Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Thursday, August 24, 2006
Mike Adams :: Townhall.com Columnist
Why homosexuals should not adopt or teach children
by Mike Adams
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Ever since I announced my bid for the United States Presidency, I’ve been questioned about some of my more radical political opinions. Most of those questions have dealt with my proposed economic policies – for example, the abolition of the IRS and the implementation of the Fair Tax. Today, I offer an answer to questions about why I am opposed to the idea of gays adopting or teaching children.

Several years ago, I began writing columns questioning the so-called gay rights movement. I prefer to call it the “gay privileges” movement because gays are not presently deprived of anything that is rightfully theirs. A gay man has the same right I have to marry a woman. His waiver of that actual right does not allow him to substitute another “right” he deems more suitable to his needs.

At the time I decided to express such criticism of the gay agenda, I was not fully opposed to gay adoption. Nor was I absolutely opposed to hiring gay grammar school teachers. My criticism of the gay agenda was narrower than it is today and the tone of my criticism was far more subdued. That all changed when the homosexual rights crowd started to circulate some of my early columns.

Frequently, the criticism would come en masse from gay groups who would post my columns on PRIDE websites or chat rooms at universities like UNC-Greensboro, which is also known as UNC-Gonorrhea. They would work themselves into a fury over my well-reasoned essays and then respond with a flurry of obscenities unfit for reproduction in this column.

Before long, readers identifying themselves as “gay” were threatening to cut off my genitalia, burn my children, rape my wife, and, just to top it all off, kill me, too. Good thing these readers were all “gay.” Otherwise, they might not be so happy.

So, of course, I took the time to survey a number of other conservative columnists to find out where most of their profane and threatening hate mail comes from. The answer is always the same: Without hesitation, they all say it comes from the “gay” community.

Despite the volume and intensity of this gay vitriol, I have always refused to reciprocate with threats of violence or strings of profanity. Instead, I have relied on the far more powerful tool of heavy sarcasm. And that refusal to respond with profanity or violence has had a predictable effect on the gay activists. It has made them much less gay (less happy, that is) and also much more active.

One of their more recent stunts was to get together on a gay website to hatch a plan to destroy my marriage. Actually, they started their plan on one of the Transgendered websites. Since the Transgendered people are so angry, I suppose they are technically classified as “gay,” too.

The first step of their plan to destroy my marriage was to concoct a false story that I once committed adultery. For the record, I have never cheated on my wife. I did, however, attempt to cheat on my wife one time. Unfortunately, I couldn’t get past Ms. Coulter’s bodyguard.

After one of the Transgendered persons concocted the story, it decided to contact my wife at work with the news. But since it waited a few days before doing so, my wife and I were tipped off in advance.

I told my wife that when it contacted her at work, she should promise it she was going to cut off my genitalia as punishment for the adultery. Then, she could mail it to it as a reward for the expert detective work. Through all of the years and now hundreds of columns I have written, I realize that my readers in the so-called “gay” community have been nothing but an obstacle in the way of serious intellectual discourse. I now realize that the American Psychological Association was right when it previously classified homosexuality as a mental illness in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual.

I also realize that the APA declassified homosexuality as an emotional disorder because of the fear that gays would have an emotional breakdown otherwise. And now you realize why I am opposed to gays adopting or teaching our children.

The job of raising a child is important - as is the job of teaching a child. Both require dealing with emotionally immature beings that require constant supervision and guidance to ensure they will develop into mature adults.

There is nothing wrong with discriminating against a class of people who are afflicted with an emotional or mental illness that is relevant to the completion of a given task – especially if that task is crucial to the well-being of the society at large. That is why I am opposed to the idea of gays adopting or teaching our children.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Mike Adams is a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington and author of Feminists Say the Darndest Things: A Politically Incorrect Professor Confronts "Womyn" On Campus.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to receive Mike Adams' column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Who's raising all these "gays?"
Funny column.

