Posted on 05/28/2006 5:33:55 PM PDT by madprof98
Those here who constantly decry the sex acts of homosexuals seem to conveniently ignore the fact that most heterosexuals engage in similar acts. Why is that alright, but the former isn't, if as they state, the reason for sex is procreation? Surely they must have the same disdain for all birth controls? They call homosexual sex simply recreational sex, but ignore the fact that almost all heterosexual sex is recreational.They condemn homosexuals as aids producers, but condemn even more every attempt by a homosexual couple to stay monogamous. Go figure.
They tell you that there is no cause of homosexuality, that it is nothing but a choice, while refusing to give any consideration of medical studies to the contrary. Why? It is simply because if it does turn out to be genetic, then it is something created by God, and since God cannot do wrong, homosexuals have to be "natural". This is why they perpetuate their "choice" theory with absolute gusto.
The quoted above is clearly a pro-homosexualization of society posting, an attempt to compare normal procreatively ordered and socially accepted heterosexual sex with that of disordered socially condemned homosexual sex. The posting as well attempts to disparage MANY moral conservative and religious positions ALL in attempt to moral relatively hoist up homosexual sex to the acclaim recognized it on DU or any other liberal and or leftist Internet venue... This type of leftist manifesto posting is supposedly not given a platform on FR:
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.
Request FR moderate the leftist messages this poster seems self-destructively not able to self moderate...
As I said above, unfortuantely I have very little time for proper back and forth on FR these days, and therefore don't have links/info at fingertips even in the minimal manner I used to.
But the figure you gave of new HIV infections isn't anything I've come across, and I generally take note of things like that. If you can find a source, ping me.
It's accepted by anyone who has done homework, aside from those promoting homosexuality, that the roots of homosexual attraction are several, and these are the primary ones:
1. Molestation (which includes seduction) by a homosexual when a child or young adolescent.
2. Dysfunctional family often including absent, distant or neglectful father.
3. In the case of women, molestation or rape by an older male.
4. The glorification and indoctrination of homosexuality by the media, schools, professionals and so on. So kids "experiment", and then believe the lie that if they've had one "gay" desire or experience they are now "gay" forever.
5. Often people who become homosexual were loner kids, teased or tormented by their peers. Not for being "gay", but for just not fitting in; such as not liking sports, being "different".
If the truth that some homosexuals can and do change and leave the "gay" life were broadcast instead of being stifled by the pro-"gay" media and academic elites, we'd get more of any idea of how many former homosexuals there really are. They wouldn't be afraid to come out of the "ex-gay" closet!
P.S. I don't read Devanagari and am far from a scholar, but consider myself a dedicated student of Vedic scripture and a practitioner. I'm always open for such discussions and am working on an article about various aspects of Vedic philosophy which I plan to post as a vanity in the coming weeks. Freepmail me if you want to be pung.
bump
Some people need to get out of a bad marriage to save their lives or the lives of their children.
How about end to E-Z no fault divorce?
I would go with that. I am more concerned with the Britney marriages that last 24 hours than a poor women or man that is in an abusive relationship. Just like the church does with annulment, I would love to see a similiar way to do it with the marriages that are extreme cases and then it really would not be divorce because it would be a "non marriage". Of course for this to work, it would have to be a careful study to ensure that indeed their was some sort of abuse. You would find that maybe 10 percent of divorces would be in this grouping. That to me would make it fair all around. IMHO.
I looked at your earlier post and I think you may have misunderstood what I said. Here is my statement earlier:
I won't bother trying to tell you that 75 percent of new infections in women are heterosexually transmitted, or that 54 percent of new infections are in the Black communities.
The link is :
http://www.avert.org/womstata.htm
I certainly did not make any attempt to say that homosexuals and AIDs should be overlooked, just that AIDS as a problem universally needs attention, for all genders and sexual preferences.
