Another day, another censored discussion!
This time at patheos, a site that is supposed to be about religion but it has become a place frequented by many liberals of the low-info type.
“Inviting Someone to Debate a Person, Not an Ideology – December 29, 2013 By Leah Libresco”
Scott of Slate Star Codex has a good essay up that was prompted by the whole Duck Dynasty fracas. Phil Robertson’s comments on homosexuality aren’t a first amendment issue; it was A&E that might be firing him for his speech, not the government cracking down, but Scott points out that, for speech to flourish, we need protections beyond legal guarantees:
Constitutional freedom-of-speech is a necessary but not sufficient condition to have a “marketplace of ideas” and avoid de facto censorship. But people also have to understand that the correct response to “idea I disagree with” is “counterargument”, not “find some way to punish or financially ruin the person who expresses it.” If you respond with counterargument, then there’s a debate and eventually the people with better ideas win (as is very clearly happening right now with gay marriage). If there’s a norm of trying to punish the people with opposing views, then it doesn’t really matter whether you’re doing it with threats of political oppression, of financial ruin, or of social ostracism, the end result is the same – the group with the most money and popularity wins, any disagreeing ideas never get expressed.
Given that they use Disqus and Disqus has no export function, I saved the discussion in Word, which disrupts the formatting. Since my main objective is just to save the content, I am not going to go through the trouble of re-formatting everything.
Every time you see two names before a comment, it means the first person is responding to the second (usually that means to the comment above them). I’ve separated sub-threads with dashed lines. Some of my longer posts are just copied from my http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ pages and posts – if anyone wants the full links, look there.
This is the lowest level discourse I have seen on this blog, what happened here?
Alessandra alexander stanislaw
Liberals spewing their sexuality and homosexuality agenda.
As to the original post, I don’t think I or anyone else has a burden of outreach to Robertson, or some duty to shield him from the blowback of whatever fool thing he says. He’s a grown man. He know, or should know, that words have consequences. That’s not persecution. That’s the marketplace of ideas. Ideas that have merit with people always, sooner or later, rise to the top and gain more expression. Ideas that suck, like racism and homophobia, always decline in value in the marketplace, to the point where they become toxic assets. The wealth of the speakers cannot change those ultimate trajectories. The advantage is temporary. The SSM fight and gay rights generally are classic examples of this. The anti forces had an absolutely staggering advantage in money, numbers, law and access to media for most of the fight. In the span of one generation, gays prevailed over all of that by taking their message to the people. They won because their idea was better. 1
The original Mr. X kenofken
“He know, or should know, that words have consequences. That’s not persecution. That’s the marketplace of ideas.”
Trying to get someone fired for expressing an opinion you find offensive is about as inimical to the “marketplace of ideas” as you can get. “Ideas that have merit with people always, sooner or later, rise to the top and gain more expression.”
The problem is, though, that ideas that have merit “with people” might not be ideas that have merit in any objective sense.
Wrong. The homosexual agenda meme: “You have to think anything crap that pops up in my mind regarding sex is normal, acceptable, and legitimate – and does no harm” is what liberals wanted to hear because it then serves to legitimize all the other harmful attitudes, concepts, and practices in the area of sexuality that liberals want to do with impunity.
Nobody needs anyone else’s approval to “legitimize” anything about sexual practices. I don’t care what Phil Robertson thinks about my own practices or anyone else’s. I support his right to speak without government interference, but I reject the idea that the unpopularity of his ideas constitutes “persecution”.
People call them “slippery-slope” arguments because they ARE slippery-slope arguments. You are refusing to even entertain discussing SSM on its actual merits, instead trying to force people to defend other, unrelated things. But I’ll take your fallacy-ridden bait and explain the difference anyway, just to illustrate the vacuousness of your position. With regards to pedophilia, two words: informed consent. Have you ever heard this phrase before? You you understand what it means? Did you bother to think critically and ask yourself what the difference is between same-sex marriage and pedophilia, before typing it here? It’s also the same mistake the anti-equality crowd keeps making when they compare SSM to bestiality. Without informed consent, there is no contract. Polygamy, in stark contrast to same-sex marriage, has a long and sordid history of actually harming people. The demographic unsustainability of it has resulted in the expulsion and abandonment of many boys, to say nothing of the grossly sexist patriarchal treatment of women. Despite these massive shortcomings, many SSM advocates also support polygamy anyway, rendering your argument even more moot than it already was. Now are you ready to talk about the actual subject at hand, on its own merits?
“Polygamy, in stark contrast to same-sex marriage, has a long and sordid history of actually harming people.”
And let us not forget that people with a homosexuality or bisexuality problem have a long and sordid history of doing all kinds of harm and violence to other people.
You know, not all gay people engage in anal sex…and why is is any of your business what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home? How do you propose to police this awful crime?
“You know, not all gay people engage in anal sex”
I do know that. Perhaps your energies would be better spent telling this to GLAAD, since they seem not to have got the memo.
“and why is is any of your business what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home? How do you propose to police this awful crime?”
Another red herring. The issue isn’t whether or not to outlaw anal sex, it’s whether or not people should be allowed to express an opinion on the morality or otherwise of said anal sex without having their jobs put at risk.
I just did a google search for “gay anal sex”
About 130 MILLION results
And have you heard about this homosexual pig here:
A gay art student has sparked outrage over plans to lose his virginity in front of a crowd of 100 people – in the name of art.
Clayton Pettet, 19, said he will have gay sex for the first time in a gallery for a project entitled ‘Art School Stole My Virginity’.
He said his ‘performance art project’ – followed by a question and answer session – will challenge the idea of sexuality.
his first full sexual encounter is set to take place before an audience of between 50 and 100 in a space in Hackney, London. DailyMail
Doesn’t sound like my cup of tea, but so what? I don’t particularly want to watch synchronised swimming and so I won’t watch it. Same with this show.
In other words, there are people who are capable of thinking about how much LGBTs degrade and pervert sexuality and then there are people like yourself who like to remain completely in denial.
The liberal mantra is: “You have to think anything crap that pops up in my mind regarding sex is normal, acceptable, and legitimate – and does no harm”
This mantra only gets intensified by LGBTs wanting to legitimize all the deformed and perverted ways they relate to sex and to people, who take it to a fanatical level.
As a heterosexual with serious pervert connections, I know people who could do much better than Mr. Pettet!
If you can show evidence that the young man in question is harming anyone, then that will be a worthy point of discussion. I would still however hold that it is his business, not mine if he wants to harm himself. *IF* it was actually harming himself, then I would hold it to be morally the same as eating a McDonalds meal. Not something I would want to do, but not something that I have any business forbidding someone from doing to themselves.
As for what is “normal”, I really don’t care what is normal at all. After all, I am sat on a box of quantum mechanics, pressing buttons that will be turned into patterns of lasers and shot all around the world in tiny glass tubes. What part of THAT would be considered “normal” at any other point in human history? ETA: As for degrading, I don’t believe that the man will be worth any less after the show than he is worth now. Therefore I do not accept your premise that he will be degraded.
