REPORT: Coming Out of the Closet - By Bob Enyart

[webmaster]

I came out of the closet in 1989.

I feared my family and friends might reject me for coming out. Most of them, though, are supportive. I explained to them that I was born this way. I am homophobic!

My homophobia is genetic. I know it’s genetic, that it’s physical, because of the involuntary reactions my body has toward homosexual stimuli. For example, if I eat a big meal, and then I see one man glance romantically into another man’s eyes, and they kiss, I will lose my lunch. I will vomit. It grosses me out.

Homophobia is like any other inborn defense mechanism. It helps to protect us from bodily harm. For example, what would happen to someone who took a bite out of a putrid animal carcass. That person would become terribly, if not fatally, sick. Thanks to the way God made us, however, we have a congenital defense mechanism that keeps us from ingesting such poison. It is called gagging. Just the thought of eating rotting flesh makes people gag. Thus we are protected from harmful poisons. God gave us the wondrous ability to gag.

Homosexuals make people gag. As with other defense mechanisms, homophobia is genetically inherited. I know it is inherited because I was not taught this behavior. My revulsion to homosexuality is among my earliest memories. It was with me as a young boy, years before any other homophobe approached me as such.

Now that I’ve come out of the closet, my life is more fulfilling. I have met many other homophobes just like me. Now I can be honest about who I am. I no longer harbor a deep dark secret. The truth is, I don’t like homosexuality. I am genetically predisposed against it. Homosexuals make me sick.

There! I’ve said it.

Homophobia is a fear of homosexuals, and yes, I admit, I am afraid of them. (It’s not an irrational fear, but just as the homos accepted the terms queer and fag, we can get further in the debate by temporarily adopting this description as a badge of honor.) As a homophobe, I am afraid of their behavior, their values, and their influence on my family and country.

If my son needs blood for surgery, I would reject a homosexual donor for fear of the diseases he may carry. Promiscuous homosexuals (as most are) have killed people by donating AIDS blood. Mrs. Quintana, with a fungus growing in her throat, died in a Denver courtroom while suing over the AIDS blood she received from a homosexual who testified that he thought he was a safe donor since he had fewer than 1,000 sex partners, which was his idea of the promiscuity threshold.

I fear homosexual scoutmasters. Not one Boy Scout has ever been heterosexually molested by a scout leader! Homos make up only 3% of the U.S. (although their numbers are growing quickly) yet they have assaulted half of the sexually molested children. One-third of these hurt kids are boys, and the vast majority of those are molested by men (Psychological Reports, 1986, vol. 58, pp. 327-337).

Homo activists admit that these boys are almost all molested by men. But they absurdly maintain that a man who penetrates a boy is not necessarily committing an act of homosexual molestation. They should read a dictionary. Further, many of the girls molested are hurt by known bisexuals.

I also fear the bad rap homos give my country and our health system. The average homosexual dies at age 38, unless he somehow avoids AIDS. If he dies from a cause other than AIDS, his life expectancy is still only 41 years. These figures, published by the Family Research Institute in Washington D.C., are based on over five thousand obituaries published by homosexual newspapers throughout the U.S. All this early death lowers the U.S. life expectancy rate and makes our country look bad.

Finally, I am afraid of homosexual influences in the schools. They encourage kids to have homosexual sex. Of course they deny this, but they lie. Denver’s Planned Parenthood Resource Center gives a brochure to high school girls titled I Think I Might be a Lesbian. The brochure states: “You may feel very scared at the thought of having sex with another woman. That’s OK. Lots of us do, especially if it’s our first time.” Again: They encourage kids to have homosexual sex.

Then Planned Parenthood gives step-by-step instructions to our girls. “We can give each other pleasure by holding, kissing, hugging, stroking, rubbing our bodies together, inserting our fingers into each other’s vaginas, stimulating each other’s genitals with our hands and our tongues.” The pamphlet gets far more disgusting than this but I will spare you. They, though, do not spare our children. Planned Parenthood goes on to recommend to our nations daughters “Other wonderful things lesbians do together.”

I don’t want these morally bankrupt people getting near my children. As the Planned Parenthood News boldly stated, “Our goal is to be ready as educators to help young people obtain sex satisfaction before marriage.”

Planned Parenthood is heavily influenced by its homosexual members, as is the National Education Association. In 1996, the NEA passed Resolution B-6 calling for promotion of homosexuality in all school “observances and curricula.” Perhaps hoping to answer the criticism that public schools hardly teach history anymore, now they are going to start teaching homosexual history. That should teach parents to stop complaining.

Defending the sexual molestation of children in the nation’s leading homo magazine, Carl Maves wrote, “How many gay men, I wonder, would have missed out on a valuable, liberating experience, one that initiated them into their sexuality, if it weren’t for so-called molestation?” (See the full article titled, “Getting Over It” in The Advocate, May 5, 1992, page 85.)

The slogan for NAMBLA, the North American Man-Boy Love Association, is “Sex by eight or it’s too late,” meaning not eight p.m., but eight years old. Time Magazine is always understanding of homosexual crime. They printed a puff image piece on Peter Melzer, the editor of NAMBLA’s journal. In the article For the Love of Kids (Nov. 1, 93, page 51) the ACLU defended this pervert arguing that if we condemn “NAMBLA today, who is it tomorrow?” Melzer is also a New York City public school teacher (surprised?). He published an article In Praise of the Penises, on “how to make that special boy feel good.” As to a police report on Melzer’s alleged sex with a Filipino boy, according to Time, there is no hard evidence that he abused this “or any other boy in the U.S.” Yeah, right.

The homosexuals chanted during their march on Washington, “Ten percent is not enough! Recruit, recruit, recruit!” They want my children. They want your children.

I will resist.

Homosexuals are disgusting and perverted. They are against nature (Rom. 1:26-27). They will not stop until they have totally destroyed themselves, our nation, our churches and our children. We must stand against them and stop them or many of our children will pay an eternal price for our failure.

Yes, I’m a homophobe and I’m mighty proud to say it. Furthermore, I’m never going back into that closet.

- by Bob Enyart

[beanieboy]

With Mr. Enyart, to say that it's genetic is quite possible - some chemical imbalance that causes an obsession with homosexuality, a mistrust and almost paranoia of any research that doesn't come from a christian web site of debunked facts because the general public research is controlled by liberals/homosexuals/aliens/the boogeyman, being angered at people who have had the nerve to die from a disease because of the irrationality and coldness that they make the country look bad, ... You may want to consider seeking some professional hope, and some Prozac.

So, if only 3% of the population is homosexual, according to these questionable sources, and yet, are supposedly able to bring down family, church, and country, the other 97% must be, oh, what's the word you people use, um, sissies/pansies/wussies/etc.

Now give me you milk money.

[Zakath]

Webmaster,

Trolling again, eh? ;)

Continuing the ongoing campaign to post Reverend Enyart's self-described homophobic drivel here? What's the matter, can't Bob's own sites generate enough hits to satisfy him or is church attendance falling off again?

Shoving the rating directly to four stars, too. Nicely done, BTW. :rolleyes:

[beanieboy]

How does a Boy Scout Leader "heterosexually" molest a Boy Scout?

That's worth five stars.

[kiwimac]

What a crock of fetid dung!

Rarely have I seen such asinine drivel!

Kiwimac

[Zakath]

Originally posted by kiwimac
What a crock of fetid dung!

Rarely have I seen such asinine drivel!

Kiwimac
Oh hang around a bit. There's plenty more where that came from. (Of course they do seem to be recycling the same old material over and over...).

[Projill]

Bo-ring! Yahtzee! :D

I'm so glad that no matter how twisted and warped one is, they can always find someone to justify their irrational fears and phobias. Bob is dispensing a much needed service to the public...heil Hitle...er...I mean Bob.

[firechyld]

Oh... I've seen this piece of drivel before....

Whaddya know.... I apparantly had heard of Bob Enyart before coming to this site....

firechyld

[topjack]

TopJack Here!,
It seems to me that the liberals "squirm" when they are confronted with the sheer utter TRUTH!. Fact: Hebrews 9:27 states: "And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgement,".
I stand with Bob Enyart homosexuals sicken me!. They need our precious Lord and Saviour badly. Because if they don't find His awesome love and forgiveness, they will face a Holy God on judgement day!.
This is your "Final Warning" turn to Jesus Christ before it is too late for you.
That's right! You need a "Final Warning", because it may already be too late for you.

[denversurvivor]

Originally posted by beanieboy
a mistrust and almost paranoia of any research that doesn't come from a christian web site of debunked facts because the general public research is controlled by liberals/homosexuals/aliens/the boogeyman, ...

If he has such a warped view why do you feel the need to exaggerate to show how weird he is? If he is warped then quote, don't exaggerate.:)

[denversurvivor]

Originally posted by Zakath
Webmaster,

Trolling again, eh? ;)

Continuing the ongoing campaign to post Reverend Enyart's self-described homophobic drivel here? What's the matter, can't Bob's own sites generate enough hits to satisfy him or is church attendance falling off again?

Shoving the rating directly to four stars, too. Nicely done, BTW. :rolleyes:

Please attack the message not the messenger. Not that Bob can't take a personal attack, but you know as well as I do that getting people to side with you is best accomplished by showing the flaws in your opponent's argument.

Have Fun.

[denversurvivor]

Originally posted by kiwimac
What a crock of fetid dung!

Rarely have I seen such asinine drivel!

Kiwimac

I know you hate it all, but maybe you could narrow it down so we could debate an issue.

[denversurvivor]

Originally posted by Projill
Bo-ring! Yahtzee! :D

I'm so glad that no matter how twisted and warped one is, they can always find someone to justify their irrational fears and phobias. Bob is dispensing a much needed service to the public...heil Hitle...er...I mean Bob.

So anyone that is against Homos is a nazi? The founders of this country and the states made being a homo a crime for a long time are they all nazi?

[kiwimac]

Denversurvivor quoth

I know you hate it all, but maybe you could narrow it down so we could debate an issue

You misunderstand me, ALL of it is asinine drivel, not only is it self-righteous and homophobic, it very clearly tells us that the webmaster's mind has not yet returned from the holidays!

