Gay couple accused of abusing two of their nine adopted sons. Yet another PC fail. We have to ask when will people start putting the children’s needs first and throwing PC in the garbage can?
Gay couple accused of abusing two of their nine adopted sons. Yet another PC fail. We have to ask when will people start putting the children’s needs first and throwing PC in the garbage can?
This website uses cookies.
View Comments (60)
Always Sunny In Hell:"You don't have to be religious to find something wrong about murder."
But doesn't that go to my point that there is a natural law?
Are we really going to try and argue about the similarities of murder with homosexuality? And, I don't think so... Natural Laws and a Moral Compass are two different things. You can have morals, but you can decide to ignore those morals. You can see that bringing physical harm to someone is not the same as who someone decides to lay down with. Also, last I checked half the country isn't clamoring for murder to be accepted.
And I never disagreed that there isn't a natural law. I just highly disagree that anti-homosexuality belongs in that list. People do it, so do lots of animals at the Zoo, it's apparently not against the laws of nature. >.> Ive talked to and made friends with enough to realize for MOST it's not a choice. I believe that yes, there is a natural law and if I go by my definition.... Gays are absolutely abiding by natural law because nature hasn't stopped letting it happen.
Always Sunny In Hell:"argue ... Moral Compass"
I'm not trying to be argumentative, Always, just a friendly debate about the natural law. I just don't see how a "Moral Compass" can be a reference to anything other than the natural law.
Always Sunny In Hell:"Also, last time I checked half the country isn't clamoring for murder to be accepted."
To me, the defense of legal abortion the past few decades has been half the country clamoring for murder to be legal.
Always Sunny In Hell:"I've talked to and made friends with enough (people with a homosexual orientation) to realize for MOST it's not a choice."
I had a friend who died from AIDS during the 90s. He told me that his compulsive sexual acting out stemmed from an attempt to heal the wound he blamed his father for, when his father was out of the home after a divorce. He also was filled with a seething hatred for his stepfather whom he wouldn't accept as his father. When he resolved these conflicts through competent counseling, Grace, and the support of friends, he stopped acting out. It turned out to be too late for him physically, though. Just because someone feels gay for the longest time doesn't mean they were born that way, and there is no empirical proof that they were. I believe those professionals who say that the homosexual orientation stems from bonding problems or sexual abuse.
I'm not saying homosexuality is necessarily a free choice, but a compulsive attempt to heal an early wound.
"I have worked with thousands of homosexuals. I have never seen a homosexual who had a loving respectful relationship with his father. ... Homosexuality is an adaptation to an emotional breach with the parents, primarily parents of the same sex. So for the boy it's an emotional breach with the father." -Dr.Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D.
"I have noticed a large number of gay and bisexuals that have had some sort of horrible emotional/sexual trauma happen to them."
-posted by andophiroxin on Newsbusters.org, December 19, 2008
"I'm related to a lesbian, and I've talked at great length with other homosexuals. I've come to believe that a lot of them are that way due to sexual trauma in their life at a young age."
-posted by dmntd1 on Newsbusters.org, December 19, 2008
"I have known several men from my high school years who have 'gone over to play for the other team' ... nice guys ... although every one had weak, aggressive or absent fathers."
-posted by 50sDad on FreeRepublic.com, June 26, 2008
"(Homosexuality) is a developmental disorder which is brought upon in the early years, most likely by an overly dominant female role model (mother) and a weak or absent paternal figure."
-posted by AJB on Newsbusters.org, November 14, 2008
"resentment outlaws chastity from the soul, the will and the heart."
-Karol Wojtyla (Pope John Paul II)
since they're queers you won't read, or hear about this anywhere but here. t
Except maybe,.....in the Daily Mail. This site isn't about stuff that Ad and Ed just made up. It's about what's in the media. Check it out. I think the Daily Mail is pretty widespread in it's readership.
So, how do we explain all of the abused children who are being raised in homes with a man and woman? One's sexual orientation has absolutely nothing to do with their value as a human being or their ability to raise a child. I know gay couples who have more mutual love and respect in their relationship than many of the heterosexual couples I know. Raising a child is about love and nurturing. Why this preoccupation with what consenting adults choose to do in the bedroom? There was a time when married couples were not legally allowed to engage in oral sex. If consenting adults can't be free to express their own sexuality in the privacy of their homes, our idea of a free society is an illusion. I think this fellow sums up this debate quite well:
http://youtu.be/yMLZO-sObzQ
I would have to agree... One of my best friends growing up was adopted by two guys after spending 10+ years in and out of foster homes. He felt unloved and unwanted by every "Family" he was welcomed into. Until his Dad's adopted him, and his words not mine: "Being raised by two gays is better than being completely unwanted in the Social Government machine."
Children don't care if their parents are different.... They just want to be loved.
Yes. I used to be a certified homophobe. I was raised in a very traditional home by my grandparents who pretty much hated each other, but stayed together because they were married and that's what married people do. I was raised by my grandparents because my biological parents divorced when I was an infant. My biological mother was abusive and my biological father was too interested in his party life to be bothered with a kid. At least he was mature enough to admit that and give me to his parents. I was raised to believe that homosexual activity is "unnatural" and an "abomination." I was raised to believe that gay men were closeted child molesters and extreme sexual deviants. When I started my career in policing, I began to see all of the children harmed by heterosexual men or who suffered in unhappy marriages. I saw the kids who were ignored or neglected by their heterosexual parents. I saw the abuse. I worked with other officers who were homosexual and saw that they had normal lives except for their choice of sexual partner. I worked with a lesbian who was raising a daughter that she conceived through artificial insemination. Her daughter was very happy and not once did I see anything that was questionable in their relationship as a family. We have so many problems in this world, I can't understand why people focus on such an unimportant private issue. Heterosexual people do plenty of "unnatural" sex acts. Trust me on that. I guess they shouldn't raise kids either.
East_TN_Patriot:"Yes. I used to be a certified homophobe."
One can't be "certified" a "homophobe". "homophobe" is a term of modern psychobabble. I'm tired of normal people with normal views who recognize a natural order and a natural law being demonized and insulted as having a mental illness phobia. Normalphobia I call it.
East_TN_Patriot:"I can't understand why people focus on such an unimportant private issue."
Sexual activity is not an "unimportant private issue" in the age of AIDS. People are literally dying. Catholic adoption agencies are being driven out of business because they won't place children in same-sex homes. Liberals aren't nearly as tolerant on this issue as they pretend to be. Liberals want government funding for Planned Parenthood and government funding for international family planning. They want funding for AIDS research. They want sex education in the schools. Some even want government funding for abortion. Then when people object to how their tax money is being spent, suddenly liberals pull out the keep the government out of the bedroom card. With the rise of 60s' liberalism, the government has never been so far into the bedroom. I'm tired of tolerance lectures from people who aren't nearly as tolerant as they make themselves out to be when push comes to shove. And I don't mind government funding for AIDS research. I had a good friend die from that horrible virus.
I think it's pretty obvious to most people in the world that calling myself a "certified homophobe" was simply a figure of speech. To clarify, when I used the words "certified homophobe" I was not suggesting that anyone of political, scientific, medical, or religious authority actually "certified," "licensed," "diagnosed," "bestowed," "contractually obligated," or any other similar designation, the term homophobe upon me.
To make it easier for some people to understand, I will be blunt. I used to dislike homosexuals. I believed that they were sexual deviants and likely child molesters. I believed they were sick and disgusting forms of life. I called them names like "queer," "fag," "faggot," "dyke," "corn-holer," and a variety of other creative pejoratives. I did not believe that homosexuals should be in the military, policing, education, or a variety of other occupations. I believed that if I encountered a homosexual man in a shower, I was certain to be anally raped. I believed that homosexuality should be a crime. I believed that homosexuals were all going to hell. I never did any direct physical or emotional harm to anyone I knew to be homosexual, but I did not go out of my way to do anything nice for them either. This is what I describe as being a "certified homophobe."
I have grown in my wisdom through life experience, rational thought, and prayer. I realize that homosexuals are human beings, just like the rest of us. They prefer to engage in sexual activity with a member of the same sex. That is the only difference. Some heterosexual people choose to dress up in leather and get spanked with a riding crop. Does that make them less of a human being?
Yes, HIV/AIDS is a major problem in society, but it's hardly a homosexual disease. According to the CDC, in 2009 women accounted for 51% of known cases of HIV in the United States. Are all of these women homosexual? According to the CDC:
"For women living with a diagnosis of HIV infection, the most common methods of transmission were high-risk heterosexual contact and injection drug use."
So, HIV/AIDS is not a "gay" problem, but a high-risk behavior problem. If these women are engaged in heterosexual sex, that means that their partners were not gay men, but either bi-sexual men, or heterosexual men who contracted the disease through IV drug use or sex with an infected woman. The HIV/AIDS argument is red herring (again, just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that the argument is actually a fish that is red in color; it's another figure of speech). The fact of the matter here is that the majority of "facts" that people think they know about homosexuals is false. Homosexuality is a private matter; high-risk behavior among men and women, gay or straight, is a public health issue.
I won't even go into the issues surrounding the Biblical justifications for treating homosexuals as less-deserving of dignity and respect.
nicely wrought, sir
***I’m tired of normal people with normal views who recognize a natural order and a natural law being demonized and insulted as having a mental illness phobia.***
I have to disagree... we wanna talk about natural? Homosexuality has been around as long as written text.... probably even longer. Even if you don't like it, something can be "natural"
Sorry, Always, but I just don't believe that because something has been around forever means it's natural. I line up more with the thinking of Neo-7 and Alien, just above on that. I don't want to get too theological, but I think man has struggled with sin from the time of the first sin.
But I don't like hearing the "Sin" argument. Jesus said to let God do the judging. Making something not legal because the bible says its a sin is not the way to run a country. If we did that we would be no better than a Sharia country. I am always willing to hear another side of a story, but the "Sin" defense is not a defense IMHO.
(Not trying to be a dick, just what I feel)
Though I mentioned sin in that post on the natural vs. the unnatural, I actually don't make the sin or Bible arguments when debating the laws of our country. I believe things like gay marriage and abortion should be illegal as violations of the natural law. When Harvard sociologist Pitirim Sorkin studied the cultures of thousands of years ago, he didn't find one that survived long-term that marginalized marriage between a man and a woman as the fundamental building block of a stable society.
Well, for what its worth -- if we are wanting to pass laws about things that emphasize society, then I'd have to say that monogamy has to be emphasized, whether that be in hetero- or homosexual relationships. Allowing gay marriage does not have to be at the expense of marginalizing marriage. That's a liberal trope that really is out of line with reality. (as most modern liberal tropes are -- they tend to be false dichotomies, as in "either you're for abortion, or you hate women.")
I actually believe that governments have no business getting into the marriage business as defined by a church -- exactly because of this problem.
A relationship between two people has legal implications, and the name the government uses to give recognition to it does not have to be 'marriage'. This, especially in that many non-religious choose to own property or raise kids, much as religious people do, and as they have a perfect right to do. I'd prefer that the government name for this be called a 'civil marriage' -- and it should be a vehicle to encourage monogamy outside of religious marriage, deal with the attendant problems of property ownership, child rearing, etc.
This because the cause of many social ills -- abandoned children, STD's, etc., are directly linked to either lack of committment or sexual irresponsibility. If a parent can just walk away from their children, some will, whether they be hetero or homosexual.
I think it is preferable that gays marry each other than that they marry non-gays in order to pursue some of the benefits of marriage. There have been too many of those marriages in the past, and the innocent partner has no idea how they are being used.
Marriage as defined by a church can be defined by that church -- and as membership of that particular church is a matter of belief/conscience, must adhere to that church's tenets. In this way, the problem I fear most -- forcing churches to marry people in situations that run counter to their beliefs is avoided. As Congress shall make no laws respecting religion, then the institution of religious marriage is safe.
This particular problem is central to the leftist plan -- destroy religion by forcing Churches to do things that are not according to their religion. You can see the inroads they have made on the Catholic church and its perception in society already.
Well, as a resident of a self-determinant state, we are also allowed recourse through legislation or the ballot box.
Nobody I know of in recent memory has used tourism or temporary moves to avoid unappealing divorce laws, though -- if I'd have had to pay the Wicked Witch of the North alimony, as an example, I'd have taken it into account, and most likely gone ahead with the divorce. I used to remember the Vegas "quickie divorces" -- proof that if the marriage is dysfunctional enough, *both* parties will forgo stuff like alimony in a search for more favorable terms.
The problem with "civil rights" as currently interpreted is that they can be and have been used as a gateway into far-reaching intrusion on actual rights explicitly defined in our founding documents. Less intrusion is better -- e.g. once they'd proved that "separate but equal" laws were anything but, the answer was to strike them down. Repeatedly until the states get the idea.
Politicians are very fond of laws that duplicate laws already on the books that they are currently neglecting to enforce, or that confuse the issue without dealing with the actual cause. It allows them to dodge the fair question of "what the hell are we paying you for anyway?" and avoid confronting painful realities. A watchful electorate needs to deal with the problem not by embracing or tolerating these laws, but by purging Washington of the charlatans we already have -- no matter their party.
Allowing people to say that their membership in X demographic guarantees them certain "rights" obscures the fact that *granting* them these "rights" as we currently can implement them inevitably requires an incursion on someone else's.
Our "Unalienable Rights" are endowed(1) to us and defined as Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. No more, no less. "Granting" someone more rights either repeats the existing definition, or necessitates the rescission of someone else's. For example, if we added "right to health care" to the list of enumerated "rights", depending upon the implementation, we deny doctors the right to market pay for their work, or deny patients with money to pay the right to seek the healthcare they prefer *with their own money*, or some other, yet undiscovered incursion.
The sheer complexity in having government allocate the various rights is simply not administrable. Rights will flow from one group to another until there is no fairness left at all. Legislative and bureaucratic inefficiencies, not to mention outright corruption and cronyism will end up in someone losing more rights than if they left it up to the people to resolve, either in the market, or politically at the local level.
"Separate but Equal", as an incursion on civil rights, had to be struck down -- but "Equal Opportunity" was a very dangerous replacement that has created incursions on others' rights that are just as bad. It also effected the rights of the so-called protected groups -- few professionals wants to work beside an 'equal opportunity hire' -- often viewed as belligerent, unqualified, unable to perform their duties, and outright dangerous in some situations. This has to affect the promotion capabilities of the group as a whole. Compare that to how Matthew Healey, legendary captain of the Bear earned his respect in the workplace in the TOTAL absence of this sort of legislation... Pretty inspiring, if you ask me. A far cry from today's crybabies.
Now I remember your discussing agnosticism -- I actually prefer that people say that, than to say they are aware of the sum total of all knowledge everywhere, and confidently can say there is no God. They have to have *faith* that they have this knowledge in full view of proof that we do not, to be an atheist -- an agnostic needs no faith to come up with a workable world view. That, IMO, is also the genesis of the militant atheists -- if it is a belief, it is a religion, and where there's a religion, there are abuses, mostly as people trying to proselytize, or deny others' religion in turn.
(1) The correct term. These rights are not "granted" We are "endowed by (our) Creator with certain unalienable rights". Saying these are "granted" gives someone the role of grantor. That someone, the federal government, does not have that right. Bad to let them get any stupid ideas like that, as then the entire constitution, which stems from the legal basis of the Declaration becomes null and void, being based upon rights that they can rescind at any time, and totally redefines the role of citizens with respect towards their government. We then serve the state, which until then, had served *us*.
Yes, the lipstick lesbians are the hot end of the bi/gay spectrum :) They are rabidly feminine. I bear personal witness to this glory. I first learned the term from me wifey many moons ago.
Its my piggish way of countering the common yuck reaction to gayman grappling..
BTW, I'm not an Atheist (i wonder where KQ been? this reminds me of discussion with her. I think i managed to convince her.) For example, I am irritated with Atheist thinkers--like Penn Jillette or Richard Dawkins--who characterize the Agnostic as somehow weak, vacillating, when all we merely say is We Don't Know. Maybe its a God, maybe its a Lab of Eleventy-Dimensional Tinkerers. Maybe its a Hot Divine Babe. I am continually bemused by the Universe, however, and find the whole thing rather Sacred
Re: Choice of States--Some folk have a bit less freedom to choose wherever they want to live. This leaves me somewhat concerned; job-seeking and care of sick relatives come to mind. I recall Barb had to move back to Canada to help care for her father?--despite wanting to remain in the States--and I think they've had national gay marriage rights for years now. I'd be curious to see what she thinks
Also, i confess I am not in possession of a technical definition for what constitutes "civil rights". I understand that the Constitution has been ammended in ways that broaden their scope. Equal protection, outlawing of Slavery, and Woman's suffrage seem like obvious examples of this evolution. Possibly there's a distinction in the female vote, in that its a political right, rather than civil.
It seems self-evident that the Constitution itself is a vehicle for defining civil rights: no other body of work appears capable of abrogating its authority here. If it can't be currently argued that the right to gay marriage is a civil right, I would think an Ammendment could do it. So i'd say the argument is more about whether it should be a civil right, and how each side would go about proclaiming and enforcing that reality. Political struggles feed into the determination, as always, as the Judiciary presently could decide either way on the matter, via interpretation and precedent (even without Constitutional Ammendment).
I have no time for research, as usual.. I still owe Sidekick Constitutional research, i think (constitutionality of USF maybe). Plus i have to code..
I think the core part of the problem is that we had up until recently lived in a nation that casually defined itself as a "Christian" nation. We've got "In God We Trust" inscribed on our coinage -- which is both wrong, and debases the role of our Creator. Many people do not place their trust in God, and saying they do when they openly and gladly admit they don't is a lie unworthy of Him. We defined marriage in terms of Christianity -- and also prevailing social mores. While I understand the reasoning, forcing, for example, a pastor to preside of a marriage between two atheists as their civil "right" makes no sense from the pastor's point of view, and may confuse the atheists' mothers as to what exactly is going on here.
Laws and institutions put into place on the assumption that we would always be a strictly Christian nation were often unsound, and when we see them getting clobbered in the courts, we'd like try to go back to when the world made sense. However, that would require a return to a time when the nation was unequivocally Christian in nature. I just don't see that happening any time soon.
The problem is, we do have religious freedoms. Over time, people exercise that freedom, and one of the choices is non-Christianity. (I don't have to like it to acknowledge it -- as much as I would hope that people would find Salvation, I know that a few words in a blog are not sufficient "proof")
Strange to me that I'm pointing out that legally the religious aspect of marriage is and should be separable from the concept of a civil marriage to an atheist, but so be it. If there is a difference, then nobody's civil rights have to be violated anywhere. If there is no difference, then you've got some "churchin' up" to do.
People used to go to different places all the time to make the marriage of choice -- time was when a lot of people went to Vegas for that sort of thing -- that and to be married by a *REAL* Elvis(h) impersonator or a geek in a clown suit. Their marriages were no less valid for having done so, but it did take enforcing in the courts.
Well, the fed has a mandate to regulate interstate commerce. This isn't interstate commerce.
It also isn't a civil right. It is a recognition of the legal implications when people join together. Think of it as a club of two, if you want. States grant charters all the time for that sort of thing. If we treat marriage as a civil right, why not give corporations civil rights, too? They acknowledge a similar reality. Silly, I know, but states have had separate codes regulating a lot of things, and still manage to survive without having to declare war upon each other.
While it is true that there would be a hodge-podge of different state laws regarding this, if a person does not like how their particular state defines this, they are free to move. Divorce laws are already done like this -- Nebraska's a community property state, with markedly different divorce laws than Colorado, even though we share borders. My cousin pays $900/month to support his ex, while my equally nasty ex gets nothing. The world hasn't come to an end over this. Nobody's come to complain about their rights being violated -- nor should they.
Federal government intrusion into marriage allows a lot of other abuses of federal power, and should never have happened in the first place. It is a faulty premise to an argument that people shouldn't be having. Cat's out of the bag, pooch's already been screwed anyway. Once gay marriage was legalized anywhere in the US, other states will have to deal with it -- either as legislation, or through the courts. "Opting out" cannot happen, as much as some would love to.
People who get married do three things -- have kids, buy property, and get divorced. You get a kid with the two adults in their life fighting over them in the courts, the courts or the legislatures will have to do something. Pay now or pay later. Kids' suffering drives a lot of legislation, good, bad, or indifferent.
I don't believe that any outliers will ever back off -- that is just part of being an outlier. The only defenses are to take the federal government out of the marriage business, and the religious aspect out of the contract law part. DOMA being unconstitutional, it has to happen anyway. The other option, to pass a federal amendment, is out of the question. Not enough support *either* way.
In my world, the aforementioned lipstick lesbians (hopefully they're hot, but usually from what I've seen, they're not) can get married, buy their house, adopt, or artificially inseminate (not being hot is a problem here...) and get along just fine. As long as they do not violate any of their laws regarding the kid's welfare, their minding their own business is just fine by me.
I think of legislation like DOMA as a salient in the military sense -- we spend our time fighting over it, when it really isn't the main issue, and accepting it as an issue of any sort opens the door legislatively to other legislative malfeasance. If Congress can pass a law saying what constitutes marriage nationwide, why can't they pass a law saying that all marriages not consummated within 24 hours are null and void, or that we must stop selling or consuming alcohol?
LOL Shintos..!
Agreed, the outliers need to be told to back off, with legal strictures in place to protect religious rights. A subset of religious institutions would take up the glorious burden of binding 2 lipstick lesbians together in eternal torment and bliss
I'm not inclined to let states opt out though.. I view it as a federal civil rights matter
Statistically speaking, you're correct. However, I've met outliers who would prefer that the church of their choice be forced to acknowledge this. Having marriage be a quasi-religious institution gives them a legal argument. Moving it completely into religion, with a civil analog negates that.
That said, the entire issue is used to whip up support and opposition -- and neither party is composed solely of one-issue ideologues, so many people do make the uncomfortable decision to accept this as part and parcel of being a member of whatever party. While there would be a gain of fiscally conservative gays, there could be a loss of people whose religion forces them to avoid connections with such a political party. Moving civil marriage out makes it possible for people to coexist and still have their particular beliefs.
A person shouldn't have to make compromises on what they feel as morally right, which means that when lawmakers start to implement morality through the political process, they are forcing people to take part in what may be very wrong to them.
That means I object to the DOMA on two grounds -- first is that the fed has no right to intrude on the States' domain, and second that nobody should be implementing religious morals as laws. This week, it is Christians doing the laws, next week, the "The Shintos will come here shattering sheet glass in the shithouse, shouting slogans"...
I don't know about leftist strategy, but I don't think gays want to force any one church or another to marry them off. They'll find a church, even if they have to travel for it. What they really want is for that marriage to be recognized in all states, and they want to simply be able to use the word itself: "I'm married to this jackass.."
You give them that, and watch the otherwise fiscally conservative gays reconsider their alliances
***I believe things like gay marriage and abortion should be illegal as violations of the natural law.***
Sin, Natural Law... Whatever you want to call it. Basing laws on any ideals of a religion will end badly. And it obviously isn't a violation of natural law because nature corrects itself does it not? If it was against the laws of nature our evolution would have bred that out of us a long time ago.
And I don't want to get into the abortion thing, because as a man I have no opinion on the matter.
We already have that.
"After two weeks of drinking the ManMilk Guinness, I stumbled into the bathroom and gave ManBirth to a PoliticianEgg."
Cybernetic Law will bring us ManBirth and ManMilk
oh horrors...
I believe Natural Laws are things like: Men can't give birth to children.... Only a mother can provide the milk to nourish her offspring... Things along those lines. You don't have to be religious to find something wrong about murder. But I have never found anyone that says "I don't believe in God so killing people is A-OK." When in actuality it seems to be the other way around more often than not.
Islam is ringing in my ears today for some reason.
And if someone said that they are enforcing religious laws on them the reply can be:No we're not because we're not turning the other cheek.
And if we're talking purely natural deaths here with homosexuals... I shouldn't be here anymore because naturally I would have died around 22.
Leaving abortion aside, what would one say to someone who made the argument: You can't try me for murder, because you're enforcing a religious law upon me. Aren't laws against murdering human beings after birth, laws based upon a natural law? Without a natural law, a society disintegrates under the chaos of relativism. I just don't see how acts of sodomy between two males can be seen as anything other than unnatural. Their life spans seem to be twenty or more years shorter than the average male, and they seem to suffer from a variety of serious maladies even before these earlier than usual deaths.
Calling it a "phobia" is classic liberal method of controlling the argument by controlling the language.
I don't fear it. I view homosexual activity as gross and unappealing -- much like, I am sure, gays view heterosexual sex. It's OK -- that's right there in the definition of either orientation, and as long as the government doesn't compel me to confront or take part in it, I really couldn't care what they do at home any more than I'd care how my non-gay co-workers go at it at home.
However, no lib media outfit has ever come out talking about Perez Hilton's nasty, raving heterophobia. Kind of makes you wonder.
Until then, the terms' being used as a pejorative to me is an indicator that someone's talking out of their ass again. (pun intended)
I'm sorry but I'm not entirely certain what you mean in your post. I didnt say (or mean) that people who dislike homosexuals have a phobia I was more just C&P from MDLION. Personally I just think that it has been around so long that anyone saying its not natural is fooling themselves. Just think of the Romans.
I also don't keep up with Pop Culture.... Is Perez Hilton someone anyone should pay attention to? Cuz I already think that the news spends WAY too much time on celebrities.
Murder has been around sinse man has been here. There has always been people that steal .
So muder and stealing , because its been around for so long , must be "natural ".
It is natural.. doesn't mean its right either.. Killing and theft are ugly survival stategies, hundreds of millions years old (if not billions)
I was just adding to MDLION's bit. (Not his naughty bits) -- probably better attached to his, but relevant to your comment as well.
Basically, it is normal and reasonable to not want to engage in homosexual (or heterosexual) activities if your car doors don't open that way. It is also normal to have opinions and a perspective to back that up, as long as you are tolerant of other peoples'. Tolerance does *not* mean that you have to *like* an activity. Just that you do not harm others for their whatever you want to call it.
However, calling that desire a "phobia" is just a way to channel peoples' thinking. The left does this all the time.
I'm sure its a turn of phrase, being "certified"
The headline clearly is about a "gay couple".. abuse by otherwise heterosexual individuals just ain't as newsworthy, though just as horrible for the victims
The problem is that it plays to the meme. that's just one more problem I have with the media. The story is really not all that newsworthy -- but it makes a salacious headline that sells papers, and even though they know they are harming people, they do it anyway. Pretty damned sleazy, if you ask me.
Seem to remember the old movie 'Absence of Malice" played on this theme.
I know how ya feel, my parents were the same way except they stayed together for the "Sake of the kids" But for 15 years of my life my parents would never be home, and if they were they were screaming at each other. My room was used for storage, I had busted stereo equipment sittin on my desk for 5 years, no room to do homework. They raised me to believe that marriage can only be between a man and a woman, but my question always was..... why? Im sorry but when the government added all those benefits for being married, and in a country where we are all supposed to have equal rights, you need to open it up to all. Marriage can go back to being a religious institution if everyone REALLY wants. But say bye bye to tax breaks and hospital visits with your wife/husband. (In Ohio at least, you are not allowed to visit someone in intensive care unless you are bonded through marriage)
I know it's only anecdotal, but when I was 14, I got the chance to travel the country, going to motorcycle races, selling souvenirs. I knew that it would be a major adventure, and I would come home with LOTS of money after the 3 month tour.
I also knew that if I asked for permission, it would be denied. So I didn't. I just went. No questions asked, no contact for 3 months. I had a GREAT time, made a bundle of money, and figured it was all well worth the whoopin' I would get when I showed up at home.
Well, I showed up at home after 3 months, and was astonished to find out that my absence hadn't been noticed. And my "parents" were both very heterosexual. That's no guarantee of good parenting, it would seem.
that sounds awesome, and holy sh-t?? They literally did not notice you were gone for 3 months? Wow. I got a tongue-lashing from my mum if i wasn't home before dark, quite often
That's what I'm saying, Alien. Although heterosexual, they weren't much on parenting skills. I pretty much raised myself, and amazingly enough, never got into any trouble.
Many men with a homosexual orientation themselves were sexually abused by men as boys. A few have been sexually abused by women which can make them afraid of women and drive them towards the homosexual lifestyle. Many of these males will act out compulsively with women though. Granted, most abusers are heterosexual though. Look for the media to cover up stories like this in their drive to normalize and mainstream the homosexual lifestyle. In the scandal in the Catholic Church, 79% of the victims were boys between 11 and 16 who were abused by male priests. And yet the media was so desperate to pretend that there was no homosexual component to the priests' behavior.
PsychoDad:"'Carlos Harasz, 19, says that, in more than 10 years living with Harasz and Wirth, he never saw or experienced any abuse.' Stockholm Syndrome."
It can be amazing, the sickness and denial of a closed, sick family system with secrets to hide.
Many people forget, when they see the statistics showing that most molesters are heterosexual, that most PEOPLE are heterosexual. Kinda skews the results a bit. I've never seen figures that accurately compare percentages of people in each group that are molesters.
"Carlos Harasz, 19, says that, in more than 10 years living with Harasz and Wirth, he never saw or experienced any abuse."
Stockholm Syndrome.
There are things that are reported in the news and there are things that are not . That is why IHTM is here .
I've heard on many , many occassions , ( mostly work related ) children of homosexual parents , that have spoken of how life is like under the tent . The same sick sense of being a captured pawn in some sick fantasy game , was the general sense that I drew from their talks or speeches . Now to be fair , not all the children felt the same sense , as some loved their " homosexual parents " and felt loved back . Most , as normal children would want , wanted a mom and dad , as this is what normal people would desire.
Over the years , to see the hurt , to hear what goes on , to SEE what goes on , made me glad and thankful for the parents I have ( as imperfect as they are , like me ) . I'm also very glad to be the dad that I am .
There are no guarentes in parenting , but have been blessed beyond anything I deserve by our sons . My wife and I have done , for the most part , the best we could . We hope we've givin them the gifts that we have. One day we might look at our children's , children's childrens , and see the linage. I hope its mostly good traits and not so many of my bad traits , but....
On the other hand I'm not so sure what the third and fourth generation of homosexual parents are going to be like. If one looks at the children of these parents , and I mean really look , as they enter adulthood , I think one will see things we weren't supposed to see .
But who am I to say.
I know where you're coming from. I think that too many of the gay couples adopting are conducting their own social experiments on minor children. Thus we have a lesbian couple adopting a boy, who wants to get a sex change, so that he/she can be a lesbian. Reminds me of that old joke about the cowboy that went to a bar. Didn't know it was a lesbian hangout. Saw a sturdy young gal up at the bar, and thought he'd buy her a drink. She told him she was a lesbian.
"What's that?"
"I like having sex with women, not men."
"Well I'll be! *I'm* a lesbian too!"
Anyway, whichever social worker let them have 9 boys needs to be fired, just because it pushes the bounds of credibility that they can even handle the number.
You know, I haven't convicted them yet of this crime. That's up to a jury. However, I question their wisdom in adopting only boys, and in some quantity. Maybe they relate better to boys, maybe they had motive, sandusky-style. Just don't know.
However, it looks to me like a situation full of a lot of down side and little room for up side. Adopted kids often have severe issues -- and a couple of gay men adopting only boys who are particularly troubled is like storing gunpowder in a "tippy" open container by a fireplace in a house with about 19 labradors and a pet squirrel. It is not an "if" it goes off -- but a *when* it goes off.
There are no legitimate studies or data that homosexual men are more likely to molest boys than heterosexual men.
Over 85 % of thr child molesting in the Roman Catholic Church scandel was male on male. The vast majority of the boys were 15-16 years old. It wasn't little boys or girls , with little parts. It was big boys with big parts.
You , like the other morally challenged refuse to see , what even someone very stupid , could easily see. Go to Nambla for some moral (LOL) support.
OK, think about this for a second, Neo. In the RC church, what is the sole gender of the clergy? Male.
Now, the $64,000 question. What is the sole sex of altarboys and choirboys, the main group of minors that come into contact with the clergy?
The Catholic priest male on male pedophilia scandal percentages are a lot higher than 85%, and it has nothing to do with the size of their parts. If all's you have is males associating with males, and there is a pedo in the mix, it is by default going to be male pedophilia. This has nothing to do with "all homosexuals are pedophiles" any more than you can say that "all priests are pedophiles". Just like Sandusky, perverts try to put themselves into situations where the type of children they lust after are in their power. That's what perverts do.
Can you really say you know how many of the RC clergy are actually gay? If it is consensual, they aren't going to talk about it -- the church frowns on all of that behavior -- but I'd bet the numbers may surprise you.
In other news, when a female teacher has sex with her male student, are you going to say that all female teachers are perverts? Why not single out historians, or plumbers or whatever occupation the abuser of the moment has, use that as your indicator that they are a pervert?
How many gay parents raise healthy, normal kids? Would you even know? Maybe you've seen some bad examples -- I've seen bad examples of parenting all around, and until I see different, I'm going to have to say that a gay couple wanting to adopt a child is higher in my book than the parents that are putting out cigarettes on that same child. I'm weird that way, I guess. They ain't Ward & June Cleaver, but they'll do, as long as they are face the same safeguards any other parents have.
In this country, people are innocent until proven guilty. j'accuse is a French thing, not an American thing.
Who are you referring to with your comment, Neo?
I'm not saying that they are more likely to molest because they have 9 boys --- but that as they get more kids on their hands, odds are better and better that they will eventually get one of those kids who sees advantage in accusing the parents of it, true or not. Some kids are just that way -- it may be just their way of testing authority and their adoptive parents' love -- but the end result is all 9 being taken away and put back into the foster parent system.
As they get more and more kids on their hands, they have to think more and more about the effect upon the ones already there. Those kids *do* have a loving home. Rolling the dice again and again puts *them* at risk. This is why I think the social services employee needs to get fired.
OK, I can see your point there. Obviously, at some point a couple will not be able to properly take care of so many kids whether they are independently wealthy or not. There is only so much time in a day. I misunderstood your original point.
Kinda like the Octomom situation. Even in a loving home, there is only so much to go around.
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html
It's absolutely stunning to see anyone give a "thumbs-down" to a link to information from a legitimate source. This is why our nation is in such a mess. There are far too many people, regardless of political or religious leanings, who choose to create their own "facts" and systematically disregard any information that contradicts those "facts."
There are many legitimate complaints about liberals engaging in this sort of selective thinking, yet too many times these same critics engage in the same behavior and don't see it as a problem.
The thumbs down most likely come from looking at the source. UC Davis. Always suspect.
These children were first abused when allowed by the government to be ferreted out to deviants to raise them in an unnatural environment.
As if the homes where kids are raised by heterosexual couples that are alcoholics, drug addicts, child molesters, fundamentalist religious fanatics, racists, physically abusive, emotionally abusive, so absorbed by their work or social lives that they can't be bothered to be a parent, or any other number of problems kids face in "natural" environments is so much better?
In so many instances of what you describe, East, I must agree. It would disingenuous to disagree; however, I believe my point belongs to the same list you created.
Question is, Ruben, where on that list does it belong? Near the top, near the bottom, somewhere in the middle? I think everything has to be looked at on a case-by-case basis.
The only married homosexual couple I know personally, who are lesbian, are two of the most wonderful and loving people you could ever hope to meet. Any child looking for parents would be lucky to have them. But I'm not going to claim that every homosexual couple is that way. Nor is every heterosexual couple.
Yeah, but nobody wants to adopt the older kids. Not sure how it is in your area, but sometimes a couple gays who want to take them in is the least worst option. I'd have adopted, but there's no way I can convince the wife. I've asked. She wants to enjoy having the kids out of the house.