Donalbain said: “*IF* it was actually harming himself, then I would hold it to be morally the same as eating a McDonalds meal. ” Why would it be morally the same? On what morality principle are you basing this equality? And what do you think is morally wrong with eating a McDonalds meal? Does it cause any kind of harm? As for “normal,” in this context it means valid and right. There isn’t a single human being that doesn’t care about the difference between right and wrong. Moreover, society, policies, and legislation are built upon what is considered normal. So no one cares what you think is normal. We care about what society does when it believes deformed and perverted sexualities are normal.
The moral principle at stake here is bodily autonomy.
And yes, the eating of McDonalds meals is unhealthy.
And no. Normal does not mean valid and right.
Being a nun is not normal. Neither is being a rapist. The two are not normal, but one is morally evil, and the other is not.
I care about what is right and wrong, not what is “normal”. Normal does not matter one jot to me.
The original Mr. X ahermit
“His livelihood was never in danger, and neither was his ability to spew his hateful, ignorant, medieval opinions.” So what, GLAAD were just pretending to try and get him fired, and were secretly in cahoots with A & E all along? Please. Robertson kept his job because the backlash from his fans was bigger than GLAAD or A & E expected. That doesn’t change the fact that GLAAD tried to get a man fired for expressing an opinion on anal sex, and nearly succeeded. Incidentally, “medieval opinions”? Really? What an idiotic piece of chronological snobbery. Although it does lead to seem interesting conclusions: after all, “hate is bad” is also an opinion common in the Middle Ages, so… “And the same voices who were braying for Martin Bashir’s hide and demanding he be fired a few weeks ago are now screaming “FRREEEE SPEEEEEECH!!!11!!!! and acting like this is the end of liberty.”
Bashir made a personal attack on a specific individual. Robertson expressed an opinion on the morality of certain actions. It’s not at all difficult to see why people might think they merit different treatment.
Although if we’re getting into the hypocrisy stakes, I don’t recall anybody now calling for Robertson’s dismissal protesting when, say, Peter Singer advocated infanticide.
Alessandra The original Mr. X
“Bashir made a personal attack on a specific individual.” Not only that, the attack he used consisted of imagery that was intensely degrading, a grotesque act of sexual violence and humiliation of women – which only people with a completely perverse mind would want to claim is acceptable.
Palin was trying to argue that the ACA is as bad for modern Americans as slavery was for slaves. Bashir pointed out that one known punishment inflicted on slaves was that some slave owners forced their victims to defecate in each others’ mouths. Bashir was pointing out that unless the ACA somehow inflicted a similar punishment on her, then it is ridiculous to compare the ACA to the horrors of slavery. People took offence at his opinion, and he was fired. Robertson stated that he couldn’t understand why gay men would want to have sex with anuses instead of vaginas. He went on to state that the normalization of homosexual sex somehow leads to bestiality and incest. He also made the bizarre assertion that black people living in the Jim Crow south were happy before the civil rights era somehow made them unhappy. People took offence at his opinion, and he was fired. Both individuals said things that would cause great offense to large segments of society. Both used frank and explicit terminology to make their arguments. Both were punished by their employer and in a similar manner. However, conservatives in this country only seem interested in defending the “free speech” rights of Robertson. Thus, the rest of us have to conclude that this is not really a “free speech” issue for most of you; you are simply cobbling together a defense of someone you see as a member of your social tribe. As a result, I wouldn’t be surprised by the collective yawn that everyone outside of your specific demographic gives when you rush to defend to the likes of Robertson. Your complaints sound the same as the manufactured outrage that the rest of us have to hear during the annual “War on Christmas”. The rest of us don’t care when a fool on the television gets fired for saying something that would get most of the rest of us fired from our own workplaces.
Both individuals said things that would cause great offense to large segments of society. Both used frank and explicit terminology to make their arguments. Both were punished by their employer and in a similar manner.
Yet Bashir was presenting the image of a sadistic and perverted punishment on Palin, and Robertson was stating a basic issue with homosexuality. Why do men with a homosexual problem dislike heterosexual sex? Heterosexual relationships? What is so attractive about a man’s anus? If they were repulsed by it, they wouldn’t want to engage in sodomy. Was Robertson saying people should shit in the mouth of homosexuals? That’s a whole other level of offense. It’s your tribal bias that pretends it isn’t. “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men.” What he said is right. The more people claim homosexuality is normal, the more all sorts of perverted sexualities and practices come to be considered acceptable. The rationale for normalizing homosexuality is: “I feel this way, it’s all justified. I don’t have to go treat all the psychological problems I have regarding sexuality and relationships.” This leads all other people with a perverted idea of sexuality to apply the same rationale and claim their perversion is just fine. Compare society in the 50s and how much deformed sexual attitudes have been normalized since then. Society has been normalizing a long list of sexual perversions and harmful attitudes and behaviors regarding sexuality and relationships. What liberals were really doing by complaining they were offended is trying to squash discussion of the problems Robertson raised. They don’t want to discuss the issues, they don’t want anyone else to discuss them either. thus the claim that he used crude language. As I also mentioned in this thread, a good number of liberals can care less about crude anything or they would move to censor all kinds of porn. Conservatives, on the other hand, want to spend their lives discussing the ACA.
Robertson was never threatened with anything like “financial ruin…” He has a contract with A&E and they took a moment to reconsider that in light of his vulgar, hateful comments. In the end he and his show and A&E got a whole bunch of free publicity. 5
Dave G. ahermit
Hateful, vulgar comments? The absolute and indisputable moral standard of truth by which we judge such statements being where?
TheodoreSeeber Dave G.
Morality is something that ahermit’s people can’t recognize. They are to be pitied.
Sven2547 Dave G.
Hateful, vulgar comments? Hateful, vulgar comments like: Theyre full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant, God-haters. They are heartless, they are faithless, they are senseless, they are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil. 3
Alessandra Dave G.
You do understand that the people (liberals) criticizing Robertson for making vulgar comments pay a lot of money to view or consume porn having much more vulgar and sexually degrading content. And when they don’t pay the money, it’s because they can get it for free- but they want the vulgarity and the crudeness either way. What junk of hypocrites.
ahermit Dave G.
Did I claim to have an “indisputable moral standard of truth?” I think anyone with a little empathy would be able to recognize the hatefulness of Robertson’s rhetoric. In any case it’s a gross exaggeration to suggest that he suffered any kind of harm here.
Dave G. ahermit
Based on the terminology you used, I assumed you had one. Are you saying your moral views are that superior that it rates condemning differing opinions with such language? Is hate defined as disagreeing with your moral viewpoints?
For liberals, criticism of their normalization of homosexuality = hate. Never mind how harmful normalizing homosexuality is. For liberals, criticism of all the ways they are perverted regarding sexuality = hate. Criticism of how they are irresponsible regarding sexuality = hate. Criticism of how they are unethical = hate…
See the pattern?
No, tarring gay people with the bestiality brush is hateful; so is suggesting that African Americans were better off under Jim Crow; so is reducing the value of women to the use of their genitals…(and in Phil’s case apparently the younger those genitals the better… http://youtu.be/hBzOjcqWWkA?t=… ) On the other hand criticizing those comments is equivalent to censorship and persecution of Christians apparently…
You’re just tarring the bestiality people with the homosexuality brush! That’s hateful. And I’m sure you’re tarring the drunks with the homosexuality brush as well!
