilia perpetrated by homosexual males.
That you have never known a gay pedophile just shows that you don’t move in social circles that would bring you into contact with one. That is a good thing. Nobody wants to be associated on a social basis with a pedophile of any sexual predilection.
But just because you have never known a gay pedophile does not mean they don’t exist.
I have never personally known a serial killer, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
@Jim Hlavac: And do you know why I wade in among you and say these things? Because I’m trying to make a better world for “my children.” Yes, “My children” — who are of course yours biologically. Without a doubt we ain’t making no babies (nor aborting them even – which I want to stop because 5% of them are my people! Oh, how I am with you on this!)
Yes, your children — some of them — one of them — like my parents faced with me — are just sissies. Oh we don’t know why. Neither does Mr. Kukis who started this infernal discussion. But I dare say we know a hell of a lot more about it than you do.
Look, only 5% will be gay – just like 1 or 2% will be autistic — so put us on the autism spectrum, be done with us — and mollycoddle us for once. Stop the condemnation. Please. Stop the accusations that we’re against kids, or family, or the whole panoply of what we’re supposed to be against.
OK, so we’re nuts. So what? Every other “Nut” in our culture gets some sort of mollycoddling, except us. and we’re no different than any head banging autistic child.
Indeed, we have banged our heads against more walls to get a good word about us than any bunch on earth. Please, I beg you — as we always have – just accept us tiny few as we are – and nothing more.
Is this too much?
So far, from tonight’s discussion, yes.
And so I shoulder on. Relentlessly. For it is for me and my people. Oh you all have no idea.
I’d really like to chime in on this discussion, but I’m simply dumbfounded at what I’m reading. This article isn’t a rant against gay marriage or equal rights, it’s a promotion of generally stereotyping against an entire group of your fellow citizens and human beings. I need no study to prove this wrong, as it should be obvious to any reasonable person that behavior is just as diverse and individual in one group as another. Whether a man is faithful and monogamous is irrespective of their sexual preference, and you only need to know a few men to know that is true. And even so, what number of sexual partners is the cutoff point at which someone should be treated as well as anyone else, or is it just about whom they sleep WITH? I thought the fallacy of gay people “recruiting” children went away with Anita Bryant. This is the only comment I will leave on this matter, so rail on me as you will. I’ve addressed everything you could possibly say in response to me right here on FA, so you only need to dig through the archives if you actually really care. Those who believe that all people should be celebrated as individuals and treated with equal dignity, respect, and rights will ultimately win this battle, and those currently fighting against that truth will hold it up as their own values, like every other example throughout American history. In the meantime, I urge everyone to consider the example and messages your attitudes are setting for your children and others.
the one thing that is obvious in this rant about those people, and there is not a scintilla about my neighbor, the relative in my family, the person that i work with,etc nothing about one single personal relationship.
@Annie Brewer:
In my opinion, she knows something is not quite right…and I think the problem is in her soul. She is not bonded with a male soul, so there is no completion or coalescence there. Perhaps she thinks, the state recognizing her marriage is, in part, the key, but it won’t be.
Females who are gay are a whole different ball game than males who are gay, because males and females are so different.
@feetxxxl:
Which “love” does not include fidelity, lifetime sexual exclusivity, the ability to produce children, the need to protect all in the relationship, or the simple yin and yang of a male/female relationship. Since it is so dissimilar in the most fundamental ways, why not define such a relationship by a different name, like, oh, I don’t know, a “domestic partnership”?
@playwithfire:
Governments have long recognized that stable families are the key to a stable nation. We foolishly waste our money on supporting, and thus encouraging, single mothers, from which comes most of our problems. If anything, our government ought to support or remain neutral to married couples; and not endorse, support, or incentivize alternate arrangements.
Unfaithful spouses is the exception, not the rule, in marriages between a man and a woman. Furthermore, it is foundational for most marriages, and marriages are often destroyed by infidelity. The same thing is not true of gay relationships. Infidelity is the rule, not the exception. Infidelity does not destroy the gay relationship. Yet, gay relationships do not have the same “glue” as do traditional marriages.
