Posted on 01/31/2005 4:41:14 PM PST by newsgatherer
In a contentious debate between myself and some radical 'gays' who support the teaching of the 'gay' lifestyle to children, one of them asked me if and when I had 'chosen' to be heterosexual. "Was it at age 3, 6, 13, 19?" he asked, "Or did you (a female) just 'naturally' gravitate towards boys or men without any outside pressure or force?" This question, laden with implied meaning, is a favorite tactical 'trap' set by 'gays' for unsuspecting and unprepared heterosexuals. It plays upon and manipulates our consciences so as to cause us to feel guilty; it lures us into setting aside logic and reason and calls upon us to be led by emotion; it purposefully lends itself to creating confusion. Its' underlying premise is that 'gay' behavior is the result of 'orientation', a meaningless, nonsensical term meant to fool us into believing in the existence of a hitherto unheard of third gender or race. Thus we are coaxed into concluding that 'gayness' and heterosexuality must be the same and therefore 'gayness' is deserving of 'inclusion, sensitivity, and rights.' This is nothing but a cleverly crafted fable, but to dissent against it is to be guilty of hate, 'homophobia,' bigotry, and racism.
My response, just below, seemingly disarmed them and after calling me a few obligatory names, they quit the debate.
"There was no 'choice'........there was never any question........my gravitation towards the opposite sex occured as naturally as breathing air. Now for yourself, 'something' occured that interfered with your natural 'gravitational' process towards the opposite sex and manhood that, in effect, stunted it in much the same way as a baby duck can have its natural progression towards becoming a mature duck interfered ...
(Excerpt) Read more at christian-news-in-maine.com ...
snip..."and has been informed that it just might not be.......ah...do you read FR?"
Some more empty hot air from the 'no answers, just overly nuanced quibbles" guy who hopes he's being slick, but isn't, in fact.
You have an iron in this fire. And it's a personal one, else you wouldn't be on the 'overly nuanced' offensive.
That's some pretty thick skin you have as a writer, my friend. Your piece can't stand up to peer review, so you figure everyone else has the problem, not you.
You have an iron in this fire. And it's a personal one, else you wouldn't be on the 'overly nuanced' offensive.
All this anti-gay stuff has zero, nada, zilch to do with conservatism---that's my beef with this piece and its posting on FR, if you must know what drew me to this thread. Of course, you're perfectly free to post it, and receive comments on it, etc. . . . but don't be surprised when you don't receive a Hallelujuah from everyone. If you ask me, if anything could possibly stand in the way of conservatism, especially now that we have the liberals on the ropes, it'll be the work of hysterical anti-queer people, like you. Mark my words: you'll be the ones who kill our momentum.
Ow, my side! stop it! ROFLMAO
"All this anti-gay stuff has zero, nada, zilch to do with conservatism---that's my beef with this piece and its posting on FR, if you must know what drew me to this thread. Of course, you're perfectly free to post it, and receive comments on it, etc. . . . but don't be surprised when you don't receive a Hallelujuah from everyone. If you ask me, if anything could possibly stand in the way of conservatism, especially now that we have the liberals on the ropes, it'll be the work of hysterical anti-queer people, like you. Mark my words: you'll be the ones who kill our momentum."
I think I'll take a stab at this one if I may.
1) This is not an "anti-gay" piece, it is an "anti-gay-movement" piece. Love the sinner, hate the sin sort of stuff.
2) The very root of conservatism is the root of logic and truth. Pronouncing this piece and its' praise as "momentum killing" is far from it. We are in the throngs of shaking off a very real (and very liberal) threat to our societal structure - pronouncement of a deviant as (in a moral relativist view) "equal" to the norm and "just as acceptable and useful" as any other decision is flat-out WRONG.
There is no use for it, it is a disease (as the psychological instituions knew from day-one until they were bought out and literally strong armed into striking homosexuality from the book of diseases), it is something that can be cured. Thus it has no reason but for gain of it's proponents.
This makes the homosexual-movement itself a corrupt and therefore evil thing. Believing in Good and Evil is a very conservative thing to do. Chosing a side is important to not only surviving, but thriving in this world.
and
3) calling someone "anti-queer" is exactly the same as using the ol' "homophobe" line the liberals use to describe anyone using truth to combat their little brain-child.
Thank-you. Your summation was right on target.
