Posted on 08/30/2002 3:58:34 AM PDT by JCG
Edited on 05/07/2004 7:30:50 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
The recent decision of Big Brothers-Big Sisters of America making it mandatory for local chapters to accept homosexual volunteers makes no sense to any thinking adult or concerned parent. I am also very disturbed the Springfield News-Leader is endorsing this decision.
(Excerpt) Read more at springfieldnews-leader.com ...
Having gone through trial by fire with gay activists on the Boy Scout homosexual scoutmaster question, and having really been stung by the (untrue) epithets hurled at me, I find that I've survived the epithet disease, and that I'm now immune. A LOT of people are just learning to ignore the hate and vitriol from homosexual activists. The tactic, while useful on their part for some time, is rapidly losing its effectiveness.
Do you care to defend your post and such methodology, or do you wish to continue attacking me personally?
Roy Cohn denied he was a homosexual so I guess he wasn't one either. (/sarcasm>
I watched a Fox News story on Gacy.
These slight distinctions do not render a compilation of all this research invalid. The overall amount of research -- by licensed mental health professionals, publishing in peer-reviewed medical and psychiatric journals -- is overwhelming. And each source tends to confirm the others.
You also mention the fact that many gays would not respond to surveys in a completely honest fashion, and that many of them would claim to be straight. It undercuts your position because this would, for example, indicate that even more than 91% of molesters of non-familial boys have had no lifetime sexual contact other than homosexual. (Marshall WL et al. "Early Onset and Deviant Sexuality in Child Molesters." Journal of Interpersonal Violence 1991, 6: 323-336.)
People who are not 100% heterosexual are disproportionately dysfunctional in many ways. They are more likely to exhibit symptoms of conditions which the spineless whores at the APA still consider to be mental illnesses, such as anxiety, depression and paranoia. They are more likely to attempt suicide. They are more likely to abuse drugs or alcohol, and to engage in other illegal conduct.
They are more likely to be promiscuous, on a scale that would astonish even the most active heterosexual members of the singles bar scene. As a result, they are more likely to contract a host of sexually transmitted diseases, from the curable (gonorrhea and syphilis) to the incurable and fatal (HIV and hepatitis). They are more likely to die at an early age.
And they are many times more likely to engage in sexual contacts with persons who are below the legal age of consent. The proof for all of this is not the single quick and precise incision with a rhetorical scalpel that you apparently demand. It is death by a thousand cuts, but it is just as effective.
Btw... This is a homosexual propaganda technique. The pro perversion advocates claim homosexuality is an identity instead of a behavior. By doing this they can claim they're oppressed as blacks were and deny homosexual atrocities are done by homosexuals.
PC liberal types also pull this garbage. In Gaven De Becker's new book, 'Protecting the Gift,' on child molestation, De Becker claims that child molestation is done by "100% heterosexuals."
Then it shouldn't be hard for you to prove it. Credible link, please.
The Kinsey Institute objected to her wild mischaracterizations of Kinsey's work, so she sued tham for defamation and libel ... and she LOST! That's a FACT.
Big deal. Such lawsuits are very difficult to win.
She's in bed with the Radical Right (who are likely the ONLY ones who think that her work has any merit). Her political agenda is sparkingly clear. According to IFAS: Judith Reisman participated in the May 1994 secret conference at Glen Eyrie Castle in Colorado Springs. The conference, sponsored by Colorado for Family Values, with help from Focus on the Family, and attended by representatives from some 35 state and national organizations, was conceived with the goal of eliminating gay rights in the U.S.
Once again, big deal. The simple fact that she attended a conference proves nothing -- unless, of course, you're one of those people who believe in guilt by association.
Let's face it, you're attacking the messenger rather than attempting to refute the message. Look at my first four posts on this thread. The evidence is overwhelming and not even one of the books and articles I cited contained a scrap of research by either Dr. Cameron or Dr. Reisman.
Probably the most damning evidence comes from the Bell & Weinberg studies. Dr. Bell and Dr. Weinberg are senior research fellows at the Kinsey Institute. In the foreword to their book, they express their strong support for every plank of the gay left agenda. And then, in the text of the book -- and most especially in the appendices, where their many statistical tables are printed -- they reveal the awful truth about homosexuals.
Hey, this is your little fairy tale. I am assuming that you got the information from somewhere, rather than just making it up. I'm asking for a credible source. If Dr. Reisman attempted to get a study published and a journal refused to publish it, then either you're a member of that journal's editorial board, or you heard about it from some source.
Yes, frivolous lawsuits are indeed difficult to win.
Now you're working from Page One of the Official Left-Wing Playbook. You're distorting what I said into something stupid and shoving it back into my face. I didn't say that it was a frivolous suit. Defamation and libel suits are difficult to win.
