Let BRAVO Know What You THINK About Their Homosexual Agenda!

07/29/03 | Kieri

[Clint N. Suhks]

Jim Bakker is scum of any nationality...not surprised to see you defending him.

So was there anything wrong with his message or do you Liberaltarians only get off on attacking the imperfect messenger?

[Clint N. Suhks]

I do not besmirch it in the least bit.

That only makes you a hypocrite.

[Denver Ditdat]

Straight Eye for the Queer Guy Tip:

The wine botle dude must not know that one never wears blaze orange before opening day of deer season.

<lisp>

You know, thilly, like not wearing white after Labor Day!

</lisp>

[jellybean]

Yea right. How many straight men are going to be decorators or fashion designers?????

So only homosexual men have the skills and talent to be decorators or fashion designers??? There's not ONE straight male in this country who can give fashion tips or re-decorate a room?? There are no women fashion consultants??? No female interior designers???

Well, damn!! Ya learn sumpthin' new everyday!!!

[VetsRule]

Homophobic rant? I doubt if he is "afraid" of homosexuals.

Re-read his post. He's positively petrified of homosexuals. It's really quite sad.

VR

[Brian Allen]

<< .... Marketplace of ideas at work. This reminds me of how the tide has begun to turn against abortion in public opinion in recent years. >>

The sodomynazis have shoved their hatred at US and projected their own self loathing on to US so obsessively-aggressively for so long the pendulem is about to sweep back the other way -- and sweep most of them and their gruesome abnormalities, their degeneracies and their disgusting behavior choices back into the bathhouses and lavatories they should never have left.

And the Billion-Dollar aborttoir industry's butchers have mass-murdered its next few generations of would-have-been baby killers, leaving only the wanted progeny of pro-lifers to take up the now lop-sided battle and to restore the so fundamentally-American Right to Life!

[CardCarryingMember.VastRightWC]

.....Jerry "Teletubbies" Falwell.....

Please explain the "Teletubbies" remark, dogbyte12.

No, I don't want any other readers here to answer this first and explain what THEY think that remark means. I want to hear it directly from dogbyte12 in his own words.

[Jeff Gordon]

Just like CNN, A&E and FSTV, I don't watch Bravo. I could care less about their programming.

[VetsRule]

Your citations (particularly on Freund) are erroneous and taken out of context. Kurt Freund actually studied two groups and found that gay men responded no more to male child stimuli than heterosexual men responded to female child stimuli. He also described the notion that gay men are more likely than straight men to be child molesters as a "myth". The Schmidt article (just like the "Family Research Council" studies) that you cite is a joke, and is not worth further comment.

I would also note (with credit on the specifics to various Google searches...the general information has been out there for years) the following findings from the PEER-REVIEWED journal "Pediatrics" in July of 1994:

*1 in 219 girls was molested by a lesbian

*1 out of 50 boys by a gay male.

*About 8 in 10 girls were molested by a man who was or had been in a heterosexual relationship with the child's mother or another relative.

*3 out of 4 boys were abused by males in heterosexual relationships with female relatives.

*2% of the boys in the study were molested by gay males.

*98% of the boys in the study were molested by heterosexuals. Of that number, 75% were molested by heterosexual males KNOWN TO THE VICTIMS in an incestuous scenario.

*0.05% of the girls in the study were molested by a lesbian.

*99.5% of the girls in the study were molested by heterosexuals. Of that number, 80% were molested by heterosexual males KNOWN TO THE VICTIMS in an incestuous scenario.

Here are some more studies which report parallel numbers:

*Groth, A. Nicholas, and H. Jean Birnbaum, 1978 "Adult Sexual Orientation and Attraction to Underage Persons", Archives of Sexual Behavior, 7, 175. "Suggests that homosexuality and homosexual pedophilia may be mutually exclusive and that the adult heterosexual male constitutes a greater risk to the underage child than does the adult homosexual male." [p 609]

*Newton, David E., 1978 "Homosexual Behavior and Child Molestation: A Review of the Evidence", Adolescence, 13, 29. "Existing studies provide no reason to believe that anything other than a random connection exists between homosexual behavior and child molestation. The typical offender is a heterosexual male." [p 610]

*"Stigma, Prejudice, and violence against Lesbians and Gay Men" (pp. 60-80 in John Gonsiorek and James Weinrich (eds)

*"Homosexuality: Research Implications for Public Policy" Sage Publications, 1992). Herek says: "Since 1978, no credible new data have been published that contradict the conclusions" [that pedophilia is a crime committed almost exclusively by heterosexuals].

In 1978 psychologist Nicholas Groth also screened 175 men who had been convicted in Massachusetts of sexual molestation of children and referred by a court for psychological evaluation. He found not a single gay man in this sample. Every one of the perpetrators was either an exclusive heterosexual, a bisexual with a predominantly heterosexual orientation, or a fixated pedophile with no sexual interest in adults. His conclusion? That "the adult heterosexual male constitutes a greater risk to the underage child than does the adult homosexual male."

In the same year, researcher David Newton reviewed the scientific literature and found no reason to believe that anything other than a "random connection" existed between homosexual orientation and child molestation.

Also, please see:

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

VR

[VetsRule]

What? You weren't trying to be funny?

Actually, I was. :-)

VR

[VetsRule]

But the only notice of the debunking of the research can be found in the science journals or, at most, on the back pages of a newspaper where few people will read them.

Funny, the only "debunking" I've seen has been from religious groups or borderline journals.

Gays aren't the only ones who are pushing an agenda, after all.

VR

[VetsRule]

What other group out there is demanding federal and state laws that would throw the full weight of law enforcement against people who choose to disassociate themselves from those whose BEHAVIOR they object to?

So I guess it's OK to discriminate against Christians or Jews solely on the basis of their religion, then? After all, religious observance is behavior, and certainly is not an immutable characteristic.

VR

[CardCarryingMember.VastRightWC]

Homophobic rant?
I doubt if he is "afraid" of homosexuals. He is right on target with most of what he says. He never said he hated homosexuals.

Good point, but I'm afraid it will go completely over the heads of CINO's/RINO's like vetsrule and dogbyte12. Years of Christian-bashing pro-gay propaganda swallowed whole without critical examination has taken the entire issue of homosexuality and moved it out of the section of the brain where logic applies, and placed if firmly in the "gut level" section of their brains where logic has no place. Thus when anyone says anything at all critical of the homosexual agenda/behavior/lifestyle, there is an immediate and automatic reaction of --- "Homophobe!! Hater of gays!!"

I first noticed this with local RINO's in 1992. In an election postmortem at local GOP HQ, they blamed the loss of the White House on the fact that unsuccessful candidate Pat Buchanan was allowed to give a speech at the GOP convention the previous summer. These same RINO's had sabotaged a local statehouse election (in what has forever been a "safe GOP seat") because the GOP nominee was an unashamed Christian who had handily beaten the candidate from the leftwing of the local party for the GOP nomination. So the RINO's sent vitriolic letters and even bought ad space in the local paper over the general election season spouting dire warnings that the "separation of church and state" was about to be breached. They proudly identified themselves as Republicans who were campaigning for the Democrat. And it resulted in the seat going Democrat for 2 years.

Some of them confronted the losing GOP candidate at the post mortem and (infuriatingly!!) blamed him for the loss that they themselves had singlehandedly caused! Part of the exchange I witnessed went like this - [RINO]: "... and because you are a Gay Basher!" [Candidate]: "Why am I a Gay Basher??" [RINO]: "Because you hate gays!" [Candidate]: "No I don't! What have I ever said to make you think that?" [RINO]: "You said you support Amendment 2!" (This was passed by a large majority of Colorado voters in Nov 92 and overturned "sexual orientation anti-discrimination laws" in the liberal hotbed cities of Boulder, Aspen and Denver. It was later overturned by the RINO's on the USSC). I was as startled as the candidate to hear this "explanation" for the Gay-Basher accusation. But since then I've seen it enough times that it's rather commonplace.

To try and understand this phenomena, think of the Pavlovian dogs immediately salivating at the ringing of the bell. Think of a doctor's triangular rubber hammer hitting just below the knee and what happens right after. Logical parts of the brain just are not involved in any way, shape or form in the "You homophobe!!" reaction.