I don't agree with this at all. While that may have been Ms. Kimball's intent, let's examine her prose:
"There was no 'choice'........there was never any question........my gravitation towards the opposite sex occured as naturally as breathing air. Now for yourself, 'something' occured that interfered with your natural 'gravitational' process towards the opposite sex and manhood that, in effect, stunted it in much the same way as a baby duck can have its natural progression towards becoming a mature duck interferedNote how she uses inflection on the words "choice," "something," and "gravitational," suggesting a degree of incredulty where these words appear in the paragraph. For example, she's shocked anyone could consider sexuality a "choice," since her sexuality came as natural to her as breating air. "Something" must've happened in a homosexual's life that convinced him or her to become a homosexual---but the author cannot fathom what that something could be, since it's so unthinkable to her. And how unthinkable could that "gravitational" force be? Again, something so bizarre and unprecedented that Ms. Kimball cannot comprehend why or how it could happen.
Should I get into the derision Ms. Kimball implies by selecting a childish and simplistic analogy---the baby duck---to prove her point, or do you get mine? I mean, Ms. Kimball's intent is clearly encapsulated in one line:
Just as you are still a heterosexual despite that you believe you are 'something else'.
2) The very root of conservatism is the root of logic and truth. Pronouncing this piece and its' praise as "momentum killing" is far from it. We are in the throngs of shaking off a very real (and very liberal) threat to our societal structure - pronouncement of a deviant as (in a moral relativist view) "equal" to the norm and "just as acceptable and useful" as any other decision is flat-out WRONG.
Your declaration, "The very root of conservatism is the root of logic and truth," is so nebulous it's useless and meaningless. What legitimate human endeavor or undertaking purposefully has as its root "illogic" and "untruth"? Every movement, especially political movements, believes it has truth and logic on its side. I'm sure Liberals think truth and logic are squarely on their side.The very root of conservatism is the protection of individual rights. Individual rights exist equally for all men and women, wholly apart from sexuality: an individual does not enjoy more rights because he or she is a heterosexual; an individual does not enjoy less rights because he or she is a homosexual. This is the very reason conservatives do not support hate crime laws, is it not?
The hysterically anti-gay contingent who consider themselves conservatives will do more harm than good to the conservative movement---trust me. Let me amend that: I think those who are trying to keep the gay agenda from being a part of a school's curriculum, as they are here in Massachusetts, is very commendable. It's those who feel they must cure homosexuals and rid the world of homosexuality who will do more harm than good to the conservative movement. Because, as I'll repeat below, "social engineering is the modus operandi of the socialist." Not the conservative.
There is no use for it, it is a disease (as the psychological instituions knew from day-one until they were bought out and literally strong armed into striking homosexuality from the book of diseases), it is something that can be cured. Thus it has no reason but for gain of it's proponents.
This makes the homosexual-movement itself a corrupt and therefore evil thing. Believing in Good and Evil is a very conservative thing to do. Chosing a side is important to not only surviving, but thriving in this world.
Evidently, you have a problem with homosexuality, and you've ruminated on it quite a bit. You have every right as an individual to have a problem with homosexuality, but your opinion doesn't really matter to a homosexual, nor should it. He or she has his life, you have yours, and both lives are justified.To a conservative, the only thing that should matter is that the homosexual doesn't trample on your individual rights, you don't trample on his or hers, and the government doesn't trample on either of you. The only thing that should matter is living your life in peace and harmony with your fellow countrymen. Social engineering is the modus operandi of the socialist.
3) calling someone "anti-queer" is exactly the same as using the ol' "homophobe" line the liberals use to describe anyone using truth to combat their little brain-child.
Ah yes, the appeal to name-calling. I called it as I saw it: in this piece, Ms. Kimball is very anti-queer. If she wasn't, she wouldn't have written this piece, and she wouldn't be involved in the movement.
snip...The very root of conservatism is the protection of individual rights. Individual rights exist equally for all men and women, wholly apart from sexuality: an individual does not enjoy more rights because he or she is a heterosexual; an individual does not enjoy less rights because he or she is a homosexual. This is the very reason conservatives do not support hate crime laws, is it not?
LK...Your argument has no logical flow. You began by stating correctly, that our rights are "equally" for men & women {two genders only, unless you know of a 3rd or 4th?}, but that sexuality has no place in the scheme of things. That's correct. But having said that, you then backtracked and tacked your pro-same-sex stance on. Either sexuality plays a part in our rights or it does not. One or the other, but not both and no exceptions for people who claim they are something other than what the rest of us are.
