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 ...
Ask 100 parents what they would do if their son introduced them to his boyfriend, or their daughter to her girlfriend. Ask 100 parents if they talked about homosex when they talked to their children about sex. Ask 100 parents if they ever tell their sons, "He seems like a nice boy, you should get to know him better" or the feminine version to their daughters.
The problem is, as with abortion, that members of the homosexual agenda never want to talk about the real subject, which is sex. It's not love or committment or civil rights or personal rights, it's sex.
If you don't have sex with someone of your same sex, then you aren't homosexual no matter what you think about. In the same way if you don't have sex with a woman not your wife then you aren't an adulterer no matter what you think about.
It's called homosexual for a reason. It's about sex. It's about sex for sex's sake, for pleasure, for a rush, and it's a sickness.
Shalom.
It's homosexuals who engage in vulgar practices, not me.
I'm with you, ArGee. Homosexuals want to talk about everything, except what they do. Then when you talk about what they do, they get miffed (as magd just did on this post). Madg - You need to understand that 1) many have honest religious objections to homosexual behavior; 2) most don't want their children to think that homosexuality is normal or good for you (or to be taught that in school); 3) most don't want their children under the authority and influence of homosexuals in intimate or role model situations; 4) most can see perfectly well that homosexual sexual molestation is a big problem, and a serious risk for their children; 5) most want the truth about the enormous health risks associated with homosexual behavior forthrightly discussed and explained to young adults. If homosexuals could 1) respect people's religious differences on this issue (i.e., be tolerant); 2) recognize that people have the right and responsibility to teach their own children what they believe about homosexuality; 3) weren't compelled to try to force people to turn over their children to homosexuals (as in Boy Scouts); 4) admit that homosexual molestation is a serious problem; 5) allow people to openly discuss and teach young adults about the enormous health risks associated with homosexuality, then we'd be a big step along the way of letting all lead their lives the way they see fit. But in fact, homosexuals, as a group, are 1) extremely intolerant of religious differences on this issue; 2) feel compelled to teach children things about homosexuality that parents don't agree with; 3) feel compelled to try to force people to turn over their children to homosexuals in intimate and role model situations; 4) refuse to acknowledge homosexual molestation as a problem (despite thousands so molested in the Catholic Church); 5) refuse to allow young adults to learn about the very serious health risks associated with homosexual behavior. Tolerance is a two-way street. I find homosexual activists to be among the least tolerant people in the world.
In our family, regrettably, we either accompany our children to the restroom, or send our two sons together. At the YMCA that we attend, there are obvious homosexual men in the men's locker room, and there is nothing to prevent them from walking through or hanging around the boys' locker room (as I have seen some of them do). We keep an eagle eye on our kids. Of course, it's terribly sad to have to do so. It used to be that men could just be men and women, women.
I'm not talking about staying in the closet. I know some homosexuals who in casual conversation will say something about their "partner" or bring the person they're currently sleeping with to parties or whatever. I disagree with that, but I don't have to make an issue of it. Just like someone who brings their heterosexual "partner non-spouse" to parties. Or someone who is stupid enough to vote for a Democrat. It's their life and they are free to live it.
But when their sexual behavior (or political orientation) becomes a topic of conversation - whether it is homosexual or heterosexual - don't expect me to shut up and be tolerant.
Shalom.
Thanks for the ping. Problems at work this week - working overtime. Back later...
Do gays have any idea how offensive to families with children it is to most to see mostly naked men simulating anal intercourse on a float in a gay pride parade? Or openly mocking Catholic nuns in the same parade? Or having a NAMBLA float come up Broadway? Actually, I believe they do.
They did a lot more than that, as their gloat posted on their archived site shows. Or did you never visit it?
An ad hominem analysis of Reisman's career is the purpose of this thread. Stop saying it like it's a bad thing.
No, it isn't. It's a simple question, is her work phony? It's not an inquiry into her early career working for Bob Keeshan -- but that's what you posted. A smear on her character is not what was called for. You did not refute the accuracy of her conclusions by attacking them as the polluted product of a raving mind, which is ad hominem and part of a fallacy of distraction.
I'm getting very VERY tired of pointing out that Dixon's well-researched and annotated critique has YET to be refuted. Either stop dancing or turn off the radio.
Does pointing out, again, that it's irrelevant "count"? You keep telling us Poppy Dixon has the real deal -- even after I've pointed out to you that what Poppy Dixon thinks about Judith Reisman is irrelevant. How about a little peer-reviewed criticism of Reisman and the people she quotes? That would be to the point -- but you didn't post it.
I don't have to refute red herrings. Your saying I do, does not encumber me with a duty to play your games.
And by the way, you've just associated yourself with a smear. Now the onus is yours.
But you didn't bother to stop yourself from typing it out?
It's called "preterition". It's a valid expository technique, if a little slithery.
I'm doing my best to remain open, honest, above-board, and to avoid the petty BS. I'm trying even harder now.
Oh, right. And so you posted Poppy. Right.
Pray tell, what is the difference between Cameron's "original" research and his research of OTHER'S findings?
The difference between an undergraduate research paper, in the second case, and a doctoral dissertation. Dragging together a corpus of other people's work and synthesizing it is drudge work, but someone has to do it. Interpreting it probably requires credentials at the level of the people being reported on -- I'll leave that to Ph.D.'s and M.D.'s to referee -- but in any case original work would appear to be the heaviest load. If Cameron failed the grade at original work (and I haven't seen the particulars), there may need to be some discussion of how he erred methodologically, and whether what he did was unreasonable.
I gather that he was attempting to use statistical analysis on a poor or unrepresentative sample. It has to be borne in mind, too, that it was a touchy and controversial subject, which may present special problems in evaluating complaints about his work.
First of all, it's your own fault for focussing on "behavior." Please review EVERY SINGLE ONE of my posts in these forums, and point where I have ever discussed my bedroom behavior.... ....Keep your nose outta my bedroom, bucko. Don't CREATE a situation and then COMPLAIN about it.
Oh, really? Irrelevant, eh? Not really. You claimed above, and I neglected to refute you, that what you do in your own bedroom is irrelevant to the argument, or nobody's business, et cetera.
It's not true.
If you're printing fresh new twenties in your bedroom, you'll get a visit from the Secret Service to explain to you how much business it is of theirs. Ditto a visit from state law enforcement if you're indulging sexual acts contra naturam in Texas.
If you're gay, and you're here to tell me that straights who object to homosex are X and Y and Z and need to go play with themselves, then your motive becomes fair game AFAIC. Motive is always fair game in a political argument, whether we're discussing tariffs or free silver or wet/dry, or abortion law. Women have always and everywhere maintained without listening to any counterargument, e.g., that men have no right to an opinion on the subject of abortion, or to have any input into abortion decisions. Their motive in so saying, in taking what is in fact a dirigiste and totalitarian point of view as their own, is absolutely fair game for discussion and deconstruction.
Like I said before, this is Free Republic -- you don't make the rules here.
If [Cameron]'s not a reliable researcher in the first... what makes you think that he will be reliable in the second? If he is proven to be (and has ADMITTED to being) deceptive... what does it matter?
Take it on a case-by-case basis. Maybe he can do some things reliably, but not others. Maybe he had a bad year, like Ulysses S. Grant before he found his vocation.
I think you just want to sweep Cameron off the street; I think you're trying to railroad him out of the public square. Why shouldn't I railroad you instead, if we're going to be like that? In fact, why should I have a reason at all for railroading you? Let's all be fascists and brawl in the streets, and the losers get to go to the gas chamber.
I'm sorry, but isn't that what we're all here for?
Oh, wait -- you're just ducking out again. Sorry. Didn't recognize your attempt at an exit line.
I beg to differ, Lisa Tinker … Homosexuality IS the issue. Homosexuals continuously seek to migrate to positions which allow them to interact intimately with children. They are recruiting the next generation of homosexuals.
Argument ad populum: "bandwagon" argument, fallacy of distraction.