Oh pls, how asinine to claim he was tarring homosexuality with the bestiality brush. Homosexuals do every kind of violence and harm in society (although not all are violent). They have deformed psychologies. They need to go investigate their psychological problems and treat them. And the more people normalize homosexuality, the more they normalize a series of deformed and perverted sexualities like bestiality, promiscuity, porn, S&M… Phil is completely right. Compare society in the 50s and how much deformed sexual attitudes have been normalized since then.
Do you think there’s anything wrong with porn? promiscuity? casual sex? S&M? If not, you’ve just proved his point.
Homosexuals do every kind of violence and harm in society (although not all are violent) You do realise that you can replace the word “homosexuals” in that sentence with ANY group of people, don’t you? They have deformed psychologies. Citation needed.
Alessandra said: Homosexuals do every kind of violence and harm in society (although not all are violent) Donalbain said: You do realise that you can replace the word “homosexuals” in that sentence with ANY group of people, don’t you? You do realize that I never claimed that they are the only people to do harm and violence, don’t you? And here is what I wonder: do you realize just how much harm and violence LGBTs do in society? You see, every time liberals talk about LGBTs, it is to say some kind of violence they suffer, never the kind of harm and violence they perpetrate. Alessandra said: They have deformed psychologies. Donalbain said: Citation needed. People who are interested in understanding more of the psychology of dysfunctional psychologies regarding sexuality, can have a quick read here: http://alessandrareflections.w… And anyone interested in clinical and formal research can read Narth.com and the numerous articles and books they have published.
“Consenting adults” is the key phrase you keep ignoring here. Why is it any of your business what other people do in the privacy of their own homes?
In other words, is it correct to say that you don’t think there is anything wrong or harmful about porn, promiscuity, casual sex, or S&M?
I think what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes is none of my business, or yours, or the State’s…I don’t expect everyone to conform to my sexual preferences.
I see that you are refusing to directly answer the question I asked. But you did say this to Mr.X: “If the act causes actual harm to one of the participants, possibly. But we’re talking about the expression of love between two adults here. How is that harmful|?” If people are doing harm, and LGBTs are constantly doing harm, then this is society’s business. Sexuality and relationships are part of the cornerstone of society. The more deformed and harmful they are, the more such people destroy society. The more people normalize harmful ideas, attitudes, and behaviors, the less capable people are of being aware of the harm they do. And we are not talking about the expression of love between two adults. Because homosexuality includes every kind of sexual idea, attitude, and behavior from one teen/adult to any other teen/adult of the same sex. Porn is not love, S&M is not love, promiscuity is not love. We are talking about the expressions of deformed and perverted people regarding sex. Furthermore, people act sexually everywhere they go. Sex has never been restricted to anyone’s home. This is why we have many LGBTs (but not all) sexually harassing people (inside and outside their homes), they molest kids (inside and outside their homes), they degrade people in porn (inside and outside their homes), they batter people (inside and outside their homes), they lie about and cover up harm and abuse done by other homosexuals, they go on smear campaigns of social conservatives, they discriminate against social conservatives, they lead the way in spreading deadly STDs, they want to extort money from society to pay for their immensely expensive HIV treatments, etc. You think you are entitled to do any harm and violence with impunity in the area of sexuality and relationships. Social conservatives disagree. You think having a dysfunctional and perverted mind regarding sexuality is not a problem. Social conservatives disagree. Sexuality is always everybody’s business. A person with a perverted mind about sexuality is often doing harm to others, besides whatever consequences that may bring to themselves.
LGBTs are constantly doing harm… Really? What harm has been done by my aunt and her partner of forty years? Your disapproval is not harm caused by them; it’s your own problem. Because homosexuality includes every kind of sexual idea, attitude, and behavior… So does heterosexuality…what’s your point? Porn is not love, S&M is not love, promiscuity is not love. We are talking about the expressions of deformed and perverted people regarding sex. Love can be expressed in a lot of different ways; I am not prepared to condemn others whose needs and desires and expressions may be different from my own. S and M is not somethin I perosnally find appealing, but for some people it can be a fulfilling and yes loving expression of trust and commitment. As long as it’s consensual and everything is agreed on and safely practiced I don’t see why your personal distaste for the practice should over-rule someone else’s sexual preferences. what gives you the right to dictate to others how they should live and express love? This is why we have many LGBTs (but not all) sexually harassing people (inside and outside their homes), they molest kids (inside and outside their homes), they degrade people in porn (inside and outside their homes), they batter people (inside and outside their homes), they lie about and cover up harm and abuse done by other homosexuals, Again, heterosexuals (some, not all) do all of those things too. Homosexuals are no more prone to such behaviour than heteros. And we’re not talking about the bad actors here, I’m arguing for consenting adults who are acting out of love and affection and a natural attraction to one another. So stop trying to change the subject. they go on smear campaigns of social conservatives Nothing like the kind of dishonest, disgusting smear campaigns directed at them; see your paragraph above blaming homosexuals for being child molesters and abusers while ignoring the same behaviour committed by heterosexuals. they discriminate against social conservatives Are social conservative s being denied the right to marry the person they love by homosexuals? Can you be legally denied housing or employment because you’re conservative? Get that plank out of your eye… they lead the way in spreading deadly STDs, they want to extort money from society to pay for their immensely expensive HIV treatments, etc. These are lies being spread by hatemongering demagogues. You should be ashamed to be spreading such nonsense. Sexuality is always everybody’s business. No. You need to keep your narrow minded, priggish interfering nose out of other people’s bedrooms.
Sexuality is always everybody’s business. ahermit said: “No. You need to keep your narrow minded, priggish interfering nose out of other people’s bedrooms.” Millions and millions of LGBTs constantly doing harm and violence and no one can say anything? I don’t think so.
they lead the way in spreading deadly STDs, they want to extort money from society to pay for their immensely expensive HIV treatments, etc. ahermit said: “These are lies being spread by hatemongering demagogues. You should be ashamed to be spreading such nonsense.” Here you go, stupid hater of decent people: Trend data released today in CDCs 2011 STD Surveillance Report show that primary and secondary syphilis rates are increasing among gay and bisexual men, who now account for more than 70% of all infections. During the 1990s, syphilis primarily occurred among heterosexual men and women of racial and ethnic minority groups. However, the tide shifted and cases began to increase among gay and bisexual men, referred to as men who have sex with men (MSM) in CDC data systems. – See more at: http://blog.aids.gov/2012/12/s… Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM))a represent approximately 2% of the United States population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV. In 2010, young MSM (aged 13-24 years) accounted for 72% of new HIV infections among all persons aged 13 to 24, and 30% of new infections among all MSM. At the end of 2010, an estimated 489,121 (56%) persons living with an HIV diagnosis in the United States were MSM or MSM-IDU. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/ge… I would think MSM is more like 5% to 10%, not a mere 2%. Still, they lead the way in spreading these deadly diseases. See what people do when they think homosexuality is normal? And then, who has to pay for the treatment of the homosexual perverts? Taxpayers. Society. Billions of dollars. Who is paying? The people you say can’t opine on what sexual pigs do in their “bedrooms.” Next time you want to tell someone of being ashamed, start with your own self.