Again, the key is the souls involved, not the bodies. This fact has eluded most homosexuals.
@Jim Hlavac:
Every gay man may or may not tell the same story, but research has shown that, while genetics plays a part, it is not determinative; and that, gays have several sets of environmental factors in common, one of which is often an early homosexual experience.
However, I would be curious as to the following:
How many young males have had an older homosexual male make a move on them in some way or another?
How many males have been attracted to another male in their pre-pubescent stage?
How many males have had “gay” dreams or any sort?
@Tom:
This is what I mean about dishonesty; I think you know the studies probably better than anyone here. You know these things are true.
Gary your article is most interesting. With the exception of your end game hypothesis, I agree with everything that your wrote, including your additional comments about how important it is that sexual lovers bond with the soul of the partner (I believe that also to be true of heterosexual relationships, as there is a huge connection between “restless souls” and promiscuity).
While I’m convinced that the homosexuals certainly would agree with your end game theory, I’m also convinced the end game is much bigger, has been around a lot longer, and sadly, makes the homosexuals one more group of “useful idiots.” After all, no easier way to get an essential useful idiot group on board than to seduce and support the god of sexual pleasure.
The end game is the destruction of the family, the basic unit of society, consequently, the achievement of an almost 100 year plan to let government be “mommy and daddy”, aka, Western Marxism.
It started back in the 1930’s with the Frankfurt School. One of the initial targets was the Catholic Church, (the big elephant in the room that needs to die). Hundreds of gay communist men were infused into the American priesthood, which is now on record as sworn testimony (google Bella Dodd). I say that cautiously because despite that fact, there are still many holy priests around and just as many new good ones (especially since the influence of JPII), but none the less, it’s an ugly fact. The Catholic Church was one of the first to be attacked/infused, just as our public school systems and media are today.
From early TV shows like “Will and Grace”, gays in the military to Kevin Jennings, a well noted active homosexual appointed by Obama as “Safe School Czar”, it is no “coincidence.” The more “normal” our culture can make gay sex, the closer America becomes to the end game of American destruction.
And rest assured, when the usefulness of the gays in America have been exhausted, they will be thrown to the wolves. I’ve long held the prediction that when that day comes, the only true friend the gays in America will have, as paradoxical as it seems, will be the faithful Catholics, even if they too are small in number and by that time, underground.
@Cary:
Things are often stereotypes because they are true.
Sexual faithfulness to a homosexual relationship is much different than that to a man/woman marriage. Infidelity in a traditional marriage will either destroy that marriage or change it forever. This is not true of committed homosexual relationships, who will go so far as to redefine what faithful means.
Gays recruiting children is a reality. I am curious as to how many young men have had an older gay or bi male try to recruit them, at least for an experience. Will that increase or decrease when schools begin to teach that homosexuality is normal and not an aberration.
I might buy gay recruiting as a false stereotype except for gays doing everything that they can to insert themselves and their agenda into the public school system, down to the grammar school level. You are going to have a difficult time convincing me otherwise with gays becoming so fundamentally involved with public education.
Furthermore, it is simple mathematics. If gays make up 3% of the population, and yet gays typically have sex with 100 people in their lifetime (and many, with even a 1000 partners), that pool of partners needs to be expanded, Obviously this is not the personal agenda of every gay in America; but it is the agenda of a significant number, many of whom will be attending the next school meeting in their area to push some new program, involving the gay agenda, but disguised as something else.
Finally, you mention “dignity.” Have you ever been to a gay pride march? How dignified is that? How many parents have accidentally come across one of these and have to take their children away, because of the crude behavior displayed by some of the marchers?