Kiwimac

[Zakath]

Originally posted by denversurvivor


So anyone that is against Homos is a nazi? The founders of this country and the states made being a homo a crime for a long time are they all nazi?
Actually the founders and their peers generally considered sodomy (the sexual act) a crime, not homosexuality.

How about showing us a couple of citations of laws banning homosexuality penned by the founders...

This I've got to see! ;)

[Gal3_28]

To a very small degree, I agree with Bob...

I see one man glance romantically into another man’s eyes, and they kiss, I will lose my lunch.

This has the same affect on me, but to a lesser extent in so far that I will not actually vomit. However my natural response is to gag. I can't help it, it's my body's natural response. I don't think this in and of itself makes me a bad person. However if I see two women doing the same thing, the response is noticeably different. Sure it's a double-standard, but who said life is fair?

As for the rest of the post, I like, "What a crock of fetid dung!".

I am afraid of their behavior, their values, and their influence on my family and country.

Please! :rolleyes: Any christian should be ashamed to agree with such ignorant stereotyping. IMO, of course.

[beanieboy]

Originally posted by webmaster

I fear homosexual scoutmasters. Not one Boy Scout has ever been heterosexually molested by a scout leader! Homos make up only 3% of the U.S. (although their numbers are growing quickly) yet they have assaulted half of the sexually molested children. One-third of these hurt kids are boys, and the vast majority of those are molested by men (Psychological Reports, 1986, vol. 58, pp. 327-337).

Homo activists admit that these boys are almost all molested by men. But they absurdly maintain that a man who penetrates a boy is not necessarily committing an act of homosexual molestation. They should read a dictionary. Further, many of the girls molested are hurt by known bisexuals.

- by Bob Enyart

Fine, Denver, if you are too much of a lazy slacker, here:

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

In a 1985 article published in Psychological Reports, Paul Cameron purported to review published data to answer the question, "Do those who commit homosexual acts disproportionately incorporate children into their sexual practices?" (p. 1227). He concluded that "at least one-third of the sexual attacks upon youth are homosexual" (p. 1228) and that "those who are bi- to homosexual are proportionately much more apt to molest youth" than are heterosexuals (p. 1231).

Cameron's findings are based on his assumption that all male-male molestations were committed by homosexuals. Moreover, a careful reading of Cameron's paper reveals several false statements about the literature he claimed to have reviewed.

For example, he cited the Groth and Birnbaum (1978) study mentioned previously as evidencing a 3:2 ratio of "heterosexual" (i.e., female victim) to "homosexual" (i.e., male victim) molestations, and he noted that "54% of all the molestations in this study were performed by bisexual or homosexual practitioners" (p. 1231). However, Groth and Birnbaum reported that none of the men in their sample had an exclusively homosexual adult sexual orientation, and that none of the 22 bisexual men were more attracted to adult males than to adult females. Cameron's 54% statistic does not appear anywhere in the Groth and Birnbaum (1978) article, nor does Cameron explain its derivation.

It also is noteworthy that, although Cameron assumed that all male-male molestations were committed by homosexuals, he assumed that not all male-female molestations were committed by heterosexuals. He incorporated a "bisexual correction" into his data manipulations to increase further his estimate of the risk posed to children by homosexual/bisexual men.

In the latter half of his paper, Cameron considered whether "homosexual teachers have more frequent sexual interaction with their pupils" (p. 1231). Based on 30 instances of sexual contact between a teacher and pupil reported in ten different sources published between 1920 and 1982, Cameron concluded that "a pupil would appear about 90 times more likely to be sexually assaulted by a homosexual practitioner" (p. 1232); the ratio rose to 100 times when Cameron added his bisexual correction.

This ratio is meaningless because no data were obtained concerning the actual sexual orientation of the teachers involved; as before, Cameron assumed that male-male contacts were perpetrated by homosexuals. Furthermore, Cameron's rationale for selecting particular sources appears to have been completely arbitrary. He described no systematic method for reviewing the literature, and apparently never reviewed the voluminous literature on the sexual development of children and adolescents. His final choice of sources appears to have slanted his findings toward what Cameron described as "the relative absence in the scientific literature of heterosexual teacher-pupil sexual events coupled with persistent, albeit infrequent, homosexual teacher-pupil sexual interactions" (p. 1232).

A subsequent paper by Cameron and others (Cameron, Proctor, Coburn, Forde, Larson, & Cameron, 1986) described data collected in a door-to-door survey in seven U.S. cities and towns, and generally repeated the conclusions reached in Cameron (1985). As before, male-male sexual assaults were referred to as "homosexual" molestations (e.g., Abstract, p.327) and the perpetrators' sexual orientation apparently was not assessed. This study also suffers from severe methodological problems (Brown & Cole, 1985). These problems are discussed in detail elsewhere on this site.

In summary, the findings reported in the papers by Cameron et al. cannot be considered valid. The work is too methodologically flawed.

[Knight]

Originally posted by topjack
TopJack Here!,
It seems to me that the liberals "squirm" when they are confronted with the sheer utter TRUTH!. Fact: Hebrews 9:27 states: "And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgement,".
I stand with Bob Enyart homosexuals sicken me!. They need our precious Lord and Saviour badly. Because if they don't find His awesome love and forgiveness, they will face a Holy God on judgement day!.
This is your "Final Warning" turn to Jesus Christ before it is too late for you.
That's right! You need a "Final Warning", because it may already be too late for you. TopJack U-D-Man!

I have to get a couple copies of your CD! :up:

[beanieboy]

Are homosexuals more likely to molest children?
One of the most enduring and damaging myths equates homosexuality with child molestation. In truth, the most likely person to sexually abuse a child is a heterosexual male; in many cases this person is a family member or close family friend (Falk, 1989), (Koss, 1994). Pedophiles who molest children of the same sex are almost never homosexual in their adult sexual relations (Groth & Birnbaum, 1978). Furthermore, the molestation of children by heterosexual women appears to be uncommon, and even less common among lesbians (Erickson, Walbek & Seely, 1988) (Finkelhor, 1984) (Johnson & Shrier, 1987).

From the web site:
http://hcqsa.virtualave.net/#lifestyle

There is so much misconception and stereotyping in Enyarts' article, that I don't know where to begin. Reading it makes me think I should go sit on my beanbag chair on the lime green shag carpeting while eating Pringles. Welcome to 2002.

[beanieboy]

Don't homosexuals recruit children and seduce naive adults?
In an effort to spread fear and ignorance, organizations that oppose gay rights often portray homosexuals as sexual predators out to recruit or seduce as many people as possible. Homosexuals, like heterosexuals discover their sexuality as a process of maturing; they are not recruited, seduced or brain washed into the gay lifestyle (Bell, Weinberg Hammersmith, 1981), (Troiden, 1989). Common sense proves the difficulty gay people would face in trying to recruit. What would they have to offer? Rejection by family and friends, fear of discrimination, the opportunity to experience harassment, violence and possible death at the hands of a homophobe? The idea of recruitment is utterly without scientific foundation (Weinberg, 1977) .

(omg, another lie in Enyart's piece? I can't believe it. Isn't there something in the Bible about lying and spreading falsehood?_

[Zakath]

Beanieboy,

You're wasting your time. We've been around about that idiot Cameron any number of times here on TOL and, no matter what factual information you present, Enyart's disciples cannot accept anything that disagrees with their master's worldview.

Keep up the effort if you're writing to the lurkers. Just don't expect an Enyartian to change their stripes. I think they only recruit single-minded individuals incapable of entertaining original thought. They get focused on some point or other and they cease to be able to carry on rational conversations.

Oh well. They never said it'd be easy talking to religionists... :rolleyes:

[Atheist_Divine]

...would like to meet one of these avidly recruiting homosexuals....never seen one yet....

Hmmmm I remember when I was at school, I had one PE (Physical Education, dunno what Americans call it) who was gay, and one who was not. The one who was gay never did a thing and was perfectly nice, the straight one used to touch us all up in swimming lessons.

Not that that particularly proves anything, being as it is just the example of one person (me) with two teachers, but...

~AD~

[Projill]

Originally posted by topjack
TopJack Here!,
It seems to me that the liberals "squirm" when they are confronted with the sheer utter TRUTH!. Fact: Hebrews 9:27 states: "And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgement,".
I stand with Bob Enyart homosexuals sicken me!. They need our precious Lord and Saviour badly. Because if they don't find His awesome love and forgiveness, they will face a Holy God on judgement day!.
This is your "Final Warning" turn to Jesus Christ before it is too late for you.
That's right! You need a "Final Warning", because it may already be too late for you.

Hahahahaha! :D :D :D

*runs off to join her GLBT buds and share this new little piece of "wisdom"*

[Projill]

Originally posted by denversurvivor


So anyone that is against Homos is a nazi? The founders of this country and the states made being a homo a crime for a long time are they all nazi?

No, his Big Brother lack of interest in free thought makes him a Nazi. And where in the Constitution does it say "being a homo is a crime"? I missed that part of the Constitution...even when I visited it in D.C. :confused:

[Projill]

Originally posted by Zakath

Actually the founders and their peers generally considered sodomy (the sexual act) a crime, not homosexuality.

How about showing us a couple of citations of laws banning homosexuality penned by the founders...

This I've got to see! ;)

No kidding.

[Projill]

Originally posted by Zakath
Beanieboy,

You're wasting your time. We've been around about that idiot Cameron any number of times here on TOL and, no matter what factual information you present, Enyart's disciples cannot accept anything that disagrees with their master's worldview.

Keep up the effort if you're writing to the lurkers. Just don't expect an Enyartian to change their stripes. I think they only recruit single-minded individuals incapable of entertaining original thought. They get focused on some point or other and they cease to be able to carry on rational conversations.

Oh well. They never said it'd be easy talking to religionists... :rolleyes:

The Enyartians are forever reminding me of the Borg collective riding around space in a cube.

[Projill]

Originally posted by Atheist_Divine
...would like to meet one of these avidly recruiting homosexuals....never seen one yet....

