Skip to comments.
The 'gay' truth: Kevin McCullough on homosexuality dominating American politics
WorldNetDaily.com ^
| Friday, May 30, 2003
| Kevin McCullough
Posted on 05/29/2003 11:42:24 PM PDT by JohnHuang2
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 361-368 next last
To: fieldmarshaldj
I'm afraid that when we make the argument against special rights for gays, we fail to do so in a thoroughly intellectually honest way.
Then enlighten me; make the argument for special rights for a man who defines his raison d'etre, his entire existance by his preference to jam his penis into another man's anus or vice versa ? (Homosexualists define themselves by their sexual deviancy and politics and nothing, absolutely NOTHING else.)
I do sincerely believe it to be a genetic abnormality, which probably accounts for the bulk of cases, and the other is a dysfunctional environment.
That's fine. You can believe anything you like. Some believe the moon is made out of green cheese. You've offered absolutely NOTHING to substantiate your OPINION.
The latter might be able to be corrected, but the former most certainly can't. I'm rather dubious of when I hear about "former homosexuals", which probably means they were either bisexual to begin with or are now simply living in denial (think fmr. Congressman Mike Huffington).
So, you define what a former homosexualist is and then use that definition to substantiate your own claims. Again, its your OPINION and there is NOTHING in your statement to substantiate your claims.
In the case of genetic homosexuals, you can no more change your sexuality than someone mentally retarded can pretend to be a member of MENSA.
Introducing a NEW and IMPROVED (is it lemon scented?) term to define homosexualism (genetic homosexuality) is a sham. Invoking the name of a bunch of phoney navel gazers who claim to be superior to others (I turned down their invitation to join after solving serveral of their childish puzzles) to bolster your point, is lame. The Cult Of The Anus along with LEFTIST sympathizers have political aspirations. Unable to reproduce, they seek to recuit. That is the only way homosexualists can survive.
101
posted on
06/02/2003 7:02:44 AM PDT
by
pyx
To: pyx
BUMP
102
posted on
06/02/2003 7:11:31 AM PDT
by
GrandMoM
("Vengeance is Mine , I will repay," says the Lord.)
Comment #103 Removed by Moderator
To: tdadams
Let me be a bit clearer. Any study of a reasonable sample size that finds a 0% correlation has reached an impossible conclusion. It's credibility is not only suspect, but it can be taken as prima facie incorrect. Thats patently wrong and you dont know what the hell youre talking about. But if youre saying the Bailey/Martin and Hershberger studies have an impossible conclusion youre confusing PROBABILITY with data. First clue, DATA is REAL and probability is probable.
I don't know where you got that notion. Whitam, Diamond, Martin - Department of Sociology, Arizona State University, Tempe, 1993.
You ask three or four times you got to assume you dont know. But as to your ASU study its really funny because Whitman cites the Bailey/Pillard 1991 study, a study if you remember Bailey discredits himself, and yet you said above that the Bailey study I cited had an impossible conclusion. Are you a hypocrite or just more ignorant that you claimed to be?
To: Clint N. Suhks
You ask three or four times you got to assume you dont know. Well, that's assuming you had asked three or four times, which you didn't. You didn't even ask once.
105
posted on
06/02/2003 7:20:26 AM PDT
by
tdadams
To: tdadams
If non-twin siblings have an orientation correlation of 1 in 20, dizygotic twins have a correlation of 1 in 5 and monozygotic twins have a correlation of 1 in 2, that is statistically significant. But what about the MZ twins that have a 0% concordance, why are they not statistically significant? If you can't answer this you really have no credible argument.
To: Clint N. Suhks
Whitman cites the Bailey/Pillard 1991 study, a study if you remember Bailey discredits himself I could ask you why you're so insistent on relying on this same study when the author renounced it if you want to discredit me by that same fact.
The body of scientific study is constantly evolving. I realize this. You don't seem to realize that except where it's expedient for you to cherry pick scientific conclusions that appear to support you.
107
posted on
06/02/2003 7:23:48 AM PDT
by
tdadams
To: fieldmarshaldj
"I do sincerely believe it to be a genetic abnormality, which probably accounts for the bulk of cases, and the other is a dysfunctional environment.
