[Author’s note: I do not support or contribute to any of the organizations or persons discussed here. I do not, and never have, eaten at Chick fil A. The only dog I have in this fight is the pursuit of truth determined by evidence.]
Chick fil A restaurants have recently been charged with numerous crimes against humanity, as have their customers. These crimes are perceived to have been perpetrated out of hatred for homosexuals, and homosexuals and their advocates have responded in what they consider to be a righteous fashion: vilification of those parties as subhuman haters, and making charges of organizational collusion with the government of Uganda to commit genocide on homosexuals.
The sources for these charges, when any are given, are in the form of links to websites which are at best tertiary sources and Leftist outrage sites, rather than links to any primary information that could be even remotely considered actual evidence. So since the outraged and self-righteous defenders of homosexuals made no attempt at due diligence in order to ascertain the actual facts in the matter, I took the effort to do so myself.
So are any of these charges made against organizations and individuals actually true? Let’s take them one at a time.
Chick fil A
Charge: Chick fil A donates money to hate groups which lobbied in Uganda for the “Kill The Homosexuals” genocide legislation and lobbied Congress to not support House Resolution 1064 which denounces the Ugandan Legislation.
First let’s determine if there is legislation designed to kill off all the homosexuals in Uganda. The background for the legislation is this: During the reign of King Mwanga, the homosexual king of Uganda would have people rounded up be sodomized by the king. When a group of Catholics led by Charles Lwanga refused to be sodomized by the king, he had them bound, marched 37 miles and burned alive on June 3, 1886. That date is a national holiday in Uganda. Uganda still recoils at the mass homosexual rapes and torture-murders, and the legislation severity reflects the Ugandan reaction to abuse by their homosexual king. But what does the proposed legislation actually say? Here is the full document for your perusal:
The Truth: The act of homosexuality is punishable by 7 years imprisonment, not death. The concept of genocide is not part of the legislation. The death penalty is proposed for “aggravated homosexual” acts such as rape, knowingly transferring AIDs, and for homosexual assault on certain types of victims, such as children, elders, disabled. For comparison, death is also the penalty for heterosexual rape of women.
While these punishments are highly severe, they are not genocidal. The charge of genocide is false. This fact alone takes the wind out of the American homosexual assault on these organizations, but there is more.
When searching through the organizations which are active in Uganda and are charged with abetting the “Kill The Homosexuals” legislation, they seem to ultimately track to these two: the Invisible Children organization, and Scott Lively, an individual.
Invisible Children
The Invisible Children organization has taken this stance:
” Invisible Children believes in the equality of all people around the globe and is in no way an anti-gay organization. We stand firmly against any form of the the Anti-Homosexuality Bill that has been proposed in Uganda, and commend the tremendous progress the Ugandan LGBTI community has made in showing the world that gay rights are indeed human rights. We are deeply saddened and troubled by recent attempts by some to associate Invisible Children with a pernicious anti-gay worldview. We believe that hate in any form is detrimental to our mission and that the liberty of all human beings is bound together.A vice president of Invisible Children writes,
“ [This article was written by Chris Sarette, the Vice President of Business Operations at Invisible Children. He has been part of the management team here for five years.]Charges against Invisible Children are false.
Invisible Children’s work concerns the most fundamental human rights issue—the right to live. The movement has been built on the tenet that ending the well-documented, sadistic crimes of Joseph Kony is one thing we all can agree on. And because it’s a human issue, Invisible Children has attracted supporters, employees and board members who otherwise might sit on opposite sides of the aisle. The Invisible Children community’s common conviction that people are people, and the actions that back it up, are one of the reasons that I finally came out as a gay man in 2007.
Invisible Children has always brought together unlikely allies. The LRA Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act of 2009 was introduced in the House by Congressmen Ed Royce (R-CA) and Jim McGovern (D-MA). One look at KONY 2012’s list of 32 influential culture and policy makers shows that we are purposely asking people from diverse ideological backgrounds to make statements about stopping LRA violence. That’s why the KONY 2012 list includes Stephen Colbert and Bill O’Reilly; Tim Tebow and Lady Gaga; Former Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush; Rush Limbaugh and Ellen Degeneres.
Personally, it’s difficult for me to see Invisible Children maligned as anti-gay because it’s simply untrue. This is the group of people that encouraged me to embrace my sexual identity and I have experienced the acceptance, not just tolerance, of everyone in the organization. And having just celebrated my fourth anniversary with my partner, I’m so happy that I did.
In the end, it is a community and a worldwide movement that is bound together by our common humanity. We are bound together by the conviction that where we live should not determine whether we live—that when a child in Congo is abducted it should be met with the same outrage and resolve as when a child in America is abducted. And because of that, we’re neither united nor divided by our sexual orientation, politics, faith, or ethnicity.
Last month the LRA abducted 45 people. And since the movie was released on March 5, they have abducted at least 11 more. That’s my personal motivation for working with anyone who also wants to see an end to 26 years of LRA violence. I hope you’ll consider joining us.”
Scott Lively
Also active in Uganda is Scott Lively, who also is accused of complicity with the “Kill The Homosexuals Legislation”. Is he really complicit? Here is his statement:
” I published the following essay on June 2, 2009 at DefendtheFamily.com in response to false suggestions in the media that I had advocated for the death penalty to be included in Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill. I will offer additional posts on this topic in future, but it is fitting to begin with this one since it was my first public comment on the matter. It’s claims remain true to this day, notwitstanding the global propaganda campaign that implies without evidence that many homosexuals have been murdered/executed there.
The Death Penalty in Uganda
by Scott Lively, J.D., Th.D.
President, Defend the Family International
June 2, 2009
By official count 22 young men were executed under Uganda’s law on homosexuality. The law in question required that all men and boys in Uganda be willing to submit to the homosexual seduction of it’s ruler, King Mwanga. When Ugandans began to convert to Christianity in the 1800s, a group of Catholics, led by Charles Lwanga, refused to allow themselves to be sodomized by the King. Enraged, King Mwanga had them torurously bound, marched 37 miles and then roasted alive in a fire pit. The date of their execution was June 3rd, 1886, and is today a national holiday commemorating Uganda’s rejection of homosexuality and commitment to Christian values.
It should be no surprise, therefore, that modern Ugandans are very unhappy that homosexual political activists from Europe and the United States are working aggressively to re-homosexualize their nation. Ugandan citizens report a growing number of foreign homosexual men coming to their country to turn desperately poor young men from the slums into their personal houseboys, and that some girls in public schools have being paid to recruit others into lesbianism. Foreign interests have exerted intense pressure on Uganda’s government to compromise its laws regarding sexual morality, often using their control over foreign aid funding for leverage.
Over the past decade a growing pro-family movement has begun to insist that Parliament do something about this problem. This year, Parliament answered the call. Unfortunately, the bill they are now debating represents a serious overcorrection, including, for example, the death penalty for certain forms of “aggravated homosexuality” (such as knowingly spreading AIDS).
As a Christian attorney and international human rights advocate who has worked closely with Uganda’s pro-family movement, I have a special interest in this issue. In my view, homosexuality (indeed all sex outside of marriage) should be actively discouraged by society — but only as aggressively as necessary to prevent the mainstreaming of alternative sexual lifestyles, and with concern for the preservation of the liberties of those who desire to keep their personal lifestyles private. Marriage-based culture served humanity very favorably during the centuries when homosexuality was disapproved but tolerated as a sub-culture in America, England and elsewhere. It has obviously not fared well in the decades since the so-called sexual revolution kicked open Pandora’s Box and unleashed both rampant heterosexual promiscuity and “Gay Pride“ on the world.
In March of this year I had the privilege of addressing members of the Ugandan parliament in their national assembly hall when the anti-homosexuality law was just being considered. I urged them to pattern their bill on some American laws regarding alcoholism and drug abuse. I cited my own pre-Christian experience being arrested for drunk driving. I was given and chose the option of therapy which turned out to be one of the best decisions of my life. I also cited the policy in some U.S. jurisdictions regarding marijuana. Criminalization of the drug prevents its users from promoting it, and discourages non-users from starting, even while the law itself is very lightly enforced, if at all. Additionally, I urged them to actively promote the marriage model in their schools as a form of inoculation to the anti-family messages flooding their country through Western media.
All of my suggestions were ignored (despite which fact I am being blamed for the proposed law as written by certain major media outlets and the “gay” blogosphere.) Nevertheless, I commend the courage of the Ugandan people. During the past decade or so, Uganda has been one of the few countries of the world that has firmly resisted the enormous power and relentless pressure of the international “gay” lobby, while other developing nations such as South Africa and Brazil have been systematically homosexualized. This is one of the reasons that Uganda’s AIDS rate went from the highest to the lowest in Africa during this same time period.
Let me be absolutely clear. I do not support the proposed anti-homosexuality law as written. It does not emphasize rehabilitation over punishment and the punishment that it calls for is unacceptably harsh. However, if the offending sections were sufficiently modified, the proposed law would represent an encouraging step in the right direction. As one of the first laws of this century to recognize that the destructiveness of the “gay” agenda warrants opposition by government, it would deserve support from Christian believers and other advocates of marriage-based culture around the world.
In the mean time, despite all of the hysteria in the liberal media, it is important to remember that there is no death penalty for homosexuals in Uganda, only a bill under debate that will hopefully be modified before passage. The only Ugandans who have been executed for their beliefs and actions about homosexuality have been Christians.”
The charges against Scott Lively are false.
Family Research Council
Closer to home, the Family Research Council has been accused of spending $25,000 lobbying against the House Resolution 1064 which condemns the Ugandan “Kill The Homosexuals” legislation. The evidence for that is that FRC spent $25,000 for one lobbying period, during which the Uganda issue was discussed. The evidence upon which FRC was condemned is here, here and here.
From this it is seen that (a) FRC spent $25,000 on lobbying, and (b) the Ugandan homosexual legislation was addressed. Those are the only facts available from this information.
But the conclusion immediately inferred was that FRC spent $25,000 to lobby for the Ugandan homosexual legislation, and against the House Resolution 1064 against the Ugandan homosexual legislation. But those clips are only part of the story, removed from the full context of the actual record, and actual facts.
When the full record is produced, it shows that FRC lobbied 20 different issues with that $25,000, not exclusively the Ugandan homosexual legislation. That comes to exactly $1,250 per issue. Since there were two lobbyists, that amounts to $625 each in wages paid to the lobbyist for each issue.
Further, there is no indication of what the position was which was taken by FRC via their lobbyists on any of the issues. So the condemnation is a Jump To Conclusion and a false attribution of funding at this point. And the truncation used in the original charge appears to be purposeful for distorting the issue.
So what are the actual facts? Did FRC lobby against HRes 1064? Here is their response to my inquiry to them:
” Dear Stan,The charges against FRC are based on no evidence whatsoever, and are false.
Thank you for your email to Family Research Council.
We did not lobby against the Uganda bill, H. Resolution 1064. Shortly after the rumors started in 2010, we issued this statement:
"Inaccurate internet reports have been circulating indicating that the Family Research Council lobbied against a congressional resolution condemning a bill proposed in Uganda. The Uganda bill would have provided for the death penalty for something called aggravated homosexuality. Unfortunately, those spreading these false rumors deliberately failed to obtain the facts first.
FRC did not lobby against or oppose passage of the congressional resolution. FRCs efforts, at the request of Congressional offices, were limited to seeking changes in the language of proposed drafts of the resolution, in order to make it more factually accurate regarding the content of the Uganda bill, and to remove sweeping and inaccurate assertions that homosexual conduct is internationally recognized as a fundamental human right.
FRC does not support the Uganda bill, and does not support the death penalty for homosexuality nor any other penalty which would have the effect of inhibiting compassionate pastoral, psychological, and medical care and treatment for those who experience same-sex attractions or who engage in homosexual conduct."
http://www.frcblog.com/2010/06/frc-statement-on-h-res-1064/
Thank you for taking the time to seek clarification on this issue. We appreciate the chance to defend our belief in the essential dignity of every human being as a person created in the image of God. Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can provide any further assistance. May God bless you and your family.
Sincerely,
[Name Redacted, ed.]
FRC Correspondence”
Other Charges
There are also charges that the Ed Silvoso organization, Harvest Evangelism, lobbied the Uganda government in support of the proposed homosexual legislation. There is no evidence presented by the homosexual/Leftists that this is factually the case. Without actual evidence, these charges are not credible.
Samples of Charges Made by Homosexual Sources
Innuendo is the main stock-in-trade of the Leftist, Anti-Christian, Pro-homosexual sites. Some of these sites refer to the evil of the sources of funding as the problem. Other sites refer to the evil of the receiving sites as the problem. The circularity is glaring. None of the sites provides primary evidence of their charges; rather they deal in guilt by inference. An example is the condemnation of anyone who speaks with certain Ugandans, regardless of what the conversation actually consisted.
Example 1; example 2.
A favorite charge technique starts with, “Questions Have Been Raised…” In the text, the questions devolve to assertions of fact, taking the form of hate and guilt mongering without any primary evidence for support. Organizations are deemed evil merely by association with other organizations which have no factual evidence against them. It is the same with individuals, such as Rick Warren, Ed Silvoso, Scott Lively and others, all without any factual evidence of their alleged involvement in promoting the Ugandan homosexual legislation, which is hysterically termed “Kill the Homosexuals Legislation”.