An (allegedly unbiased) researcher taking part in a secret political conference… yeah, I’d say that’s pretty darn suspicious, especially since the topic was one on which she claims to be an expert. If her “science” stood on its own, she wouldn’t need to attend political planning sessions.
You're the one claiming that this conference was "secret." You're also the one claiming that it was "political." And you're the one claiming that it was a "planning session." Once again: credible link, please.
My guess is that you're getting all of these so-called "facts" from a left-wing propaganda website -- most likely a gay rights site -- and you're refusing to reveal it because the left-wing pro-homosexual bias will be so obvious that you'll instantly lose any shred of credibility.
But hey, I could be wrong about that.
As for the general playbook for the rest of the left, try the Humanist Manifesto I & I and the Humanist Manifesto 2000. You will be surprised at how well the gameplan is being played out.
In the case of the Dale vs the Boy Scouts, the poster uses information from the American Psychological Association.
As Dr. Cameron pointed out, the American Psychological Association has misrepresented scientific evidence before the Supreme Court and the State Supreme Courts of Virginia and Wyoming.
The perversion lobby has the American Psychological Association behind them and maybe the other APA too.
In other words, what you're doing is what's known here at Free Republic as a "drive-by shooting." You're more than happy to sling mud, but you can't back it up with any facts.
Then again, that was sort of your purpose in dumping so much on us… wasn’t it? To “overwhelm?”
Okay, tell you what. I'll give you the results of just one study, and you tell me how it's been misrepresented or distorted, or how the researcher's methodology was flawed. Surely you have enough time in your busy schedule for that:
A recent study of Canadians imprisoned for pedophilia reveals the truth: (1) 30% of the offenders studied admitted to having engaged in homosexual acts as adults, and (2) 91% of molesters of non-familial boys admitted to no lifetime sexual contact other than homosexual. In other words, their sexual orientation was clearly homosexual. (Marshall WL et al. "Early Onset and Deviant Sexuality in Child Molesters." Journal of Interpersonal Violence 1991, 6: 323-336.)
Similarly, PAUS et al. misrepresent Bell and Weinberg's study as supporting its claim that young teenagers are “recruited” through affairs with older homosexuals. PAUS Br. at 25. Although the study found that 60% of white homosexual respondents identified their first partner in an affair as older than they were, the same paragraph makes clear that the vast majority of the respondents were at least 20 years old at the time.
The trouble with this claim is that I didn't cite that part of the Bell & Weinberg study, because it doesn't prove anything. Below is one of the parts that I cited. If you can find the time in your busy schedule, please explain to me how it's been misrepresented.
In 1970, the Kinsey Institute interviewed 565 white male homosexuals in San Francisco: 25% of them admitted to having had sex with boys aged 16 or younger while they themselves were at least 21. (Bell AP & Weinberg MS. Homosexualities: A Study In Diversity Among Men and Women. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1978.)
In my opinion, any sexual relationship between someone 21 years of age or older, and someone 16 years of age or younger, is far more likely to be about exploitation than true love. I'm sure any parent of a 15-year-old would be inclined to agree. Besides, the 21-year-old would be guilty of a felony in most states -- and it doesn't matter whether the relationship is gay or straight.
Just because you found lots of stuff doesn’t mean that any of it is valid.
Well, if you're claiming that any of it is invalid, the burden of proof is on you to prove your claim. It appears that you have plenty of time to post lengthy screeds on this thread, with HTML tags and all that. But when I ask for some proof to back up all the mud you're slinging, you suddenly don't have the time.
I have no doubts that Cohn & Gacy, and Liberace for that matter, were "queer as a three dollar bill", as my grandfather would say. The question raised is if any one of the three of them would ever answer a survey question to that fact. Cohn and Liberace went to their graves denying that they were homosexual, and as such, it's highly likely that neither would have and thus would NOT be included in Bryan's asserted survey-supported rate of homosexuality. Gacy, to my knowledge, never admitted to being homosexual either, thus OUR dispute over it.
pro perversion advocates claim homosexuality is an identity instead of a behavior.
I'm glad you see the difference between "identity" and "behavior". Explain it to Bryan.
As I recollect, Gacy always denied he was a homosexual; however, the act of a male sticking one's phallus in the posterior opening of another male's alimentary canal is homosexual behavior; therefore, what you say may be technically correct but pretty meaningless.It's the act that makes one a sodomite... homosexual -- whatever.
Btw... With Roy Cohn (whom I somewhat admired), me and a friend I used to know speculated Cohn denied being homosexual to himself because he was one tough SOB and probably thought homosexuals were "sissies" and "faries."
It seems to me that John Wayne Gacy did not want to be classified with homosexuals, thus he denied he was one.