And I believe the exact opposite. Any well-learned and longstanding habit or training can FEEL like it's inbreading. Try to "unlearn" the way you tie your shoes. You will find it difficult to do any other way than the way you were taught at an early age. Does this mean shoe-tieing is genetic? Sexual preferance does not exist inately, I believe, but is ALWAYS a modeled or taught behavior, albeit from such an emotional, pre-verbal stage of development that many believe they were born with it. All of our lives we are re-inforced with examples of what society finds acceptable and as these re-inforcements change to include overt homosexual situations more people will believe they were "born gay".
To: Clint N. Suhks
But what about the MZ twins that have a 0% concordance, why are they not statistically significant? If you can't answer this you really have no credible argument. Taken as a whole, how many studies have found a significant correlation versus studies that have found no correlation? I draw my own conclusions.
And it's merely speculation, but I wouldn't be surprised if any of the studies finding no correlation were somehow funded by Dr. Paul Cameron, Judith Reisman, or some similar person, who is, to put it kindly, less than objective.
109
posted on
06/02/2003 7:27:47 AM PDT
by
tdadams
To: tdadams
Well, that's assuming you had asked three or four times, which you didn't. You didn't even ask once. Sigh
here, here and here.
BTW what were those Most studies, espeically recent studies studies while youre at it? And I could care less about the typos I probably make more than you.
To: tdadams
I could ask you why you're so insistent on relying on this same study when the author renounced it if you want to discredit me by that same fact. It impeaches your study but you may ask anyway.
The body of scientific study is constantly evolving. I realize this. You don't seem to realize that except where it's expedient for you to cherry pick scientific conclusions that appear to support you.
Ive just asked one simple question you cant answer and yes the studies evolve but DATA stays static and unchangeable so your premise ridiculous.
Taken as a whole, how many studies have found a significant correlation versus studies that have found no correlation? I draw my own conclusions.
You just dont understand reseach studies as you claimed, its apparent to anyone reading this thread. You are a charlatan.
And it's merely speculation, but I wouldn't be surprised if any of the studies finding no correlation were somehow funded by Dr. Paul Cameron, Judith Reisman, or some similar person, who is, to put it kindly, less than objective.
Then youd be wrong yet again.
To: Clint N. Suhks
I have no interest in playing cat and mouse with you. You don't believe a word I say. That's fine. I expect that. You won't believe anything unless it agrees with you.
Your first link asked me for a source. Having told you already that this came from ASU Tempe in 1993, I assumed you simply missed that.
The second link asks me to cite the several other studies, but since you yourself already stipulated earlier in the thread that there are several studies on the matter, I'll assume you're already familiar with them and you simply wish to send me on a time-consuming hunt for links and stats that you'll simply ignore anyway. I wish I had the time and patience to indulge your every whim along these lines, but failingly, I'm both human and Type A, so I don't. If you stipulate there are other studies, that would seem to suffice.
I responded to your third link with the full cite.
It appears you are exaggerating just a bit when you say you asked three or four times without response.
112
posted on
06/02/2003 7:43:47 AM PDT
by
tdadams
To: tdadams
but since you yourself already stipulated earlier in the thread that there are several studies on the matter, I'll assume you're already familiar with themMy goodness you are lame. You claim your cites support your conclusion, and they don't, and then you won't cite what they are or if they exist. You have no credibility period.
The second link asks me to cite ,blah, blah, blah...trying to squeez blood from a rock? Who cares, you miss the forest through the trees.
To: Clint N. Suhks
I made a perfectly reasonable response that I'm sure most Freepers who've dealt with you before understand perfectly well. You're entire retort consist of the baseless assertion that I have no credibility. What a whiner.
114
posted on
06/02/2003 7:56:15 AM PDT
by
tdadams
To: tdadams
We hold these truths to be self-evident That you won't answer some questions and apparently believe the ends justify the means? Yes, we hold these truths to be self-evident. BTW, we have replicas on the wall.
To: tdadams
You're entire retort consist of the baseless assertion that I have no credibility. Why tdadams has NO credibility.
