I just couldn't leave town without drawing attention to this. From an email newsletter I get from the National Organization for Marriage comes this little tid-bit:
"On the other hand, there are people like Sarah Schulman, an English professor at New York's City University, with a very different view. She has written a new book, Ties that Bind, that pushes a new next step in the gay-marriage agenda: "Homophobia should be identified as a sickness, with families court-ordered into treatment programs." How did I hear about such a wacky idea? In an Oct. 14 column published by the perfectly respectable publication Inside Higher Ed. The author, Scott McLemee (whose summary of Sarah's thought I am quoting), believes in the "new civil rights movement." He doesn't go so far as Sarah and say that government should be used to force dissenters into therapy, though. His solution to persistent disagreement with gay marriage? "Traumatize 'em right back!"
Wow. Are these now the choices in so-called respectable so-called civil rights circles? Either forced therapeutic re-education by government or else cultural traumatization and marginalization of people who disagree? Nice movement you have there, guys.
I know that many, many gay-marriage advocates don't think this way. But this is a top-down movement driven by leaders who have seldom been very honest with the American people about what their ultimate aims are: to use the law to reshape the culture so that decent, loving, honorable, peaceful people who believe that marriage means a husband and wife get traumatized as bigots."
Can you believe it? These are people who get the vapors at the thought of hearing someone use the abbreviation "homo" or "mo" and WE need treatment? The only area where I need help is in dealing with the fact that our society has gotten this goofy, that normal is considered abnormal and this clearly psychologically twisted condition is considered just fine. I'm goofy for thinking it odd that a man would want to be penetrated. I'm goofy for refusing to just accept that because such people exist that I have to, well, accept them.
Well, I'm not for having them gathered together for mass execution by any means. But I refuse to feel ashamed for recognizing the obvious, nor will I stand for anyone trying to force that feeling upon me. There is no sickness in me for my position on the issue, nor is there any need for correction. Further, I will no longer waste keystrokes just to spare them or their enablers any distress over reading "homosex", "homo" or "mo" instead of "homosexual". Nor will I encourage them by agreeing to THEIR definitions in the using of words like "gay". It would be like worrying over the feelings of rapists or child molesters, or even thieves and liars.
The other day I had just caught the end of an HBO documentary that was obviously in support of the homosex agenda. In it, one guy said how much better it would be for all homosexuals if those still in the closet would come out. I guess he assumed that all homosexuals are indeed happy to be so, that none of them are ashamed of their unnatural urges and would prefer not to have them. "Hey! Be proud of your perversion and join us so that we can get what we want!"
I always considered the whole thing to be selfishness, this drive to be considered the new civil rights struggle. They don't care about the long term affects of such a social change. They don't care about the concerns of their opposition. All they care about is to be the sick bastards they are and to force us to be cool with it. That'll be the day.
56 comments:
So, let's see...
It would be like worrying over the feelings of rapists or child molesters, or even thieves and liars.
Be proud of your perversion...
All they care about is to be the sick bastards they are and to force us to be cool with it.
So, according to Marshall, homosexuals are perverse, sick bastards, comparable to rapists and child molesters. Is that what you're saying? Because, those ARE your words.
If that is what you are saying, do you understand how some will naturally jump to the conclusion that you are homophobic? That you have an unnatural fear and loathing of people based solely on their sexual orientation? You haven't even differentiated out gays who are celibate or gays who are monogamous from gays that are more promiscuous. From your own words, the conclusion one naturally reaches is that you think ALL gay folk are perverse, sick bastards comparable to rapists and child molesters.
Do you think that is true for all heterosexuals, too? I mean, after all, SOME straight folk are promiscuous, some have sick sexual appetites and practices. Wouldn't that mean that ALL straights are sick bastards, comparable to rapists and child molesters?
How about all folk who gossip or slander? After all, gossiping and slander is not a natural ideal way for us to live and behave. It is condemned probably by most if not all religious groups. These are perverse sins, comparable to rape and child molestation, are they not?
But no, you single out gay folk - whether abstinent or faithfully monogamous or more sexually promiscuous - and you say THESE PEOPLE are perverse sick bastards comparable to child molesters and rapists.
You are free to think what you want, but other people WILL judge you based on how you express yourself. If you express yourself as a bigot and people will tend to jump to that conclusion. And we are free to think what we want, as well.
Marshall said...
Can you believe it? These are people who get the vapors at the thought of hearing someone use the abbreviation "homo" or "mo" and WE need treatment?
No. We don't get the vapors at the thought of ugly epithets.
However, in the real world, gay folk are abused, maligned, slandered, beaten and killed because of their sexual orientation. In the real world, people who would do such things feel justified because they are surrounded by a "great cloud of witnesses" who testify that gay folk are sick, perverse bastards, comparable to child molesters and rapists and that helps them feel justified in further slandering gay folk as a group and of an occasional beating and killing, if need be, to keep these sick bastards in their place.