Celtic Dragon
I'd be curious to hear your views on this.

Misnomers
Gay - rarely anything gay about them.
Democratic party - holds democracy in low esteem.

Misnomers?
While it is unfortunate that a small group of rude people chose to vulgarly insult Mr. Adams, it is also unfortunate that he chooses to judge an entire section of society based on their actions. I think we can all agree that there are groups of people on every side of every debate who choose to use profanity and violence to express their misinformed opinions.

Homosexuals
Once again Mike, you are dead on target. You have my vote.

MISNOMER!
I have two sisters who had long strings of "gay" male roommates. Not a contented one in the bunch. I've never heard so much whining in my life. They could complain you into a coma. Sadly, two of them took their own lives.

One of my sisters decided that she must be a lesbian because she couldn't sustain a relationship with a man (my analysis, not hers) despite her extreme efforts to please them. None of her boyfriends ever hit her and only one, her alcoholic first husband, ever threatened her.

By contrast, all but one of her girlfriends hit her and two of them held her at gunpoint the first time she tried to break up with each of them. She argued with the "nice" one nearly every time they spoke.

My sister was constantly depressed when she was living that lifestyle. Her free time was occupied primarily by attending 12-step meetings which never seemed to help. Interestingly, her attitude turned around and her life normalized when she met and later married a real MAN who loves and cares for her.

I've made my point, so I won't go into the problems of the many "gay" employees and co-workers I have had over the years.

"Gay" is a misnomer of the highest order.

Another thing. . .
By what should we judge a person if not my their actions? How they smell? Their favorite color of underpants? Their parallel parking acumen? A person's actions are the ONLY accurate means by which to judge them.

oops
BY their actions

Negative Instance?
Mike's column saddens me. Not because of Mr. Adams's views, per se, but because it indicates an intellectual laziness that is regrettable.

Of the many homosexuals I have known over the years, some were certainly less than stable. Others, however, demonstrated remarkable courage and integrity.

One white racist does not justify an inference that all whites are racists. Yet that is exactly what liberals contend. But liberals are intellectually lazy. A few crazy homosexuals doesn't prove that all homosexuals are insane.

In fact, I would venture to guess (based on experience) that many of the "gays" who attacked Mr. Adams were in fact heterosexual liberal nutjobs.


"heterosexual liberal nutjobs"
... nutjobs ...

Rogue, that was apropos and funny.

Mike S. Adams: Out for Revenge!
A group of college-age homosexuals pestered Dr. Adams, so the entire subculture should be condemned? Good thing he only refers to his *past* essays as "well-reasoned." (Though, then again, he only asserts that.)

Here's a similar big-tent screw-over: A group of Catholic priests and highers-up raped small boys for decades. Ergo, by Mike S. Adams logic, all Catholic priests are pedophiles and must be treated as such. But why stop there? All *Catholics*, and not only those protecting and making excuses for the priests in question, should be ostracized as well. I mean, if a group of them are doing these questionable things, all of them are doing them!

Did I miss something?
Did I miss the sentence in this article saying that all gay people curse like sailors? Mr Adams stated that his worst hate mail was from gays. He didn't state that all of his mail from gays from riddled with profanities.

Rogue Historian
"But liberals are intellectually lazy."

You, apparently, are not.

Gays are "Rude'?
I always enjoy Dr. Adam's columns and the comments without commenting myself. However, I am compelled to this time just to note to prrplegrrl that (Before long, readers identifying themselves as “gay” were threatening to cut off my genitalia, burn my children, rape my wife, and, just to top it all off, kill me, too.) seems somewhat more than being rude. What would you consider a threat?


Depravity of body and mind…

In Romans 1 the apostle looks at the depths of human depravity which are manifest when men suppress the truth of the knowledge of God. His argument is that God gives them over; that is, they are freed to pursue their own lusts without restraint. This reprobation does not only lead to perverse sexuality, but also to perverse thinking. According to Paul the body and the mind are both given over to depravity.

What you say is the truth. It is absurdity to believe that sexual perversion can be separated from a perverse mind, because men will act the way they think.

Paul is expounding these words of Jesus Christ; therefore we should listen to him and believe him. “Out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within and defile a man.” [Mark 7:20]

Yes!
Thank you, Dr. Adams! I love it when a large dose of sanity gets printed.

Adios, or as some say...

Phylo Out!

Good Stuff Mike
It should be interesting seeing the gay screeds posted on this article tomorrow morning when I return to check. Kind of like trot-line fishing. Keep up the good fight Mike.

CHILD MOLESTERS
My objection to gays being allowed to teach or adopt children is a practical one.

While not all homosexuals are pedophiles, the evidence indicates that disproportionate numbers of gay men seek adolescent males or boys as sexual partners.

According to various studies, 30 - 40 percent of all sexually abused children are male. Male homosexuals comprise 1 - 3 percent of the population.

This means that the 1 - 3 percent of the population that prefers its own gender sexually is responsible for 30 - 40 percent of reported child sexual abuse. There is also evidence that boys tend to under-report being abused, so the figure may well be far higher.

Put another way, although heterosexuals outnumber homosexuals by a ratio of at least 20 to 1, homosexual pedophiles commit about one-third of the total number of child sex offenses.

Gay activists often try to fudge [sic] this figure by suggesting that pedophiles who molest boys cannot be considered homosexual if that individual has at any time been married or sexually involved with women.

Many gay pedophiles marry or enter into relationships of convenience with women both for access to children and to disguise the fact that their primary sexual interest is in boys.

Some gay men will maintain that an adult who has same-sex relations with someone under the legal age of consent is on some level doing the kid a favor by helping to bring him to come 'out.'

The fact is that men who sexually molest boys all too often LEAD their victims into homosexuality and pedophilia. The evidence indicates that a high percentage of both homosexuals and pedophiles were themselves sexually abused as children.

As noted child sexual abuse expert David Finkelhor puts it: "boys victimized by older men were over four times more likely to be currently engaged in homosexual activity than were non-victims. The finding applied to nearly half the boys who had had such an experience. . . . Further, the adolescents themselves often linked their homosexuality to their sexual victimization experiences."

So it's clear that homosexuals can reproduce sexually after all.

In considering whether to give gays trusted access to vulnerable children through teaching or adoption, many of us would argue that it's better to be safe than sorry.

The protection of children trumps the desire of sex perverts to "feel affirmed by society" and should do so every time.


Amen to that Mike!
This is so typical of the GAY community and I am happy to see someone call them on it!!!!

Phylo Out of his mind
If brains were gunpowder, Phylo couldn't blow his nose. He's just an adolescent looking for attention by throwing bombs to see who responds. Hmmmm ... maybe he's trotline fishing too! I just ignore him and hope the other posters tire of it as I have and adopt the same strategy. If he doesn't get attention, he'll seek better fishing grounds.

Homosexuality No Mental Disorder
Mike Adams writes:

"There is nothing wrong with discriminating against a class of people who are afflicted with an emotional or mental illness that is relevant to the completion of a given task."

On the contrary, The American Psychological Association posts an article on its sight stating:

"The psychiatric, psychological, and social-work professions do not consider homosexual orientation to be a mental disorder. More than 20 years ago, the American Psychiatric Association removed "homosexuality" from its list of mental disorders, stating that "homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgment, stability, reliability, or general social or vocational capabilities" (American Psychiatric Association, 1980). In 1975, the American Psychological Association took the same position and urged all mental health professionals to help dispel the stigma of mental illness that had long been associated with homosexual orientation (American Psychological Association, 1975). The National Association of Social Workers has a similar policy (National Association of Social Workers, 1994).

The decision to remove homosexual orientation from the list of mental disorders reflects the results of extensive research, conducted over three decades, showing that homosexual orientation is not a psychological maladjustment (Gonsiorek, 1991; Reiss, 1980; Hart, Roback, Tittler, Weitz, Walston, & McKee, 1978). The social and other circumstances in which lesbians and gay men live, including exposure to widespread prejudice and discrimination, often cause acute distress; but there is no reliable evidence that homosexual orientation per se impairs psychological functioning (Freedman, 1971; Gonsiorek, 1991; Hart et al., 1978; Hooker, 1957; Reiss, 1980).

Fitness of Lesbians and Gay Men as Parents

Beliefs that gay and lesbian adults are not fit parents likewise have no empirical foundation (Cramer, 1986; Falk, 1989; Gibbs, 1988; Patterson, 1996). Lesbian and heterosexual women have not been found to differ markedly either in their overall mental health or in their approaches to child rearing (Kweskin & Cook, 1982; Lyons, 1983; Miller, Jacobsen, & Bigner, 1981; Mucklow & Phelan, 1979; Pagelow, 1980; Rand, Graham, & Rawlings, 1982; Thompson, McCandless, & Strickland, 1971), nor have lesbians' romantic and sexual relationships with other women been found to detract from their ability to care for their children (Pagelow, 1980). Recent evidence suggests that lesbian couples who are parenting together tend to divide household and family labor relatively evenly (Hand, 1991; Patterson, 1995a) and to report satisfaction with their couple relationships (Koepke, Hare, & Moran, 1992; Patterson, 1995a). Research on gay fathers has similarly found no reason to believe them unfit as parents (Barret & Robinson, 1990; Bigner and Bozett, 1990; Bozett, 1980, 1989)."

Mr. Adams is going to have to explain away a lot of expertise and research for his argument to work.


Justaguy
Whay do you want me to say? I condemn the despicable words and actions that Dr. Adams has been subjected to, just as I condemn the vitriol and hate he directs back. It seems that Dr. Adams and his tormentors deserve each other. A pox on both their houses. Every time he says "It" when talking about a transgendered person, I am reminded of a petulant child who refuses to brush his teeth when told to do so. I have said before that I believe he makes these outrageous statements to draw negative attention, and can then complain and whine aboutm all the nasty things that college GLBT people say to him. How droll. If anyone wants to discuss something a little more substantive, go to the Ann Coulter column or click on my name to see my blog entry on "Thomas Hobbes And The New Iraq". I'm tired of catering to Dr. Adams' temper tantrums and bigotry. I use that word here, because he is advocating the denial of public careers to GLBT people. He's a bigot.

This column is nuts...
... and orders of magnitude below Adams's usual work. Frankly, I was pretty disgusted with it, and in all honesty with a lot of the comments I just read.

I haven't seen anything, in the column or the comments, distinguishing between radical gay activists and people who are simply gay, or homosexual, or whatever.

Adamas has a problem with a bunch of radicals who are giving him grief and extrapolates that out over everyone who is gay?

Sorry, bud, no sale here.

I've been an Adams fan for years. I've had personal email correspondence with him, I have his "Tower of Babel" book, and have in the past usually agreed with him.

But over the last few months I seem to have noticed a trend that he seems to be devolving into a foathing-at-the-mouth writer, and this column is a kind of capper for me.

Very, very disappointing.


Gay men as fathers
I work with many gay men. They are really nice guys, but they are all very bitchy just like women.

I can't imagine how they can be a role model as fathers.

Celtic
I find you to be a well reasoned person who is a member of the community he is attacking. I was only curious to get your thoughts. This was a show of respect, in all honesty.

I think he is outrageous, but that he is so to pull out the hypcrosy in his such lunatic lefties.

hey celtic
Why not let some murderers come live with you?
You aren't a bigot are you?

I believe homosexuality is morally wrong and self-destructive. My moral barometer is, and will always be the Bible. Not the 'enlightened views' which certain segments of society has seen to bestow on us.