Here is Daily Kos:
”Chick-Fil-A's corporate "charity" arm WinShape has donated millions of dollars to groups like Family Research Council. FRC doesn't just oppose marriage equality, they really do HATE gays. Its president Tony Perkins has said of LGBT people:The innuendo is unfounded in fact; it is factually false, inflammatory, and it is therefore hateful: Perkins is right on this matter. It is actually baseless slander in pursuit of a Consequentialist objective.
“They are intolerant. They are hateful. They are vile. They are spiteful...pawns of the enemy.”And in 2010 Tony Perkins' Family Research Council claimed in federal forms they had spent $25,000 to lobby Congress on "CIVH.Res.1064Ugandan Resolution Pro-homosexual promotion." This proposed Congressional resolution condemned the Ugandan government's legislative efforts to make "homosexuality" an offense punishable by death.
How can anyone oppose condemning that? But Family Research Council apparently did.
And Family Research Council gets money from Chick-Fil-A. Joe Jervis was the first to break this story, more details can be found here.”
Now let’s look at Joe Jervis’ contribution. “Joe My God” is apparently one of the award-winning homosexual sources that other Leftists go to for their “facts”. The prejudicing of the issue is found right here:
Joe:
” It's time for the Southern Poverty Law Center to reclassify the Family Research Council as an official hate group, not merely anti-gay as they are now listed. According to the FRC's official lobbying report for the first quarter of 2010, they paid two of their henchmen $25,000 to lobby Congress against approving a resolution denouncing Uganda's plan to execute homosexuals. The resolution passed in the Senate on April 13th, but remains languishing in the House almost four months after being referred to the Foreign Affairs Committee. Did the FRC's lobbying kill it? As we learned last week with Malawi, international pressure CAN sway even the most virulently anti-gay government.”
Joe goes on to truncate the FRC report in order to make it look like the FRC spent the entire $25,000 on one issue, Uganda’s homosexual legislation. He then proceeds to assume with absolutely no evidence to support it that the FRC lobbied FOR the annihilation of homosexuals.
Says Joe in his incisive analysis:
” But it's almost astounding, almost, that they would lobby the members of Congress against denouncing the death penalty for LGBT people. THIS needs to fucking THROWN in Tony Perkins' and Peter Sprigg's smirking faces the next time they appear on cable television to speak in soothing voices about the FRC's godly gentle love for homosexuals. The proof is right below on official United States government stationery.Joe’s hanger’s-on take the hint; read their comments.
The Family Research Council wants you DEAD. Glory! Praise His Name! Also: Die, faggots, die!”
Another source for this is Box Turtle Bulletin, which posts an interview with Ugandan MP David Bahati. BTB seizes upon Bahati’s comment that privately some American evangelicals support “us” and “encourage us”. That is taken by BTB as support for killing homosexuals. But in the later part of the video Bahati also says this in response to a question:
” van Zeller: Many people say that the visit of three American Evangelicals to Uganda back in March and the conference that was held here was the main catalyst for this bill.
Bahati: Well, I think that that is in a way to be a bit insulting our country, that you’re suggesting that Ugandans cannot think for themselves. They cannot try to address the issues they are faced with. And it is somehow… refreshes the memories of colonialism, so it is something that is very disturbing. “
Isn’t it in fact racist and xenophobic to suggest that Ugandan legislation is driven not by Ugandans, but by white foreigners? It certainly “raises questions…” about the motives of those making the charges, doesn’t it? (See how innuendo works?)
Box Turtle Bulletin summarizes with these words:
” Nonetheless, we now know that Tony Perkins, Peter Sprigg, Kenneth Blackwell, McClusky, Christensen and the rest of that ilk want you dead.In light of actual facts, what BTB claims is false. False, false, false.
Dead, dead, dead.”
Summary
None of the homosexual source sites provide any actual facts regarding the people and organizations which they condemn. As far as I can tell,
(a) It is not true that the Ugandan proposed homosexual legislation is genocidal.It seems that if there were actual facts backing the homosexual charges, that those facts would accompany their accusatory articles. But there are no such facts available.
(b) It is not true that the Ugandan proposed homosexual legislation gives the death penalty for homosexual behavior, except for rape and assault. It should be noted that the penalty for heterosexual rape of a woman is also punishable by death. The enforcement of rape law in Uganda is poor. There is pending legislation in Uganda concerning the definition of rape, to include female rape of a male and marital rape. See here and here.
(c) It is not true that FRC lobbied against H Res 1064.
(d) It is not true that FRC supported the Ugandan proposed homosexual legislation.
(e) It is not true that Invisible Children, or Scott Lively supported the Ugandan homosexual legislation proposal.
(f) There is no apparent evidence to support the charges against Harvest Evangelism, Rick Warren, or any other evangelical for supporting the eradication of homosexuals, or the proposed Ugandan homosexual legislation.
(g) There is no apparent evidence that Chick fil A supports the eradication of homosexuals, or organizations which support the eradication of homosexuals, or the Ugandan proposed homosexual legislation. What evidence exists shows that Chick fil A prefers Christian employees although it does have non-Christian employees, and Chick fil A does not discriminate against customers in any manner.
Conclusion
It is entirely likely that most supporters of the homosexual attack on anyone who supports the mother-father family do not have a clue as to the actual facts of the situation which they endorse. Yet they seize any report by the virulent activists as support for the metanarrative, and they then go hysterical and emotional in their responses. There is no concept of intellectual integrity involved, no perception of due diligence in finding out the actual facts. It is the ideology which counts, not facts. And this is absolutely consistent with the concept that there are no behaviors which can be declared immoral, except to disagree with that concept. Plus the desire to install that amorality as the standard for society.
The pursuit of total amorality as a Right which is not to be abridged is the consequence of the inverted morality and logic of the homosexual and Atheist Left. They fight for that supposed Right with every deception which they can muster, at least at the bottom activist level where they have facts but choose to ignore or corrupt them. Box Turtle Bulletin and Joe My God give insight into how that works.
It is interesting that even though the actual document which contains the Ugandan proposed homosexual legislation is available on the web, that the concept of genocide has not been confronted by anyone of the AtheoLeftist/homosexual persuasion, at least to my knowledge after a number of google searches. Further, the concept of rape is never, ever discussed, nor is homosexual assault. Apparently the continuum is in full play, where the Leftist/homosexual community thinks that any and all behavior falls along the spectral continuum of totally acceptable behaviors. Or at least one might get that impression by their lack of concern for rape and sexual assault by homosexuals.
What is more false than false?
The entire thrust of the hysterical homosexual/Leftist assault on Chick fil A is based on zero evidence and is merely slander. The nature of the homosexual/Leftist attacks is egregious to the point of irrationality and insanity. Those who repeated slanders which they did not check for factuality can be accurately compared to the “useful idiots” of nine decades ago, utopians who went to Communist Russia looking for utopia-on-Earth, and were shown Potemkin villages set up just for the purpose of displaying a false utopia to credulous western Leftists. Those Leftists bought the deception totally. Then the Leftists went home and heaped lavish praise on the Communists through their media: newspaper columns and books. The Communists termed them “useful idiots”, as they purveyed the false claims of Communist utopias to the western world.
This has seemingly happened again, in reverse. The Potemkining of the teary-eyed, empathy-addled apologists for the Left’s program to install total amorality of all behaviors has been marked by the credulous belief by the hangers-on in the false and malicious charges of hate from the homosexual activists, charges which are based on bupkis in the way of facts, and plenty in the way of outright lies and slander and libel. The mindless repetition of these maliciously false charges is at best immature, and at worst intellectually dishonest or defective. It is possibly even illegal.
Because of the acceptance of the continuum where there is no falseness and no moral differentiation, the entire Leftist culture seemingly has no concept of lying anymore, because there is no truth. Without either truth or moral principle, anything is legitimate and nothing is illegitimate, so long as it supports the metanarrative. Hence, there is nothing to be ashamed about, and so no shame whatsoever. The resulting freedom is heady and must be protected with whatever works, regardless of any consideration of truth, honesty or other moral constraint. Truth, honesty and moral constraint no longer exist.
Total freedom from intellectual and/or moral constraint is highly dangerous. It is non-rational, i.e. insane. It is becoming widespread. And it is currently being sanctioned at the highest levels of government.
131 comments:
"The only dog I have in this fight is the pursuit of truth determined by evidence"
+
"the Homosexual-AtheoLeft"
=
Failure.
Your rhetoric destroys your credibility before you even get out of the gate.
But what does the proposed legislation actually say? Here is the full document for your perusal:
According to your link "Serial offenders" are killed. To be a serial offender you have to be convicted of more than one offence. The homosexual act is an offence, "Conspiracy to engage in homosexuality" is an offence, "offers premises for purposes of homosexuality" (inviting someone into your home) is an offence and so on.
Reading your link it looks like more gay people will be executed than I originally thought.
Whateverman,
You are making the same baseless charge that accompanies all the recent "morality" charges made by the intersection of the homosexuals, the Atheists and the Left: The homosexual AtheoLeft. It's a valid classification of three categories intersecting. Does that insult you? Take it up with Venn.
Charging rhetoric is completely without meaning; if you wish to charge falseness, then you must demonstrate what and why it is false.
Is that all you have to contribute regarding the post? Terminology nanny?
Or are you offended? If you think you are offended, that is just not possible in an environment where any and all behaviors are equally valid, because being offended would mean that you are bigoted in regards to that valid behavior which offends you. So surely you're not offended. Unless, of course, you actually are bigoted.
Since you don't address the content of the post, it appears that you have no argument which you can present against it other than terminology nannyism.
Or maybe you stopped reading in order to halt the inflow of undesirable information which might be damaging to your worldview. It's just hard to tell from your comment.
What if every burger you bought at McDonalds sent money to an organisation that was changing laws to execute and imprison Christians?
You are making the same baseless charge that accompanies all the recent "morality" charges made by the intersection of the homosexuals, the Atheists and the Left: The homosexual AtheoLeft. It's a valid classification of three categories intersecting. Does that insult you? Take it up with Venn.
Insult me? No. I'm neither an atheist nor am I a liberal.
You misunderstand. Your use of the term is an endorsement of it, and THAT I'll take up with YOU, unless you're not willing to stand by the things you write.
In any case, a gross mischaracterization following the statement that you're pursuing truth is laughable. Really, it is. The only one with a problem here (involving credibility) is you.
You shoot yourself in the foot before you've written anything of substance.
That's something that any person in pursuit o the truth would be concerned about.
Am I reading you correctly in that you are saying the accusations against Chick-fil-a were slander because the legalisation didn't kill enough homosexual people and when people who had a part in this distanced themselves from it later when you asked? It's just a matter of degree?
bill said...
What if every burger you bought at McDonalds sent money to an organisation that was changing laws to execute and imprison Christians?
That'd be OK because Christians have raped and burnt people at the stake, right?
Heh. You could email the people behind changing the laws and if they've distanced themselves from it just plain take their word for it. I mean, if they were involved they'd have no reason to lie, right? Even if there was a earlier youtube video of them that contradicts what they say.
Aqium,
You are right; homosexuals who repeat the behavior after the first seven year term in prison are committing "aggravated homosexuality" under the terms of the proposed homosexual legislation.
The proposed legislation is definitely onerous. The issue here is whether any of the accused organizations or people support that legislation. They do not.
bill,
You didn't read the post did you.
None of the organizations being charged with supporting the legislation actually support it: the charges are false. The outrage is against a non-existent abuse.
Whateverman
You still haven't made a cogent explanation. I have described a group of people. How does that mean that I endorse them? Explain.
Aqium,
"Am I reading you correctly in that you are saying the accusations against Chick-fil-a were slander because the legalisation didn't kill enough homosexual people and when people who had a part in this distanced themselves from it later when you asked? It's just a matter of degree?"
Uganda also has a death penalty for heterosexual rape; does that translate to genocide? The improper use of the term genocide is hysterical and trivializes actual genocide.
Now if you have actual video evidence which shows the use of Chick fil A cash to lobby for the support of genocide of homosexuals, then show it. Don't just imply that it exists. If you produce it, I will post it. If you do not have such evidence, then admit that you do not.
Fact. Calling for the death of homosexuals happens frequently by Religio-Right political leaders.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=religious+leader+call+for+death+of+homosexuals
Not directly related to CFA, but certainly on topic.
Fact. As soon as their bigotry is called out, they scramble to cover up and downplay the incident.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/05/19/mississippi-2/
Posted for its recent happening.
Fact. Such individuals are often found involved in homosexual acts themselves.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/04/homophobic_maybe_you_re_gay_the_new_york_times_on_a_new_study_of_secret_sexuality_.html
Chik Fil A donated millions to anti-gay groups.
http://equalitymatters.org/factcheck/201207020001
Fact.
This is not zero evidence, nor is it slander. It is fact.
For a group that is obsessed with government involvement in your private lives, the religio-right sure is eager to jump in bed to get between two consenting adults.
Innuendo totally intended.
Whateverman, Aquim, bill
You could just elaborate a counterargument, instead of going into emotional assertions, or at least, recognize you're doing the latter.
Skeptics should demonstrate their self-proclaimed rationality, and keep mere political bias aside when analyzing these delicate issues.
Whateverman,
I'll give you an example. Define what is faith, why faith is not needed to acquire new Knowledge, and why faith should be posited as an opposite to Knowlegde.
