The Negatives Of Homosexuality on Society

When you say these people you are lumping everyone into the same politics and philosophy. Don't you know any homosexuals who don't march naked in parades, chase kids, or have terminal illnesses. My whole point was that people are individuals first. Some are good people, some chase kids. But no groupd does everything the same. I think in the US we are for rights and responsibilities of individusls, not groups.

You and your ilk have become running caracitures of thinking people. The reason I don't usually post to you is your running propaganda war and ignorance might be contagious. Truly something to avoid.

I have proven scripter's stuff false before. You have a short memory or in avoidance.

LOL, lket's start a scron group, maybe JR will give us a chat room.

uh, that's let's start a SCORN group.

Besides the drug abuse, the spread of disease through sexual promiscuity, depression, the sexual targeting of young immature males, AIDS, and the assult on Christian values, I can not think of anything about homosexuality that is bad.

uh, that's let's start a SCORN group.

What's a scorn group?

Stir up some real controversy and talk about the "lavender mafia" – homosexual Catholic priests in control of some seminaries and chanceries, who use their power to persecute orthodox, heterosexual priests and seminarians, and are responsible for much of the pedophile problem in the Church.

Good Luck!

http://www.nationalreview.com/dreher/dreher031302.shtml

I would ask that if you post statistics that you put at least a website or a reference so that I can cite it in my paper.

1. Homosexuals are five times more likely to be child molesters. About half (50% more or less) of all child molesters are homosexuals. Homosexuals are less than 10 percent of the population.

This is a key point. Homosexuals site study after study saying there's no relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia. Others say different. Homosexuals can argue that most pedophiles are heterosexual. That doesn't matter. They can also argue that no causal link has been proven. That doesn't matter either. They'll point out that most homosexuals are not pedophilia. Ditto. The key is proportionality. Make a big sign that says: "If 2% of the population is responsible for 20% to 40% of something as socially and personally troubling as child molestation, something must be desperately wrong with that 2%. " .

Your opponent will agree to some percentage of the population that matches some definition of homosexuality. He might cite Kinsey's number that 37 percent reported some homosexual contact in their lives.

Using that definition you can then say that all cases of 'same-sex' pedophilia are committed by homosexuals. However, when the discussion goes to pedophilia homosexuals prefer to narrow the definition and say it's a "serious error... [to] ... assume that all males who molest boys are homosexuals..." that 'same-sex' pedophiles are in reality males "present themselves as heterosexuals". They will then say that there's not even "1.2 million gay people living with a same sex partner in America". IOW, when it comes to pedophilia, the percentage of homosexuals in the US suddenly drops from 37 percent to 0.4% percent.

2. Homosexuals want some of benefits and compensation that are now given to heterosexuals, to be instead given to homosexuals. This hurts society.

From Cornell University school of law: In the English common law tradition, from which our legal doctrines and concepts have developed, a marriage was a contract based upon a voluntary private agreement by a man and a woman to become husband and wife. Marriage was viewed as the basis of the family unit and vital to the preservation of morals and civilization.

The policy of the state governs the institution of marriage in a large part as a conduit for inheritance. Marriage (not baseball teams, garden clubs, and homosexual unions) is viewed this way because only marriage sustains the race beyond the life time of a single human. If marriage is state policy because it makes it possible for the state to exist in the next century, then conversely anything that diverts resources from this policy diminishes the ability of the state to exist over time.

Humanity is innovative. Over the hundreds of thousands of years of humanity's existance some cultures have been good at sustaining themselves and some were good at being diverse. By definition, all people alive today are descended from social groups that were good at reproducing, and all groups that were not good at reproducing are gone.

3. Almost all people already know intuitively that homosexuality is 'bad'.

Concepts of 'good/bad' or 'right/wrong' are not logical or observable. They are intuitive. Ask anyone how they know if anyone but themselves exist-- or if they're just imagining other people's existence (solipsism). Only intuition can refute solipsism-- logic and observation fail. The same with morality. Why is diversity good and cruelty bad? Why would it be wrong to say, kill all the elephants? The basis for communication is that there is more than 'your truth' and 'my truth', there is 'The Truth' that we can find together.

In his heart of hearts virtually everyone prefers that heterosexuality to homosexuality. Ask anybody in the room if they want it announced that they are a homosexual. We're not taking a poll here, we're demonstrating that homosexuality is like a bad smell-- there are so many people who intuitively don't like that we end up having to laws to limit it. I don't like bad smells, I don't have to give a reason. You make a bad smell where I can know about it I can put you in jail. Homosexuality stinks.

Dang! Post 129 was supposed to go to Red, and not to Naomi. I hate it when I do that. Aw well...

The American College of Pediatricians recently released (1/04) the paper available at the following webpage. One of the conclusions in this scholarly report is:

"there is sound evidence that children exposed to the homosexual lifestyle may be at increased risk for emotional, mental, and even physical harm."

I recommend this resource highly for your presentation.

http://www.acpeds.org/?CONTEXT=art&cat=22&art=50&BISKIT=2920801063

Catholic documents and teaching on subject of homosexuality:

The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality - Guidelines for Education within the Family

104. A particular problem that can appear during the process of sexual maturation is homosexuality, which is also spreading more and more in urbanized societies. This phenomenon must be presented with balanced judgement, in the light of the documents of the Church. Young people need to be helped to distinguish between the concepts of what is normal and abnormal, between subjective guilt and objective disorder, avoiding what would arouse hostility. On the other hand, the structural and complementary orientation of sexuality must be well clarified in relation to marriage, procreation and Christian chastity. "Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained". A distinction must be made between a tendency that can be innate and acts of homosexuality that "are intrinsically disordered" and contrary to Natural Law.
Especially when the practice of homosexual acts has not become a habit, many cases can benefit from appropriate therapy. In any case, persons in this situation must be accepted with respect, dignity and delicacy, and all forms of unjust discrimination must be avoided. If parents notice the appearance of this tendency or of related behaviour in their children, during childhood or adolescence, they should seek help from expert qualified persons in order to obtain all possible assistance.
For most homosexual persons, this condition constitutes a trial. "They must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfil God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition". "Homosexual persons are called to chastity".

Persona Humana - Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics

VIII At the present time there are those who, basing themselves on observations in the psychological order, have begun to judge indulgently, and even to excuse completely, homosexual relations between certain people. This they do in opposition to the constant teaching of the Magisterium and to the moral sense of the Christian people.
A distinction is drawn, and it seems with some reason, between homosexuals whose tendency comes from a false education, from a lack of normal sexual development, from habit, from bad example, or from other similar causes, and is transitory or at least not incurable; and homosexuals who are definitively such because of some kind of innate instinct or a pathological constitution judged to be incurable.
In regard to this second category of subjects, some people conclude that their tendency is so natural that it justifies in their case homosexual relations within a sincere communion of life and love analogous to marriage, in so far as such homosexuals feel incapable of enduring a solitary life.
In the pastoral field, these homosexuals must certainly be treated with understanding and sustained in the hope of overcoming their personal difficulties and their inability to fit into society. Their culpability will be judged with prudence. But no pastoral method can be employed which would give moral justification to these acts on the grounds that they would be consonant with the condition of such people. For according to the objective moral order, homosexual relations are acts which lack an essential and indispensable finality. In Sacred Scripture they are condemned as a serious depravity and even presented as the sad consequence of rejecting God. This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and can in no case be approved of.

Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons

10. It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church's pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law.
But the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not disordered. When such a claim is made and when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one has any conceivable right, neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase.
11. It has been argued that the homosexual orientation in certain cases is not the result of deliberate choice; and so the homosexual person would then have no choice but to behave in a homosexual fashion. Lacking freedom, such a person, even if engaged in homosexual activity, would not be culpable.
Here, the Church's wise moral tradition is necessary since it warns against generalizations in judging individual cases. In fact, circumstances may exist, or may have existed in the past, which would reduce or remove the culpability of the individual in a given instance; or other circumstances may increase it. What is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and demeaning assumption that the sexual behaviour of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable. What is essential is that the fundamental liberty which characterizes the human person and gives him his dignity be recognized as belonging to the homosexual person as well. As in every conversion from evil, the abandonment of homosexual activity will require a profound collaboration of the individual with God's liberating grace.

