Skip to comments.Teen radio host says 'Obama makes kids gay' in hate speech posted to YouTube
Posted on 06/07/2012 9:23:42 AM PDT by scottjewell
A 14-year-old radio show host has come out and condemned President Barack Obama for 'making kids gay' by supporting homosexual's civil rights. Caiden Cowger, who has interviewed the likes of Herman Caine and hobnobbed with Rudy Giuliani, posted a four and a half minute video on May 26 in which he insists homosexuality is a choice - and a sin. The video immediately drew the ire of dozens of people and was eventually removed from YouTube for promoting hate speech, while Caiden's account was hacked and deleted, the teen told the MailOnline.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2155710/Caiden-Cowger-Teen-radio-host-says-Obama-makes-kids-gay-YouTube-video.html#ixzz1x7oWYLKL
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Even worse, there were comments on Facebook, referring to this child as "a hot and bothered homo who wants a **** in his mouth", and these comments were not viewed as hate speech.
He has now reposted the video under a new YouTube Channel, but there is talk of having it flagged as Hate Speech right now, so if anyone wants to see it, do so while it still exists:
Is it even possible to make kids gay?
Hate speech? Just because a person speaks out against the perversion of homosexuality. Makes it hate speech? So is it hate speech when perverted homosexuals speak out against heterosexuality?
Republicans are so intolerant. What do the Democrats need to do to get everyone to encourage diversity and respect all speech even that which you disagree with?
Sorry, looks like I mis-read it the first time. Never mind.
As a Psychologist, I would have to say yes. In more than 25 years of practice, every single person that I have counseled who lived a homosexual lifestyle reported that they had been sexually abused (forced to participate) as a child by someone of the same gender. I have counseled more than 500 such individuals to date.
Herman “Caine”? or the “Cain” who was one of the GOP presidential hopefuls?
Anyhow, while the prodigy might be overstating things by saying these weird policies “make” kids gay, it’s not far from the truth. They pose temptations and influences that children of that age are generally not equipped to deal with. Even as is, it’s only an opinion. Hate speech? Anything that suggests there’s a downside to being “gay” and that it’s possible to influence or exercise self control about “gay” behavior seems to be deemed ipso facto hate speech. Sloppy “science” if not nakedly agenda driven.
Thanks. Statistics like that have always made me wonder how the first homo came to be?
That is the point: His speech, in our era, is merely unpopular. Thus, the First Amendment was designed to PROTECT it. Condemning it as hate speech violates the US Constitution at the most BASIC level.
“Thanks. Statistics like that have always made me wonder how the first homo came to be?”
Clearly, there are indeed natural-born homosexuals. These have rights to privacy and to autonomy. However, the indoctrination of vast numbers who in another era would not have been gay, or would not have chosen to act on it, is truly a problem.
Doc, isn’t such induced homosexuality often, if not always, a kind of learned craving for being bullied, so to speak? The desire for continuation of a molestation would fall in that category. God never intended man to accept arbitrary imposition of another man’s will, but man has lost his way and hatred rules rather than proper love.
The trick was to make those who chose to practice homosexual behaviors a separate class of individuals. e.g. 'gays'. Then, to label them as an 'oppressed minority', thus subtly equating those practicing homosexual behavior with people who are genetically a racial minority and who are given - by liberals and the government - 'oppressed minority' status. That transforms any criticism of homosexual behavior into 'hate speech' because it's being used against, not a behavior, oh no, but a class of people, 'gays'.
This house of cards may be flimsy but, unfortunately, the majority don't see it and go right along with the canard that to criticize homosexual behavior is actually 'hating' and, worse yet, hating a protected minority! Thus, our free speech rights are, once again, truncated and the American people meekly accept it. This way lies slavery.
“Hate Speech” will always be used to condemn someone supporting Judeo-Christian morals.
“Hate Speech” will never be used to describe the words of groups like LaRaza and the New Black Pampers.
Understand how Newspeak works? Freedom is slavery, ect.
Yes, I agree with you. Of course it is agenda-driven.
Hermain Cain, the former presidential candidate , appeared on Caiden’s show, as well as many other political figures.
Right, but when is something going to rise up and counter-attack this Newspeak? It never had to go this far: It was allowed to continue unchecked for decades. Who is actually going to come out and stand up for this young man, as he goes down in the flames of hate speech deletions?
Right you are: The fact that the Fist Amendment - designed specifically to protect unpopular speech, a MUST in any democracy - is being tossed away and mere opinion flimsily and hastily considered “hate speech”, by YouTube, an internet GIANT, shows we are in the last stages, the virtual death throes. But as I said elsewhere, why did we allow this to happen? 40 years ago, it was only a gleam in a liberal activist’s eye. Who allowed this?
Anyone that tells the truth about the perverted homosexual agenda and life is “hate speech”, as if hate speech should override the 1st Amendment anyway..