Second, how do you think faith, knowlegde and beliefs are associated, or disassociated.
I'm afraid it's counterproductive to your ways of doing any judgement, to apply excessive condescendence on claims like the one done with this blog post, no matter whether you're atheist or not, intolerance is the problem. If you keep going like that, your conduct would be no different from any other fundamentalist.
Kind Regards.
You could just elaborate a counterargument, instead of going into emotional assertions, or at least, recognize you're doing the latter.
Whatever emotion you think is present on my part, is your imagination. I'm as cool as a cucumber. As for a counterargument, I've made it clear that Stan has contradicted himself before his "argument" left the gate. As such, there's nothing to counter-argue.
I'll give you an example. Define what is faith
Nope. Give me the example without requiring me to answer questions. To insist otherwise implies you're not that interested in what you've claimed.
godless says,
"Innuendo totally intended."
Finally. An honest admission. Thanks.
Whateverman says,
"I've made it clear that Stan has contradicted himself before his "argument" left the gate. As such, there's nothing to counter-argue."
No, that is false. You have made a baseless accusation regarding terminology, and you have not addressed anything in the post. You are merely wasting time and avoiding any substantive discussion.
You have made a baseless accusation regarding terminology
Not baseless at all. You can't both be pursuing truth and using the term in this post's title.
you have not addressed anything in the post
That IS correct. You've demonstrated that your essay is flawed from the get-go, and the ONLY thing I'm addressing here is that flaw.
If you think I should ignore it, you're asking me NOT to pursuit the truth
Up with the sun said...
"The interference might not be against people like us yet mbut it could be. Think about it."
First, I doubt your claim to conservatism.
Second, the only government involvement which has actually been shown to have occurred as a result of these groups is the initial threat by political leaders of state and city governments in the USA to discriminate against Chick fil A.
All the charges against these groups are unsubstantiated by facts, unless you can produce facts to show otherwise.
What I don't see is any refutation of either of the posts on this subject.
Interestingly, I'm pretty sure use of that term ALSO contradicts Stan's mission statement (re. analyzing atheism without resorting to fantasy)
Whateverman,
It is obvious there's not any rational discussion here.
You have just demonstrated what has been said above. You won't leave anything open to discuss, then you keep responding with invectives.
It is condescendence (by patronizing). You want to bother other people without bothering yourself.
Kind Regards.
It is obvious there's not any rational discussion here.
If you're unable to understand the words I've used, please let me know and I'll gladly clarify.
You have just demonstrated what has been said above. You won't leave anything open to discuss, then you keep responding with invectives.
I agreed that I'm not discussing the topic of Stan's post, and I explained why. Instead of receiving an explanation or qualification, all Stan and his valiant supporters have done is wave their hands dismissively.
If you want discussion, and if you want to search for truth, you're going to have to do better than you've done here.
"Chick fil A restaurants have recently been charged with numerous crimes against humanity, as have their customers."
No, they haven't. It doesn't bode well when you start with such an over the top lie. No-one has been dragged in front of the I.C.C. They are not debating this in The Hague.
" During the reign of King Mwanga, the homosexual"
Who took many wives and had at least ten children.
"All the charges against these groups are unsubstantiated by facts, unless you can produce facts to show otherwise.
I don't get it. You yourself posted links that Chick-Fil-A WAS contributing to anti-gay groups.
"When the full record is produced, it shows that FRC lobbied 20 different issues with that $25,000, not exclusively the Ugandan homosexual legislation. That comes to exactly $1,250 per issue."
And half of them seem like anti-gay issues. Again, you show that Chick-Fil-A was contributing to anti-gay groups.
"The death penalty is proposed for “aggravated homosexual” acts such as rape, knowingly transferring AIDs, and for homosexual assault on certain types of victims, such as children, elders, disabled."
I notice you deliberately left out what they call "serial offender" - committing more than one homosexual act. Didn't fit the narrative, did it?
Tweets from people unhappy about Chick-fil-A get an entire post about how nasty left-wing people are - Right wing person murders a bunch of people and nary a word.
Wheteverman,
"If you want discussion, and if you want to search for truth, you're going to have to do better than you've done here.
Whatever, man.
You assume you already won an argument. You don't know what is my position about this yet. I don't even know enough about this problem either.
Now I'm not a "truth seeker", but won't you bother to define what is the truth you're after. That is an universal statement, without explanation. You see, I'm not American (from the US), even a single page link would be useful to begin my quest.
"I agreed that I'm not discussing the topic of Stan's post, and I explained why. Instead of receiving an explanation or qualification, all Stan and his valiant supporters have done is wave their hands dismissively."
There, you mention it yourself.
I don't agree with everything Stan says either. But at first, instead of tring to elaborate a bit about your counterargument, you barely tried to put down a whole text with just a couple of sentences, without exposing why would you do so, then dismiss the rest yourself, then you won't discuss the problem at all.
About my questions, well, it was just a try of my part, to discuss about some topics I've seen in your blog. I see you won't like to discuss about that either, even at the expense of such questions being way off-topic, and being obviously misleading, in context.
I'm just fine, you may keep patronizing about these issues. Won't lead anybody anywhere.
Kind Regards.
Now I'm not a "truth seeker", but won't you bother to define what is the truth you're after.
It's Stan's claim, not mine. Ask him.
instead of tring to elaborate a bit about your counterargument, you barely tried to put down a whole text with just a couple of sentences, without exposing why would you do so
That is a blatant lie. Or dismal reading comprehension. Only you would know either way. I explained the purpose of my comments here, quite clearly.
Stan's argument never gets off the ground. There's nothing to provide counterpoint for.
Whateverman,
What about rebutting the rest of the text posted here, and reinforcing your conclusion?
To make sure that it is plausible to mention Stan's arguments never get off the ground, there's no better explanation that an elabotared counterargument which supports what you claim.
More so, with ignorant people like me. Share your knowledge on the issue.
You may elaborate, or just keep patronizing.
Kind Regards.
The FRC tries to spin their involvement in Uganda's bill as merely trying to make sure that wording of HR1064 didn't endorse "pro-homosexual propaganda" (their words on their lobbying disclosure form), but the FACT is that it was due to FRC pressure that the resolution was "referred back to committee" where it has languished for the last two years.
However you spin it, the FRC did indeed succeed in stopping Congress from condemning the executions of homosexuals. Not incidentally, the FRC has since deleted the text of a radio address their head Tony Perkins made on this issue, but thanks the Wayback Machine, hate is forever: http://web.archive.org/web/20100315131339/http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=CM10B11
I note that you also fail to mention that the FRC supports the criminalization of homosexuality right here in the United States, a stance loudly proclaimed on national television by FRC vice-president Peter Sprigg. (MSNBC, Chris Matthews' "Hardball", March 24th, 2010.) That clip is available on YouTube.
In your defense of that despicable creature Scott Lively, you omit mention that last year he was busted for employing a convicted pedophile to run his "Christian" outreach center for teenagers in Massachusetts and that he's been successfully sued for brutally beating a woman in Oregon. Glory! Praise!
Lively also claims that that Nazi Party was founded by homosexuals, that President Obama is secretly married to a man in Pakistan, and many other similarly ridiculous bits of nonsense.
You can parse the dollars spent per bill lobbied any way you like, but the indisputable truth is that that Chick-Fil-A's "charitable" arm endorses groups that relentlessly campaign for the criminalization and executions of LGBT people around the world.
Christian Love™ in action.
What about rebutting the rest of the text posted here
Why are you having trouble understanding what I've written?
[the comment above was deleted, forgot to change "sumbol" to "symbol". In this post, the typo es corrected.]
Whateverman,
I think you're just reluctant to understand my real position.
As I told you, I'm an ignorant person, and sceptical to the veracity of your statement.
So, an elaboration of why are you certain that Stan's arguments never get off the ground, is needed. Isn't that obvious?
Such sentence quoting from the first post, to then being reluctant to explain, why the Homosexual AtheoLeft terminology is being a symbol of mischaracterization and/or caricaturization.
You may begin from there, or just keep patronizing. I hope it does not escalate to mere ego-stroking.
Kind Regards.
an elaboration of why are you certain that Stan's arguments never get off the ground, is needed. Isn't that obvious?
No it's not, given that I've already explained why.
I'll let Stan answer, or not, as he sees fit.
Whatever, man.
Keep Patronizing and keep requesting answers, as you, and only you, may see fit.
Have a nice day :)
Kind Regards.
godless says,
"Innuendo totally intended."
Finally. An honest admission. Thanks.
I think the lady doth protest too much, to respond as if this was the only thing honestly said.
What about all those trouble-some facts you've ignored?
Stan, as someone from the AtheoLeft, as you call it, I would like to first thank you for your research on the topic, and I mean it! I read you entire post carefully and found a very well done research.
To be clear, I really think that you did a good job at investigating the articles and the comments and showing that all these people accused of supported KILLING of homosexuals don’t actually agree with the KILLING. In other words, it’s interesting to read the evidence showing that they are not, and never were, in favour of KILLING homosexuals just because they are homosexuals.
Some liberal and/or AtheoLeft, and even neutral sources, have shown otherwise, and I am glad you corrected the misconceptions. I had personally not heard a lot about it but I am glad to read that these groups’, or individuals’, positions were misrepresented. We can all agree that homosexuals should not be killed just for being homosexuals. Case closed.
That being said... I never thought that this was the actual complains that the AtheoLeft (or anybody else actually) had against Chick-Fil-A..........
Therefore, when you wrote the following in the comment section:
All the charges against these groups are unsubstantiated by facts, unless you can produce facts to show otherwise.
I could not help but think that this is completely FALSE, as there are certainly SOME charges that are substantiated by facts. The problem is that you attempt to address the ‘genocide’ charges only, when the full picture is not only about genocide, but mostly about discrimination of an entire group of people based on sexual orientation; something well understood now in the 21st century. In short, they want to put gays in prison for 7 years just because they are gays... WHAT THE F$%*?. (Sorry for the “emotional” outburst...)
To discriminate against homosexual today, is like discriminating against people who are left handed. There is literally no difference. People don’t choose who they are attracted to the most, just like people don’t choose which hand serves them the best. Some people are terrible at using their left (or right) hand, while some people are not too bad with both....
Therefore, to prove that some, if not most, charges against Chick-Fill-A are actually TRUE is actually extremely simple, as you give examples in your own post... No need to look anywhere else. Obviously, the problem is that these charges don’t concern extreme things such as genocide, but they concern the discrimination against homosexuals perpetuated by several groups of people, which Chick-Fill-A supports.
In other words, if your post was ONLY about accusation of genocide support, then we are done. There is nothing more to say, and you were right Stan.
However, you would be missing 99% of the REAL issue, which are FACTS that show Chick-Fill-A, and its acolytes, discriminating against people solely based on their sexual orientations. Here are the facts I am talking about; FROM YOUR OWN POST:
From Stan:
- The Truth: The act of homosexuality is punishable by 7 years imprisonment
From Scott Lively
- Homosexuality [...] should be actively discouraged by society[...]. Marriage-based culture served humanity very favorably during the centuries when homosexuality was disapproved [...]. I urged [the Ugandan parliament] to pattern their bill on some American laws regarding alcoholism and drug abuse.
From Family Research Council.
- FRC does not support [...] any other penalty which would have the effect of inhibiting compassionate pastoral, psychological, and medical care and treatment for those who experience same-sex attractions or who engage in homosexual conduct.
These simple facts show that Chick-Fill-A, and its acolytes, are completely wrong when it comes to sexual orientation. They simply deny the FACT that sexual orientation is not a choice... just like being left handed is not a choice.
Finally, I went on Chick-fil-a.com today for the first time. I was curious to see if they updated their website following this drama. Under their FAQ section, they have the following statement:
The Chick-fil-A culture and service tradition in our Restaurants is to treat every person with honor, dignity and respect –regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender.
If that is not a lie........ I don’t know what is.
Thanks for your time.
p.s.
If you want a quick summary of the position of anyone on the "AtheoLeft" side, think about this:
- Should we put someone who is left-handed in prison for using their left hand to... well, do whatever they want?
- Should we put a left-handed person in prison because they used their left hand to inject AIDS to someone else using their left hand?
- Does the fact that the "AIDS criminal" used their left hand changes anything?
PM said,
”However, you would be missing 99% of the REAL issue, which are FACTS that show Chick-Fill-A, and its acolytes, discriminating against people solely based on their sexual orientations.”
Actually that is incorrect. It is a presumption without any primary evidence. As far as has been demonstrated, there is no primary evidence to support that there is any actual physical discrimination other than statement of opinion. The condemnation presumes that every accused group and/or individual is lying about their involvement in either the Ugandan proposed legislation and H Res 1064. There is no other evidence presented. I had thought that I had demonstrated that. Here is Scott Lively’s comment which is part of the comment you posted:
Scott Lively:
”In my view, homosexuality (indeed all sex outside of marriage) should be actively discouraged by society -- but only as aggressively as necessary to prevent the mainstreaming of alternative sexual lifestyles, and with concern for the preservation of the liberties of those who desire to keep their personal lifestyles private. Marriage-based culture served humanity very favorably during the centuries when homosexuality was disapproved but tolerated as a sub-culture in America, England and elsewhere. It has obviously not fared well in the decades since the so-called sexual revolution kicked open Pandora’s Box and unleashed both rampant heterosexual promiscuity and "Gay Pride" on the world.”