It's accepted by anyone who has done homework, aside from those promoting homosexuality, that the roots of homosexual attraction are several, and these are the primary ones:
I looked at the list and cannot say they don't contribute to "conduct" by someone already predisposed. But it is not easy to distinguish between casual factors and correlational factors. Are these causes or merely one or more has happened to homosexuals. But two questions must be raised also, How many homosexuals are from normal, clean, moral Christian homes? and How many non homosexuals had one or more of these factors in their lives? The answers to those will help determine whether those factors are correlative or causative.
I wonder if the children of Dick Cheney, Alan Keyes, and Randall Terry just to name a few prominent parents of homosexuals had any of those incidents in their lives.
I am just saying that the causes of homosexuality may be very complex, but are certainly not known. Many theories have been expounded on, and most psychologists and doctors believe that it is something far more profound than environmental.
If the truth that some homosexuals can and do change and leave the "gay" life were broadcast instead of being stifled by the pro-"gay" media and academic elites, we'd get more of any idea of how many former homosexuals there really are. They wouldn't be afraid to come out of the "ex-gay" closet!
Again, the jury is out. John Stossel, normally a hero of Freepers for uncovering leftist and politically correct nonsense, has written a book entitled Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity. On the O'Reilly Factor he appeared and made this statement:
Featured last night on Fox's O'Reilly Factor, Stossel further commented on his book, "One of the myths is that you can change homosexuality. There are these groups like Exodus International that says, 'We can fix you. If you just pray, if you turn your life over to Jesus, we can make you straight.' And I've talked to lots of people who supposedly were cured and they were not."
To be fair, one of the interviewees had a different story,
"John Stossel's assertion that homosexuals cannot change is an affront to the thousands of individuals, like me, who have experienced it."
One thing is clear, conduct can always be curtailed, whether or not the basic sexual preference is simply buried is a question remaining to be answered.
BTW, I'd like to be pinged when you post your article. Have heard about it, but know very little. Take care.
Perhaps we are both seeing pseudoscience. In any case, I agree with that statement. Both homosexuals and heterosexuals, and all of the other various offshoots have control over their actions unless they are insane. I don't believe they are. That is not the issue however.
I am a married heterosexual male. Occasionally, I am attracted to women other than my wife. It could be said that I'm genetically pre-disposed to such attraction. However, it would be an utterly improper, wicked, and loathsome act for me to engage in sexual relations with a woman not my wife.
I agree with that. But nevertheless society has a different take on that. And we live in a secular society not a religious society. Those kinds of moral codes (and I agree with your example) should be between you, your wife and God. Others who have a different moral code will act differently.
The concept really isn't that hard to comprehend. The attraction, even if it's genetic (and I'm not saying that it is--it's probably about 90% derived from childhood psychological problems), is not the problem. It's the activity.
Well, first I will take exception to your so called authoritative statement. You have no idea. I will be happy to share links on causal factors versus correlative factors if you care to.
As for your silly statement, as I told you before, no one can answer honestly a false dichotomy. Those are not either or questions. They are not always true in any case. Please state the authority for such a set of questions. I'm not going to play silly games with you.
It's difficult to have respect for anyone who attempts to label someone a homo-troll. I apologize if I made you look foolish, but you apparently don't need my help. Some here can give lessons in inanity to DU.
First with all due respect, I don't give a s*** what you or your twisted friends believe I am. When I violate the rules of this forum, you know how to hit the abuse button. You do it almost daily. You people make the Inquisition look good. Tell your cult leader your little game didn't work. Any time you seriously want to discuss something in an objective manner, let me know.
Until then, all threads on Free Republic are, to the best of my knowledge, open to all posters who follow the rules. When I see lies, distortions, misrepresentations, or simply emotional babble, I may come in and correct the record. But there is one difference. I will defend anything I say. Most of you folks can't or won't. Free Republic is a forum, not a pulpit. Take care.
That's a good, simple question. I like it! The answer is "no"!
Yep!
Several in your "group" have. I have no persecution complex at all. If I did, I certainly wouldn't give folks like you the time I have. And don't you go around charging anyone with attacking until you look at your posts first.
I believe you are a seminar poster because you act exactly like one. For example, you respond to simple questions with a stream of vitriol-
Take a look at the posts to me from your group and then lets discuss vitriol. This from your group for example. Troll, homo-troll, homo lover, leftist, Marxist, terrorist. And you have the gall to accuse me of vitriol?
Can you not answer a simple question which cuts directly to the heart of the matter?
I have never failed to respond to any decent, responsible argument. I responded earlier with as honest an answer as I could by saying neither of your propositions was 100% true, as few are except to the most blind extremist.
But ok. I'll discuss the question again.
Define "good". Is it not in the eye of the beholder? The adjective itself is completely subjective. To a capitalist, capitalism is good. To a socialist, socialism is good. To a heterosexual, heterosexual acts are good. To a homosexual, homosexual acts are good.
Now lets get to homosexual acts. If, as most of us here would agree, San Francisco style bath house sex acts are harmful and without protection are a significant cause of AIDS and other STDs, then monogamous, protected sex is better. Would you not agree?
Heterosexual promiscuity is bad. It is worse if done unprotected, because the same dangers lurk as with the San Francisco bath houses.
I would prefer to see both homosexuals and heterosexuals engaging in monogamous relationships. Both are far preferable to unprotected promiscuous sex. Most of those adjectives you listed are better defined by each individual. I don't even understand how someone can be attracted to another of the same gender. But they are, and such kinds of people have been around from the dawn of man. You are not going to change that fact. If they want to attempt to be a part of society, other than marriage itself, I am not wise enough to try and outlaw those attempts.
But unlike many here who fear that monogamous relationships will spell an end to the bath houses, and therefore reduce dramatically their contribution to AIDS, thus negating their greatest objections to homosexuals, I suffer from no such paranoia. They have the same constitutional rights I do, no more, no less.
MAC, unfortunately again I have no time to enter the debate. I'm stealing from the clock to be here at all. Here's a link to Stanley Kurtz' latest, and it would be interesting to see how you deal with his arguments.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1638477/posts
Zombie Killers: A.K.A., “Queering the Social”
National Review Online ^ | 5/25/2006 | Stanley Kurtz
From what I gather, you are saying that there is no absolute "good", "bad", and therefore no absolute "right" or "wrong". Such things are in the eye of the beholder. Am I reading you right?
Just caught this comment of yours:
"But unlike many here who fear that monogamous relationships will spell an end to the bath houses, and therefore reduce dramatically their contribution to AIDS, thus negating their greatest objections to homosexuals..."
This is a pretty outrageous accusation to make. What you are saying in essence is that many of us who object to the homosexual agenda actually want homosexuals to get AIDS and die. This is slander of the worst sort.
If you have followed the discussion with the poster I was replying to, he set up a false dichotomy and was attempting to get me to agree to it. Of course, neither of his points in the ridiculous statements were true 100% of the time, and both were compounded by a series of completely subjective terms that have no absolute value. I am more comfortable with a few examples of right and wrong, but terms such as "good", "bad" "wholesome", etc, simply defy any attempt at absolutes. I gave some examples. I think liberals are "bad" because they lie and politicize the war on terror. They think I am "bad" because I support a war on terror. They think their mission is good and I think mine is also. But they are mutually exclusinve. Who is right? Falling into that trap does a disservice to logic and debate.
Taking it even closer to home, in the debate on immigration, terms such as good and bad have been frequently used to describe those who support legalizing immigration and who support a strong border. Who is right? Where you stand is where you sit.
This is a pretty outrageous accusation to make. What you are saying in essence is that many of us who object to the homosexual agenda actually want homosexuals to get AIDS and die.
Again you may be misunderstanding me. I don't accuse anyone of wanting homosexuals to die. But I have been here long enough to know how useful the homosexual contribution to AIDS is in the pursuit of a point. I have heard it continually, and even in discussions on monogamy, several here challenge that in terms of the propensity of gays and lesbians to group and other promiscuous activities. So I would never accuse anyone here of wanting someone to die. In any case, if they made such an outrageous statement, I suspect they would be banned.
I'll check out the article a bit later. Take care.
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.