@anticsrocks:
You say the studies are credible. I posted a link above that would cast doubt upon your assumption. I think the part you’re missing in all of this is that people who are the members of political organizations hostile to gays are preparing these “reports” in a manner that’s scientifically dubious to say the least. The authors (in many cases, people with no scientific training or background) go through published scientific reports and pull out pieces to make their arguments. The context is often lost and the data is often presented in a misleading manner. Are you scientist? I’m not, so I certainly wouldn’t feel qualified to draw broad behavioral conclusions from disparate scientific studies, which often are laser focused on very specific goals and use complex statistical analysis. Have you ever studied statistics? I have some limited exposure (undergrad), and i can’t imagine feeling qualified to synthesize the findings of dozens of PhD studies, as many of these hate group reports do.
Unfortunately, because of this practice, many of the actual scientists themselves have felt compelled to go on record to refute the misrepresentation of their findings by these groups. I quoted Dr. Abel above, who was very specific on how his work was misrepresented. Unless you’re questioning the legitimacy of the quote itself, I’m not sure what your issue is with my response. I’ve been very consistent on the point that these ‘reports’ by the FRC and other groups are scientifically bogus. If you disagree, I guess we’ll have to leave it at that.
i find it interesting how obsessed you are with the failings of homosexuals and ignore the same about heterosexuals. is it possible that you yourself live a sexual double life and that your denial demands that you obsess about homosexuals.
except for the last 10 years homosexuality has been deemed illegal for 600 years(anglo-saxon culture) starting with king hernry making it a hangin offense(1500…..it stayed on the books for 300 years). settlers came to this country making it punishable with different punishments. because of the illegal stigma for 600 years homosexuals have been subject to abandonment by friends and family, rejection by society including the church, and possible incarceration, assault(verbal or physical), murder and even execution. and now those who were part of this persecution turn around and chastise them for acting out any possible antisocial behavior for their possibly being damaged.
they say it takes a village to raise a child. what happens when that same village for 600 years hunts them down and persecutes them.
@Gary Kukis:
Okay, I’ll address you just this once. Then I’m done.
If you apply that to every other group of people other than yourself, I hope you’re not as vocal about it in public, or that you live primarily among “your own.” – for your sake.
I’m sure the number would be proportionate to the amount of young women who encounter “dirty old men”, or young men prey upon by “Cougars”, depending upon the social circles they inhabit. Your attempt to paint an entire population based on the behavior of some would then have to extend to the entire human race.
Why yes I have have. And I can tell you, for those that I’ve been to, the idea that a family with children would accidentally get anywhere near the parade without knowing exactly what it was before they saw anything to which you refer is a ridiculously silly notion. As for the parades themselves, the behavior to which you refer often comes from the younger generation who’ve spent their whole lives ashamed of their own sexuality, hiding, hoping nobody would ever catch them glancing at a member of their own sex, that nobody would ever know of how they feel, looking in the mirror wondering if they’re even fit to live…. now realizing that they are not alone and they can be accepted for who they are. It stands to reason they would feel liberated throwing out their sexuality for the world to see, without the shame they felt for so many years. Shake up a coke bottle for 20 years, don’t wonder why you get sprayed with soda when you open the bottle. So actually, in that respect, I find it EXTREMELY dignified. And most of them calm down once they mature, feet firmly rooted in self acceptance. Perhaps if they had that from the start, the process you find so distasteful wouldn’t need to exist.
You have a choice to whether you spread acceptance and love, or hatred and prejudice. I fully believe that what you put out into the world comes back to you. Which would you have for yourself?
@Annie Brewer: How on earth does the right for two loving people to make their lives secure financially, in terms of children, and property and hospital visitation affect your life in any way? What two gay people, when married, prevent you from happiness? Your ignorance and fear is shocking, especially in light of the family member you supposedly have. I recommend you take a hard look at love, and try practicing some.
@Cary: sweet!
@Tom: You said:
Yes, I have. I possess a degree in Psychology, so reading and interpreting studies is something that I am very familiar with.
How anyone can say that there are not homosexuals intent on inflicting their mores and lifestyles on children with this evidence is, well hard to fathom:
And how do you explain Kevin Jennings?
