Posted on 12/12/2004 11:36:48 PM PST by JohnHuang2
I do take issue with your homosexual propaganda though. Homosexuals do offend children at a higher rate than heterosexuals, see Freund, Watson 1993. And, homosexuality is a paraphilic disorder, care to discuss the merits for which it was removed from the DSM? The “God Hating” comment is a little obscure though, why do YOU think homosexuals “hate God”…I’m curious?
As far as Jesus not mentioning homosexuality in the Bible I can see you really don’t read it much do you? Let’s see here if I can remember; in Matt 11:24, Mark 6:11and Luke 10:12 Jesus warns of a fate worse than the destruction of Sodom (you know that little place God destroyed because of homosexual abomination also where we get the word sodomy from) if we do not receive His word. Jesus clearly condemns the in of Sodom as one of the worst sins committed.
insult Matthew Shepard as "HIV-ridden"... what evidence does he have for that?
He was, perhaps you should try a little reading before you fart.
First you admit you were wrong about the methamphetamine rage then you spew more reactionary mistruths. It really looks like your blind allegiance to the homosexual agenda, and the debunking of your poster boy for your propaganda has thrown you into full tilt.
Sorry to accuse you of being homosexual, I know know what that means to you, but, it was very hard to tell from your effeminate writing style. I apologize to you and your boyfriend or husband...which ever applies.
Be quiet, woman.
He said I was gay blah, blah, blah... I was demonstrating the uselessness of such insults
Aren't we being a little disingenuous?
Just four points.
1. I really think you should take a break from FR and take care of yourself and your anger problem. Walks on the beach or in the woods or mountains are very healing to the spirit. I say this in all seriousness.
2. You said: "that Joseph Farah has an anti-gay agenda, and attacks homosexuality as evil by unfairly associating all homosexuals with the depraved, murderous, child-raping acts of a few."
You are equating telling the truth about homosexuality and the "gay" agenda with "attacking" homosexuality and being "anti-gay" [what *does* that mean, anyway?].
3. The truth is that there is a much higher proportion of homosexuals in the child raping field. It's the truth, it's not bias, not fantasy, just plain truth.
4. How is Shepard being slandered by telling the truth about his miserable death? Maybe by hearing or reading the truth some people currently involved in the "gay" life might look into reparative therapy.
It isn't "[t]elling the truth about homosexuality" to associate all homosexuals with the sick, evil duo who violated and murdered Dirkhising. Telling the truth about something, such as homosexuality, requires a broad perspective. A few bloody anecdotes don't prove anything. There are Christian criminals, does that prove anything about Christianity in general? Most homosexuals are not child-raping predators and do not support child-raping predators of any sexual orientation. It's not "telling the truth" about them to claim that. It's a vicious insult, and it's fundamentally not true.
What the hell do you think it means to be "anti-gay?" Let's see... Anti-Black: don't like black people. Anti-Muslim: don't like Muslims. Anti-Christian: don't like Christians. This one isn't hard to figure out. Being anti-gay is to be against homosexuality and to be against gay people.
You say I am the angry one, but I'm not the one trying to lead a Jihad against a segment of American society.
You really should consider my helpful advice about calming down.
You are equating being BORN black which is a neutral, unchangeable biological fact with being homosexual, which is none of the above. By its very nature homosexuality is disordered, a pychological and sexual dysfunction, those who act on such disordered desires are practicing what used to be called (and is) a "crime against nature", and all the statistics agree that that homosexuals, ON THE AVERAGE (not each and every one, got it?) are responsible for WAY MORE child abuse, child molesting, child seduction, than heterosexuals.
They (especially male homosexuals) are WILDLY - got that? - WILDLY promiscuous, in a way not even comparable to heterosexuals. Their anonymous and excessive sexual acts, often in orgies, bath houses, bathrooms, public parks and so on cause rampant disease which often causes early death.
If you don't want to see this, it's because your eyes and mind are locked and closed. Homosexuals are sick, and the act of buggery is evil, and they need therapy and restoration. I wish they would all do that, instead of indoctrinating and recruiting our children.
