Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Selling Homosexuality to America
CBN ^ | 7/11/03 | Craig von Buseck

Posted on 07/11/2003 2:12:34 PM PDT by apackof2

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-237 next last

1 posted on 07/11/2003 2:12:34 PM PDT by apackof2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: apackof2
Obviously convinced most SCOTUS justices!
2 posted on 07/11/2003 2:21:55 PM PDT by apackof2 (Listen much, talk little, learn greatly)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
CHEAP THRILLS - $1 (the first one's free!)

If every FR member gave a buck a month, we wouldn't need fundraisers. Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD-
It is in the breaking news sidebar!

3 posted on 07/11/2003 2:23:36 PM PDT by Support Free Republic (Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: apackof2
""The first strategy of persuasion," he goes on to say, "is to establish a favorable climate for your message so that the communicator (marketer) can influence the future decision without even appearing to be persuading ...


4 posted on 07/11/2003 2:28:54 PM PDT by DannyTN (Note left on my door by a pack of neighborhood dogs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: apackof2
This image is from
a google search that links to
headlines like this one (!):

"Is 14 "too young" to
understand your
sexual orientation?
Find out why age
really has nothing to
do with it."

5 posted on 07/11/2003 2:30:40 PM PDT by theFIRMbss ([coughs])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
Preaching to the choir here
6 posted on 07/11/2003 2:34:48 PM PDT by apackof2 (Listen much, talk little, learn greatly)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: apackof2
When the gene for homosexuality is identified in tests, future queers will be aborted just as Downs Syndrome fetuses are now.

The quest for the perfect child will culminate in the elimination of all sorts of human abberrations one day.

7 posted on 07/11/2003 2:36:55 PM PDT by CROSSHIGHWAYMAN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CROSSHIGHWAYMAN
When the gene for homosexuality is identified in tests

Don't hold your breath

There is NO SUCH GENE

Repeat after me: "gene for homosexuality" is part of the homosexuality agenda with NO BASIS IN FACT

"gene for homosexuality" is part of the homosexuality agenda with NO BASIS IN FACT

"gene for homosexuality" is part of the homosexuality agenda with NO BASIS IN FACT.......

8 posted on 07/11/2003 2:43:28 PM PDT by apackof2 (Listen much, talk little, learn greatly)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: theFIRMbss
State officials are praising a federal court ruling that found Connecticut is within its rights to exclude the Boy Scouts from a state employee-funded charitable fund-raising campaign.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday upheld a lower court ruling that said the state did not violate the Scouts’ First Amendment rights of association when it attempted to remove the Connecticut Rivers Council from the fund-raising campaign. "The decision reaffirms that our state breaks the law if it supports organizations that discriminate," said Attorney General Richard Blumenthal on Thursday. "The legislature has prohibited discrimination by the state against gays and lesbians — a ban against state support for any organization that discriminates — which has now been upheld by the court." Blumenthal also recognized the Boy Scouts’ long history of public service, and said the group merits generous support "if legally possible."

The issue centers on a campaign every September in which state employees may donate to approved charities and organizations through a payroll deduction, and is administered in the state by the United Way. The Connecticut State Employee Campaign Committee and the state’s Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities had recommended removing the Scouts from the charitable fund-raising list in May 2000, based on the organization’s ban on homosexuals in membership and employment. In June 2000, the Scouts filed suit in U.S. District Court in Connecticut, arguing that the state illegally used its gay-rights legislation to single out the Scouts for unfavorable treatment. They also argued that it violated the group’s rights to "expressive association."

In July 2002, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the Campaign Committee and the CHRO. The Court of Appeals, located in New York City, heard the Scouts’ appeal in April. Judge Guido Calabresi, writing for a unanimous three-judge appellate panel, found that the state’s decision violated neither state law nor the First Amendment.

Harry Pokorny is executive director of the Connecticut Rivers Council, which serves more than 37,000 children and has 13,000 volunteers. "The attorneys working for us are reviewing the judges’ decision to determine what, if anything, is our next step," Pokorny said Thursday. "It’s premature to indicate what we might do. We’re just disappointed."

