Posted on 10/07/2006 12:38:38 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
Liberals are experts at framing debates in their favor. Since the Foley fiasco hit the news, the emphasis has been on evils lurking within the Republican Party.
Incredibly, political editor Brian E. Crowley of the Palm Beach Post opined, "Rumors that Foley is gay have swirled around him for years. … But on Friday, whether Foley was a homosexual or a heterosexual no longer seemed to matter."
Really? Why would that be considered inconsequential? Could it be because the Democrat Party embraces legalizing homosexual marriage and inserting homosexual material into public school textbooks designed for children as young as grammar school, as demonstrated in recent efforts by the California Legislature to indoctrinate students? That is the real story behind this media blitz that Democrats want Americans to miss.
While the leftist media focuses on the political ramifications surrounding Foley in an effort to gain points for liberal candidates in the upcoming election, the fact that a homosexual rather than a heterosexual preyed on a young male is being oddly overlooked. Few people are talking about it. And the question is "Why not?" The answer is important because to ignore it is to dismiss the real plight of many homosexuals today and their impact upon our culture, our children and our political scene.
Foley admits that he is a homosexual. Dare the question be asked whether homosexuals commit higher rates of molestation than heterosexuals do? Or are the thought police hard at work silencing the possible implications?
English professor Karla Jay, Ph.D., and well-educated journalist Allen Young, both homosexual activists, conducted the first major survey on homosexuality in America in 1979. Their work is still cited in academic studies and involved over 5,000 homosexuals from all walks of life. Titled "The Gay Report," the study published data on underage sex, disease, gross promiscuity, suicidal tendencies and more.
One cannot help but applaud the honesty of these two homosexuals in publishing the results of their study, which documented that "23 percent of respondents admitted to having had sex with youths aged 13-15, while 19 percent felt positive about sexual activity within this age group." Tragically, 50 percent of the males in their survey experienced their first sexual encounter at age 15 or less.
In spite of the fact that two gay researchers produced "The Gay Report," radical homosexual activists dismiss it as outdated. This is ironic considering they so often cite the much older 1948 "10 percent of society is gay" statistic from the oft-disputed Alfred Kinsey study.
But out of courtesy for their concerns, are there other esteemed elites drawing the same conclusions? Contrary to the homosexual assertion that heterosexual molestations outnumber those committed by homosexuals, Yale and Harvard-connected psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover states that "careful studies show that pedophilia is far more common among homosexuals than heterosexuals." Satinover adds, "The greater absolute number of heterosexual cases reflects the fact that heterosexual males outnumber homosexual males by approximately 36 to 1. Heterosexual child molestation cases outnumber homosexual cases by only 11 to 1, implying that pedophilia is more than three times more common among homosexuals."
So considering the fact that this type of sexual interest is shown by studies to occur more often in homosexual populations, is it any surprise that Mark Foley admitted he himself was molested as a teenager by a clergyman?
According to a report by Gregory Rogers featured on the website for the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, such issues raise "immediate questions … should gay priests be allowed access to Sunday Schools or youth groups?" Instead of asking that question, however, the liberal cohorts shift the spotlight off the homosexuals themselves and onto the church as a whole, just as they're now doing with the Republicans even though they themselves have a stained record in this regard.
While pointing their fingers at Republicans, who may have overlooked gross evil while focusing on political gain, liberals overlook a tremendous evil themselves by ignoring the truth about homosexual behavior. They fail to speak out for the innocent children caught in the path of a rabid homosexual agenda fueled by wounded people who refuse to change.
The truth is that the majority of Republicans oppose same-sex marriage and the insertion of homosexual dogma into schools, while most Democrats support it.
As David Kupelian states in his groundbreaking best seller "The Marketing of Evil," "The end game is not only to bring about the complete acceptance of homosexuality, including same-sex marriage, but also to prohibit and even criminalize public criticism of homosexuality."
And all of this at the expense of our children.
The largest clinical trial for this theory has already been conducted...what is the percentage of boys among children molested by Catholic priests? That will answer the question.
Perhaps it does. What do you think?
I was wondering if you had an unequivocal answer.
But it is obvious you are conflicted between logic and popular consensus in giving an opinion.
I don't blame you for that.
I don't give you an answer because I have no way of knowing the truth. I might as well flip a coin. That isn't equivocation, it's reasoned admission of ignorance.
Sigh.. shouldn't post just after waking up from a night out. I think the answer most likely to be true is that no, it is not just a numerical age difference that causes the trauma and thus constitutes abuse. It's probably a number of factors.. Familial relations, position of power/trust over victim, levels of coersion/consent, etc.
Society has decided a need to restrict underage sex, and has decided to do it mostly using the imperfect logic of ability ot consent.. You're right, I am "conflicted between logic and popular consensus" in arguing against the imperfect ability of consent scheme.
"I think...it is not just a numerical age difference that causes the trauma and thus constitutes abuse. It's probably a number of factors...Familial relations, position of power/trust over victim, levels of coercion/consent, etc.
Society has decided a need to restrict underage sex...."
1. "Society" has decided "a need" to restrict?
2. Is there such a thing as right or wrong in your thinking?
3. Do you know what a child is? A minor?
4. Is age a trivial factor in your mind?
5. Are you saying that if "familial relations" are good and a child and a relative consent, then psychological and physical harm won't necessarily result from sexual interaction?
6. And if the child "trusts" the older person and consents, then psychological and physical harm won't result. Is this what you're saying?
If this is what you believe, then there is absolutely no difference between the way you're thinking and the way a pedophile or molester of minors thinks on this issue.
I'm not saying you're a molester, but it would be helpful if you analyzed your own thinking on this. Because you're sounding like you'd fit in nicely at a NAMBLA parade.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding and you can explain?
Or perhaps I am understanding very well....
7. Which is it?
Please answer each numbered question directly if you could. A simple yes or no will suffice to keep this brief. I'm not meaning to offend, but I think a brief yes/no to those questions will help me to understand your position better.
1. yes, since that's what we do when we pass laws.. Biology equips us with the ability and desire to procreate at puberty; but to protect psychologically immature children from predation society has decided to legally establish a later age of consent.
2. of course there is.
3. In common usage, I always think of a child as someone who is between infancy and adolescence.. For our purposes though it's probably more like "not of age." Which in this case I guess would be either 18 or the age of consent, same definition as a minor.
4. Not quite sure what you mean.. Age difference in sex is not trivial unless both are adults.
5,6. You completely misunderstood what I said. He asked whether the trauma/damage of sexual abuse was related only to age. When I said "it's probably a number of factors...Familial relations, position of power/trust over victim, levels of coercion/consent" I meant the LEVEL of psychological damage would be INCREASED if the abuse were incestuous, if trust was betrayed, if it was forced/nonconsensual. Nothing in there was meant to legitimize statutory rape which is not incestuous, not a betrayal of trust, and not forced. He asked what might factor into the level of damage of abuse OTHER than age, I gave my best guesses.
7. You are misunderstanding.
Yes, I was misunderstanding. I'm sorry.
Thanks for your sincere reply and also for graciously answering my questions. Now I understand you better I think.
Wasn't long ago NAMBLA actually used to participate in Gay Pride parades....
at least until they became an embarrassment to gay rights advocates.
Sex outside of wedlock is a big problem. Period.
And marriage is for two mature people, one man and one woman. Period.
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.