HG...What legitimate human endeavor or undertaking purposefully has as its root "illogic" and "untruth"?
LK....Yours?
Huh? How did I back-track? Your explanation makes no sense, so please try again.I wrote that sexuality has no bearing on one's individual rights. I tried to illustrate that point by suggesting that one of the reasons conservatives do not support hate crime legislation is because no "protected" class of citizen enjoys more of a right than an "unprotected" class of citizen enjoys: in other words, murder is murder, whether the victim of the murder was heterosexual or homosexual. Again, conservatives are concerned with the protection of individual rights. Perhaps you're not that kind of conservative.
HG...What legitimate human endeavor or undertaking purposefully has as its root "illogic" and "untruth"?
LK....Yours?
This childish response does seem to be the extent of your ability to apply logic and reason to an argument . . . at least you're consistent.
"Should I get into the derision Ms. Kimball implies by selecting a childish and simplistic analogy---the baby duck---to prove her point, or do you get mine? I mean, Ms. Kimball's intent is clearly encapsulated in one line: "
Was it Plato or Socrates? "An idea is only as useful as it can be communicated."
Or even if it was neither, consider this: Greater genius than yourself arrived to the conclusion that analogies are useful. Study some philosophy, then ask the question "what is an 'imperfect image?'"
"Just as you are still a heterosexual despite that you believe you are 'something else'. "
I agree here. This is not "anti-queer" this is telling someone to wake up! There is no reason for homosexuality, not even a genetic one. However, the homosexual is still anatomically and psychologically capable of having a heterosexual relationship. We are all humans based on the intent to be "heterosexual"
"Your declaration, "The very root of conservatism is the root of logic and truth," is so nebulous it's useless and meaningless....
"The very root of conservatism is the protection of individual rights....
"This is the very reason conservatives do not support hate crime laws, is it not? "
Ok then, I'll correct myself. The very root of MY conservatism is logic. I feel that if one person is treated one way, another should not be treated differently. This is because it LOGICALLY denies rights or grants them where they don't exist. You will find that if you followed your own thoughts, this would be your conclusion as well.
"Evidently, you have a problem with homosexuality, and you've ruminated on it quite a bit. You have every right as an individual to have a problem with homosexuality, but your opinion doesn't really matter to a homosexual, nor should it. He or she has his life, you have yours, and both lives are justified. "
Of course they have their lives and I have mine. So do murderers and so does Saddam and OBL.
Do I get to be critical of their lives? Yes.
Do I get to voice that? Yes.
Do I get to help them if they can be helped? According to yourself, that makes me have "a problem with it"
You can fix it, it has been fixed before. The homosexual movement (as I said before) is founded on one thing and one thing only. Power for those that wish to further the "gay agenda"
This isn't about "rights." They have every right to seek help (as it has been done and solved for years using true psychology) They have the right to live their lives without changing mine (and without their's being changed)
The only thing I propose is that they bring it back into line with manic-depression, psychosis, anorexia, schizophrenia, and barophobia. It was there once, and was removed politically, not scientifically.
"To a conservative, the only thing that should matter is that the homosexual doesn't trample on your individual rights, you don't trample on his or hers, and the government doesn't trample on either of you. The only thing that should matter is living your life in peace and harmony with your fellow countrymen. Social engineering is the modus operandi of the socialist. "
Funny thing is, if these people (as I am proposing) are suffering from an illness, they are having their right to life and libery taken from them. I support them getting help and letting them stop suffering from delusional feelings.
And to support my assetion that homosexuality is an illness (aside from every non-political psychologist) I give you this: Every (yes, all of them, 100%) homo/bisexual I have ever gotten to know has confided in me that they have had at least one of the following occur to them...
1) Loss of a parental figure early in life (pre-puberty)
2) Have been raped/sexually abused by a memeber of the same sex
3) Are also suffering from depression (even before "discovering" they are gay)
4) or in some other way had an abusive family member (or close family friend)
(this came from a source of 16 people from a total population of roughly 5000)
Any one of those is ample reason for a court to give someone an insanity plea instead of death. Yet these are all the history of the "healthy" homosexual mind.
These people have had a large portion of their mental health stripped from them. Therapy not "embracing your inner homosexuality" is how you fix it. I am not willing to foot the bill for this, but it should be expressed to these individuals that they are not normal and that they need to stop trying to force it into "normalcy."