John D. Allen, founder of the New Haven Gay & Lesbian Community Center in 1996, said the ruling was the proper one. "I definitely agree with the ruling, first of all because the Scouts’ reason for discriminating is baseless," Allen said. "Think of all the gay Scouts who have gone through their system. I hope the Scouts will someday change, because discrimination is wrong."

9 posted on 07/11/2003 2:50:43 PM PDT by apackof2 (Listen much, talk little, learn greatly)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: apackof2
INTSUM
10 posted on 07/11/2003 2:55:13 PM PDT by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: apackof2
Allen said. "Think of all the gay Scouts who have gone through their system.

That shouldnt take long

I hope the Scouts will someday change, because discrimination is wrong."

Unless we discriminate against the sodomite's enemies...which of course should be institutionalized

11 posted on 07/11/2003 3:08:46 PM PDT by joesnuffy (Moderate Islam Is For Dilettantes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: apackof2
Don't hold your breath There is NO SUCH GENE

NEVER SAY NEVER

It is not a learned behavior.......one is born with it!!

12 posted on 07/11/2003 3:09:23 PM PDT by CROSSHIGHWAYMAN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: CROSSHIGHWAYMAN
It is not a learned behavior.......one is born with it!!

Prove it

13 posted on 07/11/2003 3:22:44 PM PDT by apackof2 (Listen much, talk little, learn greatly)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: CROSSHIGHWAYMAN
It is certainly factually demostratable that in some cases it is both learned and a choice. Many men sent to prison practice homosexuality in prison, having not practiced it before and ceasing to practice it after they leave.
14 posted on 07/11/2003 3:25:20 PM PDT by miner89
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: apackof2
If there is proven to be a gay gene won't it open up a whole can of worms? Perhaps one could determine before birth whether a child will be gay. It could lead to medical/genetic research that could eliminate that gay gene, or change it to a "straight" gene.
15 posted on 07/11/2003 3:36:08 PM PDT by GSWarrior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: CROSSHIGHWAYMAN; miner89
Is There a "Gay Gene"?

Many laymen now believe that homosexuality is part of who a person really is ­ from the moment of conception.

The "genetic and unchangeable" theory has been actively promoted by gay activists and the popular media. Is homosexuality really an inborn and normal variant of human nature?

No. There is no evidence that shows that homosexuality is simply "genetic." And none of the research claims there is. Only the press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to the public.

How The Public Was Misled

In July of 1993, the prestigious research journal Science published a study by Dean Hamer which claims that there might be a gene for homosexuality. Research seemed to be on the verge of proving that homosexuality is innate, genetic and therefore unchangeablea normal variant of human nature.

Soon afterward, National Public Radio trumpeted those findings. Newsweek ran the cover story, "Gay Gene?" The Wall Street Journal announced, "Research Points Toward a Gay Gene...Normal Variation."

Of course, certain necessary qualifiers were added within those news stories. But only an expert knew what those qualifiers meant. The vast majority of readers were urged to believe that homosexuals had been proven to be "born that way."

In order to grasp what is really going on, one needs to understand some littleknown facts about behavioral genetics.

Gene Linkage Studies

Dean Hamer and his colleagues had performed a common type of behavioral genetics investigation called the "linkage study." Researchers identify a behavioral trait that runs in a family, and then:

a) look for a chromosomal variant in the genetic material of that family, and

b) determine whether that variant is more frequent in family members who share the particular trait.

To the layman, the "correlation" of a genetic structure with a behavioral trait means that trait "is genetic"-in other words, inherited.

In fact, it means absolutely nothing of the sort, and it should be emphasized that there is virtually no human trait without innumerable such correlations.

Scientists Know the Truth about "Gay Gene" Research

But before we consider the specifics, here is what serious scientists think about recent genetics-of-behavior research. From Science, 1994:

Time and time again, scientists have claimed that particular genes or chromosomal regions are associated with behavioral traits, only to withdraw their findings when they were not replicated. "Unfortunately," says Yale's [Dr. Joel] Gelernter, "it's hard to come up with many" findings linking specific genes to complex human behaviors that have been replicated. "...All were announced with great fanfare; all were greeted unskeptically in the popular press; all are now in disrepute."{1}

Homosexual Twin Studies

Two American activists recently published studies showing that if one of a pair of identical twins is homosexual, the other member of the pair will be, too, in just under 50% of the cases. On this basis, they claim that "homosexuality is genetic."