You of course can't physically see it in the middle of an internet-facilitated discussion like this, but if you were actually in the same room with vetsrule & dogbyte12 & company and said something contradicting the gay agenda, you would see a definite change in their eyes at that moment. There is a distinct glazing that sets in, as the upper 95% of the brain disengages and goes into temporary hibernation, handing control of the lips, tongue and vocal chords (but not the ears) over to the brain stem located in the neck. You will then hear some random combination of 15 or 20 pre-recorded messages carefully implanted in the brainstem by years of repetitious propaganda .... "Homophobe!" ... "Gaybasher!" ... "Hater of gays!" .... "Nazi" .... "Biblethumper!" .... and so on - all at random intervals.

It's really quite remarkable how similar it is to those old Looney Tunes dolls that came out in the early 60's with a hidden soundbox and a pullstring in the neck that would cause a random prerecorded message to spit out each time it was pulled --- "Eh, what's up doc?" .... "How about a carrot?" .... "Eh, what's up doc?"

What is also quite an amusing sight is when you spot social conservatives who have been fooled into thinking that they are having a real conversation with a Liberal/Libertarian who has actually gone fully into Gay-Issues Brain Shutdown mode. They will say something to argue with the Lib/Lib's last statement, only to be hit back with another random vocal implant. They don't realize that the Lib's brainstem is in charge and that the ears are disconnected, and they mistakenly think that the random soundbites coming back at them are actually responses to what they are saying to the Lib/Lib! It's quite amusing to watch. I like to try and guess how long this situation will last before the conservative finally realizes what's really going on. It's a riot, I tell ya!

[CardCarryingMember.VastRightWC]

After all, religious observance is behavior, and certainly is not an immutable characteristic.

Au contraire! The "no religious discrimination" laws - while they technically appear to deal with behavior, as opposed to immutable characteristics - are actually an extension of the "no racial discrimination" laws. The religious anti-discr. laws plug a gaping hole in the racial anti-discr. laws .... a hole big enough to drive a semi loaded with burning crosses through.

Probably the single biggest impetus for passing the religious anti-discr. laws was the existence back then - mainly in old RINO neighborhoods in the Northeast - of non-removable clauses in real estate titles that required the homeowner to never sell the property to someone "of the Hebrew faith".

Back then, there was quite a high correlation between certain religious faiths and certain races/ethnicities. (The correlations are still there, though not quite as high). So some people were making bogus claims like, "Yes, yes. I know it's against the law to discriminate against the Jewish race. But I'm not doing that. I'm discriminating only against people of the Hebrew faith!" When a racial population and a religious population have almost identical boundaries, it's easy to discriminate on the basis of race by disguising it as religious discrimination.

And the Jewish/Hebrew example is not the only one. Back then when people first saw the need for religious anti-discrim. laws, anyone who hated, say, Scandinavians, could discriminate against Lutherans and cover about 100% of their intended target group (as well as some northern Germans!) Or say, in a small southern town way back then you could declare discrimination against anyone belonging to the African Zion Methodist denomination and the Abyssinian Evangelical denomination. (Oops! Did you say those are the only two black churches in town? My, what a fantastic coincidence).

[CardCarryingMember.VastRightWC]

I just now noticed your cool tag line - "Anti-Gay Bigotry Should Not Be a Tenet of Conservatism". Can I have a tag line too? I can? Goody. Here goes.....

[ppaul]

[Luis Gonzalez]

His "message" was that people could fatten themselves off of other people by preaching the Gospel.

There is nothing "libertarian" about being critical of scum like Jim Bakker, there is however, a whole lot to be said about people who defend him.

[sakic]

I just wanted these good people to know that you are an known professional pornographer and proud of it

I'm not ashamed of my past and don't regret it one bit. By the way, you talk like the dialogue of 1950's movies and television.

[sakic]

A job that certainly befits a man of your "integrity."

The job was legal. I paid taxes on it.

And I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of men at FR have enjoyed one of these films (most likely, more than one) in their lifetime so save your sanctimonious holier than thou attitude for the good folks like the televangelists who keep getting caught with hookers.

[sakic]

GWB is certainly fascinated by porn. Think he's ever seen a porn film? Have you?