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]
Let's see. Thousands of articles about Sheppard, but most articles and news media can't even admit that the Catholic Church scandal is almost entirely HOMOSEXUAL. Then they want the Boy Scouts to send out teenage boys with homosexual men into the night. The bias is overwhelming - and frankly, everyone sees through it.
They need the true compassion of help with their disorder, not the false compassion of condemning them to a destructive lifestyle.
Shalom.
It's because they are moral cowards who don't want to deal with the flaming and virulent hatred from the homosexual activist community. Same with the bishops in the Catholic Church. They're afraid of taking heat like the Boy Scouts has had the courage to do.
Let me guess. Nobody on the Right has any?
Only the Gay Left has credibility? Sock it to me, don't hold back.
That's not fair. You know who you are talking about, and we don't. Therefore you can make any statement you like, and you can extrapolate to the "weaknesses" of the anti-gay argument, and expound at length on guilt by association with your Unnamed Bespotted Unholy Presence in the ranks of the social conservatives -- but if we don't know who he is, we can't evaluate your charges for ourselves.
I think that's called debating with one arm tied behind your opponent's back.
Good point. If I were filled with the sootiest, blackest malice, I would wish them every success over their antagonists, and release from every restraint. I would wish them ten dates on every visit to the bath house, and public parks full of handsome gay men just dying to meet them. Literally.
Of course we're not talking about them right now.
The immediate question is, do you -- One Particular Harbour -- apply the same rigorous, exacting, rhadamanthine standards to the other side that you just imposed on Cameron and Reisner?
Would you, I asked you directly, criticize gay activists for the things you reprove in these people? It's a fairly straightforward question.
Something to think about.
I agree.
Right on.
you mean like adult males researching sexual response in young children by masturbating them? It is in Dr. Reisman's book.
I did read it: Bryan makes a mean fruit-salad, but as a researcher he leaves a lot to be desired.What I mean by that is that he compares apples to oranges to grapes to nuts, and I think there's a few carrots tossed in the mix, too.
To start with, he spends an entire section disproving Kinsey's 10% rate of homosexuality. Two problems with that: first, he references that same study, or examinations of that study, no less than 5 times as proof of how degenerate homosexuals are, and second, Kinsey didn't say 10% of the population is homosexual. Kinsey said 4% of the population is exclusively homosexual throughout their lives beginning in adolescence, 8% are exclusively homosexual for at least 3 years between the ages of 16 and 55, 10% are more or less homosexual for at least 3 years between ages 16 and 55.
He also notes in disproving Kinsey Maslow's observation that people tend to lie or withhold intimate sexual secrets -- I guess he felt that some portion of heterosexuals would claim to be homosexual, thus skewing the percentages higher? Feel free to disagree, but it's my feeling that if people are going to lie or withhold sexual secrets, it's going to be in favor of the societal norms, not the opposite. But then, Bryan doesn't bother to take into account Maslow's observation as it would apply to the surveys that say what Bryan likes -- anywhere from 1.1 to 2.8% of American males claim to be exclusively homosexual, and by god, that's rock-solid TRVTH.
Which brings up another point. "Exclusively" homosexual. He muddies the water of what is and what isn't a "homosexual". Dr. Adrian Copeland reported that 40-45% of child molestors have had "significant homosexual experiences" -- that's not "exclusively" homosexual. The Canadian study states 42% "engaged in homosexuality" -- that's not "exclusively" homosexual, either. Even Kinsey's study reported 37% had "at least some overt homosexual experience", but noone has ever claimed that 37% of the population is homosexual because of it -- yet Bryan wishes us to think that "significant homosexual experiences" and "engag(ing) in homosexuality" equals "homosexuals". (I'm purposely ignoring those where he stated some percentage were "homosexual" as it's impossible to know if that's Bryan's statement or what the individual's admitted.)
Jumping down a ways to another fun one, Murder and Mass Murder. (I have no intention of going point by point through this mess, nor of continuing beyond this post -- either you'll understand, or you won't and never will).
John Wayne Gacy killed 33 men and boys. Bryan calls him "a homosexual", which given the events, that may or may not be true. However, he was married twice and had children; on Bryan's surveys and on Kinsey's, Maslow's observation would have been in effect: he never admitted to being homosexual, even in numerous confessions while in prison. He's not part of the 1-3 or 4% -- he's part of the heterosexual numbers because that's where he would have placed himself. And again with the murders, we run into the difference between "exclusively" homosexual and "bisexual" and "practiced homosexuality" and "enaged in homosexuality". Bryan's numbers don't even included "bisexuality". We run into what they were convicted of vs. what they admitted to, and Bryan's rate of homosexuality numbers rely solely on what people were willing to admit.
In conclusion, "homosexual acts" do not equal "admitted being exclusively homosexual" by any stretch of the imagination. Yes, Bryan looked up and found what he was looking for to suit an agenda, but the word-play, twisted definitions, and number-crunching doesn't stand up to any sort of objective examination.
Now there you go confusing things with the truth. Now I supposew you are going to tell us that homosexuality is not genetic. The nerve! /SARCASM
John Wayne Gacy told his second wife he preferred boys to her. He's a homosexual! The behavior and the preference define it.
Do you have a source that he ever admitted to being homosexual?
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.