I certainly do not hate the person, nor do I seek law to stop any from doing it. The act is still morally wrong and I will not accept any notion that it is.


NARTH
http://www.narth.org has the counterspin to the APA opinion, backed by, AFAIK, more research than went into the "gays are normal" contention.

BrianR, there is at least one thing quite radical about gays that their radicals and ordinary members have in common, and that behavior indicates in all of them an underlying mental disorder/sin.

I would dispute Rogue's assertion that any homosexual is a person of integrity, since they have sacrificed their bodily integrity. Not that they cannot become a person of integrity if they give up their debauched lifestyle.

The anti-Adams comments make me think that we do not live in a post-modern age, but a post-moral one.

Celtic
No one asserted that homosexuals should be denied public employment. We assert only that those who raise our children should be fit to do so, and that certain members of society are not so fit due to an underlying mental condition.

The APA is a private club that some psychiatrists join. I could care less what they say about any issue.

Homosexuals
Mike sure has a good sense of humor in dealing with the wrath of a few cowards who are so morally constipated in that they can't argue their points without threatening someone.

justaguy, DavidM and Sekhmet
Justaguy, I appreciate talking to you. You have been willing to discuss these things in a rational and mutually respectful manner. I would really rather talk about foreign policy and military technology, but I realize that "hot-button" topics like this get more attention.

DavidM: What are you talking about??? What do murderers have to do with GLBT people? Are you saying that I am comparable to a violent criminal? My solution for a murderer coming into my house would be the muzzle end of my Auto-Ordnance .45 Thompson, but that is another subject. I don't really care what your interpretation of Scripture is. That is your business. It becomes my business when you try to interfere with my family or employment, and I wouldn't advise that.

Sekhmet: I am truly sorry that your family was victemized in this way. Your complaints should have been heard and acted upon. Pedophiles of any sort belong in prison, or under it. If anyone touched my son, I wouldn't stop until that person lay dead at my feet. His death would not come quickly. Again, I am sorry.

Vince
I gotta ask, because I see this argument style all the time:

What the h*ll does Fred Phelps have to do with any of this?

Missy the Prophetess
Look at the threats in the post above yours!

OldCon---
I'm sorry if you misunderstood me. I did not say that "gays" are rude. What I intended that it is unfortunate that a very small section of the gay community and its supporters decided to take their aggression out on Mr. Adams. Threats? Maybe. If one is going to write inflammatory material that he or she knows a large segment of the population will not agree with, he or she should be prepared to receive such treatment. No one should have to be subject to something for displaying a point of view, but it is a realistic consequence, and nothing on which to base any overarching conclusion.

Brian,
See you coined a new word there. foaming + frothing = foathing. I like it.

I have to agree with your post. One shouldn't confuse Michael Moore with Joe Democrat who lives two houses down. Likewise, one shouldn't confuse weirdo homosexual agitators with Joe Homosexual who lives down the street (who probably happens to be Joe Democrat as well, but that's another issue).

I, too, usually enjoy Adams' columns, and usually agree with him as well. But you're right. He doesn't seem to have his A-game with him of late. I agree with Justaguy that he's probably outrageous on purpose many times, but it's more than that.

First, his column begins and ends like a high school essay:

Today I'm going to tell you about X.
X.
That is why I believe X.

Before I get slammed, let me just say that Adams is way better than this. I also realize he's not going to put out A+ material every time. But there's nothing wrong with noting that when he doesn't.

Also, for a guy who always nails other people on spelling (and who says he extra vigilant with his own spelling), this is truly astounding:

"Ever since I announced by bid for the United States Presidency . . ."

Of course, the last time someone pointed out a spelling error, he just replied (in his next column, no less) that libs were doing his proofreading for him.

Aside to Mike Adams: How about getting Townhall to let us use the words you do (e.g. n*ggardly).