And he said this:
”[M]y advice to the parliament was to go the other direction from what they did to actually go on a proactive positive message promoting the family, promoting marriage, etcetera, through the schools, and that if they were going to continue to criminalize homosexuality that they should focus on rehabilitation and not punishment. And I was very disappointed when the law came out as it is written now with such incredibly harsh punishments”
As for FRC, to condemn them it is necessary to presume that they are lying about their lobbying position; there is no primary evidence present to prove that they lobbied against condemning the Ugandan proposed legislation contrary to their claim of not having done so.
This is no different from claiming that homosexuals hate families which consist of male-female parents and wish to destroy anyone who supports those ancient social structures. There is sufficient circumstantial evidence to demonstrate that, plus direct evidence including the periodic violence which homosexuals have perpetrated against supporters of male-female marriage ( Prop 8 for example).
Even homosexuals would disagree with your Left handedness analogy, because they wish to discriminate against other sexual behaviors such as pedophilia, ephebophilia (age 13 to 19) and hebephilia/pederasty. If homosexuality is normalized due to being an unchosen sexual predilection, then it is blatant bigotry for homosexuals to discriminate against any other unchosen sexual predilection. This includes rape, and homosexuals should be leery of entering into a conversation regarding victims and victimization as a differentiator.
And again, the only reason that homosexuality is not now a disorder in the APA DSM is because one young revolutionary who gained control decided unilaterally to remove it out of sympathy for homosexuals, while rejecting actual science to the contrary.
The usual proponents of Science and Scientism are silent on this issue.
Dang, Stan. The comment filter drops and the... ummm... 'brights'... really start to come out of the woodwork, don't they? Whateverman is kind of funny, however. I write that with a straight face because it's plain he is here to disrupt with whatever works - because 'whatever, man' is what you say when you have *nothing* to say.
Terrific roleplaying, I must admit.
Don't be ignorant, Steven Stan knows exactly what my issue was, and to date, not one of you enlightened souls cared to address it.
Whateverman,
I asked you to explain your complaint about the terminology, and all you do is blither in response. If you have a coherent opinion, then let's hear it, complete with the explanation of the logic which supports it. Otherwise there is no reason to even continue to read your comments.
I asked you to explain your complaint about the terminology, and all you do is blither in response.
What part of my initial response were you unclear about, Stan?
Be specific, and I'll answer you in kind.
Has anyone examined the dozen or so discrimination lawsuits Chick-Fil-A settled yet?
I still don't get it. Stan started off showing how Chick-Fil-A WAS contributing to anti-gay groups and then he slowly changes his position into that being completely untrue.
Whateverman,
You claim that calling out a category means endorsement of that category.
That is nonsensical.
Richard Dawkins refers to fundamentalist Christians; that doesn't mean he is one.
You have had all sorts of chances to explain yourself; you have not. You merely seem to want to obstruct. That is an undesirable trait which is covered in the blog rules, found in the right hand column.
@Whatever,man: nah, you're probably new here. Or you would realize that Stan is not so easily drawn into arguments over nada.
Heh. As I read that comment, 'Don't be ignorant, Steven...' I had this image of a guy somewhere looking down his nose at me.
*Sniff!*
When are *you* gonna wise up to the fact that we're onto your fake assumption of intellectual superiority? More to the point, when are you gonna answer Stan's question? Put up or shut up, I say. I'm guessing you won't bless us with the latter.
Whateverman,
You claim that calling out a category means endorsement of that category.
That is nonsensical.
Are you suggesting that your use of Homosexual-AtheoLeft was disingenuous, or perhaps insincere?
"Pete Galvetii said...
Has anyone examined the dozen or so discrimination lawsuits Chick-Fil-A settled yet?"
The Leftist web chatter all seems to refer back to this one article:
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2007/0723/080.html
Only one suit was settled that we know of, a Muslim made his way into the Christian organization and didn't want to obey the rules of the organization.
The rest are not termed settled; that is a jump to conclusion. So far I have not found the suits, including the GLAAD referenced suit (sexual discrimination at a local outlet).
Being sued means nothing; the actual objective facts are what have meaning. Let's see if the facts are ever actually produced.
Whateverman,
You have adequately proven that you are a troll. I won't address or even waste time reading any more of your silliness.
bill said...
"I still don't get it. Stan started off showing how Chick-Fil-A WAS contributing to anti-gay groups and then he slowly changes his position into that being completely untrue."
Yes, you don't get it, bill.
The issue is not whether Chick fil A contributes to these organizations: they do, and they admit it.
The issue is whether these organizations are the evil entities which the homosexual AtheoLeft accuses them of being... with only unsubstantiated inferential and circumstantial evidence, not actual facts.
There appear to be no primary facts; the accusations so far are purely hysterical extrapolations in service of an ideological agenda. Objectivity is dead to those who want what they can't get legitimately.
I'm pretty blown away here.
Whateverman notes that Stan's use of the term "the Homosexual-AtheoLeft" is pure rhetoric, shooting his argument in the foot before it begins. Stan disagrees of course.
Somehow that's all the responses from "Stan's side" seem to address.
There are facts and posts aplenty to provide fodder for the actual issue, and all everyone wants to talk about is Whateverman's supposed avoidance of the "issue".
Irony. This thread is full of it.
Fact. People are boycotting CFA because they fund anti-gay organizations.
Fact. CFA funds anti-gay organizations.
Fact. Somehow this is perceived by the religio-repressed homo-right to be an atheo-homo-leftists conspiracy.
Also, how ignorant of the issue can you be to equate homosexual relationships with pedophilia and rape?
How can sex between consenting adults be compared to pedophilia and rape in a rational discussion? You might as well argue that heterosexual sex leads to bestiality. Same logic. Same bullshit slippery slope logic.
”However, you would be missing 99% of the REAL issue, which are FACTS that show Chick-Fill-A, and its acolytes, discriminating against people solely based on their sexual orientations.”
Actually that is incorrect. It is a presumption without any primary evidence. As far as has been demonstrated, there is no primary evidence to support that there is any actual physical discrimination other than statement of opinion.
This is either overwhelming ignorance or a blatant lie. In this very thread, in Stan's OP, and in multiple links submitted, evidence has been provided of discrimination in the form of MILLIONS of DOLLARS donated to anti-gay organizations.
But hey, let's not talk about homosexuality. Let's not address the multitude of relevant issues raised.
Let's talk some more about how Whateverman supposedly is avoiding the issue.
Note: I don't think he's avoiding anything. I think he made his point. I think it is obvious.
Regarding evidence of discrimination, Stan said:
... There is no other evidence presented. I had thought that I had demonstrated that...
As I wrote above very clearly, yes, you did show that there was no evidence regarding the support of KILLING of homosexuals by CFA and its acolytes. THANK YOU STAN. However, they do support discrimination, and that’s what the AtheoLeft has been complaining about, and will keep complaining about. Your quote shows it clearly:
Scott Lively:
”In my view, homosexuality [...] should be actively discouraged by society [...]
if they were going to continue to criminalize homosexuality that they should focus on rehabilitation
That is already too much; that is discrimination! He implies that homosexuality is curable through rehabilitation. It’s complete non-sense.
Then, as godless mentioned; you equated homosexuality with pedophilia and other behaviour:
If homosexuality is normalized due to being an unchosen sexual predilection, then it is blatant bigotry for homosexuals to discriminate against any other unchosen sexual predilection.
You seem to be confused Stan, and I don’t mean to insult you...
First, you are right in a way. Homosexuality is not a choice in the exact same way that having pedophile thoughts is not a choice. You are thus right in the sense that if we consider that homosexuality cannot be cured, then pedophilia cannot be cured. I am with you on that.
However, the problem is that this could be said of any deviant thoughts, literally. That’s why we judge actions, and not thoughts.
Hence, homosexuality is completely irrelevant when it comes to judging the actions of an individual, as it only mean that the person is attracted to a person of the same sex. If they then try to have sex with a kid of the same sex, that’s a problem, if they try to have sex with a kid of the opposite sex, that’s also a problem.
But why would we care if two consenting adults have sex when they happen to be of the same sex? Do you really have any reason to do such discrimination? I see none and would even go one step further in claiming that gender should never even be mentioned when we discuss the morality/legality of sexual intercourses. The gender of the involved humans is completely irrelevant. Why would any rational human being think otherwise?
Yet, nobody is being fooled here; we all know what the only reason is...
Finally, I can’t believe you wrote this:
…the only reason that homosexuality is not now a disorder in the APA DSM is…
As if there was only one little reason… This is a fantastic affirmation. Can you please provide sources from psychology/biology journals that support your view that homosexuality should still be considered a disorder?
Side note, why is Whateverman accused of being a troll when he keeps trying to make the same single point, while Steven Satak is not told to shut up? Can someone tell me what part of this comment had any useful content?
Dang, Stan. The comment filter drops and the... ummm... 'brights'... really start to come out of the woodwork, don't they? Whateverman is kind of funny, however. I write that with a straight face because it's plain he is here to disrupt with whatever works - because 'whatever, man' is what you say when you have *nothing* to say.
Terrific roleplaying, I must admit
Stan, is it too much to ask you to, please, be consistent?
Godless is back…
Godless, are you actually sockpuppeting as whateverman? When are you going to answer the questions which you’ve been avoiding for months now? Since you are back, maybe I should repost them for you to answer.
” Somehow that's all the responses from "Stan's side" seem to address.”
Absolutely false. He/you have been asked to explain. There has been no reasoning given other than that if a categorization has been given, then the categorizer must subscribe to the category… absolute nonsense. If he thought the categorization were false, then he could have said why; he did not.
”Fact. People are boycotting CFA because they fund anti-gay organizations.”
Oh yeah, I forgot. The great Chick fil A Boycott. How’s that working out? But that was not the main thrust was it. The main thrust is the charge of “hate” by lesser beings, charged with genocide of homosexuals.
”Fact. CFA funds anti-gay organizations.”
No. They are defined as hate groups. There is no such thing as anti-gay anymore. It is all hate if you disagree with them. They don’t take disagreement lightly or gracefully. They charge hate, or discrimination, or stupidity, or lower life form. But what they won’t do is defend either why they think they have new rights, or what the implication of that is.
”Fact. Somehow this is perceived by the religio-repressed homo-right to be an atheo-homo-leftists conspiracy.”
You can’t use that terminology unless you admit to supporting it, under your own viewpoint. And plus it is hate speech, under the homosexuals’ own rules. Not to mention the AtheoLeft. And no, not a conspiracy. A tantrum.
” How can sex between consenting adults be compared to pedophilia and rape in a rational discussion? You might as well argue that heterosexual sex leads to bestiality. Same logic. Same bullshit slippery slope logic.”
Bad analogy. Complete avoidance or non-comprehension of the actual argument, which is not even sexual in nature, it is the elimination of morality by virtue of normalization of all behaviors. Either address the actual argument or admit that you can’t, and continue to merely deprecate it. Also address the bigotry of homosexuals who wish to normalize their own behavior while denying that to other behaviors. Exactly why should the Kinsey argument be useful for homosexuals yet denied to others by homosexuals? You can call bullshit, but unless you back it up with actual reasoning your bullshit call is just bullshit.
(continued)
(Continued)
” ”However, you would be missing 99% of the REAL issue, which are FACTS that show Chick-Fill-A, and its acolytes, discriminating against people solely based on their sexual orientations.”
Actually that is incorrect. It is a presumption without any primary evidence. As far as has been demonstrated, there is no primary evidence to support that there is any actual physical discrimination other than statement of opinion."
This is either overwhelming ignorance or a blatant lie. In this very thread, in Stan's OP, and in multiple links submitted, evidence has been provided of discrimination in the form of MILLIONS of DOLLARS donated to anti-gay organizations.”
And there it is, out in the open. It is declared “discrimination” to take any position against homosexuality. First: Bullshit. This is still a free speech country. Speech is not discrimination except in the mind of the demented. Second: false dilemma. There is another obvious choice beyond ignorance/lie, and that is that no actual discrimination has occurred. Homosexuals claim something which they never have had, and for a reason. Homosexuality cannot be shown to have any more actual rights than any other sexual deviation, including pedophilia, et al. It is obvious that homosexuals actually think that rights are gotten through force as I have pointed out in the posts; if that is actually the case, then the same tactics that got homosexuality normalized will be available to the other sexual preferences as well, and it will be blatant discrimination to oppose them. It is extreme bigotry for homosexuals to deny rights to any other sexual predilection.
”But hey, let's not talk about homosexuality. Let's not address the multitude of relevant issues raised.”
Here’s a relevant homosexual issue. Although it has been illegitimately normalized by a defective association of psychiatrists which allowed a single individual to unilaterally normalize homosexual behavior, and who blatantly ignored actual science to the contrary, there is nothing normal about the sexual activities of homosexuals. Shall we discuss what those sexual activities have been documented to be? That's relevant, right? There are plenty of photos of the homosexual street fairs in San Francisco; we can discuss the mental states of those who were photographed.
The word “deviant” refers to deviating from normal behaviors; homosexuals not only deviate from the sexual behaviors of the heterosexual vast majority, homosexual behaviors are directly opposite, as in opposed to those heterosexual behaviors. There could not be a much greater deviation. To declare the behaviors to be normal or normalized rather than deviant is highly irrational. It eliminates any meaning to the word, “normal”, which actually defeats the meaning of “normalization” too.
