Posted on 05/26/2002 8:13:34 PM PDT by CalConservative
I haven't followed the entire argument, but the answer to this question is Yes.
Which of course illustrates why affirmative action should be abolished.
...but only until the Feds decide otherwise, and there-in lies the rub. All of our present day governmental problems always seem to revert to the same "original sin"... the Constitution, in spite of it's directly spoken restriction of Federal powers, is not enforced...not by the Supreme Court, and not by the citizens, who are ultimately responsible amd who will ultimately pay the price.
"Let´s look at gay behavior as defined by two gays, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen Ph.D., authors of After the Ball: How America will Conquer its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90´s (1989).
In Chapter Six, they outline ten categories of misbehavior, drawn from their own experiences, wide reading and thousands of hours of conversation with hundreds of other gays...
What follows are some highlights. As you read this, ask yourself if there is another human community, including the Mafia that could make these generalizations about itself. Ask yourself if we haven´t caught this disease, or at least the sniffles.
The authors say a surprisingly high percentage of pathological liars and con men are gay. This results from a natural habit of self-concealment, and leads to a stubborn self-deception about one´s own gayness and its implications.
They say gays suffer from a narcissistic personality disorder and they give this clinical description: pathological self absorption, a need for constant attention and admiration, lack of empathy or concern for others, quickly bored, shallow, interested in fads, seductive, overemphasis on appearance, superficially charming, promiscuous, exploitative, preoccupied with remaining youthful, relationships alternate between over idealization and devaluation.
As an example of this narcissism, the authors say a very sizable proportion of gay men who have been diagnosed HIV positive continue to have unprotected sex.
They say the majority of gays are extremely promiscuous and self-indulgent. They must continuously up the ante to achieve arousal. This begins with alcohol and drugs and includes such forbidden aspects of sex as wallowing in filth (fetishism and coprophilia) and sadomasochism, which involves violence.
They say many gays indulge in sex in public bathrooms and think it is antigay harassment when it is stopped. Many think they have a right to importune straight males, including children.
Many gays are single minded sexual predators fixated on youth and physical beauty alone. When it comes to the old or ugly, gays are the real queerbashers. Disillusioned themselves, they are cynical about love.
Relationships between gay men don´t usually last very long. They quickly tire of their partners and fall victim to temptation. The cheating ratio of married´ gay males, given enough time, approaches 100%...."
Seven Steps to Recruit-Proof Your Child
HOW TO PROTECT YOUR CHILDREN FROM PRO-HOMOSEXUALITY PROPAGANDA IN SCHOOLS
Assemblyman MOUNTJOY opposes promotion of homosexuality in public schools
Your attacks only reflect badly on you. Reasonable people can disagree. Unreasionable people resort to petty provocations and name calling.
That certainly includes you. My relationship with God is between me and God.
Your very flawed theory is not the same as proof. There are a number of people who are biologically unable to reproduce. That small percentage doesn't prevent reproduction in general.
I would hazard a guess that most people on this thread have been enthusiastic participants in many an act of sodomy during the course of their lives.
There are no sexual acts that homosexuals can participate in, that I can't enjoy with my wife, every single time we enjoy sex with one another. Not that we do, but it is possible.
I would be willing to bet quite a bit of cash, that few of us in here would willingly renounce the joys of sodomy in our heterosexual relationship. Not only that, but I would bet the house that if the Federal government passed laws which regulated the sexual conduct of married, heterosexual partners, the uprising that would ensue would dwarf the American Revolution.
Realizing that, I find myself in the weird position of defending the rights of adults of any sexual "orientation" to do whatever they wish to do, consensually that is, and restricted to members of the same species (unless someone can unequivocally identify what sheepish for "I don't mind at all" sounds like), behind closed doors. I do so in order to protect my own rights.
You cannot make the participation in an activity (whatever that activity may be) illegal for "certain people" and not for all people. To do so would violate discrimination laws.
But hey! What the hell do I know?
When some gay guy goes on a killing spree, then lock him up for that behavior. Otherwise this is a spurious, deliberately dishonest analogy.
Someone call the looney patrol. You've clearly been memorizing every word of the Propagandist's Handbook.
Thank you, Luis, for a refreshingly well-reasoned statement. This is the argument I've been making every time one of these threads comes up. Some people are very eager to revoke the rights of others that they would jealously guard for themselves simply because they detest how others choose to manifest those rights.
Maybe I missed it in the thread, but to be honest, I simply don't care about the subject enough to get into an exhaustive, point-by-point, issue-by-issue debate on all the complexities of gays vs. conservatives politics. It's been addressed plenty on other threads.
Can you be any more ludicrous? You're presuming to know anything of substance about me from a dozen or so posts on a website? You're presumption is dead wrong and you're foolish to make such a leap.
Among other things. That's my whole point - this guy is so desperate to make a case to exclude gays from civil rights programs and initiatives and the like, that he misses the big picture and essentially cedes the fight on those issues to begin with. What's the response of ethnic minorities to this? "That's right - we're not like those gay folks. We're entitled to special breaks, and they aren't. So where's my special break?"
Shortsighted and foolish. This guy's so blinded by his own particular agenda that he can't see what the ultimate effect of his "victory" would be - to win the battle, but lose the war.
How do they vote? You tell me what they cost Americas in increased taxes.
Get a clue and read what I wrote in context. What I was saying is that there is some fairly solid evidence that homosexual behaviors are linked to environmental factors during fetal development interfering with gene expression. If this was the case, one would not expect it to be specific to the human animal. The fact that we can manipulate the statistical occurence of homosexual behaviors in other mammal populations by manipulating environmental factors lends credence that this is in fact the case.
Rational inquiry into causal factors is valuable if you want to say anything meaningful about how homosexual behaviors emerge. It is utterly useless to approach the foundations of homosexuality with the excuses provided on both sides of the argument. "Homosexuality is a choice" is just as stupid an assertion as "Homosexuals have no choice" absent intelligent inquiry (which is sorely lacking on this topic on FR in my opinion -- most of what I see are mindless platitudes).
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.