The Academic gay attitude
When I was in college 30 years ago, I encountered the gay issue in two very different courses by two very distinguished academics: the first was a human development course, the second was an arbitration course. Both professors are still teaching and/or publishing so there is a basis for comparing what they advocated then and now.

In the first case, the human development and family specialist clearly proposed that, based on all the available evidence and numerous studies, human offspring develop and mature most successfully under the guidance of two parents/people of opposing sexes - and this included comparisons to singles, or several of the same sex, gay or otherwise combinations.

In some of the more recent literature that I've read by this prof, I couldn't believe that he had done practically a 180 reversal on singles - and more importantly had almost outright stated that gay in the same capacity just as acceptable as well.

The arbitration prof claimed then that, over the course of a real case, given the available arguments and evidence, gays in the classroom with young students is not to be supported - better to err on the side of protecting the students.

When asked one year ago, from his own mouth, he could find nothing wrong with gays in the classroom, and, in fact denied ever taking the former position. And this from a very forceful and opinionated person.

This should give you some idea of what sort of poltroons these academics really are when faced with the difficult issues with regard to truth or political accomodation - men who could cover walls with their academic accolades. It also illustrates the pressure the gay agenda advocates can and do exert on academics.

It also underscores the very special person and leader we have in Mike Adams.

Cynewulf...
...try ridicu1ous...

jerubaal: re your post to me
You couch your general condemnation of gays, and not just radical activists, in the context of sin. As do, coincidentally, many of the other posters here, many of whom I generally agree with.

I do not find your "argument" persuasive. Sin is to be dealt with by God in the next life. I'm concerned with what happens in the here and now in this life.

Who takes this guy seriously?
If you bait an entire group of people, it is certain that the less discerning members of that group are going to take the bait. Mike Adams has devoted his entire career to baiting gays and feminists, and enticed a fair number of them to sink to his level. Conveniently, on the basis of his personal (and largely self-inflicted) experience, he can now paint all gay people as being unfit to parent or teach. I assume we'll be hearing about the feminists shortly. I'm sure that will be a gas, as usual.

Re: The Academic gay attitude
...or perhaps it shows that we have better empirical data than we did 30 years ago. There have been a lot of advancements in the last 30 years. I wonder why it's a crime for attitudes to advance as well.

Cyne: "foathing" -- LOL
Man, I had to go back and read my own post to see what you were talking about. My typing definitely can't keep up with my thoughts. You're exactly right; when I wrote that sentence I was thinking of using either foaming or frothing, and by the time my fingers got there my mind was way down the road. Hence: "foathing".

Is my face red.

As to the rest of what you wrote: yes. I generally agree. But I've noted over the last couple of months that Adams has become hyperbolic, and his previous sense of joy and irony has become joyless and heavy-handed. Unfortunately, this column has become more the norm than the aberration. It's like he's turned bitter about something.

OPINION TIME
Yes to Fair Tax, it would bring fairness to all.

No matter how much they try to appear to be well adjusted.. simply use Roses O'Donald as an example... Maybe even Tom Cruise.. This guy is totally whacked.

If you need more support as to why not have gays raising or educating our children visit Connecticut some day.

Yes the support of the second amendment is very important to have the ability to protect our selves and our families from the likes of people
who have tried to attack Mr. Mike. Kindly visit
http://www.headsneedtoroll.org and post your views and opinions regarding just about anything.

Heads Need To Roll



Cynewulfe, Jimmy Carter
My blog is updated, so check it out.

Whitesoxwin
Maybe your professors revised their beliefs to incorporate new information. Is there something wrong with that?

But Archie....
Mike,

Speaking of spewing venom, I guess there’s no holding you back is there?

How refreshing that you are lumping all gay people with the few extremists who happen to criticize you. It happens that not all gay people, even if they disagree with you, speak in such vitriolic ways. I’m guessing you think all Blacks are bad, all Mexicans, all Muslims, all Chinese, et.al. who disagree with you, as well, or send you inappropriate emails. You reveal your bigotry and prejudice by the current article you have written, thanks for doing it so openly, now we know that you’re living in the 1950’s and not the Millennium.