So, while we don't get vapors when people use ugly epithets, we DO get righteously indignant when a body of folk are demonized for simply Being and when, as a result of repeated demonizations, some feel justified in beating or killing others. It is an opposition to injustice and morally horrifying behavior.
As a Christian and a human being, it is the right thing to do. I invite you to join us in doing the Right Thing, Marshall.
Dan,
Your support for sinful behavior skews your vision. You make apples/oranges comparisons. Here's some apples:
Any homosexual, whether celebate or promiscuous, is a "sick bastard" in the sense that, like child molesters and rapists, they driven by unnatural sexual compulsions. The degree to which this occurs was not the issue, only that it was occurring to some degree. Thus, even the homosexual who is celebate suffers from the same "sickness". I do believe it is a mental sickness, but I thank God that it can be corrected or diffused enough for one to then lead a life more in line with God's Will.
Now, comparing me with those who would do harm to such people is not apples to apples as I have repeatedly spoken against such behavior. But you like to slander by comparing the simple observance of the obvious to those who are more malevolent in their intentions. Shame on you. I, on the other hand, will not feel ashamed for standing up for the truth nor cower in the face of people like yourself who celebrate sinfulness as you do.
Also, I am fully aware that those who think as YOU do will of course label me as homophobic. There are two problems here. First, you call me a name that does not apply, for I do not fear homos, I pity them and pray for them that they may come to love God more than their sexual urges. Secondly, when I use terms like "homo" or "mo" it is a contraction, an abbreviation, a saving of keystrokes. This I've explained before, but activists and enablers, in order to support the sinful, apply all sorts of evil intent to such a behavior that is totally void of emotion one way or the other.
So let's do it this way for a change: instead of insisting that I to things (like which words I choose to use) the way the sinners want, I say you stop pretending I'm doing anything wrong when the reality is I'm acting in line with Scripture. You have yet to show how I'm wrong in this, nor do I believe you will ever be able to, since you are so wrong about homosexuality.
more---
It is also well for you to remember, that I have often spoken against all sorts of sexual sin and have maintained the position that the current situation regarding homosex is a mere symptom of society's overall attitude regarding sex, which has relaxed greatly since the 50's and 60's. There is a distinction to some extent as to which form of promiscuity could be labeled "sick". A guy who whores about is certainly promiscuous and has a somewhat sick idea of sexuality to live in such a manner. But at least he's whoring with women. That's normal. Even the desire to have sex with lots of women is normal. It's just not very holy.
But to want sex with someone of the same sex is sick, plainly and simply. The psychological profession has plainly dropped the ball here for lack of a clue as to how to properly deal with the issue. Activists and enablers have jumped on this failure to further the agenda. But honest people can see through it easily. We are created two sexes for a reason.
And no, you are not honest if you believe the crap regarding the "normal-ness" of homosex attractions. In fact, you are perpetuating the big lie, thus endnagering the health and salvation of 2% of the population. I'm sure you agree with the lesbian who thinks it is the morally righteous who are in need of psychologically corrective treatment. Way to live the lie, Dan. From your unsupportable twisting of Scripture to your blatantly ignoring of that which is obvious.
You've asked in the past if God would punish those who honestly felt they were right when in fact they were wrong. I can only respond in this manner: it is plain from Scripture that God will not tolerate sin. What we can't know fully is whether or not His tolerance for sin is overridden by the good intentions of the sinner. I know you don't really believe that the homosexuals you describe are truly saved if you can't accept that Bush had nothing but good intentions in Iraq or Truman had good intentions in Hiroshima. You're selective as always. The difference is there is precedent for what those two presidents did. There is none for the homosexual. You, like them, simply tell yourself so. Sad.
Any homosexual, whether celebate or promiscuous, is a "sick bastard" in the sense that, like child molesters and rapists, they driven by unnatural sexual compulsions.
Says who?
Reasonable people don't come to this conclusion. Professional people and studies don't come to this conclusion. Nature does not come to this conclusion.
Perhaps you will understand how scientists, psychologists, sociologists and just every day average folk who are reasonable will see you denounce a whole group of people based only on the fact that they belong to that group and decide that you are a bigot, by definition.
Of course they'll see it that way, Dan. That's my point. If they buy into the lies regarding the "normal-ness" of homosexuality, they will indeed take the equally immoral position of denegrating my position. I accept that as the only logical extension of their perverted POV. That's how badly they've corrupted the moral state of affairs in our culture. Of course, the majority still leans my way, as indicated in every vote that WE THE PEOPLE have been allowed to take.
Some people have thrown in the towel on this issue, telling themselves that it won't be a problem or that there is nothing that can be done about it. I won't take that position because I prefer a society that adheres to Biblical truths and will continue to preach thusly until my time has ended.