But two other genetic researchers--one heads one of the largest genetics departments in the country, the other is at Harvard--comment:

While the authors interpreted their findings as evidence for a genetic basis for homosexuality, we think that the data in fact provide strong evidence for the influence of the environment.{2}

The author of the lead article on genes and behavior in a special issue of Science speaks of the renewed scientific recognition of the importance of environment. He notes the growing understanding that:

... the interaction of genes and environment is much more complicated than the simple "violence genes" and intelligence genes" touted in the popular press.The same data that show the effects of genes, also point to the enormous influence of nongenetic factors.{3}

More Modest Claims to the Scientific Community

Researchers' public statements to the press are often grand and far-reaching. But when answering the scientific community, they speak much more cautiously.

"Gay gene" researcher Dean Hamer was asked by Scientific American if homosexuality was rooted solely in biology. He replied:

"Absolutely not. From twin studies, we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited. Our studies try to pinpoint the genetic factors...not negate the psychosocial factors."{4}

But in qualifying their findings, researchers often use language that will surely evade general understanding making statements that will continue to be avoided by the popular press, such as:

...the question of the appropriate significance level to apply to a nonMendelian trait such as sexual orientation is problematic.{5}

Sounds too complex to bother translating? This is actually a very important statement. In layman's terms, this means:

It is not possible to know what the findings mean--if anything--since sexual orientation cannot possibly be inherited in the direct way eyecolor is.

Thus, to their fellow scientists, the researchers have been honestly acknowledging the limitations of their research. However, the media doesn't understand that message. Columnist Ann Landers, for example, tells her readers that "homosexuals are born, not made." The media offers partial truths because the scientific reality is simply too unexciting to make the evening news; too complex for mass consumption; and furthermore, not fully and accurately understood by reporters.

Accurate Reporting Will Never Come in "Sound Bites"

There are no "lite," soundbite versions of behavioral genetics that are not fundamentally in error in one way or another.

Nonetheless, if one grasps at least some of the basics, in simple form, it will be possible to see exactly why the current research into homosexuality means so littleand will continue to mean little, even should the quality of the research methods improveso long as it remains driven by political, rather than scientific objectives.

Understanding the Theory

There are only two major principles that need to be carefully understood in order to see through the distortions of the recent research. They are as follows:

1. Heritable does not mean inherited. 2. Genetics research which is truly meaningful will identify, and then focus on, only traits that are directly inherited.

Almost every human characteristic is in significant measure heritable. But few human behavioral traits are directly inherited, in the manner of height, for example, or eye color. Inherited means "directly determined by genes," with little or no way of preventing or modifying the trait through a change in the environment.

How to "Prove" That Basketball-Players are Born that Way

Suppose you are motivated to demonstratefor political reasons--that there is a basketball gene that makes people grow up to be basketball players. You would use the same methods that have been used with homosexuality: (1) twin studies; (2) brain dissections; (3) gene "linkage" studies.

The basic idea in twin studies is to show that the more genetically similar two people are, the more likely it is that they will share the trait you are studying.

So you identify groups of twins in which at least one is a basketball player. You will probably find that if one identical twin is a basketball player, his twin brother is statistically more likely be one, too. You would need to create groups of different kinds of pairs to make further comparisons--one set of identical twin pairs, one set of nonidentical twin pairs, one set of sibling pairs, etc.

Using the "concordance rate" (the percentage of pairs in which both twins are basketball players, or both are not), you would calculate a "heritability" rate. The concordance rate would be quite high--just as in the concordance rate for homosexuality.

Then, you announce to the reporter from Sports Illustrated: "Our research demonstrates that basketball playing is strongly heritable." (And you would be right. It would be "heritable"--but not directly inherited. Few readers would be aware of the distinction, however.)

Soon after, the article appears. It says:

"...New research shows that basketball playing is probably inherited. Basketball players are apparently 'born that way!' A number of outside researchers examined the work and found it substantially accurate and wellperformed..."

But no one (other than the serious scientist) notices the media's inaccurate reporting.