Hmmmm I remember when I was at school, I had one PE (Physical Education, dunno what Americans call it) who was gay, and one who was not. The one who was gay never did a thing and was perfectly nice, the straight one used to touch us all up in swimming lessons.

Not that that particularly proves anything, being as it is just the example of one person (me) with two teachers, but...

~AD~

We have PE here too. I'm fully of the opinion that my PE teacher was a lesbian. She never handled me inappropriately.

[KurtPh]

Originally posted by topjack
TopJack Here!,
It seems to me that the liberals "squirm" when they are confronted with the sheer utter TRUTH!. Fact: Hebrews 9:27 states: "And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgement,".
I stand with Bob Enyart homosexuals sicken me!. They need our precious Lord and Saviour badly. Because if they don't find His awesome love and forgiveness, they will face a Holy God on judgement day!.
This is your "Final Warning" turn to Jesus Christ before it is too late for you.
That's right! You need a "Final Warning", because it may already be too late for you.

Sorry Kurt but I had to edit out your profane comment - Knight

I do find it interesting that many of those Mr. Enyart accused of being homosexual child molesters also happened to molest girls as well. What, are the male victims more important than the female ones? And before I'm asked to provide examples, I'll admit upfront that I can't recall any specific ones (I haven't listened to Enyart since he left WHRI). One I remember involved a priest in, if my memory serves me, Boston. This guy molested dozens of children over a number of decades. Enyart used him as an example of "dangerous homos." I did a little of my own research, and found that he had molested girls as well. He didn't discriminate between sexes; he targeted children with whom he had contact with.

If Enyart wants to promote his particular agenda, he has obviously learned that the whole truth rarely serves his purposes.

[Projill]

Originally posted by KurtPh
Sorry Kurt but I had to edit out your profane comment - Knight

I do find it interesting that many of those Mr. Enyart accused of being homosexual child molesters also happened to molest girls as well. What, are the male victims more important than the female ones? And before I'm asked to provide examples, I'll admit upfront that I can't recall any specific ones (I haven't listened to Enyart since he left WHRI). One I remember involved a priest in, if my memory serves me, Boston. This guy molested dozens of children over a number of decades. Enyart used him as an example of "dangerous homos." I did a little of my own research, and found that he had molested girls as well. He didn't discriminate between sexes; he targeted children with whom he had contact with.

If Enyart wants to promote his particular agenda, he has obviously learned that the whole truth rarely serves his purposes.

*nods* All good charlatans know the score.

[firechyld]

Jill: Does it ever bother you how much "GLBT" sounds like a sandwich?

*muses*

[denversurvivor]

Originally posted by Zakath

Actually the founders and their peers generally considered sodomy (the sexual act) a crime, not homosexuality.

How about showing us a couple of citations of laws banning homosexuality penned by the founders...

This I've got to see! ;)

I don't have to quote them some are still on the books and you know it.

When you ban sodomy you ban homos. The same as if you make abortion illegal you make abortionists illegal.

[denversurvivor]

Originally posted by kiwimac
Denversurvivor quoth



You misunderstand me, ALL of it is asinine drivel, not only is it self-righteous and homophobic, it very clearly tells us that the webmaster's mind has not yet returned from the holidays!

Kiwimac

Thanks for narrowing it down for me.;)

[denversurvivor]

Originally posted by beanieboy
Bob Enyart-Homo activists admit that these boys are almost all molested by men. But they absurdly maintain that a man who penetrates a boy is not necessarily committing an act of homosexual molestation.

Beanieboy-Cameron's findings are based on his assumption that all male-male molestations were committed by homosexuals.

I'll leave it up to the reader to figure out the statment that makes more sense.

[firechyld]

Originally posted by denversurvivor


I don't have to quote them some are still on the books and you know it.

When you ban sodomy you ban homos. The same as if you make abortion illegal you make abortionists illegal.

Not necessarily.

In certain parts of India, it is illegal to engage in anal sex, oral sex or masturbation of another person. Now THERE is somewhere where it's difficult to engage in homosexual activity... although it doesn't necessarily stop one being homosexual.

Many gay men do not engage in "sodomy", in the definition that is widely accepted. The state-to-state US variations on the definitions ban a lot more than anal sex... including a wide range of heterosexual activities.

Homosexuals do not always engage in sodomy. Heterosexuals sometimes do. Banning sodomy does not equate to banning homosexuality.

firechyld

[firechyld]

Originally posted by denversurvivor


I'll leave it up to the reader to figure out the statment that makes more sense.

I believe what beanie was trying to convey is that a man who sexually assaults another man is not necessarily homosexual. He is certainly engaging in (for want of a better word... there should be no parallels between consenual sex and an attack) homosexual activity, but that doesn't make him a homosexual.

firechyld

[denversurvivor]

Originally posted by beanieboy


Fine, Denver, if you are too much of a lazy slacker, here:

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

In a 1985 article published in Psychological Reports, Paul Cameron purported to review published data to answer the question, "Do those who commit homosexual acts disproportionately incorporate children into their sexual practices?" (p. 1227). He concluded that "at least one-third of the sexual attacks upon youth are homosexual" (p. 1228) and that "those who are bi- to homosexual are proportionately much more apt to molest youth" than are heterosexuals (p. 1231).

Cameron's findings are based on his assumption that all male-male molestations were committed by homosexuals. Moreover, a careful reading of Cameron's paper reveals several false statements about the literature he claimed to have reviewed.

For example, he cited the Groth and Birnbaum (1978) study mentioned previously as evidencing a 3:2 ratio of "heterosexual" (i.e., female victim) to "homosexual" (i.e., male victim) molestations, and he noted that "54% of all the molestations in this study were performed by bisexual or homosexual practitioners" (p. 1231). However, Groth and Birnbaum reported that none of the men in their sample had an exclusively homosexual adult sexual orientation, and that none of the 22 bisexual men were more attracted to adult males than to adult females. Cameron's 54% statistic does not appear anywhere in the Groth and Birnbaum (1978) article, nor does Cameron explain its derivation.

It also is noteworthy that, although Cameron assumed that all male-male molestations were committed by homosexuals, he assumed that not all male-female molestations were committed by heterosexuals. He incorporated a "bisexual correction" into his data manipulations to increase further his estimate of the risk posed to children by homosexual/bisexual men.

In the latter half of his paper, Cameron considered whether "homosexual teachers have more frequent sexual interaction with their pupils" (p. 1231). Based on 30 instances of sexual contact between a teacher and pupil reported in ten different sources published between 1920 and 1982, Cameron concluded that "a pupil would appear about 90 times more likely to be sexually assaulted by a homosexual practitioner" (p. 1232); the ratio rose to 100 times when Cameron added his bisexual correction.

This ratio is meaningless because no data were obtained concerning the actual sexual orientation of the teachers involved; as before, Cameron assumed that male-male contacts were perpetrated by homosexuals. Furthermore, Cameron's rationale for selecting particular sources appears to have been completely arbitrary. He described no systematic method for reviewing the literature, and apparently never reviewed the voluminous literature on the sexual development of children and adolescents. His final choice of sources appears to have slanted his findings toward what Cameron described as "the relative absence in the scientific literature of heterosexual teacher-pupil sexual events coupled with persistent, albeit infrequent, homosexual teacher-pupil sexual interactions" (p. 1232).

A subsequent paper by Cameron and others (Cameron, Proctor, Coburn, Forde, Larson, & Cameron, 1986) described data collected in a door-to-door survey in seven U.S. cities and towns, and generally repeated the conclusions reached in Cameron (1985). As before, male-male sexual assaults were referred to as "homosexual" molestations (e.g., Abstract, p.327) and the perpetrators' sexual orientation apparently was not assessed. This study also suffers from severe methodological problems (Brown & Cole, 1985). These problems are discussed in detail elsewhere on this site.

In summary, the findings reported in the papers by Cameron et al. cannot be considered valid. The work is too methodologically flawed.

I really don't have time to read posts that are this long. If that means I lose the debate and I can't respond to the effort you put into the response then I'm sorry.

[denversurvivor]

Originally posted by beanieboy
Don't homosexuals recruit children and seduce naive adults?
The idea of recruitment is utterly without scientific foundation (Weinberg, 1977) .



I veiwed a videotape of a gay pride parade in DC in which the crowd chanted, "Ten percent is not enough recruit recruit recruit!".:(

This video was put out by a right wing organization but the crowd was clearly doing this of their own free will. The audio was not overdubbed like a kung-fu movie. The parade goers were saying that.

[Knight]

Firechyld states… I believe what beanie was trying to convey is that a man who sexually assaults another man is not necessarily homosexual. He is certainly engaging in (for want of a better word... there should be no parallels between consenual sex and an attack) homosexual activity, but that doesn't make him a homosexual.Well, in my book if a guy engages in a homosexual act, he is a homo!

No matter how you slice it the guy is a sick pervert.

[Knight]

So far the only real argument being made by the lefties is that not all homosexuals are strict homosexuals and sometimes they prefer both genders. Is that the best argument you can make???

As long as we can agree that all pedophiles should be put to a swift and painful death I would be happy!

Can we at least agree on that????

[denversurvivor]

Originally posted by Zakath
(D)on't expect an Enyartian to change their stripes. I think they only recruit single-minded individuals incapable of entertaining original thought.

The ideas that Bob promotes are certainly not mainstream. Right? So If I agree with an idea waaaay outside the mainstream doesn't that mean I entertain original thought? That doesn't mean he or I are right but it certainly shows I can entertain a thought that is not commonly held.

You also mentioned a resistance to change my mind on an issue. Before I saw Bob's materials I thought very differently. So on some issues I have changed my mind. You could chalk this up to brain washing but the fact remains that I have changed my mind. I still don't believe 100% of what Bob preaches but I think he makes sense on a lot of moral and biblical issues.

[denversurvivor]

Originally posted by Projill


No, his Big Brother lack of interest in free thought makes him a Nazi. And where in the Constitution does it say "being a homo is a crime"? I missed that part of the Constitution...even when I visited it in D.C. :confused:

I understand the one in DC is hard to read and it's all green.

[denversurvivor]

Originally posted by Projill


The Enyartians are forever reminding me of the Borg collective riding around space in a cube.