(continued)
Declaring homosexuality irreversible is a religious tenet, not scientific. There were sufficient numbers of anecdotal instances of behavior change that even Dr. Spitzer was convinced (he has now retracted that, not because it was wrong, but because there was no scientific rigor to his “study”). And there are no actual "approved" studies on changing homosexual behavior because anyone who attempts homosexual studies has his career demolished by homosexual attacks if the study turns out wrong for them. There are still plenty of anecdotes about homosexuals who no longer are homosexual. Attacking the anecdotes is a fruitless enterprise for homosexuals to pursue. Avoiding allowing studies to occur is the more fruitful approach which homosexuals have implemented.
” Note: I don't think he's avoiding anything. I think he made his point. I think it is obvious.”
Then explain how making a category equates to endorsing it. Use standard deductive language and format, OK? And if you can't or won't, then admit it. And then answer the questions you’ve been avoiding for months.
I think that this demonstrates the inversion of logic that is required of (get a good grip) Atheoleftist supporters of homosexual behavior. This is especially obvious by observing the avoidance of explanation of the objection in logical terms. It is enough for the AtheoLeftist antagonist to just make the charge; it doesn’t have to make sense, have any demonstrable logic or any actual factual support. It is the charge which counts. And that’s a consequence of a worldview which contains no truth. The image is more important than a non-existent truth.
Thus homosexual promotion is pure ideology, religiously held, complete with morality plays, bigotry punishment, self-righteous moral pomposity without actual evidence for support. But it is religious in a completely amoral worldview environment. Self-righteous moral pomposity in pursuit of amorality is irrational.
@PM: because Whateverman is *not* making his point - and shifts his ground whenever it looks like he's being called on that.
As for my comment, it was merely an observation. Such content as it has is my own take on the back-and-forth obviously not taking place. Stan has his ducks in a row. Whateverman does not. Or will not put them there.
Courage, gentlemen! Step up and take your best shot, but do it with reason, not slander and sidestepping of the issue. I am not the only one watching you.
Stan,
I answered your questions ad nausea. The problem is nothing penetrates your preconceptions. Also, you seem to have this issue where my posts mysteriously disappear.
"There has been no reasoning given other than that if a categorization has been given, then the categorizer must subscribe to the category… absolute nonsense. "
... he didn't say that. You just sorta .. made that up. I agree it is absolute nonsense. But I think it goes to show how off the rails you are with your replies to Whateverman.
"Exactly why should the Kinsey argument be useful for homosexuals yet denied to others by homosexuals?"
CONSENTING ADULTS.
As has been pointed out time and time again. Rape, pedophilia and bestiality don't get a free pass. Why?
CONSENTING ADULTS
I'm ending this here. If this sinks in, I'll continue the conversation.
CONSENTING ADULTS IN THE PRIVACY OF THEIR OWN HOMES.
But hey, there is lots to address there! The rest of your post comes off as a homophobic screed devoid of any awareness nor rational consideration, I'd love to tackle it piece by piece and drag you kicking and screaming into the 21st century. But there is zero point if you refuse to absolutely wall out everything anyone says simply because they disagree with you.
Remember; CONSENTING ADULTS!
Also, how many gay people do you actually know? In real life. Personally. Y'know, as people?
which allowed a single individual to unilaterally normalize homosexual behavior, and who blatantly ignored actual science to the contrary...
The idea the a single person could change the Diagnostic and statistical manual is laughable on its own. This only happened in the imaginations of some people. The reality is quite different. There was years of debate. I was still studying at the time but the short version of the reality was some activists brought attention to the fact that there was no scientific evidence that homosexuality was a disorder. For a long time, it was considered obvious that homosexuality was a disorder, so obvious that no evidence was needed and various entries of the DSM made assumptions that were not based on any evidence whatsoever.
Read "Homosexuality and American psychiatry: the politics of diagnosis" by Ronald Bayer for the details of those years of debate.
@ godless
how does consenting to something make it right? magic?
In context that seems like an odd thing to ask.
How does consenting to sex make it not rape? Magic?
ok then, how does consenting to sex make it right? magic?
i guess there is no reasoning involved, you just consent to it, therefore it must be right. magic?
by the way derf, since atheists like to argue in context, is there a context in which rape is right? magic context?
"As if there was only one little reason… This is a fantastic affirmation."
Actually it is history. It provides the perceptual platform for the complete normalization of homosexuality. Without the perception of permission granted by normalization, even the first attempts at repackaging homosexuality would not likely have been attempted.
"Can you please provide sources from psychology/biology journals that support your view that homosexuality should still be considered a disorder?"
There was never a scientific reason for removing it. All prior science still holds because it was not refuted; it was merely ignored. The reasoning for removing it applies just as well to any sexual practices whatsoever: the keeper of the DSMII section on homosexuality, Dr Spitzer, had "sympathy" for homosexuals who were oppressed by society. So he unilaterally delisted homosexuality. That's it, that's the reason. It was political or at least highly emotional and completely ignored existing science: sympathy for their plight, not scientific, peer reviewed objective assessment. It was done completely outside any empirical consideration and outside any of the controls of disciplined science. Science was defeated and removed from the process.
http://pfox.org/Removal_of_homosexuality.html
The keeper of the homosexual section of DSMII went on to control the entire DSM for decades; the non-scientific normalization became unchallengeable. The tactic of “Jamming” as defined in the book “After the Ball” (Kirk and Madsen’s program to mainstream homosexuality) is now used to threaten and quiet any and every possible challenge to homosexual normalization. To question homosexuality is now met consistently met with charges of ethical violation. This is homosexual jackbooting in action.
(continued)
My objection goes beyond the obvious scientific malpractice which has enabled the homosexual political movement. My objection goes to the necessity and sufficiency of the homosexual movement to politically install the legitimization of amorality cum perverse new morality into the legal system. It is now immoral to question amorality. The legitimization is being done via the courts, especially in the 9th District where some of the judges are self-acknowledged homosexuals themselves. The anti-democratic judicial legislation of homosexual marriage (for example) is oligarchic Leftist, and when submitted to votes of the populace it was defeated in 34 states – every state where the vote was allowed. New Rights are being seized, not granted. And the New Rights cancel out existing ones in the never-ending Hegelian antithesis/synthesis dance aggressively pursued by the Left.
The installation of amorality and the destruction of disciplined intellectual pursuit of truth as a value have destroyed intellectual integrity in the APA, and it is spreading to other disciplines as well via the new morality of political correctness. Questioning any science which the Left favors for ideological reasons is immediately compared with holocaust denialism, jamming with self-righteous scorn, intimidation via activist threats including death threats (re: Bjorn Lomborg and AGW), and attempts to destroy the attacker financially and/or professionally via blizzards of lawsuits. [Note 1] The same is being done regarding the new Right of Equality of Sexual Proclivities: that’s the reason for the huge and hysterical homosexual AtheoLeftist tantrum regarding Chick fil A’s part owner, Cathy, who stated support for male-female parenting. Such sentiments cannot be allowed.
Too many pursuits are protected by political correctness rather than open to rational assessment. This is indicative of a dictatorship of intellect, rather than honesty in intellectual pursuit. It has resulted in historical revisionism in the texts and allowable teaching in California, already beset with inferior education and poorly educated populations. It results in political malfeasance such as creation of thought crimes and even funding politically correct white elephants during near bankruptcy (high speed rail, again in California). It results in the persecution of alternative education despite its proven superiority to government schooling. It results in political plantationism and the attempt to destroy the idea of one citizen, one vote.
Finally, no one told whateverman to shut up. He has not been silenced. He was asked for an explanation of his attack, which he gave as a non-coherent half-sentence, and then refused to elaborate in any logical language which is understandable, much less presenting any actual evidence in his defense. My response was that I will ignore him due to his persistent lack of cogent defense of his own attack. He has not been silenced. If you wish to deal with Steven Satak, then do it. If whateverman wishes to deal with him, he may do it. Your attempt to have me silence him will not be honored.
Note 1: I removed my last name from public access after being stalked by an Atheist for a period of time. He published more and more of my personal information and it became necessary to purge. The threat was implicit and yet palpable. However, as longtime readers here know, I am fully armed and I claim capability, not fear. You might deem that radicalization, but it is the rational response to threats from the already radical AtheoLeft. Perhaps radicalization is the only sane response to threats from radicals. This is indicative of the rationality inversion, whereby radicals accuse the majority of being the radicals.
"Read "Homosexuality and American psychiatry: the politics of diagnosis" by Ronald Bayer for the details of those years of debate."
While I don't have that book (yet), here are some quotes from Ronald Bayer contained in a paper by Charles W. Socarides, M.D. who was there.
"Additional proof of the politicization of American psychiatry was to be provided later from an unexpected source: a book by Ronald Bayer, a fellow of the Hastings Institute of New York. He stated that Spitzer was "sympathetic to the viewpoint of the gay liberation group" (pp.130-131) and Brill was suffering from "indecision and discomfort with Spitzer's aggressive assumption of leadership on this issue." Even more important was the revelation (never previously acknowledged) that the Council on Research and Development of the APA did not officially investigate or study the issue thoroughly before it gave formal approval to the deletion of homosexuality from the DSM II.
It was to Monroe's council, comprised of five senior psychiatrists who were responsible for providing the APA with advice on matters of policy and with information on current issues in psychiatric research, that Spitzer's proposal [for deletion] was first under consideration. Though officially coming from the Committee on Nomenclature, in fact it had never been formally approved by its members and thus presented Spitzer's own effort to resolve what many APA leaders considered "a hot potato" (Bayer, pp.130-131, emphasis added).
[emphasis seen here is mine. Stan]
http://pfox.org/Removal_of_homosexuality.html
Another quote of Bayer, this one from another paper at the same website, this one by Dr. Joseph Nicolosi of National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality:
"In his scholarly analysis of the American Psychiatric Association's reversal of the diagnostic classification of homosexuality, Ronald Bayer (1981) states: "the result was not a conclusion based upon an approximation of the scientific truth as dictated by reason, but was instead an action demanded by the ideological temper of the times" (p. 3-4). "
Is the same Ronald Bayer?
Nicolosi goes on to say,
"Beyond political pressures, there were two other reasons why the psychiatric profession removed homosexuality from its diagnostic manual.
The first reason is that psychiatry hoped to eliminate social discrimination by removing the stigma of "sick" attributed to homosexual people (Bayer, 1981; Barnhouse, 1977). Most psychotherapists are personally committed to removing emotional distress and diminishing the destructive effects of socially-imposed guilt. There was a leap of assumption that continued diagnosis of homosexuality would perpetuate society's prejudice and the homosexual person's social suffering.
The second reason is that the psychological profession has failed to identify, with certainty, the psychodynamic causes of homosexuality, and consequently to devise a consistently successful treatment for it. Historically, the cure rate in the treatment of homosexuality has been modest. In those few studies that do claim success, the percentage of clients converted to heterosexuality runs from 15-30%, and there is question whether the "cure" was maintained on long-term follow up. Such results have culminated in an acceptance of the condition.
However, while the humanitarian intent must not go unappreciated, failure by the profession to find a consistently successful cure should not be the criterion for determining normalcy. We are resorting to the logic "if we can't fix it, it ain't broke."
The psychological profession is responsible for diagnosis--for identifying what is "disease" or "loss of ease" within the person. It is not for the profession to erase diagnosis for lack of a ready cure."
[emphasis added by Stan]
Certainly the rationale of "removing the stigma" of mental illness could be applied to all mental illness, and if applied to just one aspect of mental illness while being denied to the other aspects raises the "fairness" issue, as well as the doctrine of Equality.
godless,
"But hey, there is lots to address there! The rest of your post comes off as a homophobic screed devoid of any awareness nor rational consideration, I'd love to tackle it piece by piece and drag you kicking and screaming into the 21st century. But there is zero point if you refuse to absolutely wall out everything anyone says simply because they disagree with you."
I'm not surprised at your use of the terms "homophobic" and "screed" as deprecations of that which you do not address head-on. It characterizes your entire history here. There is plenty for you to address. But your comment above is just an empty accusation.
godless,
Your persistent avoidence is documented here:
http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/2012/07/persistent-avoidance-by-godless.html
This is the list of issues and questions you avoid.
Right. So since you can't internalize that homosexual sex is performed between consenting adults in the privacy of their homes, and insist on comparing it to pedophilia, I see no hope in convincing you of anything.
And again, I did address those issues. Over and over. And over.
I notice I asked you 1 question, which you are now "persistently avoiding".
Stan, you just don't get it. By the magical power of consent, i can make the contradictory statement, "there is no truth" into something right.
godless,
If your question was why "consenting adults" is neither necessary nor sufficient to serve as a moral precept for "any behavior whatsoever", I answered that, above. I'll try again, since you missed it.
Consenting adults enter into all sorts of relationships, agreements, contracts, etc. most of which are subject to rules and regulations which are in place to avert harm. As I pointed out above, these include corporations of consenting individuals, marriage and domestic dispute regulations, consumer/provider regulations, and on and on. Being a consenting adult does not confer total release from social responsibility merely by virtue of being adult and consenting. It is the concept of harm which defines social responsibility.
If you argue that there is no harm for two homosexuals to engage in whatever practices they wish in the privacy of their abode, that is fine, no argument.