"Ah yes, the appeal to name-calling. I called it as I saw it: in this piece, Ms. Kimball is very anti-queer. If she wasn't, she wouldn't have written this piece, and she wouldn't be involved in the movement. "
You're the one who called someone names. I referred to where you learned your tactic. And by the way, I seem to have read it again and still don't come to your conclussion. She is very "anti-'queer' movement", yes. She is not by any means anti-queer though. I believe you are a conservative just fine, just don't fall into liberal pits
Again, love the sinner, hate the sin. It's a simple concept, and it does wonders for your viewpoints on life (like allowing you to actually have moral standards, but not alienate everyone in the world)
And to think, you're still but a college student, as yet unsure of a career in law enforcement or basket weaving (underwater), and already you've progressed to such a lofty perch that you can dispense sage advise like this! I, for one, am impressed. Of course, someone of your intellectual acumen must have already considered that there could be others who participate on FR who---dare I say it---are no longer college students, or, no longer graduate students, even . . . because of matriculation! Could there be other Freepers who are---shudder---more accomplished in academics than you? Perish the thought.Ahh, the hubris of youth. I'll forgive your embarrassing suggestion and simply remind you that I suggested Ms. Kimball's analogy was childish and simplistic; not the use of analogy itself. Reading comprehension is your friend.
The majority of your post marks you as a crusader in the great cause of liberating homosexuals from themselves. On this point we'll never agree; I firmly believe homosexuals have a right to live however they choose to live, and do not need to be "saved" or "cured" by earnest, evangelical heterosexuals such as you---despite your vast experience with troubled homosexuals. Live and let live. It's the conservative way.
So we must agree to disagree on that score. But, if you'll notice, nothing that you or Ms. Kimball posted in the last day or so comes close to defending Ms. Kimball's original work. Urban_Guerilla remains the winner.
I will, grant you that I did misread your post about the childishness of the analogy. My appologies there.
"And to think, you're still but a college student, as yet unsure of a career in law enforcement or basket weaving (underwater), and already you've progressed to such a lofty perch that you can dispense sage advise like this! I, for one, am impressed. Of course, someone of your intellectual acumen must have already considered that there could be others who participate on FR who---dare I say it---are no longer college students, or, no longer graduate students, even . . . because of matriculation! Could there be other Freepers who are---shudder---more accomplished in academics than you? Perish the thought."
An elder flaunting their age. Wow, I was sure showed there. Yep, that's never been done before. And the best part is is it MUST be true, because an elder said it.
"The majority of your post marks you as a crusader in the great cause of liberating homosexuals from themselves."
And you never even once, in your mind, considered that I may have well suffered from and recovered from delusions of homo or bisexuality? That I may have working knowledge of the pain involved with such a black and distorted view of one's self? My "crusade" is the same as any one who has ever not wanted someone else to fall where they fell. My "crusade" is to see others learn before they get hurt.
I think that the article summed up (regardless of how childish) the entire experience rather well.
I'm older than you think. I just happen to be at college at this point in my life.
"Live and let live. It's the conservative way."
Then why bother to fight for other people's freedoms here and around the world? You gotta give something for others to be a human. The difference is if it's given or allowed to be taxed from you that makes you conservative or liberal.
As for defending the person (or the article), I was defending the idea the person presented. You attacked the article and stated it was overused and more or less gave the feeling that it was of no consequence ,due largely to the fact that you defend homosexuality as a "Right" for someone to have. (Much the way one would defend the "
Right" for someone to cut gashes in their head to make the voices go away.)
I hold that these people have the right to LIVE life, not to live a SHAM and praise themselves for it. Any action that prevents someone from living a normal life is in fact getting in their way of their freedom of Pursuit of Happiness. This is why stalkers now have laws against them. This is why people who have unnatural fears are taken in to wards and treated so they can live their normal lives. This is why disabled people are given a chance to work for their money. (By the way, I took up law enforcement)
They are still human, they are still loved, they just need help. They need to recognize they need help. Enough with the hand-holding "queer is here, get used to it" stuff. We need to get on with our lives, and so do they.
snip..I'll forgive your embarrassing suggestion and simply remind you that I suggested Ms. Kimball's analogy was childish and simplistic; not the use of analogy itself. Reading comprehension is your friend.
snip....Of course it's simplistic.