Oh come on. I don't have any tubes coming out of my face!

[denversurvivor]

Originally posted by firechyld

He is certainly engaging in...homosexual activity, but that doesn't make him a homosexual.


I think it does. There is our disagreement.

If we asked 100 people "If a person rapes 20% of the time and has consentual sex 80% of the time, is he a rapist?" I think people would agree he is a rapist.

[denversurvivor]

Originally posted by Knight

As long as we can agree that all pedophiles should be put to a swift and painful death I would be happy!

Can we at least agree on that????

I can agree to that. We will see how much compassion the liberals have for the kids being molested.

How will I measure your compassion? Compassion for the children is directly proportional to the severity of punishment to those who would hurt them.

[denversurvivor]

Originally posted by Projill


No, his Big Brother lack of interest in free thought makes him a Nazi.

I understand your point but the North American Man Boy Love Association or NAMBLA would also call me and other conservatives nazis because we think their group should not be allowed to advocate sex with children. Their slogan, "Sex by eight or it's too late."

Hopefully you are not so "open minded" as to accept their free thought.

[firechyld]

Originally posted by Knight
Well, in my book if a guy engages in a homosexual act, he is a homo!

No matter how you slice it the guy is a sick pervert.

*sigh*

The point is that the perpetrators of male-to-boy sexual assault are often living heterosexual lives. Men living homosexual lives are less likely to perform such atrocities.

And denver: don't even pretend that NAMBLA is an example of a homosexual movement. That's child abuse.... perceived as different by every country I've ever heard of.

firechyld

[Zakath]

Originally posted by denversurvivor
I don't have to quote them some are still on the books and you know it.

Translation: I cannot find anything to back up my claims.

Conclusion: You are just another lying religionist, making up "history" to promote your own agenda.

When you ban sodomy you ban homos. The same as if you make abortion illegal you make abortionists illegal. Let's try this again, I'll type slowly so you can follow me...

Sodomy describes a class of sexual activity.

Homosexuality and heterosexuality describe sexual orientations, not sexual activities.

Making a particular sex practice illegal does not make a class of sexual orientation illegal.

There are occasionally young people reading this board so I will not go into gory details about what makes up "sodomy", suffice it to say it is much larger in many states than a few sexual activities practiced by some homosexuals and some heterosexuals.

[Zakath]

Originally posted by denversurvivor

(referencing a 562 word post)...

I really don't have time to read posts that are this long. If that means I lose the debate and I can't respond to the effort you put into the response then I'm sorry.

Yes denver, you are sorry. You are a fine example of the kind of closed-minded individual that give religionists a bad name.

Don't worry, we won't disturb your little dream-world with the facts. Enjoy your delusions.

[Projill]

Originally posted by denversurvivor


I don't have to quote them some are still on the books and you know it.

When you ban sodomy you ban homos. The same as if you make abortion illegal you make abortionists illegal.

That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. The sodomy laws on the books in most states that have them (thankfully, that's dwindling) apply to heterosexuals too.

[Projill]

Originally posted by firechyld
Jill: Does it ever bother you how much "GLBT" sounds like a sandwich?

*muses*

Actually, that's something I find enormously entertaining. :D

"I'll have a GLBT and hold the mayo." :D

[Projill]

Originally posted by denversurvivor


I veiwed a videotape of a gay pride parade in DC in which the crowd chanted, "Ten percent is not enough recruit recruit recruit!".:(

This video was put out by a right wing organization but the crowd was clearly doing this of their own free will. The audio was not overdubbed like a kung-fu movie. The parade goers were saying that.

I've seen that video too. I love how they cut from the family oriented stuff right to the leather daddies. I've been to the marches, the leather daddies are not anywhere near the kids. But that's right wing editing for you.

And I also tend to shout "Ten percent is not enough! Recruit, recruit, recruit!" at parades. But you know where that started from? You guys. That's right, right wingers are the reason why we started shouting that in the first place. It's called mockery...I can help you look that up in the dictionary if you need me to. :)

[Projill]

Originally posted by Knight
Firechyld states…Well, in my book if a guy engages in a homosexual act, he is a homo!

No matter how you slice it the guy is a sick pervert.

Stop being so hard on yourself, Nathon. You're not a sick pervert. :D

[Projill]

Originally posted by Knight


As long as we can agree that all pedophiles should be put to a swift and painful death I would be happy!

Can we at least agree on that???? [/B]

Do you know what they do to pedophiles in prison? I'd figure you of all people would want them to get life instead of the death penalty.

[Projill]

Originally posted by denversurvivor


Oh come on. I don't have any tubes coming out of my face!

Yeah? Prove it!! :D

[Projill]

Originally posted by denversurvivor


I can agree to that. We will see how much compassion the liberals have for the kids being molested.

How will I measure your compassion? Compassion for the children is directly proportional to the severity of punishment to those who would hurt them.

Well, that was an enormous load. :rolleyes:

[Projill]

Originally posted by denversurvivor


I understand your point but the North American Man Boy Love Association or NAMBLA would also call me and other conservatives nazis because we think their group should not be allowed to advocate sex with children. Their slogan, "Sex by eight or it's too late."

Hopefully you are not so "open minded" as to accept their free thought.

I'm not in favor of NAMBLA. And why is it that you conservos always trot out NAMBLA anyway? You guys seem to be morbidly curious when it comes to that. But they can "think" all they want...provided they don't act on those thoughts. And before you say that that's how you view homosexuality...again, pedophiles=victimized children...homosexuality=victimless (and you have yet to prove otherwise.)

[denversurvivor]

Originally posted by firechyld


And denver: don't even pretend that NAMBLA is an example of a homosexual movement. That's child abuse.... perceived as different by every country I've ever heard of.

firechyld

Would you be surprised to know the Nambla has marched as Nambla in the gay pride parade in both NYC and San Fran-sissy-co? The leaders of the movement let them in the parade knowing full well who they are. The organizers don't allow white supremists to march with them (rightly so) so why do they allow Nambla?

I'm not saying homo=child molester, but they are more likely. Compare the percentage of homos that molest and percentage of heteros that molest.

[denversurvivor]

Originally posted by Zakath


Don't worry, we won't disturb your little dream-world with the facts. Enjoy your delusions.

Thanks for your understanding:D

[denversurvivor]

Originally posted by Projill


I've seen that video too. I love how they cut from the family oriented stuff right to the leather daddies. I've been to the marches, the leather daddies are not anywhere near the kids. But that's right wing editing for you.


There are kids along the parade route watching! How can the they avoid the kids?

[firechyld]

Originally posted by denversurvivor


Would you be surprised to know the Nambla has marched as Nambla in the gay pride parade in both NYC and San Fran-sissy-co? The leaders of the movement let them in the parade knowing full well who they are. The organizers don't allow white supremists to march with them (rightly so) so why do they allow Nambla?

Actually, yes it would interest me to know that. I'm quite surprised. As far as I was aware, the organisation is as illegal and condemned in the US as it is in Australia. It still doesn't make them a fair cross-section of the GLBT community. I don't think it even makes them an element of it.

Do you have anything to support your assertation?

And what's with "San Fran-sissy-co"?


I'm not saying homo=child molester, but they are more likely. Compare the percentage of homos that molest and percentage of heteros that molest. [/B]

You can't, because there aren't any statistics that can indicate that. It has already been presented to you that the results of some studies have indicated that the perpetraters of man-to-boy sexual assault are more likely to be living as heterosexual. As far as I know, there is no statistical record of the sexual orientation of child abusers.

firechyld

[denversurvivor]

Originally posted by Projill


I'm not in favor of NAMBLA. And why is it that you conservos always trot out NAMBLA anyway? You guys seem to be morbidly curious when it comes to that. But they can "think" all they want...provided they don't act on those thoughts.


In a society that allows sooooooo much it's hard for conservatives to find examples of things that liberals also agree are wrong. You for example are in favor of legalized prostitution and drug use so I have to go futher to the left to find your stoping point. We can both agree Nambla members are wrong. We differ on punishment for the crime but we both agree child molestation is a crime. That's why we use Nambla.

[denversurvivor]

Originally posted by firechyld


Actually, yes it would interest me to know that. I'm quite surprised. As far as I was aware, the organisation is as illegal and condemned in the US as it is in Australia. It still doesn't make them a fair cross-section of the GLBT community. I don't think it even makes them an element of it.

Do you have anything to support your assertation?

And what's with "San Fran-sissy-co"?



If the organizers allow them to march they are an element of the parade and they are one element of the community. Pflag is an element, politicians who support homos are an element, leather daddies :( are an element, and Nambla is an element.

If the homo community would condemn and shun Nambla then I wouldn't be able to use them to condemn the homo community.

If you don't like San Fran-sissy-co how about San Fran-sicko? I got a million of them.:D

We even wrote a homo song during one of our homo protests. I'm sure you would love it.

[firechyld]

If the organizers allow them to march they are an element of the parade and they are one element of the community. Pflag is an element, politicians who support homos are an element, leather daddies are an element, and Nambla is an element.

If the homo community would condemn and shun Nambla then I wouldn't be able to use them to condemn the homo community.


Well, I did ask for a source, or some evidence to support that claim. I've never heard of any element of the gay community accepting or condoning the actions of NAMBLA, nor of them being allowed a spot in a gay pride parade. And I'm fairly well-informed when it comes to matters like that. Are you going to provide this information, or are you simply going to pretend I didn't ask?

If you don't like San Fran-sissy-co how about San Fran-sicko? I got a million of them.

We even wrote a homo song during one of our homo protests. I'm sure you would love it.

No, I seriously don't understand what you have against the place itself. What's with the moniker?

firechyld

[denversurvivor]

Originally posted by firechyld


No, I seriously don't understand what you have against the place itself. What's with the moniker?

firechyld


When the homos were gaining acceptance the 80's San Francisco was considered by most to habor the homos. If your city promotes bad things they will be mocked.

[firechyld]

Originally posted by denversurvivor



When the homos were gaining acceptance the 80's San Francisco was considered by most to habor the homos. If your city promotes bad things they will be mocked.

