Posted on 08/22/2002 8:01:02 AM PDT by NYer
I don't think so. I think when reasonable debate is cut off by hand waving that civilization can not stand. Of course, that much truly is just an opinion, but one that I think holds water.
Care to address my arguments? or will you just "wave them aside?"
Well, let's see what we have.
I find it odd how people like him insists on focussing upon inconsequential matters. Like the Kirk & Madsen book, for example... I don't know ANYBODY who has read it. I wonder if it's still available; and I wonder how pertinent it would be considering that it's 13 years out-of-date. I've never even SEEN a copy of that book. Yet Stevie's clear inference is that it's some kind of bible or play-book. Quite frankly, I think that's a ridiculous assertion.
OK, there's not really an argument there, just your attempt to distract us from Steve's point. You don't know anybody who has read it? Do you know everybody? Do you know people who are trying to make homosexuality acceptable? As for being 13 years out-of-date, that's specious. It's 13-years-old, but obviously very much in date. The Bible is 2000 years old but there are still a lot of people who do what it says. So, this isn't an argument. 1 down.
And then, of course, is the obligatory "NAMBLA-mention." Like I said in a recent Letter to the Editor: "Raising the specter of the North American Man-Boy Love Association is always a good reactionary trick when one wishes to appeal to ignorance. Not only has NAMBLA never represented the mores of the gay community, but they appear to have imploded more than two years ago and haven't been seen or heard from since."
The connection is that both homosexuality and pedophilia are perversions. If you can justify one perversion you are within a hairs breadth of justifying them all. In fact, homosexual behavior isn't the starting point of this particular slide down the slippery slope.
I'm sorry if you can't see the validity of the slippery slope, but it has certainly been proven. And given the fact that non-NAMBLA "psychologists" have started to float the "positive values" of adult-child sexuality, I'd say the argument is right on the money. Again, not an argument but a distraction. 2 down.
Obviously, NOBODY is "being encouraged to be promiscuous and try the joys of homosexual sex;" but that's not my point. Notice how Stevie goes from the GLOBAL AIDS epidemic ("millions") to "AIDS in America." If you weren't paying attention, you might think that there are "millions" of AIDS-infected homosexuals in America. In fact, about three-quarters of a million AIDS cases had been reported (and less than half a million deaths) in America. Oh... and Stevie's "almost 70%" figure is an obvious exaggeration... "just more than 50%" would be more accurate.
Whenever anyone starts an argument with "obviously" it is usually followed by something that is mere opinion. This is doubly true when the someone is a liberal. But others have addressed this point well so I will let their work stand. As to the shift, you have a minor point. However, the global AIDS epidemic could lead to millions of AIDS infected people in America if we are not careful. The best solution would be to stop politicizing the disease and do what we can to stop its spread. And I've already reacted to the "obvious" so I won't waste space again. Still no argument here. 3 down.
Well, it doesn't look like you actually presented any arguments after all.
For emphasis: What Steve said about nobody being born gay is the truth?
There's a little problem with that. You see, it's impossible to prove a universal negative, IE: "Nobody is born gay." If you THINK that you can prove that, I certainly would like to see you try. 'Til then, however, it is unrealistic to call an unverifiable theory "the truth." It remains - you guessed it - an opinion.
Don't confuse paradigms. Scientifically it is impossible to prove a negative, but not logically. If you have two mutually exclusive conditions you can prove the negative like this. For all (a) and (b) such that (a) = not (b) if you prove (a) you have proven not (b) "a negative". The two mutually exclusive positions are that homosexuality is a congenital trait and homosexuality is not a congenital trait. To prove the latter, we need to define a congenital trait as one that is passed from parent to child via the genetic mechanism. One simple experiment would be to examine all sets of maternal twins in which at least one is homosexual. Since maternal twins contain exactly the same genetic material if homosexuality were congenital then there would be no instances of maternal twins where only one is homosexual. Since (IIRC) in around 50% of cases where there is at least one homosexual twin there is only one homosexual twin, homosexuality is not congenital. Therefore, nobody is born gay.
QED
Shalom.
To many school boards, those are synonyms unless you keep your involvement to volunteering to read in your child's class.
Don't ever think that you have anything to offer by way of telling a properly educated educrat how to run a school.
Shalom.
Bottom line: ya can't win!
As opposed to what? Bovines? Queers? What do you think Ed is?
Shalom.
No they can't. People are not congenitally degenerate.
However, they can and do recruit.
Shalom.
G-d bless and Shalom!