But if you argue that the normalization of homosexual behaviors must become the new social norm with new Rights and legal protection from criticism which becomes thought crime, then that is damaging to society. That produces an inverted morality which is the demonization of objection to amorality, a blatant attack on Free Speech. That is irrational and destructive.
Your question has been answered twice; now answer the questions for you. Your previous method of answering (claiming bullshit, rather than any reasoning) is not acceptable as logical analysis. Your claims were made without evidence. You never provided any evidence. So your claims are all dismissed unless you cough up evidence for their support. Even your claim of answering is false. You have not provided any evidence to support your claims.
I guess I'll post the list again, for your convenience.
If you argue that there is no harm for two homosexuals to engage in whatever practices they wish in the privacy of their abode, that is fine, no argument.
Really? Because you are making an awfully large argument to that effect. Legislation and conspiracy and thought control oh my!
Consenting adults enter into all sorts of relationships, agreements, contracts, etc. most of which are subject to rules and regulations which are in place to avert harm
Really. You need a contract before you take a girl home? Bullshit false analogy.
But if you argue that the normalization of homosexual behaviors must become the new social norm with new Rights and legal protection from criticism which becomes thought crime, then that is damaging to society
Homosexual behavior is normal. It is found on all human cultures and in numerous other species.
No one is saying you can't critize homosexuals. We are saying you are wrong to do so. Your Free Speech permits you to act like an asshole, and my free speech permits me to inform you of such. This is exactly the situation with CFA. People don't like their practices and are saying so. There is no legislation. There is no thought crime.
Disclaimer. I'm not American. Here we call "gay marriage", "marriage". I'm also not gay. Like it matters.
Yeah you answered the question by bringing in corporations. Wow what an accurate and relevant analog to homosexual marriage. Let's not compare it to say, marriage.
I also posted plenty of links as evidence, which you chose to ignore.
And no, you didn't answer my question.
Also, how many gay people do you actually know? In real life. Personally. Y'know, as people?
You have adequately proven that you are a troll. I won't address or even waste time reading any more of your silliness.
Says the guy who contradicts his own mission statement and wont explain why.
This is your blog, however, which means you can troll all you want.
Note: I don't think he's avoiding anything. I think he made his point. I think it is obvious.
Thanks for the implied thumbs-up, godless. I wont claim to be putting forth bold arguments on this thread's topic, but I *did* think I made a rather effective point. It's nice to see that at least one person understood where I was coming from.
One last post on this thread, as it appears Stan and his cheering section have no intent on addressing my point.
For the record, I am not godless, and he/she is not me.
Why did no one respond to the guy who posted research in another thread that pedophilia is more prevalent in the religious?
1) I realized that one reason why discussions on homosexuality do not work is because people confuse morality and legality. There are legal things that are immoral, and there are illegal things that are not immoral. Cheating on your spouse and going over the speed limits are easy examples that 99% would agree with. So perhaps it’s time for the TheistRight to understand that the gay rights movement is mostly concerned with... rights. It’s a first step toward real gender/sexual orientation equality, which has not been achieved yet. Plus, there is nothing against man-woman unions here... that’s a misinterpretation. What happens in the streets of San Francisco can be shocking indeed, I experienced it first hand, but it has very little to do with the actual sexual orientation of individuals, and absolutely nothing to do with fights for equal rights.
2) Stan, I asked you for some scientific explanations as to why homosexuality should be considered a ‘curable mental disease’. I did not see anything that would support that. The quotes you showed actually support the idea that it is not, since rehabilitation does not work. The only “successes” are people who simply stop acting upon their sexual impulses, just like pedophiles who are “cured”. Plus I do agree that homosexuality is a ‘deviant’ behaviour as it is not the norm, but then I need to bring the ‘left-handed’ example again. What’s the difference? That’s not a mental disease, nor should it be illegal in any way, nor should you force people to change; yet people were forced to change before! Ask anybody born before 1960, chances are they will know someone who was forced to write with their right hand in school...
3) Finally, even if I think it’s a separate issue, I still don’t understand why would we care, on moral grounds, if two consenting adults have sex when they happen to be of the same sex? Do you really have any reason to do such discrimination? I see none and would even go one step further in claiming that gender should never even be mentioned when we discuss the morality/legality of sexual intercourses. The gender of the involved humans is completely irrelevant. Why would any rational human being think otherwise? What’s so wrong about using the word ‘people’ when talking about two ‘people’ having sex, or entering a long term relationship? Why do we need to specify the gender? What purpose does it serve?
Derf wrote:
Why did no one respond to the guy who posted research in another thread that pedophilia is more prevalent in the religious?
Because it's irrelevant?
Wait, did I just write something that make me sound not AtheoLeftist? Well yes, because that's what rational people do. You look at the statement and evaluate it's meaning.
If heterosexuality was a disorder, why would it be okay to discriminate against them?
godless says,
”If you argue that there is no harm for two homosexuals to engage in whatever practices they wish in the privacy of their abode, that is fine, no argument.
Really? Because you are making an awfully large argument to that effect. Legislation and conspiracy and thought control oh my!
I still get the feeling that you never actually read what is written here. Homosexuals are already provided more legislated protection than I have. There is no conspiracy. Thought control is planned and executed legislatively in California; it’s on the books.
”Consenting adults enter into all sorts of relationships, agreements, contracts, etc. most of which are subject to rules and regulations which are in place to avert harm
Really. You need a contract before you take a girl home? Bullshit false analogy.”
Those are direct examples; not an analogy. Bullshit accusation of fallacy. Those examples falsify your claim that “consenting adults” is all that is required to justify any behavior whatsoever.
”Homosexual behavior is normal. It is found on all human cultures and in numerous other species.
So are pedophilia, rape, and murder. To normalize them for that reason is irrational. To claim that disorders occur everywhere is not an argument that they are not disorders.
”No one is saying you can't critize homosexuals. We are saying you are wrong to do so.”
So it is “wrong”, objectively and morally, to object to the amoralization of culture…why? You are a Relativist, so you can’t possibly apply an objective moral precept to me, unless you are asserting bigotry: your morals apply to me (always and all the time) but not to you.
” Your Free Speech permits you to act like an asshole, and my free speech permits me to inform you of such. “
And vice-versa.
”This is exactly the situation with CFA. People don't like their practices and are saying so. There is no legislation. There is no thought crime.”
When government officials make statements from their offices which promise to deny a private business access to business by virtue of denial of permitting due to the business’s religious policies, that is the same as threats of illegal legislation for the exact purpose of denial of Free Speech. Denying that is merely being in service to the same agenda. Further, all Hate Crime legislation is thought crime. This stuff is obvious.
”I also posted plenty of links as evidence, which you chose to ignore.”
Hmmm. How far back do I need to go for that? All I see is shouting about consenting adults.
”Also, how many gay people do you actually know? In real life. Personally. Y'know, as people?”
I really have no idea because sex is not a topic for discussion with any of the great many people I know. I also don’t know how many are pedophiles, cannibals, mass murderers, or spouse beaters. If the homosexuals are right, then ten percent of the thousands of people I have known are homosexual. So that would be a lot.
But the question is intended to portray homosexuals as swell folks, and thereby deserving of New Rights. And that is exactly the faulty logic that got homosexuality dis-disordered. Most mass murderers are swell neighbors who are private people, quiet, keep their lawns mowed and obey the speed limit, and so forth. They just get these urges, doncha know.
Derf said,
”Why did no one respond to the guy who posted research in another thread that pedophilia is more prevalent in the religious?”
The comparison apparently rose to the fore in a confrontation between GLAAD’s Glenda Testone and journalist Toni Meyer:
” This debate flared up in New Jersey when a column by Toni Meyer, senior research analyst with the New Jersey Family Policy Council, appeared in several newspapers around the state.”
http://kim.kairosnet.com/aids/pedophilia.html
Meyer supported the Boy Scouts’ position on not hiring homosexual adults for the supervision of the Scouts.
“That brought an angry response from New York's Glennda Testone, northern regional media manager for the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD).
"The incorrect stereotype of the gay man as a pedophile is one that has been medically and scientifically debunked," she said. "Heterosexual men were responsible for 74 percent of assaults on male victims and 77 percent of assaults on female victims, according to an American Academy of Pediatrics study (July 1994)."
However, Meyer says those statistics only prove her point -- a small number of the population is responsible for 26 percent of the assaults on boys.”
The statistics quoted by GLAAD’s Glennda Testone claiming that heterosexuals are more pedophilic actually support the charge that homosexuals are 40 times more likely to have pedophilic contact with children than are heterosexuals. Testone claimed that more children are harmed by pedophilic contact with heterosexuals, which is true, but the ratio of heterosexuals to homosexuals is about 44:1.
When 26% of pedophilic contact is by roughly 2% of the population, it cannot be said that homosexuals are not involved in pedophilia to a greater extent.
Also,
” But [Dr. Judith] Reisman points to figures from a 1991 population study by the U.S. Department of Commerce.
It showed that 8 million girls were abused by age 18 by heterosexual men, a ratio of 1 victim to 11 adult men. However, 6-8 million boys were abused by age 18 by 1-2 million adult homosexuals, a ratio of 3-5 victims for every gay adult.”
PM said,
”Finally, even if I think it’s a separate issue, I still don’t understand why would we care, on moral grounds, if two consenting adults have sex when they happen to be of the same sex?”
It has been a very, very long time since there has been any bedroom legislation. That ship has sailed half a century ago. Homosexuals now have every right and opportunity to have whatever sexual stimulation and practices they wish. Can you imagine the uproar if a single homosexual person or couple were to be legally charged these days? It is unimaginable. So the actual conversation is not about that anymore because their behaviors are not being discriminated against.
The actual conversation is in regards to whether there still exist any moral constraints on behaviors and whether or not all possible behaviors deserve equal consideration in the conception of Rights. If they do, then civilization cannot protect itself. If they do not, then where is the line drawn? LGBT’s want the line moved, and they want to redraw it at just the other side of consensual adult behaviors. Why? Because that allows them New Rights while still discriminating against behaviors which they determine to be immoral by their own standards. Why are their New Standards moral? Really. Why? They are not moral, they are instituting amorality as a byproduct of perfect freedom. So is Perfect Freedom an actual Right? Is it a moral value? Does it allow moving the old moral standards to allow Perfect Freedom for everyone, or just for LGBT’s?
If it is legitimate to have movable standards based on the protestations of a howling minority, then there are essentially no standards, only movable lines which are positioned by the force of the “aggrieved” minority. This being the case, then there are actually no moral values involved, and morality ceases in the face of force.
Why is it legitimate to discriminate against children who are shown in studies to benefit from sex with adults? Why is legitimate for Elton John to discriminate against people who have legitimate urges to have sex with goats? No, really. Why? There are no actual moral constraints.
And if all behaviors have been normalized via the Rights procedure, then there are no disorders of behavior (only disorders of dissatisfaction with one’s behavior). Thus there can be no legal constraints against behaviors because that would be discrimination, which would be illegal to the point of being a Hate Crime.
The entire process of line-moving upon demand is irrational, especially when one wants the line moved for himself and then never moved again for anyone else. The logical fallacy involved is Special Pleading.
Finally, homosexuals already have all the Rights to their behaviors which pedophiles do not have. What neither has is the final normalization of legal marriage. And homosexuals can get that too.
Volts that Jolt said...
"If heterosexuality was a disorder, why would it be okay to discriminate against them?"
That's an impossible situation, isn't it? The intent is to try to show a necessary equivalence of protections which heterosexuals would wish for themselves.
There is no actual, functional discrimination against homosexuals; they are protected by every law which protects heterosexuals, and they have every Right except one, the Right to Marriage. The protection which homosexuals are given is even greater due to Hate Crime Legislation than that which is provided to heterosexuals, who are thereby discriminated against.
So your attempted analogy doesn't provide much in the way of insight into the issue. Or if you think it does, then elaborate.
Stan,
It would be interesting to go through your comment and reply line by line, answering each question, explaining where I agree/disagree and why. However, you seem to refuse to answer the most basic questions of all, at the core of the issue:
What's so wrong about using the word 'people' when talking about two 'people' having sex, or entering a long term relationship? Why do we need to specify the gender? What purpose does it serve?
PM,
I should address this:
"Stan, I asked you for some scientific explanations as to why homosexuality should be considered a ‘curable mental disease’. I did not see anything that would support that. The quotes you showed actually support the idea that it is not, since rehabilitation does not work. "
First, it is not conclusive that rehabilitation does not work. There are a great many anecdotal cases of rehabilitation. Even Spitzer's informal study showed that.
Second, rehabilitation is now considered unethical even to suggest; formal empirical studies will not be forthcoming.
Third, even if rehabilitation is currently (actually "previously") acheived at only a low rate, that is not an indication that it will not be accomplished when the causes of homosexuality are fully known.
Fourth, other disorders are not reversible either, yet they do not have advocates who want them normalized. Mass murder comes to mind, as does arson. Many of the disorders have less than stellar recovery rates. Suffers of these disorders should have protection Rights the same as everyone else, but that does not mean normalizing the behaviors, or even in some cases, allowing their release into society.
It should be obvious that normalizing disorders, taken as a Right, is not rational. Homosexuality was normalized, not based on science or the morality of their behaviors, but on the basis that homosexuals have a Right not to be discriminated against.