"The very people attacking this kid scream tolerance but they themselves are intolerant.
Liberal, they name is hypocrite."
Guarantee you that back when homosexuality was still “in the closet” and sexual pervervsion including pornography, rampant sex amoung the young, that there were as many “gay” tweens (those just discovering their sexual feeling and bodies between 12-20 or so..).
So I say yes..our government/school and pop-culture have made kids “gay”.
If he did not distinguish between same-sex orientaztion, which is in many, nearly all, cases, not chosen, and homosexual acts, which are chosen, then he’s not smart.
Evangelicals far too often fail or refuse to make this distinction. It is crucial to the debate. Same-sex orientation is not genetic, no one is born with it. But that doesn’t mean that those who have this orientation chose it. It results in most cases from things done to them and a failure of those who should help them grow into mature heterosexual adults to do so.
One is free to refuse to act upon the orientation. To act according to it is a sin. The orientation itself is not natural, is disordered, is not good, but it is not a moral choice or sin. For something to be sin it has to be chosen. Disorders are not chosen.
Evangelicals often use “homosexuality” ambiguously. If they want to stand up for the faith, they need to learn to distinguish between chosen acts (which are sin) and the unchosen orientation, which is disordered but not sin.
Excellent and apt comment! Bravo.
His speech, in our era, is merely unpopular.
Bet you a million dollars it isn’t.
Exactly; point well made. Only can you edit, as you accidentally wrote “were” rather than “weren’t”, which I am assuming you meant. ;)
Because, yes, the numbers are increasing via indoctrination, which is causing mass confusion. True homosexuals are a minority of about 1-2 %. As I have always said, they deserve the rights to privacy and autonomy. What they do NOT deserve is a cultural agenda to increase their numbers many thousand fold.
Calling the orientation a disorder will, of course, be denounced as hate speech by the gay activists. I expect someday to go to prison for calling it a disorder.
When I urge my Evangelical brothers to distinguish between disordered but unchosen orientation and chosen and immoral acts, I do not fool myself into thinking that that will get us off the hook with the gays. It won’t.
But the distinction accords with the best psycho-social studies of the matter—done by NARTH—Christian, mostly but not all Catholic—researchers who have paid dearly for sticking up for the truth. They continue to deal with the orientation as a serious and unnatural disorder but not as freely chosen behavior. They are ostracized and persecuted for it. But their research supports making the distinction.
Not to make the distinction renders one’s arguments utterly indefensible. Making the distinction accords with the truth and with the science and with decent theology: for something to be sinful it has to be freely chosen.
Now, the 14-year-old hot shot might have a partial point in the case of teenagers who do not actually have an induced, unchosen same-sex orientation but are manipulated into thinking they do. There might be an element of choice there. But even in those cases, they aren’t really free actors but have been lied to and manipulated by the activists.
States of mind can, in the long term, be influenced by habits of behavior. So there aren’t absolutely airtight partitions between the two.
If homosexuality were recognized in society as a bad habit — as overeating or habitual drunkenness or fingernail biting or such — and, along with its cravings, addressed as such, there would be much less problem with it; and IMHO, such a society would be more humane (although it still could not be perfect).
I agree with you. He is, after all, only 14 years of age (he just turned 14, just awhile ago, he was referred to as “the 13 year old talk-radio host”). But you are right: I do not believe that God judges natural born homosexuals, even when they act on it. We are all of us sinners. What God DOES judge is a mass cultural agenda of decadence. They are two different things. I believe Caiden is rightly condemning the latter , not the former. But at 14, he does not know how to express this well.
“Bet you a million dollars it isnt.”
OK; I’ll bite. You mean you think there is a silent majority? Well, when will they speak up? For every one “like” Caiden receives on YouTube and Facebook, there are thousands of “Dislike”s and liberal rants. So, why is the majority silent? I believe because they are quietly wishing all this will pass. It won’t. Not without action.
I doubt that youtube has people involved in the process. If a big enough mob of people flag a video as hate speech, then it will be removed as hate speech, automatically by software.
God “judges” all morally informed behaviors in the sense of deeming them right or wrong. If God did not do that, God couldn’t be just.
The message of Christianity, at least, is that condemnation is now optional, and can be averted through acceptance of free salvation from God, which sets a human life on a new basis.
Same-sex orientation is not genetic, no one is born with it
You can't have it both ways. Homosex attraction must be either instinctual or learned behavior. If-as you claim-it isn't genetic, then according to established behavioral science it must be learned. What mechanism do you propose by which people acquire the homosex "orientation"?
Or are you just taking a shot at evangelicals?
Yes, I agree. NARTH, though, has had no better luck on YouTube or Facebook than the boy. Science itself cannot stand up to this agenda, socially.
I think homosexual behavior, especially in excess, could be considered socially as smoking has (they have had NO problems overriding rights to liberty in that venue!). Or drug or alcohol abuse. By thundering about hell, it makes people even more defensive. But we have gone to the point where even to call it a bad habit is punishable.
