Teen radio host says 'Obama makes kids gay' in hate speech posted to YouTube

Mail Online ^ | June 7 2012 | Emily Ann Epstein

[scottjewell]

A 14-year-old radio show host has come out and condemned President Barack Obama for 'making kids gay' by supporting homosexual's civil rights. Caiden Cowger, who has interviewed the likes of Herman Caine and hobnobbed with Rudy Giuliani, posted a four and a half minute video on May 26 in which he insists homosexuality is a choice - and a sin. The video immediately drew the ire of dozens of people and was eventually removed from YouTube for promoting hate speech, while Caiden's account was hacked and deleted, the teen told the MailOnline.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2155710/Caiden-Cowger-Teen-radio-host-says-Obama-makes-kids-gay-YouTube-video.html#ixzz1x7oWYLKL

[scottjewell]

Well, I really do actually want to go there, as a Christian: I studied Nichomachean ethics, metaphysics, politics, in an intensive Aristotlean study ; I am schooled in Thomas Aquinas and his Natural Law theory, and am Thomistic myself, philosophically. His Summa Theologica was one of my first loves.

But we both know nature makes mistakes: The autistic, the deaf, the blind, those with juvenile diabetes: the list goes on and on. And some seem homosexual in JUST this manner. I will not doubt what experience and empirical studies have shown me. And let us face it, we are in the 21st century, and must pay heed to sociological and neuro-brain science studies and a plethora of social advances.

For the rest, for the vast culture, heterosexuality and Natural Law theory must hold. But we will not ask the autistic to act normal. We will not demand conformity where there can be none.

The Mercy of Jesus over-rides Natural Law theory and Thomistic philosophy. But even Jesus would be appalled at the gay agenda. In summnation, then: Tolerance for the miscreant, but no celebration of a vast, vast agenda to glorify and multiply some hybrid of miscreant and normal on a global scale.

[Houghton M.]

“Something tells me you think if you admit I am right, this will unravel NARTH. I say no. No, it won’t.”

You know, guessing at my intentions and assumptions over the internet ain’t smart.

As I had written upthread, NARTH is open to conclusive evidence for your category A. If and when conclusive evidence arrives, I’ll accept it.

Much depends on how small your small percentage is. There’s always the possiblity of an infinitesimally small percentage of any sample contradicting the rest. But whether the small percentage is large enough to stake out a position on a kind of same-sex attraction that is natural (your category A) is the issue.

You go from the existence of A as a small group to conclude that, therefore, that in some instances, same-sex attraction is “natural.”

If conclusive evidence of a very small Group A arose, I would not thereby conclude that there’s “Sexual Nature A” (Hetero) and “sexual nature B” (homo), at least for a “very small percentage” and that God blesses those in that very small percentage.

To the degree that a few individuals fall into your category A I would say that, for some mysterious reason, this disorder (and it would still be a disorder, be unnatural, be a grave affliction) has afflicted some child at birth. I would favor therapy for your category A.

What I won’t do is simply throw up my hands and say, well, if it’s inborn in a small percentage it creates a second natural category.

I won’t go there because I believe God made us naturally heterosexual and I will not give that up come hell or high water. I will call homosexual orientation a grave, sad, unchosen disorder and I will do what I can to help those afflicted with it overcome it.

And I will be damned for that and go to prison. But I won’t give up natural law.

And I will also declare that almost all heterosexuals today have imbibed various kinds of disordered sexuality. Separating sex from procreation (denying natural law) has caused us immense, terrible, evil affliction, across the board. When you abaondon Nature you set off on a straight line for Hell.

[scottjewell]

@Houghton For practical purposes, I will admit, NARTH must be suspicious of all evidence which is not concrete and indisputable, in terms of the etiology of homosexuality. And a slippery slope could easily come of what I am saying. Yet this A and B distinction is something I am certain of, having spent a lot of time with the gay community. Believe it or not, a significant minority of gays WANT to stay in the closet. I know this. Just recall, it was the cry of those who appear to have an inborn disorder, who were grabbed from the closet, and used as a vehicle which turned into a a civil rights response. It will happen so long as that tiny group A is not conceded its existence. The fight really must be social and cultural.

[Houghton M.]

Okay, this clarifies. But you can’t, then, just bless your category A and tell them to enter into a homosexual relationship and that God will bless it.

If you do that then you ain’t following Thomas Aquinas or the Nichomachean Ethics. Show me where either of them says, “shoot, I’ve got this disorder and I didn’t choose it but, well, God blesses my disorder and when I act upon it, He won’t mind.”

[stuartcr]

What are you cussing for? I just asked how you think it started. Calm down.

If it’s a disorder, why would God consider it a sin?

[scottjewell]

I agree with you on nearly all.

Maybe it is better to shut one’s eyes to that small category. :( My B encompasses all you say. So I will just forget the A for now, or we will be arguing ‘til Kingdom Come.

Of course Liberal Nihilism and Postmodernism has to hate Essentialism and Natural Law. You and I tip to the latter, and have a horror of the former. This really isn’t even about homosexuality, and NARTH knows how high the stakes really are, and what the fight is truly about.

[Houghton M.]

I applaud your concern for those in your category A. NARTH agrees that the origin is mysterious, that there are no easy answers, that there’s a lot of pain, that therapy is iffy at best.

