Homosexual rights' secret agenda

What homosexuals say about homosexuals:

"Let´s look at gay behavior as defined by two gays, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen Ph.D., authors of After the Ball: How America will Conquer its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90´s (1989).
In Chapter Six, they outline “ten categories of misbehavior,” drawn from their own experiences, wide reading and thousands of hours of conversation with hundreds of other gays...
What follows are some highlights. As you read this, ask yourself if there is another human community, including the Mafia that could make these generalizations about itself. Ask yourself if we haven´t caught this disease, or at least the sniffles.

• The authors say “a surprisingly high percentage” of pathological liars and con men are gay. This results from a natural habit of self-concealment, and leads to a stubborn self-deception about one´s own gayness and its implications.
• They say gays suffer from a “narcissistic” personality disorder and they give this clinical description: “pathological self absorption, a need for constant attention and admiration, lack of empathy or concern for others, quickly bored, shallow, interested in fads, seductive, overemphasis on appearance, superficially charming, promiscuous, exploitative, preoccupied with remaining youthful, relationships alternate between over idealization and devaluation.”
• As an example of this narcissism, the authors say “a very sizable proportion of gay men” who have been diagnosed HIV positive continue to have unprotected sex.
• They say the majority of gays are extremely promiscuous and self-indulgent. They must continuously up the ante to achieve arousal. This begins with alcohol and drugs and includes such “forbidden” aspects of sex as wallowing in filth (fetishism and coprophilia) and sadomasochism, which involves violence.
• They say many gays indulge in sex in public bathrooms and think it is antigay harassment when it is stopped. Many think they have a right to importune straight males, including children.
• Many gays are “single minded sexual predators” fixated on youth and physical beauty alone. When it comes to the old or ugly, gays are “the real queerbashers.” Disillusioned themselves, they are cynical about love.
• “Relationships between gay men don´t usually last very long.” They quickly tire of their partners and fall victim to temptation. The “cheating ratio of ‘married´ gay males, given enough time, approaches 100%.”..."

Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse

Violence against the soul: Alan Keyes shows homosexuals assaulting kids' moral consciences

The Truth About Homosexuals

Seven Steps to Recruit-Proof Your Child

Assemblyman MOUNTJOY opposes promotion of homosexuality in public schools.

Their has been a great deal of research in the case of color blindness, just nothing of success, only the ability to help those adjust. We have worked to correct vision, as for left handedness. In some cases its actually an advantage. Many southpaws though, from childhood on do work at being a righty (this is usually because of an ignorant school system teachers view). Homosexuality is not normal by any scientific or dictionary definition. It is a small minority that is more prone to problems then any other democgraphic in relations to pedophilia, AIDS, early death, alcoholism, suicide, inability to cohabitate for long periods of time, etc. Their was research that claimed numerious animals were supposed to be homosexual, this was also proven to be a farce. It is not natural in any way shape or form, and it needs to be either stopped or cured, condemed not condoned. On a side not, lefthanders generally do not live as long as right handers, and are usually more prone to accidents and more prone to inconveience.

I'm sorry, I thought my drunk driving analogy was so simple as to be self-evident in its meaning. I will explain it for you.

Homosexual advocates often state that not all homosexual men molest boys. That is absolutely true. As anecdotal evidence, the homosexual men I have known have not done so, as far as I know.

By way of analogy, not all alcoholics drive drunk. So we have two sets of destructive behavior. We also have two groups with abnormal conditions, neither of which is guaranteed to engage in the behavior.

Now, alcoholics comprise only a small percentage of the population, and homosexual men comprise only a tiny percentage of the population. Yet, the percentage of drunk drivers who are alcoholics is way out of proportion with their percentage of the total population. Likewise, the percentage of child molesters who are homosexual is way out of proportion with the percentage of homosexuals in the total population.

Therefore, statistically, it is fair to reason that, just as an alcoholic is far more likely to drive drunk than a non-alcoholic, a homosexual man is far more likely to molest a child than a normal man, even though not all alcoholics drive drunk, and not all homosexual men molest children.

As a parent, I would neither allow my children to be chauffeured by an alcoholic, nor would I entrust a boy to the care of a homosexual man. I don't hate either person, I just base my thinking upon reality, as opposed to political correctness.

I hope that clears things up for you.

As for the "alcoholic gene", there is a difference between tendency, and action. One is out of one's control; the other is a choice. This difference applies to other areas of life also. (hint, hint)

Interesting article. But it seems to have some problems of its own.

First, much like the report of the FRC to which it was responding, this is not a disinterested party conducting objective research. It is an advocacy group with a stated agenda opposing one of the two possible conclusions of such a study. As such, their testimony on the topic is inherently biased.

Second, putting aside from the question of FRC's misuse of a source for their report which seems to be their central objection, the HRC's own argument relies on "policy statements" of expert groups, inaccurately equating these statements with scientific conclusions. As we all know, policy statements are driven by many factors other than science - politics being the most prominent. A policy statement on this question provides exactly nothing of substance toward the truth.

As to the letter from the researcher objecting to the use of his study by the FRC, it contains this curious statement:

Your statement that "the evidence indicates that disproportionate numbers of gay men seek adolescent males or boys as sexual partners" appears to come from the assumption that if an adult male is attracted to a male child, this adult male's sexual orientation is ipso facto homosexual.

This would seem to indicate that, in reaching the conclusion that homosexuals are not more likely than heterosexuals in molesting adolescents or children, the researcher adopted a curious, and non-standard definition of homosexuality. In common usage same-sex sexual attraction equates to homosexual orientation. Yet this researcher apparently adopted a different definition for purposes of this study, making his conclusions about homosexuality so vague as to be meaningless without better understanding. For all we know, FRC's use of this study was perfectly accurate because they used the more common definition of homosexual orientation. But due to this semantic issue, the researcher objects. That is of course speculation, but no more so than the opposite conclusion.

In any case, as I said it is an interesting source, even if flawed. It raises plenty of questions which a comprehensive study of this issue ought to be able to answer.

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.