You’re misusing some tricky statistics here; some forms of STDs are more frequent among LGBT populations, but that’s arguably a consequence of their marginalization by society which drives them to riskier behaviour; A lack of education and the unavailability of legal marriage also contributes…you’re quoting the CDC, here’s what they have to say:
Homophobia, stigma, and discrimination can negatively influence the
health of gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men. It isn’t homosexuality that spreads STD’s it’s unsafe sexual practices. Heterosexuals get these diseases too, and they don’t get them from LGBT people. The answer to this problem is not to condemn and further marginalize LGBT persons but to educate and normalize their relationships. We should fight the disease, not the people who have the disease. And even with those higher rates most LGBT people do not have STDs so to treat them as a whole as if they do is simply wrong. Why should my healthy, monogamous aunt and her partner of forty years be punished for someone else’s risky behaviour? Also, AID’s is more common among homosexuals in America, but globally, especially in Africa where the disease originated, it is vastly more common among heterosexuals.
Alessandra said: they lead the way in spreading deadly STDs, they want to extort money from society to pay for their immensely expensive HIV treatments, etc. ahermit said: “These are lies being spread by hatemongering demagogues.” Who is spreading the lies? Your hatemongering ilk. Your disease spreading kind. MSM IMMENSELY LEAD THE WAY in spreading these two deadly diseases. “You’re misusing some tricky statistics here;” You’re just trying to minimize how ugly the picture is. “Heterosexuals get these diseases too, and they don’t get them from LGBT people.” Don’t be ridiculous. As if bisexuals never have sex with heterosexuals. “It isn’t homosexuality that spreads STD’s it’s unsafe sexual practices.” It is not possible for anyone from the LGBT population to spread a disease sexually without having sex. So, yes, normalizing homosexual sex is at the root of the problem. “And even with those higher rates most LGBT people do not have STDs so to treat them as a whole as if they do is simply wrong.” No one said they all have STDs. “Why should my healthy, monogamous aunt and her partner of forty years be punished for someone else’s risky behaviour?” No one said they should.
ahermit said: “These are lies being spread by hatemongering demagogues.”” And I gave you links to some articles which refute the nonsense linking LGBT to things like child molestation and domestic violence. Here’s some more: http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/… Who is spreading the lies? Your hatemongering ilk. Your disease spreading kind. I’m a middle aged, middle class white heterosexual male who’s been faithfully married to the same woman for thirty years. Be careful when making assumptions about people… MSM IMMENSELY LEAD THE WAY in spreading these two deadly diseases. Certain infections are more common among men who have sex with men. That does not mean that all LGBT people are “disease spreaders” and it is hateful and bigoted to treat them as if they are. You’re just trying to minimize how ugly the picture is. No, I’m putting it in perspective; and I offered a real solution; acceptance of LGBT relationships and better education. What are you offering besides frothing at the mouth hatred? No one said they all have STDs. Then why should those who don’t be treated as if they do? No one said they should. (be punished for someone else’s risky behaviour..) So do you support my aunt’s right to marry her partner of forty years?
“Certain infections are more common among men who have sex with men.” Only if they are so deformed that even though they are a very small percentage of the population, they are so promiscuous that they lead by a huge margin the spread of those diseases. Obviously they need to think and act like pigs to do this. “And I gave you links to some articles which refute the nonsense linking
LGBT to things like child molestation and domestic violence. ” I didn’t see a single link about domestic violence. I also didn’t see a single link about bisexuals or transexuals and child abuse. If you think this small number of articles is all there is about the issue of child abuse (and adolescent abuse), you clearly have no idea of what research exists nor what it shows. “That does not mean that all LGBT people are “disease spreaders” and it is hateful and bigoted to treat them as if they are.” The LGBTs who are intensely spreading STDs do not need to be treated as people who are spreading diseases? It is exactly what they are doing. It is responsible and ethical to face the truth of what they are doing and to demand accountability. Since you hate decent and responsible people, you call this hate. “I offered a real solution; acceptance of LGBT relationships and better education. ” The more homosexuality got normalized, the more disease homos and bis spread. That is not a real solution. Furthermore, your “solution” demands no accountability for all the harm LGBTs do in society by infesting it with STDs. As I said, people with a homosexuality agenda just want to do harm and violence with impunity. That’s why you hate social conservatives – we have ethics and we demand accountability for doing harm. People with a homosexuality problem need to treat their underlying psychological problems that produce their homosexuality problem in all its harmful and perverted variations. Then they can a healthy heterosexual relationship, as they were born to have.
There wasn’t a direct link to the domestic violence stuff, sorry about that. See my comment here: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/u…
they go on smear campaigns of social conservatives ahermit said: “Nothing like the kind of dishonest, disgusting smear campaigns directed at them;” Oh, much more. They hate decent people and will do everything to smear and attack ethical people with a healthy view of sexuality. ahermit said: “see your paragraph above blaming homosexuals for being child molesters and abusers while ignoring the same behaviour committed by heterosexuals.” LOL! your imaginary paragraphs don’t count in this debate. I have written no such paragraph. Feel free to quote anything I said that is the nonsense you just wrote.
I have written no such paragraph. From your earlier comment: Furthermore, people act sexually everywhere they go. Sex has never been restricted to anyone’s home. This is why we have many LGBTs (but not all) sexually harassing people (inside and outside their homes), they molest kids (inside and outside their homes), they degrade people in porn (inside and outside their homes), they batter people (inside and outside their homes), they lie about and cover up harm and abuse done by other homosexuals.. You attack homosexuals for being responsible for sexual harassment, child molestation and domestic violence while making no mention of the fact that heterosexuals are guilty of the same things at at least the same per capita rates. What reason is there for that paragraph if not to unfairly smear LGBT people as being more likely to be responsible for such behaviour?
So… I gave examples of the ways that LGBTs do harm in and outside their “bedrooms” and clearly never said that heterosexuals didn’t do the same. Your claim that I stated that ONLY LGBTs do these things is plain nonsense. Imaginary trolling. “What reason is there for that paragraph if not to unfairly smear LGBT people as being more likely to be responsible for such behaviour?” The reason is that liberals routinely omit or whitewash just about every kind of harm and violence LGBTs do in society. Unless one underscores just how violent and dishonest LGBTs really are, we cannot have a fair picture of reality. You, for example, instead of endorsing me for correcting this constant shameful omission from liberals, are attacking me. Why? Because of your harmful homosexuality agenda and to ensure impunity for it all.