And as if you thought I might miss it, I will say once again that you lie with impunity by saying that I denounce a whole people. Knock that shit out. I don't, haven't and won't. I will denounce their behavior because it is abnormal and sinful (assuming that they actually engage in it---for the celebate, it's only an abnormal attraction). But the people themselves I do care about in general. Particularly the young, who are struggling to understand life and are purposely influenced because of this vulnerability. Like the jackass in Obama's administration who advised the youngster to wear a condom, too many are willing to allow the young to engage in "exploring their sexuality" as if they are emotionally ready to do so. If THEY cared, they'd preach chastity until they are at least 18 or, better yet, 21, like responsible adults should.
This lifestyle employs sexual behaviors that are physically unhealthy for the participants, just as they are when employed by heteros (oh, I hope the heteros don't get upset that I didn't spell out "heterosexuals"). The difference is that no truly "safe" alternative is available, except the plutonic. We heteros, can employ the basic sexual act without much fear of health issues, because we were designed for the act.
So spare me the crap about denouncing homos. If you were half the Christian you paint yourself as, you would concern yourself with correcting such misconceptions amongst your like-minded friends and those they enable. I've repeatedly corrected you on this score and you insist on perpetuating the lie. What does that make you but a liar and slanderer?
In addition, we've gone around the block more than once regarding the opinions of "professionals" and you've yet to provide anything that isn't subjective and/or tainted by homosexual influence. Thus, your statements regarding who YOU think are rational people leaves a bit to be desired.
Feel free to comment further. I have to prepare for an OTR trip and have only an hour or so left for the final preparations. I hope to have a laptop by the time I get my own truck in a couple of weeks and until then, comments will be as time and circumstance allows.
I've repeatedly corrected you on this score and you insist on perpetuating the lie. What does that make you but a liar and slanderer?
WHAT lie? You DO understand that disagreeing with Marshall is not the same as choosing to lie? That it is possible that a person of good intent can disagree with Marshall and think that Marshall's position is wrong and mistaken and harmful?
What lie have I told? What slander?
Specifically?
You, on the other hand, DO slander when you say that homosexuals are perverse, sick bastards similar to rapists and child molesters. Or, is that not your position? A straight answer would help.
Are ALL homosexual people "sick and perverse bastards" who are comparable to rapists and child molesters?
If that is your position, then your position is demonstrably slanderous and involving falsehoods.
I have not lied about my position as I have already clarified. YOU have lied, and persist in doing so, every time you say that I denounce the people as opposed to denouncing their behavior. That behavior also includes their attempts to force the rest of us to accept their lifestyles and proclivities as normal and healthy and equal to God's and nature's purpose, that we unite with members of the opposite sex.
So once again, homos are perverse/perverted because they pervert the natural function of their bodies in order to satisfy their unnatural sexual desires for members of the same sex. Their desires are perverted based on the same thing. Thus, they are sick and in need of real help, not the enabling help folks like yourself offer.
All homosexuals are comparable to rapists, child molesters, bestial and adulterous folk in that they allow their urges and desires to guide their actions. They are not necessarily EQUAL to any of them, but they are comparable. There is one plan for human sexuality under God and it does not include homosexuality.
Gotta go. Feel free to continue commenting.
I have not lied about my position as I have already clarified. YOU have lied, and persist in doing so, every time you say that I denounce the people as opposed to denouncing their behavior.
1. I did not say that you lied about your position. I said you have misrepresented homosexuals by painting them all as being similar to rapists and child molesters.
2. Homosexual people are demonstrably not the same as rapists and child molesters.
3. Rapists assault others and abusively force sex upon others against their will. Gay folk don't do this. If an individual gay person did this, then that individual would be a rapist. But that would be a separate issue than them being gay. Being homosexual is not similar to being a rapist any moreso than being heterosexual is similar to being a rapist. It is a ridiculous, offensive and obvious falsehood. Same thing for child molestation. False and false.
4. When you spread falsehoods about all gays (as I just demonstrated you have), you are denouncing a group of people, not any particular behavior.
5. If I said that being from the Religious Right is similar to being a rapist because the Religious Right tries to do things against people's will, then I would have misrepresented the Religious Right, egregiously so (although, I would have at least given a reason). By denouncing the Religious Right in this manner, I would have denounced the Religious Right. This is the EXACT SAME THING that you have done, is it not?
6. You see, by denouncing ALL homosexuals, you are by design NOT talking about a specific behavior or set of behaviors, since "All Homosexuals" do not behave the same way. When one engages in blanket statements of that sort, they are engaged in bigoted commentary.
7. Your description of HOW they are similar to rapists ("they allow their urges and desires to guide their actions...") is so broad as to apply to everyone. Also, and in fact, NOT ALL gay folk allow their urges to guide their actions. And yet, you have not said that everyone is similar to rapists, you have singled out one group for hateful, bigoted speech.
8. That Marshall considers gay behavior as perverted is not evidence of perversion. What IS the "natural function" of the penis? Of the vagina? I guess, according to Marshall, it is for being placed in one place and one place only. And yet, that is not a scientific, nor a logical, nor a moral definition. It is a subjective opinion based on demonstrably bigoted opinions. As such, it is not worth much, seems to me.