What All Neuroscientists Know: The Brain Changes with Use

Then you move on to conduct some brain research. As in the well-known LeVay brain study which measured parts of the hypothalamus, your colleagues perform a series of autopsies on the brains of some dead people who, they have reason to believe, were basketball players.

Next, they do the same with a group of dead nonbasketball players. Your colleagues report that, on average, "Certain parts of the brain long thought to be involved with basketball playing are much larger in the group of basketball players."

A few national newspapers pick up on the story and editorialize, "Clearly, basketball playing is not a choice. Not only does basketball playing run in families, but even these people's brains are different."

You, of course, as a scientist, are well aware that the brain changes with use...indeed quite dramatically. Those parts responsible for an activity get larger over time, and there are specific parts of the brain that are more utilized in basketball playing.

Now, as a scientist, you will not lie about this fact, if asked (since you will not be), but neither will you go out of your way to offer the truth. The truth, after all, would put an end to the worldwide media blitz accompanying the announcement of your findings.

Gene Linkage Studies: "Associated With" Does Not Mean "Caused By"

Now, for the last phase, you find a small number of families of basketball players and compare them to some families of nonplayers. You have a hunch that of the innumerable genes likely to be associated with basketball playing (those for height, athleticism, and quick reflexes, for example), some will be located on the x-chromosome.

You won't say these genes cause basketball playing because such a claim would be scientifically insupportable, but the public thinks "caused by" and "associated with" are synonymous.

After a few false starts, sure enough, you find what you are looking for: among the basketball-playing families, one particular cluster of genes is found more commonly.

With a Little Help from the Media

Now, it happens that you have some sympathizers at National People's Radio, and they were long ago quietly informed of your research. They want people to come around to certain beliefs, too. So, as soon as your work hits the press, they are on the air: "Researchers are hot on the trail of the Basketball Gene. In an article to be published tomorrow in Sports Science..."

Commentators pontificate about the enormous public-policy implications of this superb piece of science. Two weeks later, there it is again, on the cover of the major national newsweekly: "Basketball Gene?"

Now what is wrong with this scenario? It is simple: of course basketball playing is associated with certain genes; of course it is heritable. But it is those intermediate physiological traitsmuscle strength, speed, agility, reflex speed, height, etc.-which are themselves directly inherited. Those are the traits that make it likely one will be able to, and will want to, play basketball.

In the case of homosexuality, the inherited traits that are more common among male homosexuals might include a greater than average tendency to anxiety, shyness, sensitivity, intelligence, and aesthetic abilities. But this is speculation. To date, researchers have not yet sought to identify these factors with scientific rigor.

What the majority of respected scientists now believe is that homosexuality is attributable to a combination of psychological, social, and biological factors.

From the American Psychological Association "[M]any scientists share the view that sexual orientation is shaped for most people at an early age through complex interactions of biological, psychological and social factors."{6}

From "Gay Brain" Researcher Simon LeVay "At this point, the most widely held opinion [on causation of homosexuality] is that multiple factors play a role."{7}

From Dennis McFadden, University of Texas neuroscientist: "Any human behavior is going to be the result of complex intermingling of genetics and environment. It would be astonishing if it were not true for homosexuality."{8}

From Sociologist Steven Goldberg "I know of no one in the field who argues that homosexuality can be explained without reference to environmental factors."{9}

As we have seen, there is no evidence that homosexuality is simply "genetic"--and none of the research itself claims there is.

Only the press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to the public. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Endnotes

{1} Mann, C. Genes and behavior. Science 264:1687 (1994).

{2} Billings, P. and Beckwith, J. Technology Review, July, 1993. p. 60.

{3} Mann, C. op. cit. pp. 1686-1689.

{4} "Gay Genes, Revisited: Doubts arise over research on the biology of homosexuality," Scientific American, November 1995, P. 26.

{5} Hamer, D. H., et al. Response to Risch, N., et al., "Male Sexual Orientation and Genetic Evidence," Science 262 (1993), pp. 2063-65.

{6} The American Psychological Association's pamphlet, "Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality."

{7} LeVay, Simon (1996). Queer Science, MIT Press.

{8} "Scientists Challenge Notion that Homosexuality's a Matter of Choice," The Charlotte Observer, August 9, 1998.

{9} Goldberg, Steven (1994). When Wish Replaces Thought: Why So Much of What You Believe is False. Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books.