I gave examples of the ways that LGBTs do harm in and outside their “bedrooms” and clearly never said that heterosexuals didn’t do the same. Exactly. Why single out homosexuals if heterosexuals are at least as likely (if not more) to be responsible for the same things? There’s no point in pointing to behaviour like child molestation as an argument against homosexuality unless you think homosexuality and child molestation are somehow causally linked. Is that what you are suggesting here? The reason is that liberals routinely omit or whitewash just about every kind of harm and violence LGBTs do in society. Unless one underscores just how violent and dishonest LGBTs really are, we cannot have a fair picture of reality. Are you arguing that LGBT people are more dishonest and violent that heterosexuals? ’cause you’ll need to back that up somehow…
No, I’m arguing that liberals are profoundly more dishonest than social conservatives. As for violence, here is an interesting comparison: Who does more violence in society and is the most extremist: liberals (including LGBTs) or the Westboro folks? As society degenerates more and more regarding its norms and attitudes about sexuality and relationships, and liberal ideology becomes more dominant, I have come to increasingly like the public speech actions of the Westboro Baptist Church. One, because they symbolize a group that will not capitulate, they refuse to be colonized by liberals, they do not sell out, and they stay firm concerning their principles. Second, because they are ingenious when it comes to conceiving of public protest tactics. Third, as a bonus, because basically no other group irks liberals as much. Im not saying that being so strident is the best; they could also engage in other types of protest and send out other messages. Nevertheless they have a very nice sense of independence. Each time they protest, they affirm that they are not interested in submitting to current liberal overlords. And that makes liberals incensed with rage. The reaction from the latter to any ideological insubordination is obviously the old trick of demonizing and calumniating as much as possible. I also find the very type and degree of demonization of the Westboro folks sort of funny, because it is so exaggerated, overblown, and hysterical. The other important point is that the demonization of the Westboro folks is primarily done by a large number of people, many of whom are profoundly shoddy, perverted, or violent, and who use their condemnation of the Westboro folks as a way to keep public attention away from their own doings. This starts with constantly maintaining their complete lack of self-awareness regarding their own lack of character. Which brings us to the question: Who does more violence and crime in the world: liberals (and especially for this comparison, LGBTs) or the Westboro folks? The answer is clearly liberals (including LGBTs). In the US alone, there are millions and millions of liberals perpetrating all kinds of violent and non-violent crime in the area of sexuality and relationships and they all believe that homosexuality is normal. LGBTs in particular compose the group that does the most violence to other LGBTs, and thats when they are not doing harm and violence to heterosexuals (including children and adolescents). The Westboro folks, on the other hand, as far as has been reported, do basically no violence and no crime. Where have you seen a Westboro member sexually harass someone of the same sex? Or commit date rape? Or produce child porn? Nowhere. But you can find plenty of liberals (including LGBTs) who think homosexuality is normal who constantly do all these horrible crimes and many other harmful acts. Given this striking difference, which group do liberals consider as good, ideologically normal, middle-of-the-road that is, non-extremist? The group that contains millions of violent and degenerate individuals, and who share a particular ideology that normalizes homosexuality, among other warped ideas! Very curiously, the group that does no crime or violence is framed and demonized as evil and extremist. Interesting, isnt it? It was following this line of thought that I made a remark in a recent thread at The Other McCain, regarding another case, of date rape (The Drunk Sluts Rights Movement). McCain had written in another previous post on the subject: Date rape is an apparently common campus crime that usually involves two drunk young people, one of whom has an erect penis, and the other of whom is unable to avert what the erect penis typically does. I commented that I never see liberals speaking of these young men rapists (or even older ones) who are perpetrators in date-rapes involving alcohol as evil. I mean, they call them rapists, but never evil, never ideologically extremist, never really that bad. And certainly, hell will freeze over twice before liberals will call LGBTs who rape, batter, abuse, or sexually harass extremists. These are just ideologically normal people for liberals. However, liberals certainly cannot stop screaming that the Westboro folks are evil. Simply because the latter say that God hates fags. The Westboro folks dont go around raping anyone as far as has been reported at least. So why do liberals hate the Westboro folks so much? The WBC folks impose and demand morality and they state outright what is perverse in terms of sexuality. For a liberal, that is a crime of the most horrible nature much, much worse than raping, sexual harassment, molestation, etc. This is why when liberals today talk about ideological groups in society and they want to reach for an example of evil its basically Jim Crow/KKK or Westboro. Here is a recent example. It was written by your typical shoddy homosexual pushing their shoddy homosexual agenda, talking about the most horrible groups in society in the context of groups that the government shouldnt imprison, but everyone should speak out against: Linus: This includes a spectrum: at the most extreme end youve got the Westboro assholes, Nazis, Klansmen (except when theyre actually committing crimes of course), NAMBLA types (ditto), terrorist sympathizers, Stalinists, Maoists, etc.* See? At the MOST extreme the Westboro folks! For merely saying God hate fags? Westboro is now equal to NAMBLA? Westboro is now equal to Stalinists? And consequently, rapists are ideologically normal compared to Westboro? This is utterly laughable. Notice that the only type of sexual perversion decried above is against (small) children this is what homosexuals mean by NAMBLA. Promoting pederasty is certainly OK for turds of homosexuals. As well as predatory female sexual behavior towards adolescent girls (if you want a recent example, see the reaction to the movie Blue is the Warmest Color or the Kaitlyn Hunt debacle). For LGBTs (and a large number of liberals), adolescents are not children and are routinely sexually preyed upon, being considered fair game and that is considered legitimate. If it is legitimate, its certainly not extremist, and certainly not evil. Concerning adult sexuality, notice that any violent, grotesque, exploitative, or perverted individual or group is excluded from this (fake) ideological extreme. Linus, this guy with a major homosexuality problem above, didnt say: at the most extreme end youve got all the LGBTs who think homosexuality is normal (and are exactly the people who rape, batter, abuse, or sexually harass); all the pornographers and porn consumers who love to degrade human beings and sexuality; all the liberals who think getting plastered and then either committing date rape or being a victim of date rape is pretty normal; the APA, who proclaims that homosexuality is normal and not a profound psychological problem; the KKK; the Nazis; etc. In short, according to liberals, all the people who are deformed, dysfunctional, exploitative, and even criminal but who uphold liberal attitudes and their homosexuality agenda ideology are pretty normal. Even when they are criminals, they are never called extremists. However, anyone who disagrees with dominant liberal ideology is evil and extremist. Do you think liberals malign and demonize much? As we can see, the words normal and extremist lose all sense when employed by liberals. It becomes clear that much of what is called normal by liberals is profoundly destructive and harmful in the area of sexuality and relationships. Conversely, what liberals deem to be extremist regarding the Westboro folks is nothing of the kind, and its simply the latters refusal to submit to this very harmful and lacking in ethics ideology that liberals uphold in the sphere of sexuality and relationships. *Example taken from the Volokh Conspiracy blog varied sexually sleazy law professors on a crusade for their homosexuality agenda which evidently attracts many homosexual extremists in the comment section.
No, I’m arguing that liberals are profoundly more dishonest than social conservatives. Yet you’re the one pushing lies about LGBT people here. Like this one: In the US alone, there are millions and millions of liberals perpetrating all kinds of violent and non-violent crime in the area of sexuality and relationships
Bullshit. Pure and simple bullshit. Bias crimes against LGBT are far more common than similar crimes against religious or political conservatives: http://www.victimsofcrime.org/… “In 2010, 2,503 hate and bias incidents against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or HIV-affected (LGBTQH)
victims were reported to the National Coalition of Anti-Violence
Programs (NCAVP)a 15 percent increase over incidents reported in 2009.” You’re a liar and a hate-monger. Not surprising you would defend the likes of the Westboro cult.
You’re a liar and a hate-monger. Not surprising you would defend the likes of the Westboro cult.