9. No one is "forcing" anyone to do anything beyond live and let live. We don't want to force you to be gay or to be friends with gay folk or to attend gay weddings or to get married to a guy. We simply want our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters to have basic human rights, to not be demonized and attacked merely for their orientation, to enjoy basic legal safeguards that any other spouse/parent/citizen would enjoy.
10. IF there are folk who wish to categorize mere opposition to gay marriage as a mental illness, they are few in number and won't be able to succeed, as that would not fit the definition of mental illness. You know, like "homosexuality" does not fit the definition of mental illness.
How can any activity that is not engaged in by 98% of the population be considered normal?
I, for one, have not referred to homosexual orientation as "normal." It is not "of the norm," by definition. However, it is not perverse nor un-natural, by their definitions, since it is found in nature and it is not perverse (turned away from right or good), by definition.
It IS normal in the sense that it is and has always been a naturally occurring reality in our world. It is normative in that throughout all history, some small percentage have been gay.
Sorry, the last post had a typo and I know how Dan and the other Libtards like to jump on typos as if they somehow are proof of a lack of intellectual thought.
What I was trying to type was this:
Wait. Now, we are the ones that are "sick"?
Since when does 2.5% of the total population get to decide they are the normal ones and we are the sick ones?
Well, maybe they're right. I am feeling pretty sick now.
there are a lot of clues to show even the casual observer that the gay movement is nothing more than an attempt to rebel against cultural norms.
1st and most obviousness is the parades, unlike black, Irish, Christian, Jewish or any other group parade, gay pride parades indulge in sexual activity and insulting other groups most notably Christians.
2nd is the typical appearance of a homosexual. Gay men attempt to look less like men and Gay woman attempt to look less like woman. That makes no sense. If you are trying to attract someone who is attracted to men then why would you try to look like a woman. The answer is because a gay person is not trying to attract and truly gay person but instead a person who is wanting to participate in the same rebellion against cultural norms.
3rd. If being gay was a natural condition then it would have been weeded out long ago my micro-evolution. Nature has never rewarded a specie or variant of a specie for its lack of procreation.
gay pride parades indulge in sexual activity and insulting other groups most notably Christians.
There may well be some like that. Not all. I've marched in gay pride parades with my church and children. Nothing untoward happening in Louisville's.
2nd is the typical appearance of a homosexual. Gay men attempt to look less like men and Gay woman attempt to look less like woman. That makes no sense. If you are trying to attract someone who is attracted to men then why would you try to look like a woman. The answer is because a gay person is not trying to attract and truly gay person but instead a person who is wanting to participate in the same rebellion against cultural norms.
This one, however, is ignorant on so many levels and in so many ways, it's not really worth addressing.
Your third point sounds like prejudiced opinion of someone who knows very little about how science works.
Ohhh good argument. Now it's my turn, perhaps with your vast expertise in the fields of science you could name some subspecies that have survived despite the ability to reproduce.
I'm sorry but gay pride parades are all about the sexual aspect being gay. You either have never been to a pride parade or you are just lying
I went to college and worked in cafe's that were frequented by gays. In 99.9% of the cases they were men who taking on female attributes and the women were abandoning female attributes.
You are ignoring what you see with your eyes and accepting a falsehood becuse someone told you to
And you are speaking with obvious and apparently self-delighted ignorance. Who knows what parades Dan has and hasn't attended? Would it be Dan, or Edwin?
Bing! The correct answer is: DAN. Dan knows whether or not Dan has attended a pride parade, not Edwin.
And, in the real world, I HAVE attended Louisville's Pride parade I believe, twice, and have many friends who have attended more frequently. And, in fact, it was family-friendly.
When you presume to speak on MY experience, as if you know better than me what I have and haven't done, you expose your ignorance to be of a blatantly ridiculous sort.
Tell me, Ed, how many gay pride parades have YOU attended?
I didn't attend this year, but here are some photos from Louisville's 2009 Pride Parade.
Is that what you mean by celebrating the "sexual aspect of being gay"? Looks to me, well, like any other march (perhaps a few more rainbows).
In I twist of irony I did go to a pride parade, in an effort to get in good with a girl I went to college with
(FYI Mission Accomplished, Liberal chicks were good for one thing, but I digress. Younger days)
In Atlanta it was hardly a family event. If anyone has any doubts about what goes on at these things go to the zombietimes.com website the event is called "up your alley 2008". Make sure the kids are out of the room.
Who knows maybe Dan's church was there.
Okay, so you have been to one gay parade and the people there (taking your word for it) behaved badly. Does your anecdotal evidence of ONE parade ONE time support the notion that gay pride parades are all about celebrating hedonism?
No. It does not.
In truth, many of my gay and lesbian friends will acknowledge that many gay and lesbian folk DO misbehave (not unlike many straight folk). You know one reason for that, don't you? They have been told frequently and with great certainty that they are evil and wrong and have no place in church or anything to do with morality. And you know what? Some homosexual folk have believed the religious right and said, "Well, if I don't belong in church because of the way I was made, then to hell with the church! I'll be the OPPOSITE of whatever the church advocates, because I don't wish to be any place like that..."
So, yes, in some parades, there is more of a sexualized, hedonistic flavor. I don't know what percentage of parades are like that. I only have my Louisville experience to judge it on and it was about as "wild" as Louisville's Easter Parade (MORE moral, in some respects, I'd say). But to say that, based on one parade or even a few parades, that all gay folk are hedonistic and only concerned about in-your-face hypersexuality with no regards to morals is extremely bad logic.
What of the gay grandmothers who live a life of love and bliss with their partner? Whose idea of hedonism is working late in the garden and who resemble any other grandmothers? What of the loving gay couple who've adopted children ("orphans, the least of these") and saved them from a life with no loving parents?
You seem to look only at the misbehaving gay folk and paint all gay folk with that brush. Doing so, of course, is illogical and just as stupid as saying that - based on the way straight folk at a swingers bar behave, that all straight folk are hedonistic.
Life and people are three dimensional and varied. Not stereotypes.
Well Dan when you base your entire identity on a sexual practice as a homosexual does and expect special rights because you engage in a particular sexual practice it probably means your a hedonistic person.
by the way if you know a gay grandmother, tell her I think she lacks the dedication needed to lead an alternative lifestyle.
"You seem to look only at the misbehaving gay folk and paint all gay folk with that brush."
yeah thats probably because they PARADE it in the streets. I don't hear gays complaining about how these parades mis-represent them.
when you base your entire identity on a sexual practice as a homosexual does and expect special rights because you engage in a particular sexual practice...
if you know a gay grandmother, tell her I think she lacks the dedication needed to lead an alternative lifestyle.
Thus speaks the voice of bland ignorance.
Sorry I don't fall lock and step with those that set the "correct" thoughts and opinions. My opinions are based on my own thoughts and experiences not some politically correct diatribe someone told me to believe.
Now that I think of it, you attend two churches. One is a Bible-lite sunday style church and the other is religion based on the thoughts and ideas of special interest groups that support the democratic party. I can't imagine how many commandments you must have to follow.
Finally home and able to respond.
Dan,
1. I misrepresented nothing and no one. The comparison of homosexuals to other sexually confused/perverted/sociopathic/motivated individuals is plain and obvious. Like the adulterer, a homo expects to be tolerated. No adulterer is pleased to sneak about in order to satiate his desires. Unlike the adulterer, the homosexual has dismissed societal norms as outdated or backward or based on "preconceived notions" or "cultural biases". The adulterer would be happy for the same considerations, as would the rapist, child molester, incestuous, polygamist, polyamorist, and goat buggerer.
Though even heteros can be driven to sinful actions by their sexual desires, that the hetero desires the opposite sex is a normal condition, and in line with God's and nature's plan.
The comparison is proper in that like those other categories, the homosexual puts his desires above propriety and societal mores for his own purposes, which is to please himself in his personal fetish, which is sex with the same gender. The comparison is proper in that like the others, the compulsion, if acted upon, is outside the will of God and His plan for huma sexuality.
2. Thus, homos are demonstrably the same as other sexual offenders, except that their particular fetish is no longer considered illegal.
3. Force has nothing to do with it. Force is an aspect of one pervert's particular fetish, but not necessarily everyones'. I'm sure it is offensive to the bulk of them, but that's too bad. I'd be offended, too, if I engaged in improper behavior that I found particularly enjoyable and was compared to similar offenders. I don't like being compared to outlaws for simply toking on a spleef, but the comparison is apt. Am I the same as thief? Of course not, but we are both outlaws for acting outside the law.
4. I am not spreading falsehoods, nor have you demonstrated that I have. You have simply shown how you refuse to align with truth as have those you defend. What I spread is truth about a group of people who are in danger of ruining their health and salvation. It is because of their behavior. I want the best for these people as I do for all. You want them to give in to what will destroy them. For that, I denounce you as one who doesn't care for the health and salvation of a particular group of people who's agenda is based on one lie after another. Shame on you.
5. No. Not even slightly. It in no way resembles the comparison I have made because yours is a total fabrication. Mine is totally based on reality. You have a history of making such truly horrible scenarios in hopes of bolstering your position. Unfortunately, your attempts to do so are so lame that they serve you poorly. I suggest you find another way to make your points as this method has always failed for you. Frankly, it makes you look really stupid. Just trying to help.
6. "You see, by denouncing ALL homosexuals,"
There. You just lied again. Flat out lied. Liar, liar. I have NOT denounced ALL homos at all. I have denounced the behavior of homosexual sex as practiced by MOST, if not all homos and desired by those who don't engage in the practice physically. In the sense that lusting after a woman is tantamount to the commission of adultery in the eyes of Christ Himself, then it is A LIE to try to suggest that no all homos are the same to that extent. Please cut the crap and try debating honestly. Not all thieves act the same way. Not all murderers.