The above article was adapted from two sources: a paper entitled, "The Gay Gene?" by Jeffrey Satinover, M.D., in The Journal of Human Sexuality, 1996, available by calling (972) 713-7130; and past issues of the National Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) Bulletin. For an in-depth discussion of homosexuality and genetics, consult Dr. Satinover's 1996 book, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, published by Hamewith/Baker Books.

16 posted on 07/11/2003 3:37:05 PM PDT by apackof2 (Listen much, talk little, learn greatly)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: CROSSHIGHWAYMAN
It is not a learned behavior.......one is born with it!!

No Sale!

17 posted on 07/11/2003 3:39:16 PM PDT by N. Theknow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: apackof2
Selling Homosexuality to America

And the sheeple have bought it, paid cash, sent in the warranty card, and washed it down with Kool-aid.

18 posted on 07/11/2003 4:12:41 PM PDT by Old Sarge (Serving the Home Front on Operation Noble Eagle!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: N. Theknow
No Sale!

It was once a common belief that the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth.

Further study proved that knowledge wrong.

What I am trying to say is that when and if homosexuality is genetically identified, the behavior will be bred out of the human species.

19 posted on 07/11/2003 4:16:37 PM PDT by CROSSHIGHWAYMAN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
Cults of perversion. Idolatry of perversion. See my FR homepage...
20 posted on 07/11/2003 6:18:07 PM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: CROSSHIGHWAYMAN
"...if homosexuality is genetically identified..."

Child molestation, rape, murder and suicide are not a genotype or a phenotype, neither is homosexuality a genotype or phenotype.

It is a willful perversion of human anatomy.

While some human behavior is hormonal and genetic (a woman crabby during menstruation, for example), it is not a perversion of human biological facts to say she was born that way (that is, to menstruate).

Rosie O'Donnel for instance...

Everything about her is a lie. She is not a parent - - there are no children that are the product of her ovaries. She wants children but claims she is homosexual - - the desire to have children is a heterosexual desire. Rosie just can't make up her mind. By definition, homosexuals do not reproduce - - it is self-imposed sterility.

No person can ever have a "sex change." The use of the language has been so twisted by the leftist radicals, that in our touchy-feely world, many blindly accept some of these erroneous terminologies.

XX or XY chromosones can't be changed after conception when mitosis begins.

The physicians who do "sex-change" operations should not be allowed to practice medicine. The same goes for breast implants: instead of lawsuits against Dow-Corning, the doctors who implanted the silicone bags should be held liable...

They are still genetically male or female. They are sterile. XO (Turner syndrome), XXY (Klinefelter syndrome), XXX (poly-X syndrome), and XYY (Jacob syndrome). No matter how many X chromosones there are, any individual with a Y chromosone developes into a male. These abnormalities are so few, only one in thousands occur.

So much for the "gay" gene - - it does not exist.
21 posted on 07/11/2003 6:33:37 PM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: apackof2; DAnconia55; tpaine; Emmylou
Inherited or inheritable, it doesn't matter. Most reasonable people realize that sexual orientation is no more a chosen behavior than is left-handedness. And just like being left-handed, rare does not equal abnormal.

Some people really need to ask themselves why they're so consumed with other people's sex lives.

22 posted on 07/12/2003 4:00:59 AM PDT by tdadams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tdadams
It really has nothing to do with a "sex life" but the results of immorality on a nation

Homosexulaity is abnormal, self defeating because of the inability to reproduce, its preverse

And if its "reasonable" to say it that homosexulaity is inherited, prove it!

But of course you can't so clinging to unfounded personal opinions is REASONABLE?

23 posted on 07/12/2003 8:41:20 AM PDT by apackof2 (Listen much, talk little, learn greatly)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: CROSSHIGHWAYMAN
"What I am trying to say is that when and if homosexuality is genetically identified, the behavior will be bred out of the human species."

I wouldn't be too sure about that. In the first place, as a Christian who reads and believes in the Bible as the Word of God, I can find nothing scripturally to support that God creates a person to be a slave to what HE calls a sin. I don't pretend to understand the whys and wherefores of much that God does or allows, but I do know that He does not allow a temptation without a means of escape because He says so and He cannot lie.