The Westboro folks, insofar as has been reported, do not perpetrate violence. Your group of liberals (including LGBTs) is responsible for millions of cases of sexual abuse, rape, sexual harassment, battering, etc. Not surprising you are defending them. Who is the hate-monger? You are. And to pre-counter your stupid strawman, I’m not saying that liberals are the only group that does violence.
Alessandra said: No, I’m arguing that liberals are profoundly more dishonest than social conservatives. ahermit said: Yet you’re the one pushing lies about LGBT people here. Like this one: “In the US alone, there are millions and millions of liberals perpetrating all kinds of violent and non-violent crime in the area of sexuality and relationships ” ahermit said: “Bullshit. Pure and simple bullshit. ” This is the extent of your ignorance and propaganda. Taking just the question of IPV alone, we can estimate about 10-20 million liberals perpetrating violence. http://escholarship.org/uc/ite… Now, we then get to this very interesting finding: “Bisexual (40.6%), gay, lesbian or homosexual adults (27.9%) are almost twice as likely to experience IPV as heterosexual adults (16.7%).” If we apply the above to the entire homosexual population of the US, we get at the very least about one million violent homosexuals, doing violence to other LGBs. Compare it with this: “2,503 hate and bias incidents against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or HIV-affected (LGBTQH)” One million violent, disgusting homosexuals doing violence to LGBs compared to 2500 cases of “bias incidents” where we don’t know the profile of the perpetrator. One million versus 2500. The group of people that is extremely violent to LGBs is none other than LGBs themselves. Who is spreading propaganda to cover up how violent and perverted LGBTs are? You are.
Look a little deeper…those numbers tell us about the victims, not the perpetrators.Here’s an overview of another study that looked closer: http://www.boxturtlebulletin.c… “Well, its true, sort of. Thirty-nine percent of women with a history of same-sex partnership report being raped, assaulted, or stalked by their partners. For men with a history of same-sex partnership, the figure is only 23%. For couples with a history of opposite-sex partnership, the figures are 21.7% for women, and 7.4% for men. But the real question is who is doing the raping, assaulting, and stalking? Getting to that answer is simple. But before I begin, Id like for you to download the report for yourself directly from the government website so you dont have to take my word for it. Go right ahead (PDF: 62 pages/1,475 KB). Now, go to page 29 and look at Exhibit 8 at the bottom of the page. You will see that these figures I mentioned are all right there. It doesnt look good for our side, does it? But like I said, the real question is who is doing the raping, assaulting and stalking? For that answer, all you have to do is go to the very next page. In exhibit 9, you will see that Among women with a history of same-sex partnership: 30.4% were raped, assaulted or stalked by their husband/male partner 11.4% were raped, assaulted or stalked by their wife/female partner. And among men with a history of same-sex partnership: 10.8% were raped, assaulted, or stalked by their wife/female partner. 15.4% were raped, assaulted, or stalked by their husband/male partner.” So here is what it all means. Many women with a history of same-sex partnership also have a history of opposite-sex partnership. Because of that, they are far more likely to report being raped, assaulted or stalked because it is the men in their lives who are doing the raping, assaulting or stalking. Not the women. Same-sex cohabiting women were nearly three times more likely to report being victimized by a male partner than a female partner. And here is where the statistic gets really interesting: 20.5% of women in opposite sex relationships were raped, assaulted or stalked by their husband or male partner. That compares to 15.4% of men who were raped, assaulted, or stalked by their male partners. In other words, gaymen are safer around their same-sex partners than straight women are around their husbands or opposite-sex partner. Before throwing around statistics you should take the time to find out what they really mean…in this case they are actually telling us that same sex relationships are less prone to violence than opposite sex relationships.
Oh, you want to claim that the experience of 79 women and 65 men can give us hardcore numbers representing lifetime experiences of about 25 million adults? Maybe you need to read a little more in order to understand how laughable that idea is. Not to mention that the study specifically states that it did not ask if anyone what sexual orientation they had at any point of their lives (including if it had changed). And as several studies show, a significant percentage of the women who have had relationships with both sexes started out having heterosexual relationships. Then they suffered violence. Then they turned to women. Here: http://drgehart.com/page3/page… http://www.rit.edu/cla/crimina… “Although accurate data is difficult to obtain, trends suggest that as many as half of lesbian relationships experience some form of abuse (Brand & Kidd, 1986; Nadoff, 1987; Renzetti, 1992, 1996; Taylor& Chandler , 1995). Greenwood et al. (2002) reported on a sample of 2,881 male cohabitants during the past five years and found a higher rate of violence than in cases of heterosexual relationships. Letellier (1994) found that gay men are more likely to be killed by their partners than a stranger.” ========================
You wrote: But the real question is who is doing the raping, assaulting, and stalking? Yes, that is the question. And as I had said before: the answer we have in every study is that there are millions of acts of violence and harm done by LGBT pigs in society to other LGBTs. Compare that to a laughable number of a few thousand cases of so-called “hate-crime.” Millions to a few thousand. Yet who do you call full of hate? Decent social conservatives who are non-violent! That’s how disingenuous your homosexual propaganda is. Your aim is to lie about how violent and perverted LGBTs are. And that’s not counting all the rest of the violence and harm that LGBTs do to heterosexual children, adolescent, and adults. Your claim that LGBTs don’t do millions of acts of violence is: Bullshit. Pure and simple bullshit.
“Love can be expressed in a lot of different ways; I am not prepared to condemn others whose needs and desires and expressions may be different from my own. S and M is not somethin I perosnally find appealing, but for some people it can be a fulfilling and yes loving expression of trust and commitment”
Only if you define “love” as a perverse feeling of getting pleasure out of torturing someone or being tortured. Given that only a pig and deformed human being defines love this way, although love can be expressed in many ways, S&M is not one of them.
“As long as it’s consensual and everything is agreed on and safely practiced I don’t see why your personal distaste for the practice should over-rule someone else’s sexual preferences. what gives you the right to dictate to others how they should live and express love?”
There is no “safe” practice of violence to oneself or others. It is always a demented behavior borne out of profoundly sick minds. Consent does not trump doing harm, from a moral perspective. People doing S&M are not expressing love, they are expressing how sick, twisted, and perverted they are.
Because homosexuality includes every kind of sexual idea, attitude, and behavior…
ahermit said: “So does heterosexuality…what’s your point?”
That you have no clue what we are talking about here when you claim:
“But we’re talking about the expression of love between two adults here. “
Homosexuality is fundamentally not defined as love. It is also not restricted to feelings to adults, it includes feelings towards adolescents and by adolescents. And that’s if we want to cut it off there and not include children, in order not to complicate things too much all at once.
Homosexuality is fundamentally not defined as love. It is also not restricted to feelings to adults, it includes feelings towards adolescents and by adolescents. And that’s if we want to cut it off there and not include children, in order not to complicate things too much all at once. Again, you DO know that the word homosexuality in that sentence can be replaced with the word “heterosexuality” again. Indeed, I find it quite amusing that you would bring up the attraction to adolescents in a thread about Phil Robertson, sonsidering his opinions on the ideal age for a wife. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…
Donalbain: Again, you DO know that the word homosexuality in that sentence can be replaced with the word “heterosexuality” again.