7. I have clarified this in numerous ways, including the last comment above (#6) wherein their desires are enough to count as actions, just as is true for the rest of us. But if you are saying that some homos remain celebate, then they are not much different than any hetero who abstains from acting on HIS every desire. To clarify even further, such people are like we are all supposed to be, by which I mean that sinful desires are to be overcome for His Glory. Please stop playing games and pretending there's some confusion beyond that which you are purposely trying to create in order to diminish the truth of what I say. Try to be a man and debate honestly like a good Christian should.
8. "That Marshall considers gay behavior as perverted is not evidence of perversion."
Nor did I suggest such a thing.
"What IS the "natural function" of the penis? Of the vagina?"
C'mon, Dan. How old are you? Each has two natural biological functions and you damn well know it. That is indeed a scientific, biological, logical AND moral description and you are a liar to suggest otherwise. That people use them for other purposes is beside the point. It only means that they don't freakin' care about anything beyond their own desires. You could use your dick as a bookmark if you wanted to, but that is NOT the purpose for which it was designed. It, too, would be a perversion of it's purpose and design.
9. Here you lie once again, or you are incredibly stupid. They are trying to force us to redefine the word and institution of marriage. They are trying to force people to rent rooms to them. They are trying to force photographers to record their union ceremonies. They are trying to force employers to allow them to dress like women and use whichever restroom they feel suits them that day. They are trying to force parents to allow their twisted beliefs to be rammed down the throats of their children, even kindergarden aged. Worst of all, they are trying to force God to bend to their will.
10. As indicated by point #9, there are indeed many, if not most, of the homo community, as well as many of their enablers, who would love to see opponents committed for their position against sinful sexual behavior. It's the typical fascist tendency of the homo activist. But here's the difference: We who oppose the behavior are the righteous defenders of God's Will, while the homosexual is the mentally and emotionally challenged individual in need of our help. What YOU choose to do, Daniel, is to say to me, "That guy is perfectly happy believing he is Napoleon Bonaparte. Since he's happy and not hurting anyone, and is doing well as an accountant, why tell him he's suffering from a mental illness?" And that would be because he's not Napoleon and homosexual desires are not normal. In fact, I think YOU are suffering from some mental defect to defend that which is so obviously abnormal, perverted, deviant and unnatural. Seek help.
Craig said:
"How can any activity that is not engaged in by 98% of the population be considered normal?"
I think you have your numbers wrong.
A 2002 survey by the National Survey of Family Growth found that 34% of men and 30% of women age 15 to 44 had had anal sex.
Similar studies show that approximately 92% of heterosexuals who are non-virgins have had oral sex.
So you are a bit off base there, Craig.
Jim,
Could you be just a bit more vague, please? How does this study compare with more recent studies? How many people were interviewed and where the hell did they come from? Were they all farmers from Nebraska or hip, cosmopolitan hedonists from San Francisco? And what kind of oral sex was performed, by whom upon who? Your stats are worthless and I put no value in them whatsoever. The only stat that matters is that there are only 2-5% of the population that are homosexuals. And 5% is the high side accounting for those who won't out themselves even anonymously. The reason it matters regards what is expected by them of the other 95-98% of us who aren't. I frankly don't freakin' care what their policy desires are aside from being free of violent attacks on their persons.
Vague? What vague? You're all about what people do to one another and it turns out what they do to one another is very common among heterosexuals.
"I frankly don't freakin' care what their policy desires are aside from being free of violent attacks on their persons."
Bingo! Who cares what their desires are? It has nothing to do with you.
And as far as your 98% figure is concerned? You can claim anything with statistics, right? :-)
Jim,
Heteros engaging in oral sex with each other, or even engaging in anal sex, are NOT trying to change thousands of years of cultural beliefs regarding right/wrong and normal and abnormal attractions. They are NOT trying to legislate their personal sexual practices into something anyone else has to accept as normal and healthy and suitable for the instruction of kids as young as kindergarden. They are NOT trying to pretend God doesn't call sexual activity outside of traditional marriage is just peachy with Him. They are NOT trying to re-write the Bible, redefine words and institutions. They are NOT presenting a multitude of lies as facts in order to achieve some perverted idea about equality and rights. Do you get the picture here? Do you see the difference between what homos are doing compared to heteros?
So I'm no where near being about what people do in their own bedrooms, no matter how sick and perverted it is. If you want to have sex with a guy and his goat, have at it. But when you try to insist that laws should change to accomodate and protect you, even to lift you up as a special class as hate crimes legislation does, when you try to teach kids that your perverted idea of family is no different than the traditional idea of one man married to one woman who have and raise kids, when you seek to FORCE me and the rest of society to accept what is plainly perverted, abnormal, unhealthy and then pretend there's some reason to celebrate such behavior and the people who engage in them, then you will hear reasonable, mature and clear-thinking people protest.
Jim,
Please, let me get this straight. Your argument from an un-cited or linked "source" is, that when heterosexuals engage in oral or anal sex with members of the opposite gender, they become homosexuals.
Marshall is right, the most recent numbers have homosexuals as 2-5% of the population. This debunks the earlier 10% number, which continues to be used. Beyond that even if your expanded definition of homosexuality is used (although there is no reason to use it) the point still stands. What % of the population needs to engage in homosexuality for it to be considered "normal". Obviously that number is higher than 2%. I would argue that it would be higher than 30%.
But, none of this really matters if you insist on defining acts between heterosexuals as somehow making them homo.
Jim,
Thanks for seeking clarification for what is beyond a doubt, the most wacked out and off the mark understanding of my comments I've ever seen. Congratulations. Your ability to read must make your teachers and parents quite proud.
Of course I wasn't making any such argument, though I've no doubt it is possible for people to consciously choose to "try out" or experiement with various sexual practices, like them, and thus engage in them with enough regularity to be considered a homosexual or other fetishist. There are admissions of women DECIDING to give up men and only develop relationships with other women. And who's to say that if a particular act was forced upon one that it couldn't be enjoyed in and of itself aside from the force (though we know some enjoy mashochism) and then have that behavior sought out from then on?
What we do and how we conduct ourselves is ALWAYS a matter of choice, and often the better choice is to abstain from that which gives us corporal pleasure. Imagine the over-eater who knows it is more healthy to eat in a more healthy manner, or the one who tries to pass the buck with his work and responsibilities. These people are doing what feels natural to them, yet they are not necessarily the best behaviors for them.
Yes, the ten percent figure has been debunked, meaning, it was never true to begin with. It was a fabrication of the homo activists in order to inflate their numbers to a point that would seem more "natural" amongst the general population, or, make it seem more prevalent and thus more worthy of acceptance. As I continue to state, all their arguments are based on lies and falsehoods.
There is no number that would render the practice normal. It would always be abnormal because of the fact that it counters the intent of the biology. There is a reason for two sexes and we are made to match up with a member of the opposite sex. THAT is what is normal. 100% of the population coveting a same-sex partner would still be abnormal considering how we are designed. (And of course the species would die out quickly.)
more---
I would ask what you consider to be my "expanded" definition of homosexuality? I've never defined it beyond what it is. That's what liberals are for---redefining words, institutions and documents in order to attain that for which they have no true claim.
For myself, as well as for most people including homos themselves, homosexuality is the sexual attraction of a member of one gender to another of the same gender. Mark believes it requires indulgence in the behavior. I believe that only confirms it, particularly if it is preferred and continual. But the mere attraction is enough.
I believe whatever you think I meant is the result of poor reading and apprehension skills on your part. But at least you asked for clarification. That's a good thing.
"Please, let me get this straight. Your argument from an un-cited or linked "source" is, that when heterosexuals engage in oral or anal sex with members of the opposite gender, they become homosexuals."
Are you effing kidding me?
Jim,
You said it not me, are you kidding? Sorry, you did cite on old study, my bad. You or your study don't differentiate between who had what sex with whom.
"You said it not me."
FALSE. You said that I'm arguing that when heterosexuals have oral or anal sex with the opposite sex, they become homosexuals.
I don't think I've ever heard a more ludicrous suggestion.
And 2002 is not an "old study." 1970 would be an old study. If you are suggesting that sexual behavior has significantly changed in the past 7 years, I think most people would disagree with you.
"A 2002 survey by the National Survey of Family Growth found that 34% of men and 30% of women age 15 to 44 had had anal sex.
Similar studies show that approximately 92% of heterosexuals who are non-virgins have had oral sex."
Since you chose to use vague statistics which don't address the "orientation" of the participants, then it seems reasonable to draw the conclusion that you believe that "heterosexuals who are non-virgins have had oral sex."
somehow count as homosexuals. Maybe had you cherry picked a study with more detail this wouldn't have been such a problem.
"then it seems reasonable to draw the conclusion that you believe that 'heterosexuals who are non-virgins have had oral sex.' somehow count as homosexuals.
Seems reasonable to draw the conclusion? Only if you are off your meds. I didn't say it, imply it, mean it, believe it, cite it, or anything else it.
The conclusion you should draw is that oral and anal sex are COMMON practices among HETEROSEXUALS. It's not what sex acts you engage in that defines your sexual orientation or behavior. It's who you engage in the acts with.
The common position in your side of the argument is the "plumbing" is only meant to be used one way. A large percentage of the heterosexual population don't think so.
Jim,
Either you are becoming more incoherent, or I just don't get your point. The post here concerns whether people who don't support "gay marriage" are mentally ill.
You are of course correct that homos are limited in their options for sexual activity. But to make the leap that your "survey" equates rates of oral and anal sex to the percentage of homos in the population is wholly unjustified based on the limited, out of context snippet you pasted. If you actually have a survey that is on point (in case you forgot the point is % of homos in society) you are free to reference it (or link to it). If not then it seems as though it might be more helpful to use the current numbers (2-5%).