On the substance, there should be some effect of your and HRC's 20-year campaign of dissembling and conscienceless PR-mongering with the uniform, massively one-sided help of the Leftstream Media, who have been actively propagandizing the public with your poisonous memes since the 1980's. I would be surprised if there were no such effect, particularly since the Media's position has been consistently corroborated, under the radar, by a cabal within the National Education Association, which now openly works with GLSEN to grant your agitprop wolverines direct access to elementary and secondary students. Like taking candy from a baby -- literally. Fullgrown, experienced adult ideologues burning with their agenda, versus a pack of ingenues. What a mismatch! You can see the impact on the kids in the demographic data, for which I think you will all, all deservedly burn in hell, side by side with the liberal teachers who let you in.
The age effect in the Gallup data you cite may just be the effect of maturity, and of the ability of older, wiser heads to see through your side's specious shibboleths and (intentionally) misleading and facile references to "civil rights".
The college poll you cite was taken in a small, exclusive (35% acceptance rate) college in New York -- it represents "Blue" America, I suppose. And we do have to take into account what the Gorebots think. But I don't think you can advance those people as a representative sample of the country.
Speaking of representative, The New York Times isn't, doubly -- since the policy you cite is publisher Sulzberger's initiative, about which someone noticed that every single pro-gay step the NYT has taken for the last 12 years or so has been at his instigation -- it's an itch with the publisher. His privilege, but not, as I say, representative of more general attitudes.
And why are you posting Gallup polling data through the filters of the gay Datalounge and the International Commitment Ceremonies Registry? Why don't you just stick with Gallup? Post what you like, but what's your logic?
It’s amazing how you can be so unabashedly wrong.
Wrong, or just politically incorrect?
As for "wrong" in the grand, historical sense, I think your side is the side that will turn out to be "wrong" ..... you're fully committed now, going after the kids in broad daylight through GLSEN and PFLAG, and it's only a matter of time until there ensues a string of scandals in the schools that mirrors the current Catholic scandal, and, press buddies or no press buddies, the public connects the dots and ties the (inevitable) scandals to you. Then the public won't need Judith Reisman essays to draw them a picture any more.
This is the issue: are her claims phony? In other words, are homosexuals more likely than heterosexuals to have sexual relations with persons who are under the legal age of consent? (Which is, I remind you, a felony in all 50 states.) I've posted more than enough evidence confirming that yes, that claim is quite true.
Your ad hominem attacks on Dr. Reisman, as well as your relentless references to Dixon's ad hominem attacks on Dr. Reisman, are completely irrelevant. This is not about Dr. Reisman. This is about homosexuals.
Suppose you have a community of 10,000 people with 100 gay men. Suppose that during the year 2001, two of the gay men had sexual relations with a total of four 15-year-old boys. There are 4,000 heterosexual men in the community, and three of them had sexual relations with a total of six 15-year-old girls during the year 2001.
Here we have a situation in which no homosexual contact with minors by any heterosexual occurred. But even though gay men make up only 1% of the community's population, 40% of the sexual contact with minors was homosexual. (In this hypothetical example, 0.75% of the heterosexual men, but 2% of the gay men, had sex with minors in 2001. So this example would indicate that gay men are more than twice as likely to have sex with minors.)
By definition, anyone who has sexual relations with a person of the same sex is either homosexual or bisexual -- even if he claims to be heterosexual. If he (or she) has sexual relations exclusively with persons of the same sex, he (or she) is homosexual; if he does it with persons of both gendedrs, he is bisexual.
Heterosexual respondents were not asked the same question, but for a rough comparison, 79 (3.3%) of 2393 heterosexual men and 2 (0.1%) of 1840 heterosexual women reported coitus with someone aged 15 or less and 10 (0.4%) of the 2393 male heterosexuals and 1 (0.05%) of the 1840 female heterosexuals reported coitus with someone aged 13 or under since they were aged 18 or older. (Gebhard & Johnson, supra, p. 289). The questions don't appear to be perfectly parallel, but they do suggest a far greater incidence of sexual involvement with the underaged by homosexuals.
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.