*grin*

Well, I live in the Gay capital of the world.... and people love us. ;)

And you still haven't given me any response to my request that you back up your statement about NAMBLA and those gay pride marches. Please do.

firechyld

[KurtPh]

Originally posted by Knight
So far the only real argument being made by the lefties is that not all homosexuals are strict homosexuals and sometimes they prefer both genders. Is that the best argument you can make???

As long as we can agree that all pedophiles should be put to a swift and painful death I would be happy!

Can we at least agree on that????

Sorry, I'm anticapital punishment, but I'd be happy with life in prison.

I think you've dismissed the above "argument" too quickly, and you phrase it in such a way which is pretty disengenous. The argument is that paedophiles do not distinguish between sexes at all. It is not a matter of sexual preference; it's a matter of contact. That's why, for years, peadophile priests molested boys. Until recently, only boys could be alter servers. However, priests who also had contact with girls molested them as well.

[KurtPh]

Originally posted by KurtPh


Sorry Kurt but I had to edit out your profane comment - Knight


Huh? What are you talking about? What did I say that could possibly be construed as profane?

[KurtPh]

Originally posted by denversurvivor


I veiwed a videotape of a gay pride parade in DC in which the crowd chanted, "Ten percent is not enough recruit recruit recruit!".:(

This video was put out by a right wing organization but the crowd was clearly doing this of their own free will. The audio was not overdubbed like a kung-fu movie. The parade goers were saying that.

Do you mind if I ask what the name of this video was? I seem to remember something similar in the past, and the evidence was proven to be fraudulent/staged. Still, this might be something different.

[Projill]

Originally posted by denversurvivor


There are kids along the parade route watching! How can the they avoid the kids?

You're right. There are kids along the parade route...brought to the parade by both gay and straight parents. Blame the parents if you have a problem with that.

[Projill]

Originally posted by denversurvivor



In a society that allows sooooooo much it's hard for conservatives to find examples of things that liberals also agree are wrong. You for example are in favor of legalized prostitution and drug use so I have to go futher to the left to find your stoping point. We can both agree Nambla members are wrong. We differ on punishment for the crime but we both agree child molestation is a crime. That's why we use Nambla.

Oookay. You're right that I think that child molestation is wrong. As far as them marching in the parades, well, that's left up to the organizations who are running the show's discretion. To my knowledge the OKC pride parade has never had any NAMBLA group march. The Cimarron Alliance Foundation is in charge of that...which is a GLBT lobbying organization, if memory serves (I need to email that guy...thanks for reminding me. :)) As far as NAMBLA marching in the parade, well, neo-Nazis have parades...the most disliked groups still have the right to freedom of speech.

[Projill]

Originally posted by denversurvivor


If the organizers allow them to march they are an element of the parade and they are one element of the community.

Though the vast majority of our community disagrees with NAMBLA, they do have that freedom of speech and assembly thing.

Pflag is an element,

Bless or PFLAG moms. :)

politicians who support homos are an element,

Did you know Barney Frank was the first grand marshall of the first ever Tulsa pride march?

leather daddies :( are an element,

Why the long face? What problem do you have with leather daddies?

and Nambla is an element.

Not in the parades I've been in, but okay.

If the homo community would condemn and shun Nambla then I wouldn't be able to use them to condemn the homo community.

Where would your argument be without NAMBLA? It appears you favor their existance.

If you don't like San Fran-sissy-co how about San Fran-sicko? I got a million of them.:D

I love rhetoric. Do you use the term LIE-beral as well? :D

We even wrote a homo song during one of our homo protests. I'm sure you would love it. [/B]

And yet you have a problem with us shouting "Ten percent is not enough! Recruit! Recruit! Recruit!" Why? You have your rhetoric, we have ours, and everyone is happy.

[Projill]

Originally posted by denversurvivor



When the homos were gaining acceptance the 80's San Francisco was considered by most to habor the homos. If your city promotes bad things they will be mocked.

That reminds me, I gotta find me some mocking terms for Denver.

[kiwimac]

Projill

I gotta find me some mocking terms for Denver.,

Why?, Isn't Denver enough?

Kiwimac

[Projill]

Originally posted by kiwimac
Projill

,

Why?, Isn't Denver enough?

Kiwimac

Good point.

[denversurvivor]

Originally posted by Projill

Did you know Barney Frank was the first grand marshall of the first ever Tulsa pride march?




Thanks for the trivia. I'll bring it up at the next right wing lodge meeting and impress all my friends. :)

[denversurvivor]

Originally posted by KurtPh


Do you mind if I ask what the name of this video was? I seem to remember something similar in the past, and the evidence was proven to be fraudulent/staged. Still, this might be something different.

I don't remember the name of the video, but since I work in the video world I can usually see bad editing or audio over dubs. My friends can tell you I'm no fun at the movies because I pick out all the flaws.

Projill also remembers the chant. She said the homos were saying that to mock right-wingers. I don't but the claim, but she can at least back up my claim that the phrase is said.

[denversurvivor]

Originally posted by firechyld


And you still haven't given me any response to my request that you back up your statement about NAMBLA and those gay pride marches. Please do.

firechyld
I tried to find non right-wing support so tell me what you think. I copied and pasted from the link I provided below. Bold added.


Pedophiles have made some headway in politics as well as the world of sexology. NAMBLA is a member of the International Lesbian and Gay Association, which has called on members "to treat all sexual minorities with respect," including pedophiles. Though a great many lesbians and gays detest NAMBLA, the group has been allowed to march in gay parades in New York and San Francisco under its own banner.

http://www.operationlookout.org/lookoutmag/gassy.htm

[denversurvivor]

Originally posted by Projill


Oookay. You're right ...


*deep bow* Thank you.

It doesn't matter what you were talking about, you said it.:D

[denversurvivor]

Originally posted by firechyld


*grin*

Well, I live in the Gay capital of the world.... and people love us. ;)


firechyld

I'm more of a Perth fan myself.

[denversurvivor]

Originally posted by Projill


I love rhetoric. Do you use the term LIE-beral as well?



Liberal is already a dirty word. You don't have to tweak it.

[Projill]

Originally posted by denversurvivor


Thanks for the trivia. I'll bring it up at the next right wing lodge meeting and impress all my friends. :)

Do that. A friend of mine claims that Barney checked him out that day (and, yes, my friend is an adult). Personally, I don't know that I believe him. My mum drove me to the march with my friend Jess and we had tickets to go see "Jeckyll and Hyde" that day...and we had my friend Christy's wedding that night...you'd have loved it: Two lesbian pagans tying the knot in a traditional pagan handfasting. :D

And it was my mom's first gay wedding. :D<---me beeming with pride.

[Projill]

Originally posted by denversurvivor


I don't remember the name of the video,

I can probably call my PFLAG moms and dads and find out. I saw it at one of their meetings.

but since I work in the video world

Porn? :D

I can usually see bad editing or audio over dubs.

Me too. Irritating, isn't it?

My friends can tell you I'm no fun at the movies because I pick out all the flaws.

You have to be better than the joker we had sitting behind us in "Lord of the Rings": "Oh, that's Isengard...the Orcs live underground." "That's Galadriel...they're speaking Sindarin." I came to within a fraction of a second of turning around and saying "Thank you!! They would have never figured it out for themselves considering that they're explaining everything!" However, in the same vein, if a movie loses my respect, my friends and I Mystery Science Theatre 3000 the movie to death.

Projill also remembers the chant.

The "Hey, hey! Ho, ho!" chants are also quite popular. We have to shout them to be heard over the din of "die faggots" from our less than loving onlookers.

She said the homos were saying that to mock right-wingers.

Yup. We quite enjoy doing that. They're easy targets because typically they're ill-prepared to deal with us. And we know they're gonna take everything we say the wrong (re: fundie...they have been programmed quite well) way so we don't really care what they think we mean.

I don't but the claim, but she can at least back up my claim that the phrase is said. [/B]

So you don't believe me? Why would I lie? I've already said I don't care what you think. Feeding people lines is something Christians are better at. I happily claim that the phrase is used. You guys believed that a guy died and rose from the dead, that a virgin gave birth to him, that he could walk on water, and that a 2000 year old book of old dusty parables and outdated laws is in any way relevant to today...to us, that's a tad dense...and more than a little ridiculous. Besides, you protesters take the bait so easily! It's a laugh riot. :D

[Projill]

Originally posted by denversurvivor


I'm more of a Perth fan myself.

Heath Ledger's from Perth. I like Heath Ledger. He was good in "A Knight's Tale"...the guy who played Geoff Chaucer in that (best friend hated that...he's an English major) went on to work with Russell Crowe in the movie "A Beautiful Mind"...Crowe played a schitzophrenic guy...they left out one thing though: the guy he was playing, who actually did exist, was bisexual. Enough to get at least one :down: in my book.

[Projill]

Originally posted by denversurvivor


Liberal is already a dirty word. You don't have to tweak it.

"Conservative" is pretty foul too. That's why I wind up saying "conservo"...just the word "conservative" itself is coyote ugly.

[Projill]

Night night, all! I have school in the morning...er...later this morning! :D

[denversurvivor]

Well as long as Projill is saying goodbye I might as well follow suit.

I'm going to the olympic games in Salt Lake City for a week of pro-life activism with other survivors of the abortion holocaust.

I'll let you know how it goes. Maybe I'll start a thread so the Christians will be encouraged and the liberals can tell me how hatful and oppressive I am. LOL

Talk to ya again on the 14th?

[firechyld]

Projill....
You have to be better than the joker we had sitting behind us in "Lord of the Rings": "Oh, that's Isengard...the Orcs live underground." "That's Galadriel...they're speaking Sindarin." I came to within a fraction of a second of turning around and saying "Thank you!! They would have never figured it out for themselves considering that they're explaining everything!" However, in the same vein, if a movie loses my respect, my friends and I Mystery Science Theatre 3000 the movie to death.

*grin* We had a kid do that when we saw the X Men movie... "Oh! I think that's Storm... yeah, it is, it's Storm!! And look... that's got to be Sabretooth!!"

He had an excuse though.... he was, like, 8.