"There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God [is] faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear [it]. (1 Corin. 10:13)

It isn't like a child born with a disease or deformity. These things may, in fact, have a genetic component, but are in no way condemned as sinful. A person may even be born with a genetic predisposition to alcoholism because of the way in which his body processes alcohol. Is the predisposition a sin? Of course not, but being a drunk is, and an alcoholic is no more excused of his behavior because of that predisposition than anybody else who who drinks to excess.

In the second place, just suppose that science "proved" the existence of a gene that predisposes toward homosexuality. Given today's political climate, do you really think for a minute that the queers would sit still for future queers being eliminated? That would be predicated on the fundamental assumption that homosexuality is abnormal, which is exactly the opposite of what they're putting all this energy into making you believe. No, I think it would give them political carte blanche to actually "select" FOR it, breeding little genetic mutants in petri dishes to be implanted in host mothers. It has fallen to us at this point in time to change the direction this ship is heading and if we fail to do so, I truly fear for the world our progeny will inherit.

24 posted on 07/12/2003 11:16:32 AM PDT by sweetliberty ("Having the right to do a thing is not at all the same thing as being right in doing it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: tdadams; Ahban; TheBattman
"Some people really need to ask themselves why they're so consumed with other people's sex lives."

It's really quite simple. Normal, decent people have a natural desire to protect their children and a very big part of that is assuring that they grow up in a healthy society. There is nothing healthy about homosexuality and its pervasiveness in our culture. I think most of us can honestly say we really don't care what anybody does in the PRIVACY of their homes and bedrooms, but when they take it into the streets and the schools, the courts and the workplace and even into the churches, then it becomes EVERYBODY'S concern and if you really can't see that then you are part of the problem.

25 posted on 07/12/2003 11:24:11 AM PDT by sweetliberty ("Having the right to do a thing is not at all the same thing as being right in doing it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: sweetliberty
I truly fear for the world our progeny will inherit.

Why? By your own words, you know that He who is all power knows already our plights. It is up to us to accept (i.e. not judge!) the world and it's problems (including our own shortcomings) in preparation for the next life.

26 posted on 07/12/2003 11:45:58 AM PDT by PurVirgo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: PurVirgo
"It is up to us to accept (i.e. not judge!) the world and it's problems"

We are not called to accept sin nor to condone sinful behavior in our midst. While we are not to judge the heart of another for only God can know it, we ARE to judge actions that are unacceptable and drive it away from us. God has always warned His people to put corruption away from them lest they themselves be corrupted.

27 posted on 07/12/2003 1:13:35 PM PDT by sweetliberty ("Having the right to do a thing is not at all the same thing as being right in doing it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: sweetliberty
In other words, you have no problem with someone being a homosexual as long as they pretend they're not. Charming.
28 posted on 07/12/2003 1:25:50 PM PDT by tdadams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: tdadams
I have a problem with someone being a homosexual for the simple reason that I care about them as individuals with great potential and as human beings created in the image of God who grieve Him by their defiance of Him. On an individual level, if I know someone is homosexual, I can pray for them.

On a more personal level, what they do IN PRIVATE is between them and GOD. It is none of my concern, but as I said before, when they take their BEHAVIOR into the public arena, then it becomes everybody's problem. It isn't a matter of them pretending. That's like saying that keeping a drunk driver from behind the wheel of a car when he's drunk is making him pretend he isn't drunk. If you can't see the difference, then it is because you choose not to.

29 posted on 07/12/2003 1:34:36 PM PDT by sweetliberty ("Having the right to do a thing is not at all the same thing as being right in doing it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: sweetliberty
I have a problem with someone being a homosexual for the simple reason that I care about them as individuals with great potential and as human beings created in the image of God who grieve Him by their defiance of Him.

“The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it.” - H.L. Mencken

when they take their BEHAVIOR into the public arena, then it becomes everybody's problem.

What behavior are they taking into the public? I don't know where you live, but I live in a big city and I've never seen a gay couple fornicating in public.

30 posted on 07/12/2003 2:06:20 PM PDT by tdadams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: tdadams
You are being deliberately obtuse and contentious. You obviously see only what you want to see, therefore furthur posts to you would be a waste of time.
31 posted on 07/12/2003 2:11:02 PM PDT by sweetliberty ("Having the right to do a thing is not at all the same thing as being right in doing it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: sweetliberty
You are being deliberately obtuse and contentious.