I do not believe God judges anyone adapting to a disorder: It is the vast cultural agenda, driven by forces not even gay , which is the abomination.
Yes, and that software is intended to favor numbers. Better call in a tribunal to make an actual judgment. Majority rule can spell oppression. Not good for democracy.
YouTube and FaceBook are FAR from representative of the population at large.
Additionally, contructive conservatives are too busy to counter the assortment of repetitive posts by zealots and professional activists deployed by the Left.
Just because the majority is silent doesn’t mean they do not exist.
There is a simmering resentment about all aspects of the Homosexual agenda.
Did you read what I wrote?
Unchosen behavior can result from things that happen to you after birth.
Something can be non-inborn yet also not chosen. All developmental psychological disorders are not inborn but neither are they chosen.
That was exactly what my comment said. You are the one who took a shot. It is my observation that many Evangelicals here on FR and elsewhere refuse to make this distinction. They are shooting themselves in the foot. I’m giving a friendly amendment.
Although not a doctor of anything the ones I’ve known in life who are gay the girls had early childhood sexual experiences with men or had early sexual teen experiences where they were hurt and could not heal they felt.
When all is said and done, I think it comes down to this - whether or not you are judging religiously or socially:
Our problem is not homosexuals, who are clearly of two camps: Some with an inborn disorder, some with a psychological disorder. These are individuals, and it is really none of our business how they choose to address such disorder.
What our problem is, both as citizens (American and global) and Christians , is the huge gay agenda, infiltrating everywhere, and recruiting youth. This is the enemy. And it was liberals and feminists, who far outnumber homosexuals, who devised and furthered this, for their own ends.
“There is a simmering resentment about all aspects of the Homosexual agenda.”
Will this simmering boil over at some point?
“If-as you claim-it isn’t genetic, then according to established behavioral science it must be learned.”
Yes. And I referred you to the best research that suggests that it is “learned” in response to abuse, absent fathers, missing help in learning to respond to “manly” and “feminine” expectations of children.
Before you spout off, read the NARTH research. They have have simply continued the psychology mainstream assumption that it is a disorder, until it was taken out of the diagnostic manual on political, not clinical, grounds.
The orientation is, in most cases, learned but not chosen. Specific acts by those who have the disorder are chosen and are immoral, depending on the degree of consent and deliberate choice.
Yes, it is a needed amendment. Much needed. This other is self-defeating, and not taken seriously by liberals or the gay movement.
I know of no convincing evidence that the disorder is inborn.
Youtube is not a democracy, and is not bound by the First Amendment. They are a business. Their objective is to have videos that bring in advertising revenue. Videos that are controversial enough that they would need a tribunal for, are videos they don't want the hassle from.
It’s a serious disorder, though not chosen. It’s far more serious than finger-nail biting. You have to take it with the seriousness it deserves. To do less is to be unfair to people afflicted with the disorder.
Though it is a disorder, people with the disorder have the moral challenge of not acting out on the disorder. That’s where the choice comes int.
Perhaps no convincing scientific data. I have known gay males whose parents say that by age 3, they were noticeably feminine, as opposed to an older, masculine brother. They preferred dolls to boy’s toys, even when the parents tried to “macho-ize” them. By 12, they had crushes on other males.
This is indicative of an inborn disorder. Other data would point to a larger % becoming homosexual by way of poorly guided psycho-social development. It is THIS group which is being harmed by the gay agenda. The first group deserve compassion.
A. For the tiny percentage of the population which much empirical data reveals to have an INBORN disorder, I believe these ought to be free to choose to live with a homosexual partner. I do not believe God condemns these in any manner. To me, they are like the deaf or blind: Just different.
B. For the far greater percentage of confused and psychologically misguided youth, being misled by someone like Dan Savage, who jumps from college campus to college campus, encouraging experimentation, sex games, early “coming out”, hanging out at gay bars and clubs, I have a different judgment: Cultural Decadence. Nihilism. Should be stopped. God does judge this.
THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN A AND B makes all the difference in the world. Let us forget A. Let us focus only on B. Houghton M would surely agree that NARTH is only concerned with B. Right, Houghton???
An awful lot happens between birth and age 3. The NARTH researchers say that they do not know what causes same-sex attraction but that they do not see evidence that it’s inborn but do see patterns arising from flawed psychosocial development. I think it arises from a whole complex of distortions that have entered our whole sexuality and seriously disordered our heterosexual sexuality since the 1960s. Most homosexuals are messed up with regard to sexuality. It would be VERY surprising if that did not have an affect on their children’s sexual development. But there could a lot of other factors starting very early in life.
Fundamentally, we just don’t know. But the orientation does not appear to be chosen, in most cases, and it does not appear to be inborn.
Correction: “Most heterosexuals are messed up with regard to sexuality.”
How do you think it got started?