Oh yeah... I heard that they'd cut that detail out of Beautiful Mind. Not happy.... although I'd have to see the movie before deciding if it took anything away from the story.

And Heath Ledger is totally foxy. :) Yay for our Aussie exports! Have you seen "Two Hands"? It's an Aussie movie... really, really good. :) I think you'd like it, if you can get your hands on it....

denver:
I'm more of a Perth fan myself.

I've never really liked Perth... it confuses me slightly. I'll admit, though, that I've only been there a few times... the beaches are a lot cleaner and less crowded than Sydney beaches, which gets my approval. I'm sick of being pushed off the beach by British backpackers. ;)

I'm actually a fan of most of Australia... and I've seen some of the really dodgy bits, so that's saying something. But it all has grounds for improval. :)

firechyld

(Incidentally, I won't be around too much over the next few days... I'll pop in occasionally, but I won't be doing the whole uber poster bit. Doing a bit of a detox. :) )

[firechyld]

denver:

Thanks for taking the time to seek out a non-overly-politically-biased source.... I'll do a little looking into the matter from the side of GLBT sources, and get back to you about it....

firechyld

[beanieboy]

Originally posted by denversurvivor


I can agree to that. We will see how much compassion the liberals have for the kids being molested.

How will I measure your compassion? Compassion for the children is directly proportional to the severity of punishment to those who would hurt them.

Well, there goes Family Values. Think about how many fathers would be put to death.

[beanieboy]

Originally posted by Zakath


Yes denver, you are sorry. You are a fine example of the kind of closed-minded individual that give religionists a bad name.

Don't worry, we won't disturb your little dream-world with the facts. Enjoy your delusions.

He looks like such an angel when he's sleeping.

[beanieboy]

I've heard the chant, too: 10% is not enough - recruit, recruit, recruit! And if you aren't an idiot, you realize they are being sarcastic. They are mocking the stereotype. Tell me if I'm typing too fast.

[Projill]

Originally posted by denversurvivor
Well as long as Projill is saying goodbye I might as well follow suit.

I'm going to the olympic games in Salt Lake City for a week of pro-life activism with other survivors of the abortion holocaust.

I'll let you know how it goes. Maybe I'll start a thread so the Christians will be encouraged and the liberals can tell me how hatful and oppressive I am. LOL

Talk to ya again on the 14th?

Have fun! I have friends right now doing some protesting in NYC. My heart is, as always, with the protesters. We protesters have a tough time, regardless of the side we take. I didn't know you survived an attempted abortion. When you get back I hope you see this thread and tell us about your story. :)

[Projill]

Originally posted by firechyld
Projill.... *grin* We had a kid do that when we saw the X Men movie... "Oh! I think that's Storm... yeah, it is, it's Storm!! And look... that's got to be Sabretooth!!"

Hehe! Sounds like my best bud when we saw "X-Men"...he's been a fan of the comics since he was a kid. He's 23 now but I can safely say that he, much like myself, hasn't matured a day. :D Actually, his commentary is ongoing to this day. I'm currently receiving my grossly neglected X-Men education. (Though now, when we watch the movie, we're too fixated on how gorgeously hot Hugh Jackman is! Thank you, Australia! You keep shippin' 'em up and we'll keep giving 'em work! :D)

What was bad about the guy at "Lord of the Rings"? He was at least in his fifties.


Oh yeah... I heard that they'd cut that detail out of Beautiful Mind. Not happy.... although I'd have to see the movie before deciding if it took anything away from the story.

I want to see it. I hear it's brilliant and I love Jennifer Connolly (not a huge fan of Russell Crowe...he doesn't seem to be an all that personable a guy.)

And Heath Ledger is totally foxy. Yay for our Aussie exports! Have you seen "Two Hands"? It's an Aussie movie... really, really good. I think you'd like it, if you can get your hands on it....

I'd probably enjoy it. And I could probably get ahold of it if I tried. He engaged in what my Melbourne friend tells me is one of his own personal favorite passtimes is while he's talking to Americans: messing with their heads. Heath appeared on "The Daily Show With Jon Stewart" which is one of the most intelligent shows on TV....but I digress. Heath actually had Jon convinced that he had a background in medieval sports, coming from Perth...he totally had Jon snowed. My pal in Melbourne loves to do precisely the same thing. Never snowed me, though. I'm culturally aware! ;)

[Projill]

Originally posted by beanieboy
I've heard the chant, too: 10% is not enough - recruit, recruit, recruit! And if you aren't an idiot, you realize they are being sarcastic. They are mocking the stereotype. Tell me if I'm typing too fast.

Can't blame them, they can't get a reasonable scientific education, let alone a sociological one. ;)

[beanieboy]

I once heard that christians "drink the blood and eat the body of Christ!" ahhhhh Cannibalism! No one is safe!!

Yeah. I guess it is kind of fun to take stuff out of context, and pretend it's a real threat.

[Projill]

Good point, beanieboy. :D

Christians are just soooo uncivilized. ;)

[me again]

Posted by kiwimac
What a crock of fetid dung! Rarely have I seen such asinine drivel!Lighten up on the attempt to use big words. You sound like a GED graduate with a low self-esteem who is trying to flex his muscles.

Incidently, what are your educational credentials (if you have any)?

:confused: ;)

[Knight]

Ooooo.... "me again" jumping in the fray! Go get um! :up:

[kiwimac]

Me again asketh,

Lighten up on the attempt to use big words. You sound like a GED graduate with a low self-esteem who is trying to flex his muscles.

Incidently, what are your educational credentials (if you have any)?

We don't have the GED in my country, just various exams between 5th form to 7th form (ie 15-17 yrs). As for my educational qualifications, what are yours?, who are you to ask?
what's it to ya, me boyo?

Kiwimac

[Thomas]

Just FYI - you are, of course, aware of the numerous studies showing that severe homophobics are actually physiologically aroused by images of homosexual acts indicating that they are, of course, "closet homosexuals"? Of course you don't qualify as a "severe homophobic", do you?

Live and let live - to each his own. What skin is it off your nose? One more place in heaven for you (infallible and perfect), right?

Cheers
Thomas

[Knight]

Originally posted by Thomas
Just FYI - you are, of course, aware of the numerous studies showing that severe homophobics are actually physiologically aroused by images of homosexual acts indicating that they are, of course, "closet homosexuals"? Of course you don't qualify as a "severe homophobic", do you?

Live and let live - to each his own. What skin is it off your nose? One more place in heaven for you (infallible and perfect), right?

Cheers
Thomas Is this the kind of garbage you teach your high school students?

[Thomas]

[quot]Is this the kind of garbage you teach your high school students?[/quote]

"Garbage"?? What would you have me teach them --- creationism???? And now who's presenting their arguments "clearly, calmly, rationally and convincingly "???

But the answer to your question is this - I have a zero tolerance for intolerance, bigotry and close-mindedness. Have I seen studies that suggest militant homophobes are aroused by images of homosexual acts? Yes. Do I present such research to my students? No. I am as suspect of this research as I am of studies indicating that drinking coffee causes cancer (or conversely, not drinking coffee causes cancer). I teach my students scientific sketicism (which helps them identify the reasons why creationism is not a valid scientific theory).

However, it is worth noting that I do not, under any circumstances, tolerate bigotry or predjudice of any variety in my classes. Homophobic remarks are treated as seriously as racial bigotry - and I would hope that anyone who read the Bible and found that tolerance, love on one's neighbour and not passing judgement on others are upright and godly virtues would do the same.

Cheers
Thomas

[beanieboy]

Originally posted by Knight
Is this the kind of garbage you teach your high school students?

I was a psych major. It's true. Numerous studies have shown it.

In my personal life, I have also found that the people that harrassed you the most in high school/college and would go off about how disgusted they were about homosexuality you would eventually see at a gay bar.

As Christina Ricci says in The Opposite of Sex, "Girls, if your boyfriend just let out a really loud groan when those two guys kissed, it's a bad sign. And if he's always making jokes about dropping the soap in the shower, it's a REALLY bad sign. I mean, straight men don't think a lot about naked soaped up guys, ya know?"

I applaud you, Thomas, for not allowing the intolerance. I remember reading of a guy who dropped out of school because his peers harrassed him so badly. In eight grade, he was mock gang raped by a group of guys. In high school, he was beaten so severly, that they cracked a couple of his ribs. And the principals response? "Well, if you are going to be gay, what do you expect?"

It saddens me that so called christians have made "tolerance" a bad word. One may believe in Christianity, but that doesn't mean you have to berate people of other religions, for example. You need to respect and tolerate them. Unfortunately, the "loving your neighbor as yourself" rule seems to get swept under the floor rug.

What especially angers me is writing bile like the article "Coming Out of the Closet," where the author does only disapproves of homosexuality, but homosexuals themselves, and then paints them as the enemy with falsehood and shows them as a threat, and brags about his hatred and contempt for them. Then, someone buys this bologna, and kills someone gay, and the relgious leaders say nothing. It amazes me how vile it is, and how one can actually boast of it, yet lift their eyes to God, and pretend like they have no part in creating an atmosphere of violence, in an atmosphere that some people deserve death, that it is open season on homosexuals.

Why not just "come out of the closet" as a racist, and talk about how all the darkies want to rape your women? Then burn a cross to show your love of Christianity? It's not that different.

It sickens me. There. I've said it. I've come out. This kind of hatred makes me want to wretch violently. And it comes as no surprise that two people of the same sex expressing love for one another sickens him. Or tolerance. Or gentleness in rebuke. It comes as no surprise at all. Because such things have no place in the heart of someone who has filled it with hatred and anger.

[Projill]

Originally posted by Thomas
Just FYI - you are, of course, aware of the numerous studies showing that severe homophobics are actually physiologically aroused by images of homosexual acts indicating that they are, of course, "closet homosexuals"? Of course you don't qualify as a "severe homophobic", do you?

Live and let live - to each his own. What skin is it off your nose? One more place in heaven for you (infallible and perfect), right?

Cheers
Thomas

Hi, Thomas!

