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 ...
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?
Overwhelmingly negative comments on the new YouTube video. Typical of the mindset is the one that says, “You’re way too young to know what’s right and wrong.”
“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.”
You do not grasp the significance of “nature” in us. Heterosexuality is the only natural form of sexuality. You are, in effect, saying that same-sex attraction is, for some small percentage of the population, “natural” (inborn).
You really, really, really, don’t want to go there, as a Christian.
We dare not give up on nature, natural, natural law. Your approach puts all the freight on “empirical evidence” of “inbornness.” Who decides that? Empiricality is a chimaera. It will reach around and bite you in the butt.
The same issues arises with regard to contraception. If one sticks with the position that the very nature of the sex act involves the reproductive system, thus, to remove the procreative aspect via a condom or the Pill is to be unnatural, one has a solid ground to stand on: out of respect of the way God made us, we will not use our sexuality in ways that deny the nature of our sexuality.
But if you start saying, well, there’s Nature 1 (heterosexual) and Nature 2 (homosexual, at least for a very few, inborn), then you have no natural heterosexuality left, really. Once you go there, you have no convincing argument that same-sex attraction, though not chosen, is disordered and unnatural and should not be given in to.
I expect you will think this is a distinction without a difference.
Natural law is the crucial issue of our day. A lot of Evangelical Christians don’t get it. Al Mohler had a good piece on this with regard to contraception. He mostly “gets it.”
Neither you (or NARTH) gains anything by splitting psychological and hamartiological hairs to stake out a "third way". Those you seek to help will despise you all the more for it, and you will alienate potential allies ("dumb", "hotshot" evangelicals, among others).
Read what I wrote. The NARTH research points to sexual abuse and a number of other pyschosocial factors in childhood and adolescence. If I summarize them here, it will be misleading—the NARTH researchers say, basically, we just don’t know for sure but it does not seem to be inborn and we have some hints at how it develops but we need more research. We have to continue to consider it a disorder and try to find out but we would not claim to know exactly how it arises.
Before you argue with what I write, read the damn NARTH research.
The NARTH researchers do not think A exists. It’s your category, not theirs. They find no convincing evidence of it being inborn.
The NARTH researchers are open to evidence being discovered that shows that it is inborn. They are clinical researchers. As of yet, they see no evidence of inbornness. They see evidence of pyschosocial development. All the evidence is partial. They are the first to say,
NARTH reseearchers are open to your conclusion but have not drawn it. They see your evidence as inconclusive.