Beyond that, however, this is an incredibly silly digression on which I have spent way too much time.
Actually, Jim, he said, the "plumbing" is only meant for 2 things.
But, if you were trying to make a point, it was so obscure none of us got it.
The post is about homosexuals. Heterosexual sexual activity has nothing to do with Homosexual activity.
And that's why it's abnormal.
Mark,
Thanks
OK, I'll try to explain this since the two of you are probably to two most dense bloggers I've come across on the Internet.
Craig said:
"How can any activity that is not engaged in by 98% of the population be considered normal?"
I take "activity" to mean such things as coitus, oral sex and anal sex. I infer from Craig's post above that he believes that only 2% of the populace engage in other than coitus "activities".
I submitted that a large portion of the heterosexual populace ALSO engages in other than coitus "activities." I do not suggest that doing so makes them homosexuals. Such a statement would be absurd and any assumption that I said or meant that would be equally absurd.
Craig suggests that the original post included an assertion that people opposed to gay marriage are mentally ill. Actually it suggests that homophobia should be designated a sickness. I actually reject that. As a phobia, I would consider it a mental condition, not necessarily a sickness unless it was a disabling condition. Further, I would not claim that opposing gay marriage was homophobic. President Obama opposes gay marriage and I don't believe he is homophobic.
Now, on most blogs, people are allowed to "reply" to other comments on the blog whether those comments were on topic or not. Craig's comment quoted above does not say anything about homophobia or sickness but is about the percentage of the populace that is homosexual, so technically it's not exactly on point.
My point is simply this: oral sex and anal sex are not abnormal activities but rather common among heterosexuals.
Jim,
Now the problem comes to light. My 98% reference was not to "coitus, oral sex and anal sex", but to the incidence of homosexuality in our society. Had you chosen not ton infer from my comment this all could have been avoided. Further, the inference you chose to make is quite a leap from what I actually said. Had you taken the time to ask a simple question rather than infer, we would not have wasted all this time on your unjustified inference. Had you actually submitted "that a large portion of the heterosexual populace ALSO engages in other than coitus "activities.", again we could have avoided this silliness. However, you chose not to. Instead, you chose to argue against something that no one here had claimed. I really hope that
As to the rest of your reply, why not just say that you agree with the original intent of the post and be done.
As to your final shot, two things.
First, if the blog host finds my comments to be sufficiently off point then I assume he will deal with them. I have no problem with that.
Second, one of the primary arguments of the "new civil rights movement.", is that homosexuality is "normal". So, I decided that it might be OK to take a little tongue in cheek shot at the "new civil rights" folks. Apparently you have had your sense of humor surgically removed along with your ability to reason.
I really hope that now that we have cleared up the source of the confusion (your mistaken inference and refusal to ask for clarification) we can drop this once and for all.
OK, Jim. You are trying to convince us you didn't know Craig was talking about homosexual sex being abnormal, when you know very well he was referring specifically to homosexual sex.
And you call us dense?
Even I give you credit for being smarter than that.
Craig, Liberals have no sense of humor.
"Even I give you credit for being smarter than that." Thank goodness for that!
Regardless of how I took your "activity" post, the suggestion that I was arguing that oral sex made a person homosexual was absurd, and THAT's where the conversation ran off the road. I didn't "refuse" to ask your meaning. I commented based on a literal interpretation of your comment. But whatever...
Sense of humor? I laugh all day long.
Jim,
Once again you contradict yourself. You plainly said that you "infer" from my post. The fact that you chose to infer rather than clarify says more than anything I can add. At this point I would suggest a shovel with a longer handle.
"The fact that you chose to infer rather than clarify says more than anything I can add."
Really? Wow!
Jim,
Dense, wow.
Gents,
I must apologize. Much of the discord here is a result of my own mistake, whereby I have attributed to Jim that which was a comment of Craig's. Several of the ensuing comments, and the tone attached thereto, were unnecessary and again, I apologize.
It is, of course, a silly prospect to suggest that a sexual practice is makes one a homosexual when it is in fact the person with whom one wishes to employ that practice. That is, the attraction to a person of the same gender. It is said that among those long-time guests in our nation's correctional institutions, there are those men who have sex with other men who are still not homosexual because they are slugs with no self-control who cannot have contact with women, or, they are slugs who simply wish to brutalize and humiliate weaker victims.
But when there is a real desire to have sex with one of the same gender, then we're talking homosexuality. That homos may employ practices that heteros also use has nothing to do with it. That heteros may also improperly use their private parts is irrelevant.
The "activity" mentioned above is obviously one in which a member of one gender seeks sexual relationships with another of the same gender. The "activity" is sex with someone of the same gender. That 2% is engaging in that activity.
I hope this clears things up should anyone care to continue this thread.
MA,
Thanks for the clarification. I thought about mentioning that, but didn't.
Post a Comment