Some Considerations Concerning the Response to Legislative Proposals on Non-discrimination of Homosexual Persons

II. Applications
10. "Sexual orientation" does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc. in respect to non-discrimination. Unlike these, homosexual orientation is an objective disorder (cf. "Letter," No. 3) and evokes moral concern.
11. There are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account, for example, in the placement of children for adoption or foster care, in employment of teachers or athletic coaches, and in military recruitment.
13. Including "homosexual orientation" among the considerations on the basis of which it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead to regarding homosexuality as a positive source of human rights, for example, in respect to so-called affirmative action or preferential treatment in hiring practices. This is all the more deleterious since there is no right to homosexuality (cf. No. 10) which therefore should not form the basis for judicial claims. The passage from the recognition of homosexuality as a factor on which basis it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead, if not automatically, to the legislative protection and promotion of homosexuality. A person's homosexuality would be invoked in opposition to alleged discrimination, and thus the exercise of rights would be defended precisely via the affirmation of the homosexual condition instead of in terms of a violation of basic human rights.

Considerations Regarding Proposals To Give Legal Recognition To Unions Between Homosexual Persons

4. There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law. Homosexual acts “close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved”.
7. Homosexual unions are totally lacking in the biological and anthropological elements of marriage and family which would be the basis, on the level of reason, for granting them legal recognition. Such unions are not able to contribute in a proper way to the procreation and survival of the human race. The possibility of using recently discovered methods of artificial reproduction, beyond involving a grave lack of respect for human dignity, does nothing to alter this inadequacy.
Homosexual unions are also totally lacking in the conjugal dimension, which represents the human and ordered form of sexuality. Sexual relations are human when and insofar as they express and promote the mutual assistance of the sexes in marriage and are open to the transmission of new life.
As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case.

...maybe JR will give us a chat room

I seriously doubt it -maybe a banning but no pro-homosexual debate area. Try DU.

What Free Republic is all about:

Statement by the founder of Free Republic

As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America. We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism, fascism, pacifism, totalitarianism, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, racism, wacko environmentalism, judicial activism, etc. We also oppose the United Nations or any other world government body that may attempt to impose its will or rule over our sovereign nation and sovereign people. We believe in defending our borders, our constitution and our national sovereignty.
Free Republic is private property. It is not a government project, nor is it funded by government or taxpayer money. We are not a publicly owned entity nor are we an IRS tax-free non-profit organization. We pay all applicable taxes on our income. We are not connected to or funded by any political party, news agency, or any other entity. We sell no merchandise, product or service, and we offer no subscriptions or paid memberships. We accept no paid advertising or promotions. We are funded solely by donations (non tax deductible gifts) from our readers and participants.
We aggressively defend our God-given and first amendment guaranteed rights to free speech, free press, free religion, and freedom of association, as well as our constitutional right to control the use and content of our own personal private property. Despite the wailing of the liberal trolls and other doom & gloom naysayers, we feel no compelling need to allow them a platform to promote their repugnant and obnoxious propaganda from our forum. Free Republic is not a liberal debating society. We are conservative activists dedicated to defending our rights, defending our constitution, defending our republic and defending our traditional American way of life.

hey- first, thanks a lot for your help. I can see that this paper is going to be a blast to write. Do you have the organization from which your stats on homosexuality came from? As you probably know, I must cite everything... and things are more believable if they have an offical name attached to them... not a guy from a right-wing website's random numbers. Not that i don't believe you, mind you... Just have to watch out for pitfalls and such.

That's what I said! I said the homosexual community need to come out and condemn the radicals. If they do nothing, FReepers will just lump them into one group. It's the same with everything else. We must avoid lumping people but it is also up to the group to speak out.

That's ok. It was excellent. I enjoyed reading it.

It is not a group. It is individuals. And no, they don't have to line up and condemn anyone. Either they demonstarte the radical behavior or they don't. The freepers who think like you mentioned are either ignorant, lazy, or vicious.

I've been here since 1998. Thanx for telling me the FR agenda. LOL!

It is our responsibility not to collectively lump groups together. It is also their responsibility to confront the groups that are actively hurting others and creating resentment. Responsibility cuts both ways.

Individuals have no responsibility to tell others that have a similar characteristic how to act. I don't know where you get this concept of human responsibility. If your reaction is to lump them together in a group of a few million people, that's intellectually dishonest and your problem.