Those examples falsify your claim that “consenting adults” is all that is required to justify any behavior whatsoever.
I never said that. "Any behavior whatsoever". I said
CONSENTING ADULTS IN THE PRIVACY OF THEIR OWN HOMES.
To compare this to corporations is demented.
Hmmm. How far back do I need to go for that? All I see is shouting about consenting adults.
First post. And I notice for all my shouting, it's still bouncing off your skull.
So are pedophilia, rape, and murder.
And fuck it I'm done. Yep gay marriage is just like pedophilia rape and murder.
”Also, how many gay people do you actually know? In real life. Personally. Y'know, as people?”
I really have no idea because sex is not a topic for discussion with any of the great many people I know.
So zero. The answer is zero. I don't tend to talk about sex with my friends either. But it's not a secret or mystery when someone is gay. Because they are not surrounded by bigoted assholes.
Enjoy your cave Stan.
PM,
Again I failed to discuss this:
The definitions of emotional disorders are not based on science, they are based on the concept of whether the behavior affects the person or associates negatively.
So narcissism has symptoms of disorder, but these are rarely an issue for the narcissist. Unless they are a problem for others in his life who the narcissist values, then there is a disorder without an accompanying social problem.
It is that way with homosexuality, which is now treated only for ancillary issues, such as relationships.
The problem arises when the homosexual asserts a right to be considered normal, a consideration which is outside the bounds of normality. It becomes aggravated when homosexuals start accusing "normals" of discrimination (moral failure) and mental illness (homophobia), when it is obvious to most "normals" that homosexual behavior is the antithesis of normal behavior, not an extension of normal behavior.
The dichotomy presented takes the form of homosexuality being even more normal and moral than hetersexuality, because hetersexuals are immoral and mentally ill. The 98% of "normals" will likely have a significant portion who consider the homosexual position to be deluded and irrational, as well as openly hostile to normality.
Thus any New Rights will have to be seized, because they are not likely to be granted democratically.
And that leads to the process of Rights seizure as normal process, and the loss of moral concepts in social Rights issues. While homosexuals might laud this for themselves, they certainly don't believe in it for other disorders. Again Special Pleading.
godless said,
"And fuck it I'm done. Yep gay marriage is just like pedophilia rape and murder."
First, you are not likely to leave here, you like to name call too much. It's your form of logic.
Second, you purposely misrepresent my statements every time you comment. But for Relativists, meaning is just as relative as truth and morality. So just out of curiostity, do you reject studies that claim that sex is good for children? Or is it objectively immoral? Or is it subjectively immoral/moral, depending on the situation?
If it is not objectively immoral, then why do you discriminate against it?
godless,
I just realized that you ran off the first time I posted the list of questions that you avoid addressing.
And now you're running off again.
Interesting.
I still think you'll be back. And then I'll post the list again to keep you refreshed on your intellectual duties.
See ya.
Real. How can I possibly take this guy seriously?
Stan, your own words shame you more than any name calling I could do.
"Thus any New Rights will have to be seized, because they are not likely to be granted democratically."
Riight, just like in Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Israel, Mexico, The Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden and yes
(6) of the United States.
These bastions of dictatorships, anathema to democracy, have fostered in their thought control policies and permit the amorality of gay marriage.
Oh but those countries let everyone rape women, and fuck kids and goats too, so you must be making a legitimate point comparing homosexuals to rapists and pedophiles.
Hey did you know Google has a campaign to legalize gay marriage? Better switch Bloggers.
Hahah but really, it's cool. The only support you've got in this thread is Fred, and his posts are so nonsensical I can't even begin to address him.
Point being that whether you like it or not, society is going to accept that gays have all the same rights that straight people do.
Your ranting just makes you look like an ignorant bigot. Sorry if you can't see past the name calling.
Yeah I'll probably be back. Shit is wrong on the internet!!
There is no actual, functional discrimination against homosexuals
I'm not sure what planet you are living on but go ahead, enlighten me and prove there is no actual discrimination against homosexuals.
Sorry gotta jump back in here.
Gonna back Stan up for a second.
61 itllto,
You are asking him to prove a negative, which is not reasonable. It's like asking an atheist to prove there is no god.
If you claim there are cases of discrimination against homosexuals, so the onus is on you to provide evidence of such.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=examples+of+discrimination+against+homosexuals
About 2,580,000 results
So just out of curiostity, do you reject studies that claim that sex is good for children?
Produce these studies so they can be examined.
So just out of curiostity, do you reject studies that claim that sex is good for children?
Produce these studies so they can be examined.
Stan will not produce the content of these studies because they only exist in the imaginations of crackpots.
I can tell you that there are no such peer-reviewed studies.
I just want to know if he's going to switch Blog hosts. I mean, since morality is Objective, and Google is obviously in violation of said morality, it would be immoral to continue to support them and use their services.
Wouldn't it?
I hope you are not using Windows OS. Bill Gates is a well known supporter of gay rights, and you wouldn't want to indirectly support his immoral actions.
Right?
Hey did you know that fundamental computer architecture was invented by a gay man? Wouldn't want to encourage such a lifestyle by supporting his legacy.
Better switch to an abacus...
61 itIIto said...
”So just out of curiostity, do you reject studies that claim that sex is good for children?
Produce these studies so they can be examined. “
1) Judith Reisman, at the B4U-ACT conference on pedophilia, 8-17-11.
http://www.drjudithreisman.com/archives/2011/08/theyre_mainstre.html
2) From: The Handbook of Adolescent Psychology, Third Ed., Volume 1: Individual Bases Of Adolescent Development.
Discussion starts on pg 498; conclusion on pg 515; references these studies regarding benefits/deficits of adolescent sex:
Smiler, Ward, Carruthers and Merriwether, 2005.
Meier, 2007
Tolman, 1994, 2000
Jessor and Jessor, 1975
Paul et al. 2000
Crockett et al, 1996
Levine 2002
Ponton, 2000
http://books.google.com/books?id=HtdwZDroKxQC&pg=PA498&lpg=PA498&dq=study+%22childhood+sexual+activity%22+benefits+-abuse+-same-sex+-trafficking+-mortality&source=bl&ots=kSuuQNrNOg&sig=kT5WOPNV2Ur84QQts0HPUMYTW6c&hl=en&sa=X&ei=368rUJLJIdKr2AXMu4CoDw&sqi=2&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=study%20%22childhood%20sexual%20activity%22%20benefits%20-abuse%20-same-sex%20-trafficking%20-mortality&f=false
3) Kinsey Report; Sexual Behavior of the Human Male; Ch 5.
godless,
Your projections are irrational.
"Hey did you know that fundamental computer architecture was invented by a gay man? Wouldn't want to encourage such a lifestyle by supporting his legacy."
Yes. He was brilliant. So was Lenin. History is full of brilliant, evil people, as well as brilliant, admirable people. Being brilliant does not justify life styles. You know that godless. Why do you put out such stuff?
Is it the anti-logic you use?
"You know that godless. Why do you put out such stuff?"
Yea the Alan Turing thing was a stretch. Thought it was pretty obviously a joke. But I think the Google and Gates thing is legit.
These folks support supposed "aberrant homosexual behavior", and by using their products you implicitly support them.
1) Is an obviously biased account of a meeting. It is not a study.
2) Is about normal sexual development. From touching yourself, to "I'll show you mine if you show me yours" to consensual sexual contact between adolescents.
3)http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/about/controversy%202.htm
TL:DR
No one is advocating adults having sex with children is beneficial or should be encouraged.
We were talking about pedophilia Stan. Your implication was that society was on the way to condoning it. You linked these studies in support of that conclusion. Your links are either not "studies" or flat out do not support your implied conclusion.
This is it the anti-logic you use.
"studies that claim that sex is good for children?"
Show us the content of a peer-reviewed study that coitus is beneficial for biological children or admit that there is no such study.
godless, itllto,
First, I said studies claiming sex is good for children. That's the conclusion of these studies. Whether they are peer reviewed, I don't know. I think they are bogus, and I never claimed otherwise. These are the types of justification that is being used by pedophiliacs. There have also been papers submitted to the APA in that vein. Must I look them up for you too, or can you google for yourselves?
Stan,
I am forced to repeat exactly the same thing:
It would be interesting to go through your comment(s) and reply line by line, answering each question, explaining where I agree/disagree and why. However, you seem to refuse to answer the most basic questions of all, at the core of the issue:
What's so wrong about using the word 'people' when talking about two 'people' having sex, or entering a long term relationship? Why do we need to specify the gender? What purpose does it serve?
Moreover, since you just posted something related to "studies claiming sex is good for children", let me tell you that this is either extremely dishonest, or a gross misunderstanding, because you clearly started by discussing pedophilia (adults being attracted to kids) and appear to now switch to kids exploring their own personal sexuality.
Which one did you have in mind when asking:
So just out of curiostity, do you reject studies that claim that sex is good for children?
Here is the saga of the Rind, et al. study published by the APA, "which concluded that man-boy, "consensual" sexual relationships were not necessarily harmful and might even be positive." After having downgraded pedophilia in DSM IV, the APA was bludgeoned by public outrage into reversing its diagnosis in DSM V.
To think that the APA is not political is a pipedream.
Forgot the link:
http://narth.com/docs/pedcrisis.html
A report from another attendee of the B4U-ACT pedophilia conference in 2011:
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=1413686
"Barber says while at the conference he felt he was on a different planet, as the presenting professionals argued to remove pedophilia from the American Psychiatric Association's (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). That, he believes, would mean pedophilia would no longer be considered a mental disorder.
"The entire focus of the event was on the victimhood of the pedophile," Barber accounts. There was "very little concern for the children who are the victims of these individuals when they are raped, who these individuals lust after," he adds.
And he says the experts' discussions were focused on "destigmatizing pedophilia ... removing the stigma, and [getting] the public to stop demonizing pedophiles."
APA states it stands firmly behind efforts to criminally prosecute those who abuse and exploit children and adolescents. But Barber is concerned the APA is already moving toward declassifying pedophilia as a mental disorder "by saying that a pedophile is only a pedophile in their latest DSM ... if they are distressed by their attractions or behaviors."
This must be the part of the meta-anaylsys NARTH is distorting:
Starts on page 22
"men reacted less negatively than women to memories of adult-child sexual relationship if they felt the relationship was consensual."
Still describes it has negative. NARTH have an agenda and don't mind lying to advance it.
You must be getting desperate.
A report from B4U-ACT?
That's a bit like thinking the Westboro Baptist Church can get the Catholic Church to stop praying to Mary!
PM,
First, "sex between people" as a delimiting allowable term also applies to pedophilia, group sex, sex with mental incompetents, etc.
I don't think that homosexuals buy a definition which is that loose, and I think they would probably apply some or all of the following modifiers:
a) adult
b) mentally competent
c) no emotional or physical forcing
They might reject the condition of "no group sex".
The point is that even when homosexuals benefit from redefining and normalizing behaviors, they draw the line just beyond their own predilection and just before the next guy's. The rallying cry of "Equality" means equal rights for homosexuals only.
"Which one did you have in mind when asking:
So just out of curiostity, do you reject studies that claim that sex is good for children?"
Any and all studies which lead to or open the way for pedophilia; start with the Rind et al. study published by the APA. Google it; there's lots of info on it.
https://www.google.com/#hl=en&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=apa+rind+study&oq=APA+Rind+&gs_l=hp.1.1.0i30l2.1193.5522.0.9161.11.10.1.0.0.0.713.2787.0j6j2j5-1j1.10.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.ZmCNB9MsTe8&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=87b3d75909e1627d&biw=989&bih=577
Here is a paper from a university professor who supports the Rind et al. study, and lists other studies which tend in that direction.
http://www.csulb.edu/~asc/child.html
BTW, pedophilia is now described as adult/non-adult sex.
BTW, pedophilia is now described as adult/non-adult sex.
Sex is different than sexual interest.
"a psychiatric disorder in persons who are 16 years of age or older typically characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children (generally age 13 years or younger, though onset of puberty varies). The prepubescent child must be at least five years younger than the adolescent before the attraction can be diagnosed as pedophilia."
DSM IV says this:
A. Over a period of 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger).
B. The person has acted on these sexual urges or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty.
C. The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A.
According to what the web chatter claims, the DSM V will be changed in some fashion regarding the criteria for pedophilia.
However, DSM V won't be released until May, 2013.
The idea of "consenting adults" constituting moral acceptability is actually couched in "harm" or "harmlessness". If fact it is common to say, "how does it hurt you, whatever they do in the privacy of...etc". The novel moral theory is that if there is no harm, then there is no foul.
So if there is no harm to children by engaging them in sex, then there is no foul for pedophilia either. But although that would be "fair", it is not reality. There is a different moral principle applied to pedophilia, although it is not clear what that principle is. Pedophiles are not "Equal" for some reason, despite of the no harm principle. It is OK to discriminate against pedophiles, even by homosexuals who want "Equality" due to their theory of no harm. But if no harm is not sufficient to make pedophiles Equal, then it is not sufficient to make homosexuals Equal either. So there must be some other factor in play for homosexuals, because the entire Leftosphere seems in favor of Equality for homosexuals and discrimination against pedophiles.
I think it is because first, the DSM was changed without scientific back up for homosexuals allowing them the aura of legitimacy without earning it. And second, the power which homosexuals have amassed in the past 40 years allows them the force of their demands, while pedophiles don't yet have that.