I actually heard about a really interesting study. The study in question first asked men who claimed "heterosexual" status a series of questions to determine whether or not they were homophobic. Once this line of questioning was done, they were hooked up to various monitors that could record respiration, heartbeat, arousal, and all that fun stuff, and then the men were shown a series of images that were of homosexual orientation. The amount of homophobic men who reacted with arousal were actually far greater than the amount of men who were not homophobic. Apparently there is correlation with being aroused by gay images and homophobia. Shakespeare said it best: "Methinks the lady doth protest too much." ;)

[Projill]

Originally posted by beanieboy


It sickens me. There. I've said it. I've come out. This kind of hatred makes me want to wretch violently. And it comes as no surprise that two people of the same sex expressing love for one another sickens him. Or tolerance. Or gentleness in rebuke. It comes as no surprise at all. Because such things have no place in the heart of someone who has filled it with hatred and anger.

Amen and amen, Beanie!

Heh...I've been in charge of vigils on the past for Matthew Shepard, James Byrd Jr., and various other victims of hateful violence. For several months following, after viewing those images, not only did I wretch regularly because of all the stuff I had to view to research it, I also had violent nightmares that scared me to the degree that I wouldn't sleep for several days at a time. Anything more than a light catnap was completely out. I hear you on the physically reacting to hatred and violence. I think normal people do react that way. It's only the violent and hateful that can stand the violent and hateful.

[Knight]

Thomas says...I have a zero tolerance for intoleranceThomas contradicts himself in just SEVEN words! It's a new record ladies and gentlemen! And spoken like a true public school teacher! Is it any wonder why the US public school system is an admitted failure??? The teachers themselves can't even think straight. :down:

You continue...However, it is worth noting that I do not, under any circumstances, tolerate bigotry or predjudice of any variety in my classes.Except for the fact that you yourself are prejudice against Bible believing Christians, right?

[Thomas]

And spoken like a true public school teacher! Is it any wonder why the US public school system is an admitted failure???

And Knight has shown that he is illiterate in two posts - is this a new record? I stated clearly that I do not teach public school - but at a secular independent school. And I teach rather well, I might add - and am fairly well qualified. If your public schools are in a state of failing it is because creationists are advancing their religion into science classes, and pretending that it is science.

Interesting that on another forum, Knight chastised me for being too aggressive and abusive - and in the only two posts we have exchanged, Knight has shown himself to be an incredibly insulting goober - try a page from your own book.

Except for the fact that you yourself are prejudice against Bible believing Christians, right?

I am a "Bible believing Christian" - so 'no', I'm not predjudiced against myself. I do have a problem with hypocrites who call themselves Christians and use their Bibles to justify their fear and hatred. Right up there with White Supremicists.

Cheers
Thomas

[Thomas]

Hi Projill -

I actually heard about a really interesting study.

That is the study to which I was referring. Knight obviously objects to my mentioning this - and I agree that I do have some reservations about the validity of many psychological (and medical for that matter) experiments. Too many uncontrolled variables, correlation not equallying cause and effect, poor data analysis, etc. Still, the results of this study were interesting, and certainly imply that severe homophobia such as our webmaster suffers may be rooted in deeply repressed homosexuality and self-loathing.

Cheers
Thomas

[Knight]

Thomas states....Interesting that on another forum, Knight chastised me for being too aggressive and abusive - and in the only two posts we have exchanged, Knight has shown himself to be an incredibly insulting goober - try a page from your own book.Thomas, I chastised you because you were name calling our moderator for no cause! I have read your threads with Bob B and you are nothing but a name calling loon! Bob B is calm cool and collect, you are high strung, defensive and irrational.

Had you decided to conduct yourself in a manner fitting to the discussion I would never have chastised you.

Then, when someone makes a statement like... "I have a zero tolerance for intolerance" all the while claiming to be a teacher!!!! I have to get in on that action!!! I mean really!!! That's great material.

[Thomas]

Thomas, I chastised you because you were name calling our moderator for no cause!

Illiteracy take two. I replied to your charges and you either didn't read, can't read them, or chose to ingore them in your response.

Quite simply, bob deserves everything he gets. Besides being an outright liar, he deliberately misrepresents evolution, never (ever) supports a single one of his outrageous lies, and does everything he can to dishonestly and disingenuously advance his agenda. Moreover, there have been several cases in the past where bob has proven to be a lousy, capricious and subjective moderator - when bob starts earning respect, he'll start getting respect.

You chimed into a discussion on evolution with nothing more than a comment on my debating approach with bob. You clearly had no idea what you were talking about, and had nothing of substance to add to the discussion at hand. In other words, why did you bother to post at all?

I have read your threads with Bob B and you are nothing but a name calling loon! Bob B is calm cool and collect, you are high strung, defensive and irrational.

bob b has the luxury of being "calm and cool" since he doesn't put thought or effort into his posts, he makes emotional appeals to advance his agenda, and he ignores every post from every board meber to actually defend his claims, and proceeds to make more outrageous claims. Why wouldn't he be calm and collected. He lives in another reality.

I am not high strung. you have no clue what you're talking about. I do get defensive when my ideas, my statements and the theory of evolution in general are deliberately misrepresented. I'm pretty sure (from the emotional responses you seem prone to) you, too, would be defensive. Finally, I am not the slightest bit irrational. Please provide specific references to my posts and explain why and how my statements are irrational, and in what context.

Had you decided to conduct yourself in a manner fitting to the discussion I would never have chastised you.

Yes, you would have. You like to post to see yourself post. I said nothing on that forum that was in any way related to you, or your views. You admitted you had nothing to contribute to the discussion - so why should you care about the nature of exhanges between bob and I? There was nothing at all in that thread relevant in any way to you - unless you have some personal stake in the creation/evolution debate, or in bob's personal welfare and emtional well being.

Then, when someone makes a statement like... "I have a zero tolerance for intolerance" all the while claiming to be a teacher!!!!

Apparently nuances in the English language are lost on you. That's OK, it's not an easy languauge to master - keep working. Moreover, I don't "claim" to be a teacher - I am a teacher (according to my job description and contractual agreement). And what of it?

I have to get in on that action!!! I mean really!!! That's great material.

So get in on it. All you have contributed so far is attempts at character assassination. What do you have to contribute to the discussion at hand?

Cheers
Thomas

[kiwimac]

Now Thomas :-)

No fair actually expecting Knight and Bob to engage in useful debate! They much prefer to name call or press their particular fundamentalist agendas than to actually think about what they have to say!

Kiwimac

[kiwimac]

:rolleyes:

I note that me again has not bothered to respond to my post to him. Typical, attack the person, cast aspersions on them, then when you are called on it, simply ignore the post!

Kiwimac

[Thomas]

Kiwimac -

No fair actually expecting Knight and Bob to engage in useful debate! They much prefer to name call or press their particular fundamentalist agendas than to actually think about what they have to say!

You speak volumes about bob b - but I had no personal experience with Knight until he made a random (unsubstantive) post on the forum I usually frequent (Creation/Evolution). In the few posts Knight has made to me, he certainly does appear to be bob-esque in his approach to "discussing" his ideas.

I'm sure he and bob get together at the end of the day for some reciprocal back-slapping, and then consult the Bible to see if they can condone their unChristian behaviors... ;^D

Cheers
Thomas

[Projill]

They're really doing a great job destroying what precious little validity American fundamentalist Christianity ever possessed. You have to give 'em credit.

[beanieboy]

Knight -What about "not tolerating intolerance" is so hard to wrap your brain around?

You are simply saying that the thing you won't put up with is someone's refusal to put up with someone because they are different - in race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, etc. - demonstrated by harrassing them, pushing them into lockers, name calling, etc.

So, I am unsure if you don't understand it because you just aren't that smart, or if you are being obtuse in order to justify such actions while still holding a membership card to Christianity, stating, more or less, that you tolerate intolerance, which I find an oxymoron to you religious beliefs.

So, mind filling us in? What is your issue with the statement "I will not tolerate intolerace?"

[Knight]

Beanie you write...Knight -What about "not tolerating intolerance" is so hard to wrap your brain around?

You are simply saying that the thing you won't put up with is someone's refusal to put up with someone because they are different - in race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, etc. - demonstrated by harrassing them, pushing them into lockers, name calling, etc.Come on beanie you are smarter than this aren't you???

When you cannot "tolerate" intolerance you are intolerant! The argument "I have zero tolerance for intolerance" is a self contradicting argument that you cannot escape!

A more consistent worldview might be....
"I am intolerant of -------- (insert item of intolerance here), but I am tolerant of X, Y and Z" In other words you qualify your intolerance.

Or....

"I am tolerant" (which would include being tolerant of those who are intolerant)

You continue...that you tolerate intoleranceOf course I tolerate intolerance and so do you!!! Don't you tolerate intolerance towards serial murderers??? I do! Don't you tolerate intolerance towards pedophiles? I do! How about rapists?? There are lots of things we should not tolerate or said in reverse... "tolerate intolerance towards", get the point?

Then.... once you admit that there are some things you have NO tolerance for the real question becomes where do our intolerance's differ?

[Projill]

That's the oldest argument I've seen in a long time on TOL. I think that argument is actually older than I am.

[Knight]

Originally posted by Projill
That's the oldest argument I've seen in a long time on TOL. I think that argument is actually older than I am. In my best Taxi Driver imitation.... Are you talkin' to me? :D

If so, what specifically do you disagree with about my point?

[Projill]

Originally posted by Knight
In my best Taxi Driver imitation.... Are you talkin' to me? :D

If so, what specifically do you disagree with about my point?

Oh, I'll keep out of it. I've argued both sides of this one before. (As hard as it is to believe, I once argued your side of it. ;)

I'm trying to stick with sarcastic side commentary at the moment. ;)

[beanieboy]

Knight - I don't put up with those who harrass other people simply because they differ in religion, weight, color of skin, etc. - those things that is none of the first person's business.

Are we in agreement there?

I tolerate someone who says homosexuality is a sin. I tolerate someone who hates homosexuals. But when someone harrasses the person because they are homosexual - name calling, violence, murder, unjustified firing, etc., then I do not tolerate it.

[beanieboy]

Knight - these kind of arguments are a general waste.