I have no animosity toward you personally, or your family, or your marriage, etc. I couldn’t give a hoot. What does concern me is neocons who want to use bigotry, prejudice and even the bible to discriminate against a particular group in our society. You’re so blind to your own delusions that you actually believe that discrimination in our society toward other human beings is okay. I suppose you then supported Hezbollah recently and absolutely loved the Nazis – wow, you’re really evolved aren’t you.

If you are running for president I can’t tell you how proud I will be to vote against you. I can’t imagine voting for someone who is the moral equivalent of the liberal democraps. Reasonable and moderation clearly are not in your vocabulary. Bet your parents, wife, kids(if any) are just real proud of their bigot son, husband, dad.

Brings me back…”By the way Glenn Miller plays…Songs that made the hit parade…guys like us we had it made…those were the days….” Who said Archie Bunker was dead, he's alive and living on Townhall.com in the form of Mike Adams.

Oh, I'm sorry, was that offensive to you?

htnr admin
I just want you to know that due to your incessant plugging, I will never, so long as I live, visit your website.

celtic-dragon...
...read hours ago....

Brian,
"It's like he's turned bitter about something."

Bitter. I think you're on to something. What's weird is that he's gone hyperbolic as you said (leading one to believe that he's worked up about something) and yet at the same time he seems to be just "mailing it in." I don't know.

Now that I think about it...
...everybody should exercise their minds by visiting celtic-dragon's site.

I'm amazed that so many people go to so much work to post opinions and not get paid....

Celt,
I'll be by in a bit to check it out.

And for some of the rest of the posts...
It's so nice to read all the self-righteous comments from those of you who seem to know it all and are wise from all aspects of life - it's simply astonishing. Education wasn't wasted on you, boy oh boy, not!

Please, do us all a favor and continue to reveal yourselves for exactly who you are, in this way we won't have to guess by your feigned smiles, kindness, generosity, or "christian like" behavior you so openly like to self-congratulate yourselves on.

Now I understand what your REVELATIONS in your bible REALLY means. Good for you.

"Johnny, tell 'em what they've won!"

"It's like he's turned bitter about some
Often times those that are acting out the most, yelling the most, or judging, are usually the ones who are most guilty of the behavior.

Doth protest too much!

Cyne: you're right
It's like he's going through the motions. Kinda just phoning it in.

scooternyc: well,
I don't know about that. Adams, even back in his heyday, was always writing about how people who disagreed with him about his position on homosexuality always accused him of being gay. He always shrugged it off as unimportant, which it is. Of course, he wasn't writing as a homophobe, either, but as an anti-activist.

He did make a good point in those days that you may want to consider. His accusers, by trying to make the point that he was a closet homosexual, were themselves implying that there was something deplorable about homosexuality. So the "doth protest too much" accusation really works against an argument opposing his views.

Anyway, just a thought.

movwater: interesting
I read in one of the gun mags that the cyclic rate of the "Tommy Gun" was reduced at the request of the FBI when they adopted it. Apparently, they didn't want to shoot up the whole neighborhood when they went after the rum-runners.

Interesting how you can get different slants on the same subject depending on source. Good post, movwater.

Homosexuals
Since 11 of 12 child molesters are heterosexual males, and most victims are girls, does it mean that heterosexual males should not be allowed to teach school?


Movwater, BrianR
My Thompson is semi-auto, as it was purchased in California. I've never aquired a drum, so I use 30 round stick mags. Some years ago in Georgia, my wife came across a colt M1911 .45 built under license by Auto-Ordnance in WW II. As she was checking to see if she could afford it for me as a complementary sidearm to my Thompson, someone else came in and purchased it on the spot. We have never found another one, sigh... :-(

scooternyc
So what if some of us ARE guilty of the behavior in the past? Does that make us more , or less, authoritative, since we know both the in and outside scoops?

celt: you're in luck
Auto Ordinance is making them again. Actually, they're manufactured by Kahr under the AO name.