I applaud your concern. I just don’t think your way out, identifying a very small category A and telling them that God don’t really mind much if you enter into a committed homosexual relationship,

is helpful, either to those afflicted in this way or to society as a whole.

[Houghton M.]

If you read what I wrote I explicitly said

the disorder is NOT a sin, precisely because it is not chosen

acting, specific acts, based on the disorder, if freely chosen, are sins

the disorder is grave, not trivial; those afflicted with it deserve compassion and therapy, though as of now we have no therapy that works in all or most cases.

[eartrumpet]

The comments are hilarious ... for example "stop preaching hate you dumb little bastard!". Isn't that precious? Some liberals are not intelligent enough to comprehend hypocrisy.

My favorite liberal blindness quote was a few weeks back when boxer Manny Pacquiao was asked his views on homosexuals and he answered honestly. Next thing he knew, he was banned from some shopping center.

"Based on news reports of statements made by Mr. Pacquiao we have made it be known that he is not welcome at The Grove and will not be interviewed here now or in the future. The Grove is a gathering place for all Angelenos and not a place for intolerance."

[scottjewell]

"If it’s a disorder, why would God consider it a sin?" --Yes, yes, and yes. This is the crux of my argument with Houghton. Autism is a severe disorder; to live autistically is to live a disordered life. But God should not condemn the autistic. Right for the disabled, and a culture which is NOT decadent. Both ARE possible, though Houghton will never believe it.

[stuartcr]

So if a person is a homosexual, stays in the closet and never has a same sex relationship, God is ok with it, it’s not a sin and they won’t go to hell?

[Houghton M.]

I
NEVERF
SAID
THE
DISORDER
IS
A
SIN

With you, Scottjewell, I disputed not the orientation is a disorder. We agree it’s a disorder. We disagree about whether it is ever inborn.

I consistently wrote that as a disorder it is not freely chosen. The orientation/disorder is NOT a sin.

Acting on it is a sin, to the degree that the acts are knowingly chosen.

You want to make acting on it not a sin for your category A of inborn disordered. Stipulating that your Category A even exists, I dispute your saying that the acts are not sinful if they arise (for Category A people) from inborn disorder.

I say acts are sins no matter what, if they are freely chosen. (People who have been so lied to, manipulated etc. into believing that it’s Natural may not be capable of entirely free choice anymore).

[dfwgator]

I wonder in some cases abused people become gay as a way of trying to “normalize” in their heads what happened to them, more as a coping mechanism.

[Forward the Light Brigade]

Foolish Girl. She must have thought she lived in a free nation. You are free to speak bad things about only a few subjects: Rich White People, Roman Catholics, Christians, etc... You must speak no ill of Gays, blacks or Latinos!

[Houghton M.]

They won’t go to hell.

God’s not okay with the disorder. God is the God of truth, nature, order. He wants disorder healed.

God is okay with their choice not to act on the disordered orientation. He would be very pleased at their courageous, suffering choice to do right rather than wrong.

He would also ask those with heterosexual orientations to be compassionate toward those afflicted with the disorder of same-sex attraction, to do whatever we can to understand whence the disorder arises and to find ways to overcome the disorder.

God is not okay with disorder.

God is okay with people who don’t given to their disorder.

You are probably to some degree disordered heterosexually. God knows I am. Almost all of us are. Our culture is so permeated with disordered heterosexuality that most of us have been disordered to some degree by it. We all have to resist and seek to overcome the disorders we are afflcted with. If we give in to the disorder and act on the disorder, we sin.

[Morgana]

I wish that just once someone would dress up as a muzzie and say that homosexuality is a sin on youtube.

Pass me the popcorn because I know who will win that one.

[Morgana]

“As a Psychologist, I would have to say yes. In more than 25 years of practice, every single person that I have counseled who lived a homosexual lifestyle reported that they had been sexually abused (forced to participate) as a child by someone of the same gender. I have counseled more than 500 such individuals to date.”

I said this to a woman I know the other day when we were discussing why people are gay. She did not believe me. I told her to ask the gay people she know if in fact they were sexually abuse some time in their lives.

I knew a woman who was raped in HS. She is a lesbian now. Not surprised. The rape was so brutal it almost killed her. Even with rape counseling how does someone like that ever get over it?

[scottjewell]

Gasp! I hear you, Houghton. Loud and clear. And I thank you for applauding my sincerity or pity or what have you. Here is what may be the crux of it, encompassing NARTH, Natural Law Theory, and the Culture: 1. A tiny minority might do best to live quiet, low-profile lives as DISABLED/disordered homosexuals. 2. But this would not mean that this ought to be CELEBRATED as a new norm. 3. Ergo, if NARTH were to come out with, "Well, with some of them, we really just do not know WHAT to do", these would be seen as comprising a small DISABLED minority. 4. As sure as the sun rises, kids on college campuses , hearing that they were not embracing and celebrating a new norm, a new equality, but were rather joining a disabled minority, would have a "yeeech" reaction, and drop it like a hot potato. Problem solved, the agenda becomes unpopular....Natural Law Theory makes a come-back.

[scottjewell]

I wonder in some cases abused people become gay as a way of trying to “normalize” in their heads what happened to them, more as a coping mechanism. Absolutely. Rationalization is a typical response to trauma. Idealization of the abuser is rampant in victims. NARTH is absolutely on the mark regarding this group (victims of childhood sexual abuse, who rationalize the abuse as "celebrating my gay identity".)

[stuartcr]

ok