Absolutely not. You're being a hysterical busybody.

Tell me seriously, have you ever seen two homosexuals in public having sex? Your objection is supposedly about them taking their sex lives into the public. It would seem to be a pertinent question.

32 posted on 07/12/2003 2:18:03 PM PDT by tdadams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

Comment #33 Removed by Moderator

To: sweetliberty
we ARE to judge actions that are unacceptable and drive it away from us.

this I agree with. However, the only unacceptable actions I can judge, and therefore drive away are my own. Oh, but if I COULD deal with problems outside of me, I most certainly would. But I can only keep my side of the street clean, not yours.

34 posted on 07/12/2003 3:21:39 PM PDT by PurVirgo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: PurVirgo
So I take it you don't mind if next year's "pride in perversion" parade marches in front of your house watched by your kids and/or grandkids. I guess you don't mind if acceptability of homosexuality is pushed on school children under the guise of tolerance. I guess that means you don't mind if the Bible read from the pulpit in your church is revised so that homosexuality is no longer a sin. I guess it's okay with you that the courts protect their "right" to be in YOUR face but doesn't protect your right to tell them what you think of their "lifestyle." Maybe you're not disturbed by some cross-dressing faggot working alongside you and getting special concessions made that provide for his sham "marriage." Maybe you have no problem with these people targeting your children as an outlet for the predatory instincts of some of them under the guise of free speech. Maybe it is perfectly acceptable to you that they make a mockery of love and marriage and tradition and Christianity and family and morality. Those things are NOT okay with me, and I think they are not okay with the majority of Americans. You're entitled to your opinion, but I am entitled to think you're dead wrong.
35 posted on 07/12/2003 3:36:14 PM PDT by sweetliberty ("Having the right to do a thing is not at all the same thing as being right in doing it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Cryptomeria
"By definition, homosexuals do not reproduce - - it is self-imposed sterility."

It doesn't stop them from recruiting for their chosen perversions.
36 posted on 07/12/2003 4:29:40 PM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

Comment #37 Removed by Moderator

To: tdadams
Truly reasonable people don't buy arguments that begin with:
Most reasonable people...
38 posted on 07/12/2003 5:05:18 PM PDT by Old Professer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer
Truly reasonable people don't buy arguments that begin with: Most reasonable people...

But, this is not the central question, is it?

Reasonable vs. logical.

"Reason" is subject to individual interpretation. Logic whether propositional or categorical, has a set method for arriving at a conclusion.

Aristotle's categorical logic is a brilliant system to evaluate claims of "reason."

39 posted on 07/13/2003 5:14:08 AM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: CROSSHIGHWAYMAN
Interestingly, I have an M.D. friend who has a gay male doctor as a partner in the practice (*not* his "partner"). He made exactly that analogy to me, that homosexuality isn't normal, and if it it genetic, it is like Down's syndrome - it's not a trait you'd wish to be passed along.

Try putting forth that idea in a neutral forum where there are lefties present who have bought into the homosexual agenda. You'll take some heat, let me tell you. ;-)
40 posted on 07/13/2003 5:23:18 AM PDT by FreedomPoster (this space intentionally blank)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood
You make an excellent point.

The central question before us is not whether homosexuality is genetic or imprinted at an early age, but whether it is acceptable across society.

It is obvious to all but the blind that the advocates for acceptance are winning the "cultural war" not so much by reason or logic but by that nemesis of society, compassion.

AIDS was the single best thing that happened to the "homosexual movement' even while it was the worst scourge to strike its members (at least the male variety) because the sufferers became instant "victims" of an enemy as old as mankind -- disease.

Ordinary disgust became hate through repeated use of the sobriquet (homophobe) and the instinctual link that people hate what they fear; historically, society shuns the "unclean" as they might run from a rampaging animal.

What we face now is no place to run for they are so deeply emmeshed within society as to have completed their potential exposure as contagions.

So we now rank the risk of catching AIDS on the basis of our own behavior rather than that of those most likely to be the true vectors and indulge in tongue-wagging more than deep discussions of epidemiology.