We could replace it, but this in no way makes homosexuality equivalent to heterosexuality. The human species is heterosexual, we are all born heterosexual. It is healthy to be heterosexual (although not in every way), but it is disoriented, dysfunctional, and perverted to be homosexual. Always.
A person is born with a developmental matrix, including to develop into a heterosexual adult that has healthy, adult relationships with the opposite sex. However, this matrix is not finished and it will change (including being deformed) in a variety of directions. Therefore, the mind has a deep plasticity; regarding many characteristics, its not hard-wired. Although you began to feel certain feelings about boys early on, if you had been abused or had had other deforming experiences, they could impact how your mind functioned regarding sexuality and the opposite sex. So, a key point is that any persons mind will develop conscious and unconscious mechanisms and dynamics that can deeply affect it later in life, which were not present when this individual was born. This is why people are not born pedophiles, homosexuals, necrophiles, etc. Although there are different levels of choices regarding sexuality and ones behaviors, no one with a particular sexuality dysfunction deliberately chooses all of its dynamics and *especially* not the unconscious ones. Since when do you choose what goes on in your unconscious? However, this doesnt mean we are helpless, little creatures with no free will. So, human beings are born heterosexual, but they arent finished as infants. That means that a persons mind will change and develop or degenerate in infinite ways. Homosexuality is similar to any other psycho-sexual dysfunction in terms of being a dysfunction. It is not inborn, but like other dysfunctions, such a disorder or dysfunction is developed over time, due to a set of factors that can vary from individual to individual. You solve the underlying psychological, cultural, sociological issues producing various homosexual dynamics in the mind of such an individual, and the person lives as they were born to be: heterosexual.
Its not a question of changing the blueprint, its a question of solving underlying issues that are preventing the person from relating to the opposite sex, or which are disorienting the person towards the same sex.
No citation. As I suspected.
No refutation on your part. As was obvious.
‘That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
You’ve just made an assertion without evidence.
Allessandra spoke, You’ve just made an assertion without evidence.
Ah, the Münchhausen trilemma, one of my favorites! Guess Allessandra is now joining me in the ranks of the Skeptics, unable to establish the truth value of any statement. But, in case any are following along who might want to just get on with things and be able to determine whether it is safe to walk in front of that possibly imaginary bus or no That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. An assertion is a statement. The dismissal of that assertion is also a statement. All statements are equal, so far as a priori truth value is concerned. It is the evidence supporting a statement that makes one more likely to be true than another. Example: Statement #1: Grass is Green Statement #2: Grass is not Green In the absence of evidence, both statements are equally likely to be true. Adding further qualifiers to a statement does not help: Statement #1a: Grass is Green because God told me Statement #2a: Grass is not Green because God told me Taking this to a logical conclusion, one arrives at the position where, since all statements are equal and only the evidence supporting those statements matters in establishing truth, then statements themselves drop out of the equation and only evidence matters in establishing truth. Thus empiricism.
Actually, I’ll have to decline your invitation to a large extent.
My point was to stress how asinine Donalbain’s refutation claim was. His implied claim was that a lack of a citation for an explanation **proves** the explanation is wrong and is equal to being able to refute the claim.
The exchange was more:
Alessandra says: Grass is green
Donalbain says: citation needed.
Alessandra says: can you refute the statement?
Donalbain: I have proven that grass is not green because you have not provided a citation. Thus, his claim that he has refuted the Statement is pathetically false. And, as we know, the grass is green.
LGBTs are constantly doing harm…
ahermit said: Really? What harm has been done by my aunt and her partner of forty years? Your disapproval is not harm caused by them; it’s your own problem.
Is your aunt and her dysfunctional partner the only LGBTs in society? What kinds of violence and harm are you trying to claim that LGBTs don’t do in society? And, since I don’t know your dysfunctional aunt and her little partner and everything they have done in life, I can’t obviously tell you. But we do know about millions of other LGBTs doing harm and violence. Constantly.
If people are doing harm, and LGBTs are constantly doing harm Citation needed.
Which is the group that most perpetrates violence against LGBT individuals? LGBT individuals themselves. The number of social conservatives who perpetrate violence against LGBT people is quite small comparatively.
What is the group that most sexually exploits and traffics LGBT youngsters? LGBT individuals themselves. It would be hard to find a social conservative who does this.
http://escholarship.org/uc/ite… Nearly 1 in 6 adults in California, about 3.7 million persons, report experiencing physical intimate partner violence (IPV) as adults.
Based on the CHIS 2007 IPV module, women (21.1%) are twice as likely to be victims of physical violence as men (11%), and eight times (8%) as likely to report being the victim of sexual violence compared to men (1%).
Bisexual (40.6%), gay, lesbian or homosexual adults (27.9%) are almost twice as likely to experience IPV as heterosexual adults (16.7%). CHIS 2007 completed interviews with 51,048 adults. For the adult survey, an adult was randomly selected from every household. For this policy brief, we analyzed data from 37,330 adults ages 1865 years.
I thought it was interesting to see that the rates for male victims was half as much as for women, thats a lot of violence against men. (unfortunately I did not see any related data on the sex of the aggressor).
And check out the significantly greater rates of IPV for homo and bisexuals! Its too bad they didnt add these two categories together, so that we could have a comparison between heterosexuals and non-heterosexuals. Huge difference right there.
And thats not examining sexual harassment problems.
When a socially conservative heterosexual bullies an LGBT individual, all social conservatives are accused of being bullies and haters in their hearts not because of this individual acting alone but because they do not normalize homosexuality. But when a LGBT individual bullies, batters, rapes, or exploits another LGBT individual, they are never called out for being a hater, not even a bigot- and certainly not as a hateful identity group.
Where is anyone complaining about how violent LGBT people are? The only complaint I see in the media/society is about some redneck profile, who is violent only at times.
But, in reality, if we look at statistics, LGBT people are much more violent to LGBT people than any redneck.
So who is backwards and uncivilized, or full of hate? Why are liberals at liberty to call conservatives such derogatory labels, when reality clearly shows that LGBT individuals are violent, perverted, and gross in millions of cases?
Which is the group that most spreads HIV and syphilis in society (US)?
Men who have sex with men that is the LGBT population.
This means they are criminally responsible for transmitting deadly diseases in large numbers, and in much greater proportions than any other group. But they currently have total impunity to be so destructive and perverted.
That is not only self-destructive, but socially destructive as well.
Lastly, they then extort billions of dollars from the State in health care costs for the respective treatments, hogging resources that could otherwise go to help so many other victims that never did anything criminal or destructive, like abused children.
In other words, these people think that they are not accountable for their perverted sexual attitudes and behaviors, and that they State must pick up the tab for any destruction they cause.
About 10% of sexual assaults in the military were males sexually assaulting males.
You can see the report here (2011):
This is interesting because the estimates for homosexual males in the military are about 1-2% of all military personnel. And yet homosexual male sexual assaults were 10% of all assaults.
That is much higher than their respective representation. And with the repeal of DADT, it will only climb. However there will be tremendous pressure, and much greater pressure than before, to cover up and lie about any homosexual perpetrator, in order to prove for political reasons that repealing DADT worked.