If ALL of the studies that say homosexuals do not want to indoctrinate children are bogus, which would be a statistical impossibility, then how do you explain NAMBLA or Kevin Jennings? Or a dozen other examples that could be highlighted?
To this author: What a ridiculous anti-gay screed. You know nothing of gay people or their agenda. You are not especially clever, but you manage to regurgitate and dress up some of the most inane character assassination imaginable as palatable pablum. Most men experiment with the same sex. Most do so willingly because they are interested in it, not because they were forced to. Kinsey showed a sexual continuum, where most men are bisexual with a decided preference for one sex or the other. This is based on a survey among men when they were not wise to the impact of surveys and had little reason to lie. Few people are strictly heterosexual or strictly homosexual.
In every encounter, someone needs to be older. Since you don’t define how much older, therefore any sexual encounter fits your conviction.
You want to raise your kids in a sex negative protective bubble? Try it. They will experiment if they are at all creative. It does not take an adult to show kids that there is a difference in plumbing. You have the idea that homosexuals recruit.
Who recruited you to be a heterosexual? No one recruited me to be gay. I fought it like a sonofabitch until I was sick from it. i won’t be sick for you or anyone, I will not apologize for living, I will no longer sit back and accept what little scraps of humanity you offer. I am a healthy fully functioning child of God put here to love others in God’s image and will not take a seat at the back for anyone’s perverse idea of nature. And believe me, the idea of a world without the beauty of gay people and the art and culture they inspire is a twisted one indeed. If you dislike gays so much, i encourage you to completely stop using any of their products or services, refuse to eat in their restaurants, get your hair cut in their salons, walk in buildings they design, use their legal services, doctor or nursing skills, educational or institutional services manned or staffed by gay people. Let’s see how you get along when you need EMS and the attendant is gay, or you want to check out at WalMart and a little gay guy is manning the counter. Go to another line. We’d rather not despoil your day. Jackass.
@anticsrocks:
You keep conflating homosexuality with pedophilia. They are not the same thing. Do you consider a grown man attracted to little girls “straight” after all? The majority of sexual child abuse victims are abused by a member of his/her own family. That doesn’t mean every married man with a daughter should be treated like a potential predator.
@anticsrocks:
I see that this thread churns on. Here’s an interesting and amusing tidbit:
In #132 above Tom continues his whinging about the FRC, an organization that he refers to as a “hate group” that he claims cannot be trusted because they have an agenda. (They oppose gay marriage, etc…so that makes them a “hate group” in the shallow depths of Tom’s intellect.)
He then tries to shore up the foundation of his argument by pointing out that the authors of the papers he is trying to discredit are people “with no scientific training or background.”
This continued whinging comes wrapped around a post in which he quotes from a paper written by Mark Pietrzyk.
Who is Mark Pietrzyk? Well, I’m glad you asked.
Turns out, he appears to be a guy “with no scientific training or background”:
Hmmm…
Furthermore, it turns out that Mr. Pietrzyk is also a member of the Independent Gay Forum, a gay advocacy group. Huh…imagine that. No agenda there, eh?
The rampant irony and overwhelming hypocrisy are deafening.
@ted baldwin: You said:
And you know this….how?
@Tom: You keep avoiding my question. I will ask again:
Will you address my point? Or are you in the same troll/drone/braindead category as B-Rob, Ivan, etc…?
@Aye: Tom’s whining knows no bounds, it would seem. Good find, Aye.
@Aye:
The Mark Pietrzyk excerpt was used specifically to quote Dr. Abel. If you don’t like it, fine. Removing that barely scratches my argument because nowhere do I use the gentleman’s work for anything approaching what Gary has attempted to build upon the output of the FRC’s (I assume it’s the FRC. Gary has yet to cite anything outside of the Bible, despite repeated requests for clarification). Remove credibility from the FRC, and Gary’s entire premise crumbles. Remove Mark Peitzyk from my post, and all I have to do is go find another source for the same quote.