I haven't posted this anywhere yet. This is as good a place as any.
Romans 1:24-32 (ESV)
Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, [25] because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
[26] For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; [27] and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
[28] And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. [29] They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, [30] slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, [31] foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. [32] Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.
Does anyone else see this as an ordered list of behaviors on the slide into evil? We start with abuse of our bodies (drugs and promiscuity) then move into abuse of sex (homosexuality). Lesbianism is a little less bad than male homosexuality because people aren't sticking body parts into a diseased oriface. Homosexuality actually causes a physical penalty (AIDS) but when that doesn't cause people to wake up all moral bets are off. People are given over to greed, malice, envy, murder, strife, deceit, slander, and finally, haters of G-d and inventers of evil.
(In other words, giving in to homosexual sex has led to Enron.)
That sure looks like a roadmap of American culture to me since the 1950s.
I'd appreciate your thoughts.
Shalom.
Day in and day out, America is getting bombarded with 'pro-gay' propaganda. It's relentless. You can't open a newspaper or magazine, listen to the radio, or turn on the television without someone, somewhere pounding the 'glories of gayness' into your brain.
Do you believe this is true or false?
Stories that would never have aired or have been published twenty years ago are now common place. 'Homosexual Male Couple Proud Parents of Quadruplets.' 'Rosie and Gal Pal Kelly Expecting.' 'Male Gay Couple Crowned King and Queen of High School Prom.' What once was considered a deviant perversion, is now politically correct -- and woe to those who oppose this new 'rainbow' morality. Those who disagree with this new 'alternative' lifestyle are called 'hate-filled, intolerant, bigoted homophobes.'
Do you believe this statement is true or false?
Do you consider people who oppose homosexuality on moral and/or religious grounds 'hate-filled, bigoted, intolerant homophobes'?
Simple questions that require only a yes or no response.
You dismiss Baldwin and his editorial as an advertisment for his ministry but even assuming he's wrong about the influence of the Kirk & Masden book, NAMBLA or Bill O'Reilly - is what he states regarding the rapid spread of homosexual propaganda in media and even in some school districts incorrect? Did he lie?
You state that Stephen Baldwin's comments are only an opinion, which is true. What is your opinion? You make a great effort to refute and dismiss Baldwin here and so one has to assume that you think he is wrong. Why? Never mind statistics or what someone said in a book, what do you think? Has there been no noticable increase in pro-homosexual stories in the media? If there is, why? Is it just coincidence? What is the consequence on society?
I happen to agree with Baldwin but would like to know what you believe and where you stand on the merits or negative consequences of homosexuality being awarded nothing but positive spin in the media and the advisability of homosexuality being endorsed as a co-equal alternative to hetrosexuality in some school 'diversity' and sex ed programs.
Just curious.
Well, it is available at Amazon.com. If you don't want to buy it, I am sure your local library has a copy. Why don't you read it and find out?
And then, of course, is the obligatory "NAMBLA-mention." Like I said in a recent Letter to the Editor: "Raising the specter of the North American Man-Boy Love Association is always a good reactionary trick when one wishes to appeal to ignorance. Not only has NAMBLA never represented the mores of the gay community, but they appear to have imploded more than two years ago and haven't been seen or heard from since."
Uh, no. NAMBLA still very much exists, as evidenced by the return of their website (now carried by a German server) and a $100 million lawsuit filed by the parents of a Massachusetts boy who was abducted, murdered and raped (in that order) by a pair of NAMBLA members (Curley v. NAMBLA).
As for the assertion, "Not only has NAMBLA never represented the mores of the gay community," perhaps you can explain the quotes in favor of pedophilia from such homosexual leaders as Larry Kramer and Pat Califa that are found at their website, as well as their presence at the "Homosexual Rights Rally" in March, 1993 in Washington, DC.
What is funny about this is homosexuals say on a daily basis they were "born that way." There is no evidence to prove that, either, and yet others are treating it like it was the gospel.
And? So what?
You said you do not believe homosexuality is being taught in public schools (e.g., by way of books). EdReform, et al, provided you with proof, and you will not read any of it because the words are not his?
THAT is a tactic known as “jamming” (although I personally call it “dumping”),
No, that is called "providing proof"; something commonly used in discussion and debate when someone wishes to back up an assertion he has made with facts. It is the same as those footnotes you might find at the end of a nonfiction book.
Therefore, it would be a waste of time to read all that, much less respond to it.
Actually, this shows you were being dishonest when you said you had an open mind.
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.