Many of us take secret relief in the wholesale "outing" as it serves to alert us to the risk while it continues to displease those of us who find it unnatural and, yes immoral.

It is Monday morning in the debate on the way we should have played the game and everybody is an armchair-quarterback.

41 posted on 07/13/2003 8:46:32 AM PDT by Old Professer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer
Truly reasonable people don't buy arguments that begin with: Most reasonable people...

Is that something you just came up with? Because the courts have been using the "reasonable person" standard for years.

It effectively and justifiably dismisses the frivolous, ridiculous, and overblown fearmongering that's inherent in passionate debate, as we've seen with this issue.

42 posted on 07/13/2003 10:33:37 AM PDT by tdadams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: tdadams
I hate having to explain everything in minute detail, but for some people there is no other way:

Anytime one begins an argument with the phrase, "Most reasonable people..." he is arguing that anyone who doesn't agree with him is unreasonable and therefore the counterargument has no merit apriori.

The use of the phrase is what galls me, since it is used smugly by mostly people who have no real argument nor interest in true debate.

43 posted on 07/13/2003 11:03:58 AM PDT by Old Professer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: sweetliberty
I'm with you!
44 posted on 07/13/2003 11:20:19 AM PDT by knak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer
What we face now is no place to run for they are so deeply emmeshed within society as to have completed their potential exposure as contagions.

What we face is a political force called multiculturalism. The homosexual activists have joined with this powerful collectivist lobby to gain acceptance for their lifestylel. This acceptance is part of the standard multicultural indoctrination in any corporation that accepts government business.

Homosexuals have recruited among our youth for as long as time. Now the youth protection movement is threatening to stop and expose this practice, (The Boy Scouts are part of this movement BTW and this is part of the reason the homosexual lobby has such animosity for the BSA.)

The multicultural, Political Correctness, diversity movement is waging a cultural war on our society. They have a strong foothold, but stopping homosexual seduction is also ingrained in our culture. We will see who ends up the winner.

45 posted on 07/13/2003 11:37:47 AM PDT by KC_for_Freedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

Comment #46 Removed by Moderator

To: sweetliberty
I guess it's just a matter of ideology. I don't beleive homosexuality is a choice. I in fact have male friends that, by the way, are homosexual. They are normal in every way except for the fact that they don't like women. If I do happen to have children, I would hope that I can show them what agape love is - unconditional. So that they too may practice it. Maybe that's just too passive for you, but unconditional love is what God means to me, and what he means for me to practice. I guess what I'm trying to say is that we are ALL God's children, and he shows no favoritism.

I'm sorry this makes you so angry, but one thing I keep in mind is that if a person makes me angry or disgusted, then I need to look in the mirror and figure out just why...

47 posted on 07/13/2003 1:04:50 PM PDT by PurVirgo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer
The use of the phrase is what galls me, since it is used smugly by mostly people who have no real argument nor interest in true debate.

Or sometimes it's just the truth. Most people, most reasonable people, simply aren't seeing the sky falling like so many people here on FR are. That's a fact.

Maybe what's really galling you is that most people don't seem to be swayed by the bellicose and overblown anti-gay rhetoric so popular with social conservatives.

48 posted on 07/13/2003 1:09:01 PM PDT by tdadams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: JJDKII
I accepted your invitation to visit your home page, and I'm glad I did. It contains one of the most thoughtful and thought-provoking essays I've come across on this forum. You should really consider posting it as a vanity; it certainly deserves a wider audience.

I want to combine it with a previous posting listed as a link on my links page about "Marxist Paganism." Explore the links.

Understanding the illusions of the Left is important, because this is exactly how they operate - - through illusions and idols. It is a religious methodology mated to a totalitarian political theory, like the pagan Islamic brand of Marxism we are fighting in the War on Terror.

War is deeper than just bombs, missiles, soldiers and tanks.

49 posted on 07/13/2003 1:18:30 PM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
How can you seriously suggest that a certain percentage of population having a gay inclination is not natural? A minority of persons being gay has been an observed and recorded fact throughout historical time and throughout virtually all human societies. Of course "natural" does not necessarily equal "good."
50 posted on 07/13/2003 1:22:48 PM PDT by only1percent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-237 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson