Posted on 05/31/2004 12:39:29 PM PDT by softengine
It also says he repeatedly kisses and touches classmates inappropriately and once ran around naked."
This has all the diagnostic criteria of a child who has been sexually abused.
Oh God, that's tragic.
We don't condemn their lifestyles, we condemn their unnatural acts. Sodomy is intrinsically evil. No one has a God-given right to engage in acts that are intrinsically evil.
Homosexual "couples" can't be parents, period. It's utterly unnatural. Nature intended for children to be raised by their biological parents. Homosexuals can't be good "parents" in principle.
It's like saying that there are some women who run prostitution businesses in their homes who are good mothers, and there are some who aren't good mothers. No. They can never be good mothers in principle.
Um, you've got that precisely bass-ackward, Ms. Levitas.
It's the two 'gay daddies' who are bent.
In liberal-world, up is down, right is wrong, and evil is good.
| What We Can Do To Help Defeat the "Gay" Agenda |
|
|
| Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1) |
|
|
| Myth and Reality about Homosexuality--Sexual Orientation Section, Guide to Family Issues" |
Obviously I joined the discussion late, but here are a couple of points I can't pass up:
You said: "And if the mother is a crack wh#$% and dad is a gay professional with a study job and household? Where would you put the kid?"
Answer: With some loving adoptive parents IOW a husband and wife.
You said: "Many gays are going to be better fit than many straights and many straights are going to be better than many gays."
Answer: That is a slogan type of statement which is fact free. It is your opinion only. Millions of people hold opinions which are fact free, and this is an example. Cite some studies verifying that homosexuals are NOT more prone to molest children than heterosexuals, and the debate can continue.
You said: "...we cannot make decisions on blanket assumptions."
Answer: It is not a blanket assumption to assume that homosexuals are (a) more likely to molest children, that is a known reality, (b) are more likely to be wildly promiscuous, thus being a bad example and danger to the children, (c) are known to have a higher rate of alcohol and drug abuse and emotional and mental problems than the rest of the population, thus not being fit child caretakers. Add to that the known fact that homosexuals rarely stay together for life and are also rarely monogamous, and there is not a reason in the world to allow children to be raised by homosexuals exacept one:
TO FURTHER THEIR AGENDA.
Is that a good reason for them to raise children?
You said:
"First, sexual and physical abuse occurs at the same rate in all types of households; gay, straight, atheist, Muslim, Christian, black, white, liberal and even conservative."
This is a lie, and if you actually believe this, you should immediately, without stop, go to the Categorical links with hundreds of articles about homosexuality, many with facts and figures provided by homosexuals themselves, and read for hours. Until that time, you have proved yourself to be one of two things:
1. Ignorant and very ill-informed, and thereby allowing yourself to be used as a tool by the "gay" activists and the media.
or
2. A shill for the "gay" agenda.
Your actions from now on will prove whether you are (1) or (2). If you are just ill-informed, that is easily remedied - FR is a mine of information about homosexuality. If you are (2), you will continue to spew lies as though they were fact, even though anyone who has read for an hour knows them to be lies.
Which are you?
A 10 year old male is molested by a gay man and a ten year old female is molested by a straight man, both are caught and prosecuted.
Should once receive a lighter sentence than the other or should both be locked up for the rest of their lives?
Both should be locked up for life. What is distrubing, however, is that certain segments of the homosexual community, beyond NAMBLA, actually approve of "man-boy sex." Consider the following:
"Pedophilia Chic" Reconsidered (The taboo against sex with children continues to erode)
"Until very, very recently, public questioning of the social prohibition against pedophilia—to say nothing of positive celebration of child molestation—was practically non-existent in American life. The reasons why are not opaque. To most people, the very word "pedophilia" summons forth a preternatural degree of horror and revulsion; and the criminal law that reflects those reactions has consistently treated the sexual molestation of minors as a serious and eminently punishable offense. So it is small wonder that, historically speaking, the taboo against using legal minors for sex was no more publicly controversial in the United States than the prohibitions against, say, cannibalism or bestiality. Those few partisans of the idea who did sometimes sally forth customarily found themselves regarded as the lowest of the social low, even by the criminal class.
This social consensus against the sexual exploitation of children and adolescents, however—unlike those against, say, animal sex or incest—is apparently eroding, and this regardless of the fact that the vast majority of citizens do overwhelmingly abominate the thing. For elsewhere in the public square, the defense of adult-child sex—more accurately, man-boy sex—is now out in the open. Moreover, it is on parade in a number of places—therapeutic, literary, and academic circles; mainstream publishing houses and journals and magazines and bookstores—where the mere appearance of such ideas would until recently have been not only unthinkable, but in many cases, subject to prosecution.
Dramatic though this turnaround may be, it did not happen overnight. Four years ago in these pages, in an essay called "Pedophilia Chic," I described in some detail a number of then-recent public challenges to this particular taboo, all of them apparently isolated from one another.1 Plainly, as the record even then showed, a surprising number of voices were willing to rise up on behalf of what advocates refer to as "man-boy love," or what most people call sexual abuse...
Four-plus years and many other challenges to the same taboo later, it is clear that this hypothesis got something wrong. For one thing, no sustained public challenges have arisen over other primal taboos. Even more telling, if nihilism and nihilism alone were the explanation for public attempts to legitimize sex with boy children, then we would expect the appearance of related attempts to legitimize sex with girl children; and these we manifestly do not see.2 Nobody, but nobody, has been allowed to make the case for girl pedophilia with the backing of any reputable institution. Publishing houses are not putting out acclaimed anthologies and works of fiction that include excerpts of men having sex with young girls. Psychologists and psychiatrists are not competing with each other to publish studies demonstrating that the sexual abuse of girls is inconsequential; or, indeed, that it ought not even be defined as "abuse."
Two examples from the last few weeks will suffice to show the double standard here. In the November 12 New York Times Book Review, a writer found it unremarkable to observe of his subject, biographer Gavin Lambert, that when "Lambert was a schoolboy of 11, a teacher initiated him [into homosexuality], and he 'felt no shame or fear, only gratitude.'" It is unimaginable that New York Times editors would allow a reviewer to describe an 11-year-old girl being sexually "initiated" by any adult (in that case, "initiation" would be called "sexual abuse"). Similarly, in mid-December the New York Times Magazine delivered a cover piece about gay teenagers in cyberspace which was so blasé about the older men who seek out boys in chat rooms that it dismissed those potential predators as mere "oldies." Again, one can only imagine the public outcry had the same magazine published a story taking the same so-what approach to online solicitation, off-line trysts, and pornography "sharing" between anonymous men and underage girls..."
bump - what a sad, sick and demonic world we live in. Poor boy.
Homosexual "couples" can't be parents, period. It's utterly unnatural. Nature intended for children to be raised by their biological parents. Homosexuals can't be good "parents" in principle.
Indeed. See "Homosexual Parenting: Is It Time For Change?"
( Documentation in reply numbers 283 and 284 in scripter's "Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Revision 1.1)" )
I think homosexual child rape is worse. Because you cannot give more than life, I would say lock them both up for life, but realistically, both will get out some day.
You like that phrase, don't you ?
There are lots of other descriptions I'd give it: wrong, stupid, nasty, dangerous, unpleasant, unsanitary, and on and on.
Have you ever read C.S. Lewis's Perelandra ?
Now THAT contains a good description of "evil".
I see obvious reasons why gays and African Americans would support the Dems but the reasons Jews are Democrat are not so obvious. Is it the social issues? Is it the power or the Christian Right in the GOP? What am I missing???
Please forgive me if the question is too personal.
It's not personal at all, not that I mind personal questions. It did take me a while to get time to answer with what I think.
Orthodox Jews tend to vote GOP and have a much high birth rate than other Jews. So in 40 years, those of us whom God has spared may be discussing the question of why the Jews are so conservative.
However, for now, here are some reasons why Jews tend towards liberalism:
1. Conservatism means respect for the past, and many Jews see the past throught a prism of historical anti-sermitism.
2. Many Jews have rejected the rigorous religious practices of their parents or grandparents. Like most secular people, they are liberals.
3. In Europe, socialism has long been a way for Jews to simultaneously rebel against the religion of their parents and grandparents while also opposing the nationalism they saw as anti-Semitic. Many of these people are better understood to be former Jews or non-Jewish Jews than Jews, but they generally get counted as Jews.
4. In the US, FDR was tremendously popular with the Jews due to his Jewish appointees and due to his GOP opponents being associated with an era of country club Republicanism where the country clubs were closed to Jews, and the elite universities the country clubbers seemed to control had Jewish quotas. These may have been minor types of discrimination affecting few Jews, but it takes little for people to conclude someone doesn't like them and act accordingly. In any event, ever since FDR the Jews have tended Democratic.
5. At this point, most Jews have liberal parents, and children more often than not follow parental example.
6. Jews tend to be city people, in part because we were forbidden from being farmers in much of Europe. City people are disproportionately liberal.
Before your answer to this question other (liberal) Jews had told me that they were Democrats because the Christian Fundamentalists in the GOP frightened them. BTW- My Maternal Grandmother was Jewish but left the faith in the 1920's to become a Christian. I am not too sure how popular of an religious shift that was at that time in history but I have always felt a bold with the Jewish people.
My link to Judaism was even enough to get me past the Jewish Mom test when dating a few Jewish girls in high school and college!
I am not going to stand up and defend NAMBLA nor would any rational person do so. Every gay person I know not only disagrees with NAMBLA but says that NAMBLA represents Gays in the same way the KKK represents Christians.
A mother who runs a prostitution business out of her home is not only an unfit parent but also a criminal. Homosexuality and even the act of sodomy are not illegal and thus you have very little basis to prohibit law abiding citizens from conducting their lives as they wish.
Now, once a law abiding citizen gay or straight molests their child or any child the law should lock them up until the next ice age.
To be honest I do not get a good feeling when I think about the things my cousin and his partner do in their bedroom at night but he, I and perhaps even you may not like what many straight couples do in their bedrooms at night.
But the bottom line is that as long as both people are willing participants of of legal age the activities are legal.
Although sodomy may not be your cup of tea, you must concede that the term covers a great deal of ground including many things that most married couples have at least tried. I for one am not willing to condemn all who have committed sodomy as evil and do not want legal authorities in my or anyone else's bedroom approving and disapproving of what is done.
Or the guy who's a serial rapist. Again he'd be a great pubbie if it wasn't for the fact that the GOP condemns his lifestyle. Then there's that family down the block that lives on three welfare checks (his, hers, and her dead sister's), They'd be great pubbies if not for...
If I were you I would call the police on your buddy the serial killer as well as the rapist. I would even call the police on the welfare cheats down the street.
However, if there is a gay couple in your neighborhood and you call the police the police will do nothing. They will do nothing because their lifestyle and even activities are not against the law.
In my world of Conservatism the Government should stay out of your life until you break a law.
Their activities were against the law in all fifty states until liberal judges violated the constitution and over ruled the people's voice. Their activities should still be against the law. perversion and child molesting (and unfortunately you can never separate sodomy from child molesting) should never be tolerated either in society or in the GOP.
Homosexual marriage will fix all this. /NOT
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.