My dislike for homosexuality has nothing to do with religion

Because it isn't true

- - - Updated - - -

Not sure how you think either of those refutes a peer reviewed paper. Because they don't.

The daily caller? Really?

 

Lying about people committing a crime is wrong.

 

Not all have the same religious view and again, my reasons for opposing gay/lesbian and transexuality (the mutilated gays/lesbians) is unrelated to any religious belief. Incidentally if a person gets a sex change, then you can them either gay or lesbian because they're both. That means Chastity Bono could be called gay or a lesbian because transexuality is a mutilated gay/lesbian.

Gay/lesbian conduct are bad for health =smoking. AMA and APA are both pro-gay/lesbian ideologues who arrogantly think because are Drs., that they know the answers. But they are dishonest. Paid experts can say things to support gay agenda or any agenda. That happened in Jodi Ann Arias trial where there were paid experts who said that the convicted murderess had transit amnesia, that she was a domestic assault & battery victim and that the victim really was not dead when he was shot in head. Jury did not believe the Drs. who testified for Jodi Ann Arias (they did it for $ and did not care about truth) and they convicted her of Murder 1. The AMA is comparable to this in that they are pro-gay ideologues saying what they know is false. AMA denies link between childhood sex abuse and homosexuality/transexuality but AMA is saying what they know is false.

Gays and transsexuals are more likely to molest children because many were molested as kids. If an adult is having homosexual relations with a young boy-then he is gay-a gay pedophile, pederast or homolester. People must not go to gay pride events just as people must not go to events which celebrate any other bad conduct. Sex changes are a bad thing which sadly happen and is wrong just as it's wrong to change skin color because a person thinks they're of another ethnic group. It doesn't take an expert to know the sex change and hormones given damage the person's mind and body. That + the fact that many gays and transsexuals were sexually abused as children are the reason they are more likely to sexually abuse children. But bias has meddled with how people regard this topic. Also with child molesters, most people are not going to confess to this crime. A gay who is molesting boys is usually not going to tell his friends/family that he molests kids and most boys who are victimized by gays do not go to police.

If a gay or lesbian is living their own life but not pushing their views on others, most people don't care. The Russian authorities are passing laws against gay/lesbian propaganda because gay/lesbian propaganda is corrupting. They don't care about gays and lesbians who live their own lives but don't push their views on others. But Russian authorities know that gay/lesbian sexual conduct is corruptive and that it's best to not trust gay/lesbian groups.

If American schools want an honest dialogue on this, then opposing views must be given, though gay/lesbian groups dislike it. That means American schoolkids should have the right to tell a teacher that gays/lesbian sexual conduct is bad and corruptive and that information from homosexual groups is not trustworthy. Kids must not be suspended from school because they give a view against gay/lesbian topic which the teacher does not like. That means it's best for schoolkids to not listen to gay/lebian propaganda.

 

Do you even know what the claims of the APA are in regard to pedophilia? Here- let me help:

http://www.apa.org/about/policy/sexual-abuse.aspx

That's in their own words. Now, can you stop with this nonsense? Do you seriously think that a leading metal health organization would say pedophilia is OK? Why? To what purpose?

 

That's simply not true. Read and learn, unless you don't care about the truth and just want to hate on gay people. Gay people adopt, foster and help a lot of kids. Or would you rather these kids stay in the foster system?

http://adoption.about.com/gi/o.htm?...http://www.urban.org/publications/411437.html

Let's see some who have been helped:

http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/ive-got-two-dads-and-they-adopted-me

And also:

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/wayoflife/06/28/gayby/

And finally:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSQQK2Vuf9Q

 

Go for it.

Really- I have no patience or tolerance for child porn.

I think your solution is simplistic, and frankly redundent with what is currently being done- though I would be glad if there was more funding to pursue them- but those selling child porn move to countries where they can get away with selling it on the internet- Russia I believe is a prime example.

 

Well frankly I didn't figure you would actually deviate from your anti-homosexual agenda.

I really don't even think you understand what logic means. Your statement above is just idiotic- and an example of your version of logic- not mine.

I am blaming your for your misuse of statistics and your anti-homosexual agenda. Your numbers are bogus.

All men are more of a threat- statistically- to my daughter- than any woman. Statistically, any child is more likely to be molested by a family member, or close family friend than by a stranger.

And please stop abusing the word 'logic'- it is just painful to see you abuse it so.

And yet as a society we do choose to do so.

Are you campaigning as vigorously to end any marriage benefits?

And I bet you aren't married either......

That is pure rationalization- and an embaressingly stupid rationalization. Two 80 year olds marrying will not have children. Two lesbians getting married are completely capable of having children at far less expense than a straight couple with mild infertility problems.

This is just homophobic rationalization- and thats the reason this argument failed when it was before the Supreme Court- its is obvious bigotry.

I would say that bigots are incapable of providing a benefit to society- yet they are allowed to get married and get those benefits.

No- you are discriminating against a homosexual couple because they aren't heterosexual.

Frankly, I am done with you.

You just rant and rave- and while it is amusing to show how stupid your arguments are- it is a waste of my time- you are prejudiced against homosexuals and you are willing to accept any rationalization to promote that prejudice.

You are wrong- thats all I have to say to you any more on that.

 

Thank you for setting the record straight. Too often people only read the most damaging headlines, pick and choose what they quote (often out of context), and then choose to ignore the real message.

 

There is no "higher child sex abuse" in the homosexual community. Why do people keep repeating that lie over and over? Do they honestly think something becomes true if they simply will it to be?! Absolutely ridiculous!

 

Well, the simple fact is that age-based attraction is fundamentally different from sexuality-based attraction. Someone who is attracted to little boys ticks fundamentally differently from someone who is attracted to grown men. In fact, how often are pedophiles actually attracted to adult men? It bears questioning on its own, especially when you consider that many "gay pedophiles" have heterosexual adult relationships. If it in fact turns out that most "gay pedophiles" are not gay in their adult relationships, then this entire idea that homosexuals need to be kept away from children goes up in smoke completely.

 

Which parts?

Please be specific.

 

I have a relevant anecdote.

About 25 years ago, I worked in Manhattan. A homosexual colleague belonged to an exclusively homosexual church. He invited me to attend a service. Curious, I went. Since I'm an atheist, I stayed in a break-room adjacent to the church during the service so not to offend the congregation by my non-participation in their worship. Another man was with me, a total stranger. He launched into a series of stories about how he pursued teenagers and boys in public rest rooms and often intimidated them into compliance. I was appalled, but said nothing because I wanted to hear all that he said. What struck me then, and still shocks me, is that he was willing to say all this - he was confessing to crimes - to a total stranger. He assumed that I must be homosexual because I was there, and being homosexual, I would be an appreciative audience for his stories. It was this man's judgement that no homosexual would be offended by his behavior. I asked my colleague about this afterward, and he just shrugged with indifference.

Of course, this is only an anecdote, but here's how I make sense of it. "Homosexual" is actually used as a carryall term. It covers a broad range of non-standard sexual practices united only by their being same-sex. In this, it's not unlike "heterosexual" - a broad range of sexual practices united only by their being opposite-sex. Among homosexuals, there are offensive and inoffensive acts, just as there are among heterosexuals. There are both homosexual and heterosexual pedophiles, etc.

Something else - traditionally marginalized, homosexual society is probably more accepting of seriously deviant behavior because homosexuals may feel they are all detested alike by mainstream society. The execration heaped on homosexuals (witness some of the posts here) has provided cover for truly harmful behavior by failing to distinguish between those who simply prefer intimacy with their own sex and those who prey on children or other abominations. The champions of the commonplace have this to answer for.

 

1) Absolute ban on internet traffick that permitted child porn sites.

There are already FBI and other law enforcement searching for child porn sites- the problem is that unless you have a China level of censorship, there is simply no way to prevent it all. More funds could be put into tracing them down- but as long as there are places around the world where they can operate with impunity, people will find ways to reach them on internet.


2) I would invest heavily in a dedicated army whose sole purpose was to track down paedophile rings and child traffickers, operating in my borders.

Thats fine- the FBI does that already but more could be done.

3) Following that three month amnesty, I would fully expect now to have arrested a good % of low, middle and high level paedo's.

why would you expect that?

At best you would have found child porn users- not necessarily any of the child molesters themselves.

 

We'd get them all and make no distinction.

 

Your statement is equivalent to saying gingers sould cover their hair because it looks like vomit and I dislike it.
You are the repulsive one if anyone in this situation is.

 

Question: does it take courage to belong to a moral majority, instituted and all-powerful, and advocate the suppression by law of a minority?

Question: does tolerance of a moral minority undermine the majority? Or does it demonstrate the majority's resilience?

Question: has any great nation ever fallen because it tolerated moral minorities? Is Gibbon's "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" still accepted as serious scholarship or has it been relegated to Victorian literature?

Question: don't the far left and the far right share the belief that moral disputes are best settled by the government? Were not Stalin and Hitler united by their faith in state-sponsored morality?

Question: if behavior is instinctive and mandated by nature, why must it be enforced by law?

 

Question: What is your point?

 

My points should be obvious from the questions.

Persecuting homosexuals is a cruel sport of those safe in their majority.

Morality is not so fragile as some suppose. Failure to persecute homosexuals in no way impinges on heterosexuals.

There is no history behind the common assertion that great nations have come undone because they tolerated homosexuality. This was said long ago by such as Gibbon, but modern scholarship shows it to be untrue.

Far left and far right are alike in their preference for official state morality. In fact, state moralities are the historical norm. The core of the American experiment was liberty - the belief that a free people left to their own devices can best bring about their own well being. No country before us ever went so far. Most people in the world, and an increasing number of Americans, long for authoritarian rule. They may call themselves progressives or nationalists, communists or fascists, but they all want someone to tell them how to live. But I'm an American traditionalist - I feel only repugnance for state-controlled morality.

If heterosexuality is instinctive and natural, it need not be "defended" by law because the majority will be heterosexual regardless. The minority of homosexuals, limited in numbers as they are by nature, obviously pose no threat, unless people can be "converted," but that contradicts the premise of heterosexuality's naturalness.

Now I hope that's clear to you. I asked questions because I wanted people to reach the same conclusions by their own reasoning. That's more persuasive than just stating one's own views, which often provokes partisan bickering.

 

Yep- very clear. That was a much better post. Thanks.

And trust me, you're giving certain people way too much credit as far a reasoning ability goes.

 

May I ask the OP why he finds it acceptable for heterosexual couples to be able to flaunt their love affairs around. Kissing, touching,etc and your okay with it, yet Homosexuals, because of their orientation need to hide it. Why is this? Because you don't like it or agree? I find this a bit selfish to be honest.

 

Exactly

Moi

 

My point is that your penis doesn't rule me.

See post 347 for the details.

 

That's exactly what it is.

 

Right? WTF? Who allows a 30 year old man to come and hang out with his teenage son and his son's teenage friend? That's just weird regardless if they're gay or not. =/

That's like allowing your 17 year old daughter to hang out with her friend and her friend's 30 year old boyfriend in your home. It's just bizarre.

My parents never tolerated any kind of PDA when I was that age in their home.

 

Lying about people committing a crime is wrong