Interesting that you ignored the work and the credentials of Gregory M. Herek, Aye.
By the way, I noticed you (again) ducked a question over here.
@Tom:
His field of expertise, and the educational area that he received his degree in, are irrelevant because, by your own standards, he’s merely quoting the words and research work of others.
Either Pietrzyk’s paper is invalid simply based on the standards that you wish to impose on the other sources or it’s not.
Of course, you go on to quote Pietrzyk’s paper and rely on his snippet of Dr. Abel’s book when you, yourself, attempted to establish “that nothing less than the complete unexpurgated version will be acceptable.”
You cannot have it both ways, eh?
Trying to establish the ground rules for what is acceptable as source material while busily trampling all over the lines you’ve drawn in the sand.
You’re funny.
Oh, by the way, you indicated a need to “refresh yourself with the arguments” so, no, I haven’t ducked your questions at all.
Simply waiting for you to indicate that you are “100% prepared.”
[One final note…I am leaving on a ski trip tomorrow, and will be busy today after work. We won’t be back in town until late on Saturday so I won’t be available to kick your azz ’round this forum during that time period. Enjoy my time away.]
@ Aye,
Fair point. The FRC paper is certainly attempting to do more than just “quoting the words and research work of others” because it draws definitive conclusions. So a deep understanding of the field and of science would be a necessarily requirement. I therefore withdraw the Pietrzyk quote in the spirit of fair play, although clearly you’re giving it much more weight than I ever intended it to carry.
Well now you’re just being silly, Aye, and willfully dishonest. You know I was referring to your private email correspondence with the Doctor, not anything out in the public domain. Since the rest of us don’t have access to your email, I think it’s fair to request the entire transcript (although, obviously, we can’t verify, I trust you at your word). If you don’t agree, state as much, but don’t misrepresent my request.
This is so disingenuous, it’s absurd. Aye, I never asked you to wait for to be “100% prepared”, just like the time before that I never asked you to wait two weeks before even checking back in on the topic. I answered all your questions, as you requested, while you continuously ducked my repeated attempts to get you to simply express a position on the topic. If you don’t want to continue the discussion, that’s fine. If you do, that’s fine. But the ball has been in your court, gathering dust, for all of February. Have a nice trip.
lol, calling all gays pedophiles and then pointing at the idiots in NAMBLA is like calling all whites racists and then pointing at the idiots in the KKK.
And Tom yet again runs from debate with me…
@playwithfire: I do believe that I have never said all gays are pedophiles. I have, however said that among pedophiles the incidence of them being gay is very high.
well among KKK members the incidence of them being white is even greater.
@playwithfire: Oh, I get it. That was a joke!
So you are saying that among white racists, the incidence of them belonging to the KKK is….?
@ playwithfire, Now is that a First Hand knowledge kinda thing or are You just speculatin?
@ted baldwin:
These things have already been handled legally, through the courts, through domestic partnership. The hospital visitation rights is such a total dishonest ruse, as it has no doubt occurred, but how often percentage wise among homosexuals? 1% maybe?
As we both know, you can, in your community, call a relationship whatever you want to call it. You can have a marriage ceremony, both of you can wear wedding dresses, if you are so inclined, but there is the militant desire to have the state or federal government call these things marriages, when they have nearly nothing in common with a male female relationship.
And, most importantly, most of this is argued from positions which you yourself probably know are either untrue or very rarely true.
So, many of us realize that there is a whole hidden agenda here that you want to move on with, but that takes a state and later federal ruling on marriage.
Most conservatives are live and let live types. What you do behind closed doors and what you want to call it makes no difference to us. But, when you have to get the government involved, that is what suddenly gets our attention.
And when you get into the schools, and attempt to sell this as normal and reasonable behavior, to children who are not old enough to know what sex is….that is what causes many conservatives to push back. It is all about love. It is about love for our children.