But homosexuals cannot assert the principle of "fairness" in their case, because they don't grant it to pedophilia.
"So if there is no harm..."
Stop there. There is no need to continue. APA peer-reviewed studies show it is harmful.
Godless says,
"No one is advocating adults having sex with children is beneficial or should be encouraged.
We were talking about pedophilia Stan. Your implication was that society was on the way to condoning it. You linked these studies in support of that conclusion. Your links are either not "studies" or flat out do not support your implied conclusion."
Read the rest of the links, godless. The promotion of childhood sexual experiences is all tied in together. No harm, no foul. Just like homosexuality.
You just can't seem to get over your pedophilophobia.
bill,
There was a body of evidence demmostrating that homosexuality was a disorder, too.
That's water under the bridge in the politics of the APA.
Is it imaginary like your evidence that the APA was advancing pedophilia?
You made the claim so let us examine this body of evidence. Must be pre-1973 and peer-reviewed.
Yes, bill, Homosexuality was originally a disorder based on imaginary evidence.
/snark
Read the rest of the links, godless.
Yea I did.
Main conclusions I drew, in respects to this conversation, is that no one is advocating adults should have sex with children.
"The authors concluded that even though CSA may not result in lifelong, significant harm to all victims, this does not mean it is not morally wrong and indicated that their findings did not imply current moral and legal prohibitions against CSA should be changed."
Rind, B; Tromovitch P Bauserman R (1998). "A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples"
I also found this, which accuses the study of some pretty serious flaws.
http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/rind/1.html
I also found this.
In a review of published studies comparing homosexual and heterosexual samples on psychological tests, Gonsiorek (1982) found that, although some differences have been observed in test results between homosexuals and heterosexuals, both groups consistently score within the normal range. Gonsiorek concluded that "Homosexuality in and of itself is unrelated to psychological disturbance or maladjustment. Homosexuals as a group are not more psychologically disturbed on account of their homosexuality" (Gonsiorek, 1982, p. 74; see also reviews by Gonsiorek, 1991; Hart, Roback, Tittler, Weitz, Walston & McKee, 1978; Riess, 1980).
Confronted with overwhelming empirical evidence and changing cultural views of homosexuality, psychiatrists and psychologists radically altered their views, beginning in the 1970s.
Any other wack-a-moles you want to throw out Stan?
godless,
"Homosexuals as a group are not more psychologically disturbed on account of their homosexuality"
I think the same thing can be said of pedophiles, in all likelihood. Even in the DSM IV pedophilia is not a disorder unless it presents distress to the pedophile. (or it is acted upon, which is a moral constraint).
An undistressed pedophile is as normal as a homosexual.
should have addressed this:
"Main conclusions I drew, in respects to this conversation, is that no one is advocating adults should have sex with children."
That of course is not the issue is it?
The issue is the erosion of constraint, which is typified by the drive for normalizing childhood sexual behavior, which we would anticipate to be followed by the upcoming realization that childhood sexual behavior would best be supervised by caring adult individuals, for which there are volunteers waiting in the wings.
You can't avoid the issue by changing it. You usually just deny the issue as stupid.
It most certainly is the issue. You even agree in your next sentence!
"the drive for normalizing childhood sexual behavior"
Followed by
"to be followed by the upcoming realization that childhood sexual behavior would best be supervised by caring adult individuals, for which there are volunteers waiting in the wings."
There is absolutely nothing you've presented that even remotely supports this Stan!
This is flat out crazy talk.
"Even in the DSM IV pedophilia is not a disorder unless it presents distress to the pedophile. "
You are wrong.
Unless it presents distress to the pedophile OR HARMS OTHERS.
AND the DSM lists pedophilia as a paraphilia.
"Paraphilias are defined by DSM-IV-TR as sexual disorders characterized by "recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges or behaviors generally involving (1) nonhuman objects, (2) the suffering or humiliation of oneself or one's partner, or (3) children or other nonconsenting persons"
This IS stupid.
Bias I can understand, but how does this not come off as you flat out lying?
godless says,
"There is absolutely nothing you've presented that even remotely supports this Stan!
This is flat out crazy talk."
You refuse to learn from history, too? It exactly parallels the homosexual saga from disorder to protected class. Forty years ago the same thing was thought about homosexuality: normal? protected? Crazy talk. Slippery Slope? That's insanity: homosexuality is a disorder; it's in the DSM!
""Even in the DSM IV pedophilia is not a disorder unless it presents distress to the pedophile. "
You are wrong.
Unless it presents distress to the pedophile OR HARMS OTHERS."
I printed out the exact words from DSM IV, above. Since you read only what you want to hear, I will copy it down again and ask you to actually read it:
"DSM IV says this:
A. Over a period of 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger).
B. The person has acted on these sexual urges or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty.
C. The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A.
"
Read part B. Read it again. If a pedophile has fantasies and is not distressed and does not act on it, it is not a disorder.
The pedophile, as a pedophile, doesn't have a disorder. Only if he is distressed by his fantasies or acts on it is it a disorder.
There is no criterion of harm. The point is that pedophiles, as pedophiles are not classed as having a disorder. And harm is not mentioned; acting is a moral/legal issue, not a mental issue.
Pedophiles, as pedophiles, have no mental illness. It is arguable that those who feel distress feel it due to the discrimination and social approbriation they receive - the exact case made for delisting homosexuality. And the case being made for normalizing childhood sexuality removes any remote semblance of "harm" from the equation and renders the "act" harmless.
(continued)
(continued)
Your fight against this and for homosexuality is discriminatory against people who, using the exact arguments made for homosexuals: they are fine upstanding people, victims of society. The fact that you refuse to even consider this indicates severe pedophilophobia and un-Equal bigotry - because you take the identical position the same as those who you have self-righteously berated as bigots and assholes. Only you choose a different class to vilify.
This you do cynically in protection of homosexuals, because you want homosexuals to be different and special - for what ever reason. But they are not. They are subject to the same criteria as anyone else. Or rather they should be, even though they don't want to be. That's actually "equal" treatment.
Let's discuss paraphilias. You truncated the last criterion (why would you do that when it is the criterion we are discussing?). Here is the actual, full statement:
"...or (3) children or other nonconsenting persons that occur over a period of 6 months."
A child may be "acted upon" for 6 full months before it is declarable as a disorder. Even in the current DSM, harm to the child is not a consideration.
But wait! There is an AND included:
" [AND] which cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning"
You completely ignored this criterion, which completely obviates the action: if there is no personal distress or impairment, then there is no disorder - even if there is action involved.
Further, the concept of paraphilia is modified for specific classes.
There is no mention or concept of harm to others in the paraphilia general definition.
Your statement shouted thus: "OR HARMS OTHERS" is blatantly and demonstrably false.
Your accusations of bias and lying are false accusations.
Your pompous attitude is without any basis.
Maybe you get your faulty information from homosexual advocate sites. But even wikipedia has the full quote from DSM IV TR. If you want to discuss DSM IV TR, then you should get a copy.
Fianlly your attitude is becoming a problem here. Your self-righteousness is leading you to make accusations that are over the edge. As many times before, you are being warned to be civil.
I have moderation and I'm not afraid to use it.
Yes, bill, Homosexuality was originally a disorder based on imaginary evidence.
/snark
You say that prior to 1973 there was a body of evidence that homosexuality was a harmful disorder that has been ignored.
Yet the lack of evidence that homosexuality was harmful was what drove the articles review in the DSM in the 1970's.
You can prove me wrong by producing some pre-1973 peer-reviewed studies that homosexuality itself is harmful.
In the current version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR), a paraphilia is not diagnosable as a psychiatric disorder unless it causes distress to the individual or harm to others.
American Psychiatric Association (2000-06). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-IV (Text Revision). Arlington, VA, USA: American Psychiatric Publishing, Inc.. pp. 566–76
Am I citing an incorrect source?
I feel like you are making over the top statements. What with saying how permitting homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals starts the road towards normalizing pedophilia. So I'm sure I'm reacting emotionally at times. Sorry. I'll try and tone it down.
Your fight against this and for homosexuality is discriminatory against people who, using the exact arguments made for homosexuals: they are fine upstanding people, victims of society.
Let me be clear. Pedophiles who are unfortunate enough to be attracted to minors but realize that acting on these desires would be sexual abuse I pity. It is not their fault they are attracted to minors. I think they should be able to receive whatever help they are able. Minors are not able to properly consent to sexual experiences with adults. Without consent, sexual contact is abuse.
Pedophiles who act on their urges, and sexually abuse minors should be treated as both mental patients and criminals.
I think this is consistent with what I've been saying? Does that make sense to you? Does that help to differentiate between the thought process for legitimizing homosexual behaviour while condemning pedophilic behaviour?
bill says,
"You say that prior to 1973 there was a body of evidence that homosexuality was a harmful disorder that has been ignored.
Yet the lack of evidence that homosexuality was harmful was what drove the articles review in the DSM in the 1970's."
No. There was a small concensus at the APA that the harm was being done by society.
"You can prove me wrong by producing some pre-1973 peer-reviewed studies that homosexuality itself is harmful"
Look it up yourself. I have presented testimony from another doctor in the APA who was there at the time, and who states that his group produced such evidence and it was ignored, as was prior evidence. If you are accusing the APA of declaring disorders without any evidence, then contact them and make that accusation.
godless said,
"So I'm sure I'm reacting emotionally at times. Sorry. I'll try and tone it down."
godless, that's huge. Thank you. I appreciate it.
Thanks!
godless says,
” Let me be clear. Pedophiles who are unfortunate enough to be attracted to minors but realize that acting on these desires would be sexual abuse I pity. It is not their fault they are attracted to minors.
Same for homosexuals: it is not their fault.
I think they should be able to receive whatever help they are able.
Same for homosexuals.
Minors are not able to properly consent to sexual experiences with adults.
That point is under contention; the argument is that denying their sexuality and denying them sexual experiences is harmful. The experiences are not of themselves harmful; abuse occurs separately from the sexual experience. These arguments are currently being made.
The second point is that children don’t have to consent to taking baths, getting their shots, eating their vegetables. Going to school doesn’t require the child’s consent. Consent is not a factor in child rearing. The adult decides what is best for the child. Ultimately, proper introduction to sex will be a necessary part of child rearing. California schools already require teaching that experimentation with various sexual practices is beneficial in order to acquire one’s sexual identity. Condoms are provided. All by law and without parental consent.
As for parental control, it already is not required for female health procedures, aka abortion. Parental control of education is nearly gone, and will be gone if home schooling is routed. Parental control is not absolute; it can be revoked if there is evidence of neglect including emotional abuse or deprivation of essentials. What will be considered essential?
”Without consent, sexual contact is abuse.”
Why? If the sexual experience can be shown to be beneficial to a child’s development, why is it abuse? The term “abuse” implies harm. If there is no harm, there is no abuse. This part is just opinion. And you have claimed that such discriminatory opinions need to be called out.
If the UN Rights of the Child becomes world law, the child will choose to do whatever without restraint from the parents, if literally taken. Articles 12-16, 24 Sec 3. Interpreted liberally. Obama wants it adopted in the US.
”Pedophiles who act on their urges, and sexually abuse minors should be treated as both mental patients and criminals.”
I predict that pedophiles will be allowed to adopt, 50 years from now. Check back then, OK? If not, it’s because there was an inviolable line drawn in the moral sand. You have drawn your line. I have drawn mine.
Look, I’m just drawing the parallels. You don’t want to acknowledge that there are parallels, fine. Keep in mind that Sodomy was illegal and immoral and sick for not just decades, but centuries. Now it is being considered just alternative behaviors. There is no barrier to pedophilia that cannot be overcome in the same pursuit. And the barriers are under assault right now. Your position is going to be a moral position that is considered recalcitrant, bigoted and immoral in the future. Just like mine is considered recalcitrant, bigoted and immoral right now by you.
BTW, I’m also betting that the Girl Scouts will be the first to get on board with experimentation.
"That point is under contention; the argument is that denying their sexuality and denying them sexual experiences is harmful."
Whose argument? And what do you mean by "sexual experiences"?
The experiences are not of themselves harmful; abuse occurs separately from the sexual experience. These arguments are currently being made.
By whom?
If there is no harm, there is no abuse.
Peer-reviewed studies that show adult-child sexual contact is harmful. Callahan, Price, & Hilsenroth, 2003; Carlson, McNutt, & Choi, 2003; Fassler, Amodeo, Griffin, Clay, & Ellis, 2005; Feinauer, Mitchell, Harper, & Dane, 1996, and so on the list seems endless.
”Without consent, sexual contact is abuse.”
Why?
Because that's what sexual abuse means?
Sexual abuse, also referred to as molestation, is the forcing of undesired sexual behavior by one person upon another.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_abuse
Forcing/Undesired ie without consent??
And no one claims that sex with children is benficial.
"The authors concluded that even though CSA may not result in lifelong, significant harm to all victims, this does not mean it is not morally wrong and indicated that their findings did not imply current moral and legal prohibitions against CSA should be changed."
Anywho, I think there are plenty of barriers between homosexuality and the legalization and encouragement of pedophilia. I guess we'll have to reconvene in 50 years?
What's with the crack at Girl Scouts? Is it bad manners if I make a Vatican, (where the age of consent is 12) crack here?
Post a Comment