And using the duck analogy makes it easy for children to understand as well. And that's very important, since innocent children are being led into the unnatural subculture existence of 'gays'.
Face it Hemmingway, you have a 'very personal' iron in this fire and your nose is out of joint. You can't touch the underlying truth of the article so you're reduced to launching petty attacks against the author, the analogy and any other nit-picky thing you can dream up.
And notice that urbane guerilla decamped rather than to try and defend his 'transmission of life' response. But then what sane and logical response can be made in defense of 'transmitting life into the repository of waste'? None. But since you support the 'gay' culture, why don't you take a stab at defending that instead of attacking the duck analogy???
snip...Now that you've shown us you know how to use a dictionary, give us some documented evidence which shows that the arguments made by the author have been used before and so very often, that they can be qualified as 'trite'. If you can't, then we'll know you were offering nothing more than an empty and TRITE opinion.
How about responding to this Hemmingway? Show us some documentation to back up your claim.
But here's what I think, based on my years of experience in discuss/debate groups: you're a 'hit and run' artist. A quibbler and caviler who, in lieu of offering a substantive refutation, simply nitpicks the article under discussion to death with baseless, empty, deceptive, and emotionally manipulative suggestions. And thus I have NO EXPECTATIONS that you will honestly respond to any of the quibbly little attacks you've made. Your sort are also known as 'baiters'.
Lindy, you have to face a truth. Christian men put their private part into their Christian woman's non-reproductive part, and Christian women willingly and joyfully take their Christian man's private part into their mouth, and a Christian woman willingly and even joyfully accepts the fluid into her mouth and onto her face, because that is simply the natural consequence of the animal part God blessed us all with.
As a Protestant, you do not accept Catholic doctrine, and so it is strange that you refer to Catholic doctrine in defense of your position.
Other than fidelity, honesty, devotion, truthfulness, integrity, what do you consider important in a relationship? How bodily fluids are transmitted?
Jesus asks: who will cast the first stone? And you stand up to the front?
Can you not possibly have more Christian goals to achieve?
Tell me, truthfully, has every sexual act in which you have engaged, been exclusively open to procreation? Every one? Or are you as evil as every homosexual?
The interesting difference between Catholics and non-Catholic Christians is precisely that non-Catholic Christians reject the Catholic pov, except apparently when they can use it against others.
Hardly, my friend. I merely meant to suggest that you should not lead with your chin.
The underlying truth of the article? Truth be told, it's not really an article, is it? It's more of a blog post than a reasoned piece one would submit for publication to a venue that actually paid for what they publish. And what, precisely, do you feel is my 'very personal' iron in this fire?And as far as any underlying truth to the piece is concerned, do you mean to articulate that homosexuality is a simple, curable, mental illness? That those who choose to reject your cure and remain homosexuals, or practice homosexual behavior, are evil? Are sub-human?
Let's establish some common ground before we argue any further.
And notice that urbane guerilla decamped rather than to try and defend his 'transmission of life' response. But then what sane and logical response can be made in defense of 'transmitting life into the repository of waste'? None. But since you support the 'gay' culture, why don't you take a stab at defending that instead of attacking the duck analogy???
Gay people are people, just like you are and I am---no better, no worse. What's to discuss?
What the hell are you talking about? I've been posting on Free Republic regularly since 1998, and under this handle since 1999---hardly a hit-and-run poster. And you expect me, honestly, to search back through everything ever written everywhere and cite every time some simplistic Christian fool used a trite analogy to "explain" homosexual development? Give me a break, Lindykim---you must read very little.
Most serial killers were homosexuals.
I recall being patronized for my "already achieving lofty goals" in things like "using logic on a conservative forum"(you called it "dispensing sage advice"), not you telling me to keep myself better guarded in a conversation/debate.
If you meant I should make a more airtight arguement, perhaps I should have asked you to do things like ignore people's age and stick to the subject at hand.
. . . Because, after putting on airs by suggesting I need to brush up on philosophy, you made such a glaring, humorous error, I couldn't resist tweaking your nose a little bit. You pretty much taped a "Kick Me" sign on your own back.
If you meant I should make a more airtight arguement, perhaps I should have asked you to do things like ignore people's age and stick to the subject at hand.
Which is what, exactly? How bad this piece was? Are homosexuals born or trained? Are homosexuals evil, de facto?
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.