"Since you have to admit that the majority of men are heterosexual, it would make sense that they account for the greatest number of assaults.What PERCENTAGE of "significant other" assaults are committed by men against men (as in the famous Texas Sodomy case and possibly the death) or women against women (quite ironic when a woman leaves her man and becomes a lesbian only to realize that women can slap someone around too). Might as well give the percent of women who beat men (and I've known some) but don't be surprised if those numbers are under reported because men are supposed to "suck it up and be a man" about it and don't get the support that battered womyns' sheleters get."
Well, this is an intelligent, logical response. I think you point out some great questions. The next thing to ask, after the polemics and emotions are put aside, are these very questions. If it can be demonstrated that the incidence of violence in the gay community is significantly larger than in the straight community, you have to unpack why that is. Are gays more violent? Or as some have asked, "Is it a response to years of marginalization?" (to which I am skeptical). Similar questions are being asked in the African American community.
In both cases, that kind of logical perspective leads to the end question, "What can be done about it?" Does a society accept statistics that say that 1 in every 100 straight men will perform a violent act on a spouse or partner and 3 out of every 100 gay men will, and leave it at that? Or does society have an obligation to reduce the 3 incidences to 1 for parity's sake? And if so, how would one propose getting those other two gay men to not drift or resort to violence. The same line of examination should hold for both genders, all races and both gay and straight sub-groups.
Great post!!
Oh my, for someone who throws around words like moron and stupid, you really need a lesson in probability and statistics. If a population sample “like homosexuals” offends children at a greater rate/average/mean than its own population, then guess what? It’s NOT an anecdote!
little jeremiah, me thinks you are wasting your time here, anyone who thinks the behavioral choice of homosexuality is comparable to immutable skin color or religious faith (belief system) has chosen to remain liberally ignorant. It’s funny that xm1234 spouts her homosexual propaganda talking points but when when she is called “gay” she writes volumes explaining that she isn't and how it's an insult, I really can’t think of a bigger hypocrite than her.
Here's the deal.
SSAD (Same Sex Attraction Disorder) is a deviance from normal sexuality. It is a psychological, emotional, sexual, and spiritual dysfunction. It is not normal, healthy, natural, or good for society when it is promoted as normal.
On the contrary, it is highly destructive for human society to allow it legality or promotion, and if you read what "gay" spokespeople themselves say, their desire is to entirely dismantle traditional morality and the natural family. Their words, not mine.
A much higher percentage of homosexuals than the normal population abuse alcohol and drugs, molest children, commit 'partner' abuse, have mental/emotional problems, are suicidal, and other miserable habits.
Medical science proves this, every religion in the world condemns same sex acts as immoral, and even Chinese Taoist philosophy states that same sex acts (espcially male on male) cause aggression, anger, illness, and psychosis.
Got it?
Define Normal.
According to design.
No moral relativity here. It's not in the eye of the beholder, it's in the eye of the designer.
IOW, it's not up to individuals to decide what is normal. There is a certain standard inherent in the design. If you don't like that, too effing bad.
"effing"
effing? hmmm... is that part of your anger management counseling that you have given to others on this post? You seem to have pinned the reason for the psychosis exhibited by gay men. To what do you attribute your own psychosis (and hostility)?
I'm not psychotic, just a little righteously angry at the "gay" agenda pushers. Which you seem to be one of, after checking "in forum" and your agressive push for "gay civil unions" as well as your comments on this thread.
I have studied the radical homosexual rights movement for more than 15 years. Have you?
Is it time for all of us to compare resumes as a way of legitimizing our right to free speech? Yes, I am standing up for what I believe to be right and true in terms of how I understand the framers' intention of this constitutional federal republic. I stand with those homosexuals who are wrongly accused and lumped in with murders to be considered as one. I stand with good, upstanding heterosexual husbands and fathers that are lumped in with "dead beat" dads and considered obstructionists to woman's self-actualization.
I stand with blacks who are oppressed and Jews in the Warsaw ghetto and if we have passed the point where we can freely admit those convictions for fear of being labeled DU then the discourse which started Free Republic has eroded to the point where we are merely one hand clapping. Sadly, you believe you are pre-ordained by God to be that hand.
Are nerds marginalized? Why aren't they violent?
Hate the sin. Love the sinner.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.