Jason Felch, the LA Times reporter who investigated 1,600 of the Boy Scouts perversion files, reported that the files revealed a pattern of grooming behavior shared by the suspected molesters.
According to the article, In hundreds of cases, Scout leaders allowed the boys to drive cars, drink alcohol, or look at pornography. They gradually tested physical boundaries during skinny dipping, group showers, sleepovers, and one-on-one activities.
By spending one-on-one time with a boy, giving him gifts, and allowing him to break the rules, the abuser gains the boys trust and sets a tone of secrecy that will continue throughout the relationship.
To outsiders, the abuser seems like a great guy who loves kids or youngsters.
As the article also points out, after an abuser has gradually tested boundaries, they will use a boys inebriation from alcohol or their arousal from watching pornography as an opportunity to make their move and molest the boy or engage in other sexual activities with an adolescent.
What we have seen advance in the last 50 years, is quite rightly, the level of violence and harm that LGBT people do in terms of IPV, sexual harassment (to everyone), and spread of serious STDs and this is not an exhaustive list. The increase is huge and current levels of harm and violence are terrible.
There has been an advancement in what is allowed, a measured increase in serious harm in society done by LGBT people. It is not only allowed, but allowed with almost total impunity. Yet, I would never be aware of this, by listening to people with a homosexuality agenda, who only talk about the comparatively few cases where the perpetrator is a social conservative. I believe that not only you, but everyone needs to deal with how violent and harmful LGBT people are.
There is far more sexual violence and child abuse committed by heterosexuals. Those things are wrong regardless of the orientation of the people doing them, and there is simply no evidence that LGBT are any more prone to such behaviour than heterosexuals. You’re spouting the same tired old discredited propaganda from those hatemongering liars at NARTH and pushed by discredited people like Paul Cameron. There’s an old saying that a lie can be halfway around the world before the truth can get it’s boots on and it would just take far too long to refute in detail each and every piece of disinformation in your comment above but I will direct you to Warren Throckmorton, a professor pf Psychology and an evangelical Christian who has studied these very issues in detail. Here’s his opinion of the kind of propaganda you are relying on here: http://www.crosswalk.com/blogs… “The more I have researched these claims, the more disillusioned I have become with the credibility of the groups recently placed on the list. Even though I agree with some positions held by some of the groups on some issues (e.g., pro-life), I now investigate any factual claims
for myself and accept nothing at face value. Ultimately, this is a real problem for American Christianity. One should be able to trust Christian groups to provide accurate information and nuanced analysis. However, on issues relating to sexual orientation, I cannot trust them. For me, this lack of trust spills over to other domains as well, creating a significant problem with credibility. I hope my fellow believers will not defend these claims simply because those making them are Christians.” Dr. Throckmorton is referring to the inclusion of certain Christian organizations on their list of groups promoting hatred by the SPLC. They include links to actual research debunking this nonsense here: http://www.splcenter.org/get-i…
You’re spouting the same tired old discredited propaganda from those hatemongering liars at APA, GLAAD, HRC, the Democratic party, etc…. If the SPLC weren’t a corrupt money making machine for it’s louse of a director, they would have already put GLAAD on its “organizations spreading hate” list, since a lot of what they do is to spread bigotry and hate against social conservatives. As do other homosexual activists and their cronies, like yourself. From http://www.narth.com/#!FAQ|cirw: Why is NARTH so opposed by some gay activists? We can only speculate.
However, it seems to us that it relates to activists desire to make the designation of LBGT conflate with the status of other minority groups.
If their orientation is not viewed as immutable or absolute, then the question arises if it should be equally conflated with race, sex, etc.
NARTHs activities are apparently seen as a threat to the immutability argument. Anyone following these issues in the media will see the term immutable repeated often. In addition, some may oppose us because they dispute our general view of same-sex attractions as a developmental adaptation.
NARTH are liars and bigots who misrepresent the work of real researchers while doing no original research of their own. As for the SPLC…I’ll take the side of the people who had the courage to stand up to the Klan and the American Nazi Party over the cowardly liars at NARTH any day. They know hatred when the see it I think…
carlos the dwarf Alessandra
2 days ago I’m not the OP, but no, I don’t see the harm in any of those things. I engage in all of them, and I’m a productive member of society with a full time job who gives back to his community. Furthermore, I know lots of other people who engage in all those things, some to a much greater extent than I do, and all of them are happy, accomplished individuals who contribute more than their share to society. I can point to no tangible harm that is done to them or anyone else by virtue of those practices.
Alessandra carlos the dwarf
So having a job determines if a sexual behavior is doing harm or not? If a person has the same deformed psychology and behavior as you do, but is unemployed, then it is a problem? Just look at your ridiculous attempt to normalize being sexually perverted and deformed due to holding a job!
The question wasn’t if you, with your perverted views and attitudes about sexuality, are able to see any problems with it all. That is like asking Hitler if he saw a problem with the Final Solution. Or like asking a pimp if he sees any problem with trafficking people. Or if NAMBLA sees a problem with sexually abusing kids.
The more perverted the mind of a person, the happier they will be by acting out their perverted mind. Homosexual pedophiles, for example, are much happier abusing kids than in prison! Isn’t that a surprise. The degree of happiness of an individual does not determine the morality or harm of what they do. If a person engages in porn, promiscuity, casual sex, and S&M, they are a dysfunctional and harmful member of society who happens to have a job. Nothing else they may do for society changes this.
One who engages in mortal sin is not inherently a disaster to society. This is why some mortal sins are not ruled harmful under the secular state. For instance, greed is a mortal sin but not inherently a disaster. Despair, gluttony, and pride are not harmful to society. Mortal sin is harmful to yourself. Exceptionally harmful to yourself.
carlos the dwarf Alessandra
See, here’s your problem. You assume, because my moral code is different from yours, that I am necessarily “perverted” and psychologically “deformed” and comparable to Hitler. [As someone who lost family to the Final Solution, that’s really offensive, BTW.] I’d love to learn from you, and understand your moral code, and share mine as well. But you’re not interested in learning, just in judging and condemning. That’s neither moral nor Christlike.
Alessandra carlos the dwarf
Carlos said: ‘You assume, because my moral code is different from yours, that I am necessarily “perverted” and psychologically “deformed”.’
No, wrong, wrong. I assume your moral code is perverted because of its perverted aspects. The problem isn’t difference; the problem is it is perverted. Same for “deformed.” See, I don’t assume the NAMBLA people are harmful because they have merely a different moral code. It’s the fact that their code is harmful that matters – not that it’s different. As for the Hitler analogy, there are a million others in history. You can take your pick.
carlos the dwarf Alessandra
Don’t look now, but your circular reasoning is showing.
Alessandra carlos the dwarf
Let me translate my reasoning to a preschooler level. Am I objecting to your moral code because it’s perverted or because it’s different? Because it’s perverted. In other words, if someone has a different moral code, but it is not perverted and harmful, I would not criticize it for being perverted and harmful. The latter, however, are exactly the problems with your “moral” code – which is just a code for doing harm and violence with impunity. My reasoning isn’t circular, it just flies a little too high over your head.