"Everyone"(s) standards aren't at issue; yours are.
These slight distinctions do not render a compilation of all this research invalid.
Not "a compilation"; your compilation.
You also mention the fact that many gays would not respond to surveys in a completely honest fashion, and that many of them would claim to be straight. It undercuts your position because this would, for example, indicate that even more than 91% of molesters of non-familial boys have had no lifetime sexual contact other than homosexual.
I'm not claiming any percentages. If you agree with Maslow that people tend to lie or withhold information when asked about intimate sexual secrets, do you also agree that such lying and withholding will tend to be in the direction of "societal norms"? I agree with both, realizing that means that there are more people living a homosexual life and that there are more people who've had sexual contact with minors, both same- and opposite-sex, than any survey would indicate.
"91%" is one of those big numbers that looks so pretty on meta-analyses, but without context, it's meaningless. How many familial boy molestors were there in the study? Are there more familial or non-? How many more or less? Are we comparing them to the number of self-identified homosexuals, or those who've admitted homosexual activity? For that matter, how many self-identified homosexuals have never had any sexual contact other than homosexual? (I know people who used to be married and have kids -- and if you asked them today for a survey, they would identify as homosexual.)
People who are not 100% heterosexual are disproportionately dysfunctional in many ways.
That's highly likely, depending on how one defines "100% heterosexual". Kinsey reported that "37 per cent of the total male population has at least some overt homosexual experience to the point of orgasm between adolescence and old age". (Shere Hite, in The Hite Report on Male Sexuality puts that number over 40%.)
The proof for all of this is not the single quick and precise incision with a rhetorical scalpel that you apparently demand.
Nor is it the statistical fruit-salad you've provided.
Who is Avedon Carol? And the title Nudes, Prudes and Attitudes doesn't suggest the unbiased position of a licensed mental health professional. It suggests that the author has an agenda.
Reisman bashed Kinsey, the Kinsey Institute REFUTED her, she said "wah wah wah, I'm gonna sue," and she lost. The end result is that Reisman's wacky claims about Kinsey stand REFUTED.
There are many possible defenses to a lawsuit for libel and defamation that could be successful. Only one of them involves proving that the refutation is true. For example, Dr. Reisman may not have been able to prove that she had suffered any monetary damages. If she made more money after the Kinsey Institute's refutation than before, it would be impossible to prove any damages.
The truth is not in the man. Anyone citing Cameron has an agenda that does not involve the truth.
I haven't cited Dr. Cameron as a source for anything. It is you who have cited Dr. Cameron over and over because you needed a straw man to knock down.
I presented an annotated critque of Reisman. Aside from comments on the author's name and on the site host, I don't see how anyone has refuted the facts therein.
Who is it that is claiming this was a "secret" meeting or that it was "political" in nature? Aside from your rabid accusations, I have no proof that such a meeting ever took place. I say again: credible source, please.
Even if the study shows that, and even if your nameless source did not misinterpret the study, what on earth do jailed Canadian pedophiles have to do anything? This study, if it is accurately represented, doesn't tell us anything about homosexuals. It tells us about Canadian prisoners.
My "nameless source" is the library at any medical school. They have back issues of all these psychiatric and medical journals, either in the stacks or on microfilm. You are cordially invited it look it up for yourself if you doubt this "interpretation."
And your claim that it "doesn't tell us anything about homosexuals" tells us a great deal about your intellectual honesty -- or rather, your lack of it. This is just one of five separate studies I have cited, by licensed mental health professionals, published in reputable, peer-reviewed journals, indicating that although homosexuals make up only 2-3% of the general population, they make up 20-40% of the pedophile population.
Sure... just give me a link to the study itself and I'd be happy to take a look at it. ... You see, what you are presenting is not the study... it is an INTERPRETATION of the study. Show me the study itself.
Actually, that's virtually a direct quotation from the statistical tables in Appendix D. And again, the book is available at the library of any medical school, or a large public library, or a university library. If you can't get a copy at a local library, your public library should be able to get it for you through interlibrary loan. (Bell AP & Weinberg MS. Homosexualities: A Study In Diversity Among Men and Women. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1978.)
I don't know why you spend so much time and effort defending disgraced and discredited researchers, but a devotion to bona fide scientific research doesn't seem to be part of the plan.
The fact is that my examination of this subject has been entirely devoted to bona fide scientific research. It seems to be your plan to claim that whatever I say that undercuts the homosexual agenda certainly must be based on incorrect interpretations, or faulty data, or flawed methodology, or some other left-wing strategy to discredit this bona fide scientific research.
I repeat: nowhere in any of my posts have I relied upon any surveys or other research done by Dr. Cameron or Dr. Reisman. You are attacking them because you need a straw man to knock down.
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.