It's like writing the bill of rights, and wanting the freedom of religion. Then someone saying, "Oh, but if we do that, then we will have people making human sacrifices." It's extemist, and stupid, and showing lack of all common sense.

[Knight]

Beanie you write… Knight - I don't put up with those who harrass other people simply because they differ in religion, weight, color of skin, etc. - those things that is none of the first person's business. Would you hassle an acquaintance of yours if they told you that they liked to molest young boys?

[Barbiedoll]

Originally posted by kiwimac
What a crock of fetid dung!

Rarely have I seen such asinine drivel!

Kiwimac

True, you have just described homosexuals perfectly.

[Nineveh]

beanie boy,

"those things that is none of the first person's business." Unfortunatly that's not how it happens in the work place when people are mandated to attend seminars and classes on sexually oriented harassment. Or organizations are denied public access for not wanting to make it their business. The NEA is going to put this stuff in pullik skool too. No, I don't *want* to know, but it seems I am being forced to know, acknowledge, and accept all of this. And to make matters worse, I am not allowed to nicely say, "No, thank you." without being given the titles of bigot, closeminded, racist, homophobic, etc., all words designed to be used in a derogatory sence. How can I behave the way you want me to when on one hand you want privacy, and on the other you want everyone to know? I apologize to Knight and beanie boy. This is an A and B conversation, I'll C my way out :)

Ew kiwi, for crying out loud, you say you hold degrees. Right now I am wondering if those degrees are in putrid speech and heckling.

[Antipas]

I've been reading through this entire thread, well i've been skimming through it but I don't know if anyone has touched on the "moral" laws that's written in scripture.

I don't know how many people on this Board take the scripture seriously but it appears that people seem to ignore the fact that God finds this behavior disgusting. How do you reconcile this with your lifestyle if you are *gay* and are part of a religious organization?

I know of people that share the same denomination as me who are gay and they take the Word of God so seriously that they live a *celebate* lifestyle to avoid sinning in the eyes of God.

As for me, I have friends who are homosexual, and I care about them very much. They know that I do NOT agree with it at all and I do think it's NOT what God intended. Um, it does bother me that this behavior that goes against what's in scripture is *taught* to be OKAY when it isn't.

I also think it's wrong for school systems to take responsibility for something that should be discussed at home between a child and his parents. Whenver I have children, sex education and morality will start at home with me. I think it's horrible that *morality* is being taught at school and not at home.

Just a few thoughts thrown out there.

Antipas

[firechyld]

Ah, we've had discussion after discussion about whether or not the Bible does actually forbid homosexuality (I started the thread asking for evidence of that one myself), whether or not it's natural and whether or not "celibacy" actually removes the fact that one is homosexual.

None of these debates ever really got anywhere.

firechyld

[Barbiedoll]

Originally posted by Antipas
[B]I've been reading through this entire thread, well i've been skimming through it but I don't know if anyone has touched on the "moral" laws that's written in scripture.

I don't know how many people on this Board take the scripture seriously but it appears that people seem to ignore the fact that God finds this behavior disgusting. How do you reconcile this with your lifestyle if you are *gay* and are part of a religious organization?

_________________________________________

I agree that God finds homosexuality disgusting. Unfortunately, there are a few churches who accepts homosexuals, and I think these churches need to repent.

_________________________________________

I know of people that share the same denomination as me who are gay and they take the Word of God so seriously that they live a *celebate* lifestyle to avoid sinning in the eyes of God.

_________________________________________

But I believe when a homosexual truly repents and accepts Jesus Christ into his heart, if the homosexual truly accepted Jesus into their heart, they will not longer be a homosexual or have homosexual tendencies.

_________________________________________

As for me, I have friends who are homosexual, and I care about them very much. They know that I do NOT agree with it at all and I do think it's NOT what God intended. Um, it does bother me that this behavior that goes against what's in scripture is *taught* to be OKAY when it isn't.

I also think it's wrong for school systems to take responsibility for something that should be discussed at home between a child and his parents. Whenver I have children, sex education and morality will start at home with me. I think it's horrible that *morality* is being taught at school and not at home.

__________________________________________

Homosexuality is certainly not what God intended. Its evil, it comes from an evil spirit, from satan.

I agree that "morality" should be taught at home.

Great comments, Antipas.

[Zakath]

Barbiedoll wrote
But I believe when a homosexual truly repents and accepts Jesus Christ into his heart, if the homosexual truly accepted Jesus into their heart, they will not longer be a homosexual or have homosexual tendencies.

I'm puzzled, Barbiedoll.

It appears that you believe that homosexuality is some sort of special sin that a person can be delivered from once and for all. Do you believe that it's different from lying, cheating, having abortions, committing fraud, gluttony, avarice, drinking to excess, adultery, fornication, concupiscence, child abuse, pedophilia, wife beating, stealing money from the church, and all the hundreds (or even thousands) of other "sins" that Christians commit every day? Are you trying to indicate that anyone that commits sins cannot be a Christian?

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Knight
Beanie you write… Would you hassle an acquaintance of yours if they told you that they liked to molest young boys?

Knight,

Would you hassle an acquaintance of yours if you found out s/he abused other people's children?

If not, why the double standard? :confused:

[kiwimac]

Barbiedoll,

In an attempt at humour misquoted me. My dear, I was suggesting that the rabidly homophobic writings of folk like your self are fetid dung, asinine and drivel. Not the way in which people live their lives!

Please get it right next time!

Kiwimac

[Barbiedoll]

Originally posted by Zakath


I'm puzzled, Barbiedoll.

It appears that you believe that homosexuality is some sort of special sin that a person can be delivered from once and for all. Do you believe that it's different from lying, cheating, having abortions, committing fraud, gluttony, avarice, drinking to excess, adultery, fornication, concupiscence, child abuse, pedophilia, wife beating, stealing money from the church, and all the hundreds (or even thousands) of other "sins" that Christians commit every day? Are you trying to indicate that anyone that commits sins cannot be a Christian?

A person can be delivered from any sin once and for all. Its called sanctification. Yes, I believe that homosexuality is a "special sin", but a person can be delivered from all sin.

[Barbiedoll]

Originally posted by kiwimac
Barbiedoll,

In an attempt at humour misquoted me. My dear, I was suggesting that the rabidly homophobic writings of folk like your self are fetid dung, asinine and drivel. Not the way in which people live their lives!

Please get it right next time!

Kiwimac

I was very much aware of what you meant, I just decided to use what you said for the good.

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Barbiedoll
A person can be delivered from any sin once and for all. Its called sanctification. Yes, I believe that homosexuality is a "special sin", but a person can be delivered from all sin. [/B]

Your reply prompts a few questions:

In your belief system, is it common (or even possible) for a living human being to be "sanctified" in such a way as to do away with their ability to sin?
As a follow-up, do you believe that there are living human beings, alive in the flesh today, who do not ever sin?

Do you believe that homosexuality is a sin involving sexual orientation or sexaul activity? (I'm trying to get at the basis of what makes a homosexual a homosexual in your mind.) What is "special" about a sin inolving sexual orientation or sexual activity?

[beanieboy]

Originally posted by Nineveh
beanie boy,

"those things that is none of the first person's business." Unfortunatly that's not how it happens in the work place when people are mandated to attend seminars and classes on sexually oriented harassment. Or organizations are denied public access for not wanting to make it their business. The NEA is going to put this stuff in pullik skool too. No, I don't *want* to know, but it seems I am being forced to know, acknowledge, and accept all of this. And to make matters worse, I am not allowed to nicely say, "No, thank you." without being given the titles of bigot, closeminded, racist, homophobic, etc., all words designed to be used in a derogatory sence. How can I behave the way you want me to when on one hand you want privacy, and on the other you want everyone to know? I apologize to Knight and beanie boy. This is an A and B conversation, I'll C my way out :)

Ew kiwi, for crying out loud, you say you hold degrees. Right now I am wondering if those degrees are in putrid speech and heckling.

This is a forum. I don't see it as a conversation between two people, but a place for anyone to jump in, as long as they have been following the discussion.

I have been to sexual orientation seminars. They aren't graphic. They are more about understanding.

As an example, the type of thing that was discussed is that Bob says he and his wife went to see Titanic with their teenage daughters, and thought it was great.
What people hear is - Bob and his family liked Titanic.

Steve says he went to Titanic with his boyfriend and they thought the movie would never end.
What some people hear is "I'M A HOMOSEXUAL."

Bob has indicated that he is heterosexual, that he has obviously had sex, since he has daughters, but no one thinks he's talking about sex, thinks he's flaunting his sexuality.

They are both doing the same thing, but their is a double standard on each.

That is the thing that is usually tried to communicate - and understanding.

As I said, in my work environment, I have had people use the word "fag," say of something that was stupid "that is sooo gay," etc. All I wanted was for people to just be a little respectful. It's unnecessary rudeness. Outside of the workplace, I really don't care what you think, do, or say, but while I am working with other people, I expect at least a miminal amount of civility.

I'm sorry that you are subjected to it, but if there wasn't a problem, there wouldn't be a need for the seminar. If there was a place where being a christian was a minority, but people walked around saying, "jesus tapdancing christ" and the like, and you complained, and people said that you had a problem, so they offered a seminar to explain why that is offensive, and ask people to refrain, you may understand a little better. It's necessary to put yourself in another's shoes to understand how to treat you neighbor as yourself, sometimes.

[firechyld]

That was quite well said, beanie... salient points. :)

I hope people read and digest it before "retaliating"...

firechyld

[beanieboy]

Originally posted by Antipas
I've been reading through this entire thread, well i've been skimming through it but I don't know if anyone has touched on the "moral" laws that's written in scripture.

I don't know how many people on this Board take the scripture seriously but it appears that people seem to ignore the fact that God finds this behavior disgusting. How do you reconcile this with your lifestyle if you are *gay* and are part of a religious organization?

I know of people that share the same denomination as me who are gay and they take the Word of God so seriously that they live a *celebate* lifestyle to avoid sinning in the eyes of God.

As for me, I have friends who are homosexual, and I care about them very much. They know that I do NOT agree with it at all and I do th