1. He cites studies he cant defend.
2. He cites studies he wont cite.
3. He make false allegations that hard data is impossible conclusion if it doesnt follow probabilities.
4. He makes false allegations of me cherry picking studies.
5. He makes false allegations of prominent twin studies being funded for ulterior motives.
6. He continually cites the data from one study as the only reasonable conclusion for his debate.
7. He has NO ability to understand scientific reseach as he claimed.
8. He doesnt know what hes talking about.
9. Hes a hypocrite
10. We could make this 20 if we wanted to.
To: Clint N. Suhks
You're 0 for 10. If you want to make if 0 for 20, go ahead. I'll have another good laugh.
117
posted on
06/02/2003 8:20:56 AM PDT
by
tdadams
To: tdadams; Clint N. Suhks
Gentlemen,
I see the usual "I said" "you did not, but I said" "oh, no you didn't, but I said."
But you're doing it regarding issues that dance around the central questions regarding homosexuality and its place in our society. I will not pick a "winner" because it is probably well known that I generally agree with Clint in such arguments, but you are both being pulled down a rabbit trail that has no meaning. If they found a "cannibalism gene" that would not acquit Jeffry Dahlmer (sp?) so who cares?
These are the issues as I understand them:
- Biologically, sexuality applies to a reproductive method. Homosexuality is an oxymoron. Homoerotic behavior makes more sense. This isn't about reproduction, it's about gratification.
- Human beings are regularly required to subordinate their immediate personal gratification for the good of their long term goals and society in general. This is true of college students who forego a roll in the hay to study for an exam, and is true of troops on bivouac in service to their nation. There are countless other examples, but these two demonstrate the men must control their appetites to be men.
- Contrarily, animals are slaves to their appetites. With rare exceptions, animals do what they please when they please. In those rare exceptions when they don't do what they please, they are generally coerced by others with whom they interact. One of the things that makes men unique among the creatures of this world is our ability to rule our apetites.
- The concept of "orientation" is a straw man. It signifies a preference, nothing more. A man's penis will respond to proper stimulation regardless of the sex of the provider of the stimulus - even if it is the man himself. The same is true of a woman's clitorus. When I was a young man I was oriented toward large breasts. As I became older I fell in love with and married a "nearly A." Did my orientation change, or did I just grow up? I would suggest the latter. Any man who says, "I just can't love a woman" (or vice versa) is a man who is stuck in an adolescent stage of development, as would be a man who said, "I just can't love a woman with small breasts."
- Our culture is a heterosexual culture. Any other erotic approach is mal-adaptive at the best and destructive at the worst. The author gives only anecdotal evidence of that fact, but the realithy is clear to any observer. Our society is borne up by families, as are the individuals within it. A man who will not make a decision to channel his sexual impulse into a family is either a dullard or an animal, but is not deserving of being called a man.
- Above all else, the author's primary assertion is that homoerotic behavior is immoral. This is a fact that has been recnized for over 6,000 years. Nothing has changed that fact. All that has changed is that people have decided that morality no longer exists. They are wrong, and the results of that wrong decision will cost dearly over time.
Even if the person is born with the preference, even if the person can demonstrate he is personally happier with homoerotic activity than with heterosexual sex, even if the activity hurts no one but the two involved, homoerotic behavior is wrong and should be discouraged if not outright outlawed. And homosexuals have no place trying to influence adolescents at the height of their sexual confusion.
Shalom.
118
posted on
06/02/2003 8:24:42 AM PDT
by
ArGee
(I did not come through fire and death to bandy crooked words with a serving-man... - Gandalf)
To: tdadams
You're 0 for 10. If you want to make if 0 for 20, go ahead. I'll have another good laugh.No that's fine, let's start with truth #1 "He cites studies he cant defend." and work our way up shall we?
Why is your data more compelling than all others?
To: ArGee
but you are both being pulled down a rabbit trail that has no meaning. I see you're familiar with tdadams too. ["I said" "you did not, but I said" "oh, no you didn't, but I said."] is his best retort.
Good post BTW, right on the money.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 361-368 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson