Replies

Consequently, when a total stranger refers to another person's behavior or inclinations as "perversion"

I'm curious - how do you define perversion?

Here's how Merriam Webster defines perversion:

One entry found for perversion.

Main Entry: per·ver·sion
Pronunciation: p&r-'v&r-zh&n, -sh&n
Function: noun
1 : the action of perverting : the condition of being perverted
2 :perverted form; especially : an aberrant sexual practice especially when habitual and preferred to normal coitus

Using the above definition, would you say it's correct to refer to homosexuality (behavior) as perversion? Besides how the dictionary defines perversion, how do you think former homosexuals refer to their previous behavior? If they said it was perverted, would you give any weight to their opinion?

BTW, we've seen the other works of Charlotte Patterson on FR here and here - she's obviously pushing the homosexual agenda. And Perrin references Patterson's work.

Freeper EdReform has done some extensive work on the subject here, demonstrating the severe homosexual bias in the APA and Perrin. Please read that entire link for an excellent education on the subject.

Also, "Studies demonstrate that there is, in fact, a difference between non-heterosexual and heterosexual parenting. Children raised by non-heterosexual parents are placed at risk. They are more apt to experience gender and sexual confusion; they are more apt to become promiscuous; they are at greater risk of losing a parent to AIDS, substance abuse or suicide. They suffer more depression and other emotional difficulties. They are also more likely to engage in same-sex behavior." Source.

There's more. Much more. The problem with your position is you have only partial information, and that's a dangerous position to be in. We've been studying this issue for years and have seen it all.

Again, I very much encourage you to read what former homosexuals have to say on the matter.

How do I define perversion?

Well, first, I don't use terms maliciously to libel entire groups of people that I don't even know.

Honorable, decent, and rational people make intelligent distinctions in life.

For example, we make distinctions in law, moral precepts, and consequences exacted for (1) murder, (2) manslaughter, and (3) killing in self-defense---even though all 3 involve taking human life.

We don't maliciously choose LOWEST-COMMON-DENOMINATOR terminology to characterize all 3 situations. As I stated in previous messages, persons who use language to incite fear, hatred, revulsion, and disgust should not pretend to be motivated by religious or other positive values nor should they claim to be just "presenting facts".

Perversion refers to degrading, depraved, immoral acts. Forcing sex upon children, for example, would be perversion. However, depicting ALL sexual activity between two consenting adults (and the entire category of humans that they represent--which involves millions of people) as "depraved" or "perverted" betokens a desire to demonize and de-humanize people so that (1) fear and loathing can commence and (2) punitive, discriminatory policies and behavior can be justified

BTW, we've seen the other works of Charlotte Patterson on FR here and here - she's obviously pushing the homosexual agenda. And Perrin references Patterson's work. Scripter, in peer-reviewed scientific studies, simply asserting that someone is biased or inaccurate isn't sufficient. The way it works is this: If (for example) Patterson or Perrin write an article or book based upon data they obtained from some research project and another specialist in that field suspects that their conclusions are flawed---then, (a) qualified researchers may review the same data seen by the original authors to evaluate how the conclusions were reached. When applicable, the reviewers can specify what they think the original authors have missed OR perhaps they may present alternative interpretations of the same data in that study OR (b) qualified researchers can undertake a new study of their own on the same subject to discover whatever data is being sought -- and then write their own articles and books which are also subject to peer review. It is entirely possible that a study will reveal that factual data is not in dispute. Instead, how facts are put together to form reasonable conclusions is what causes disagreement. (Sort of like police arriving at a crime scene and interviewing 7 people---and discovering there are discrepancies among the 7 stories -- even though basic facts are not in dispute). In science, "Pushing an agenda" is not the only possible explanation for differences in interpretation of data. You make it sound like there is always ONE self-evident true conclusion and anyone who disagrees must be "pushing an agenda".