I've read reviews that weren't very complimentary. But if all you want is a matched-name set, you can do that.

Frankly, my fave 1911 is my Springfield Black Stainless, with my Para Ord a close second (though of course, better for defense, as I bought a ton of 14 round mags before the high-cap ban went into effect). But that Springfield's a tack-driver.

Lydia: one of my favorite...
... talk show hosts out here in LA is Al Rantell. Veeery conservative. Also gay. I didn't even know that part until I'd been listening to him for over 6 months.

They're not all liberals.

That's true, BrianR
My gay manager at Pier1 Imports back in the the middle of my college years was a conservative Republican, even on social issues it seems.

BrianR
Really? Thanks for the tip! I had no idea. I'll have to find some of the reviews you mentioned. I wonder if the problems are reasonably fixable. Also, thank you for your feedback at my blog! I appreciate it whenever you stop by. I try to plug for you from time to time as seems germane to the discussion. I noticed that the Assosciated Press ran a story today on the two new Israeli Dolphin class submarines! Heh Heh Heh!

ValiantTruth
I love your blog's biography. Short, sweet, and awesome.

Wrongly Dividing & Overparsing
I think that some posters here are claiming that Dr. Adams is painting gays with too broad a brush, but I think that they are using too fine a comb on the issue. Saying that gay people tend to be antagonistic and bitter is no less sensical than saying that psychopaths lack a conscience and bipolars tend to go through ups and downs. They are all personality disturbances with unique and common features. If you have a problem with that, then your protest is against the concept of concepts and categories in general.

Dr. Adams is right on with this column. And this column is no different than any others that he wrote, it's just that some of his readers are more sensitive to this particular group now than they have been in the past.

Lydia
So don't buy it. Those of us in the GLBT community have a variety of political opinions. Do you feel qualified to tell me what my own beliefs are? I have been a Republican my entire life, and proud of it. SO THERE! LMAO!

Malou
Read movwater's post - also consider that the HD prof clearly capitulated on ALL fronts despite the the studies and evidence that substantially supported him initially. Truth is truth - it doesn't change because the prevailing politics have changed.

May I also point out that the arb prof was taken aback when I brought up the subject in mixed company - and clearly lied in denying he took that position. I well know because I had taken the same position in my opinion on the case. It seems that if it were a change of mind, he might have been willing to defend it rather than dismiss its existence.

Why did I bring it up - because he was always a rather arrogantly accertive taskmaster who singled me out sarcastically on more than one occasion for my views. It was quite apparent that he was trying to conceal a bit of suppleness in his spine.

This was one of those alumni things - the keepers didn't seem to be used to persons of an other than liberal stripe.

Gay bars & Sex & the City
There are SOME heterosexuals (like S&tC) who are promiscuous & SOME homosexuals.

There are SOME hetersexuals I would not want my children to be around (for whatever reason) & SOME homosexuals (for some of the same reasons).

There are SOME homosexuals that appear to be very decent people & SOME heterosexuals. (I can't say CONCLUSIVELY FOR ANYONE, being naturally suspicious.)

There are SOME homosexuals that have very loving and lasting relationships & SOME heterosexuals.

There are SOME pedophiles who are homosexual and SOME are heterosexual.

One comment that I agree with is, "the so-called gay rights movement. I prefer to call it the “gay privileges” movement" and especially insofar as the 'hate crimes' legislation. I think most of that is bs. Most of those crimes are ONLY done out of hate and to call it a hate crime with additional penalties is redundant and piling on. But this catagory, by itself, does indeed 'trap' some who don't fit.

Another aspect is AIDS. I believe if the CDC had acted in a responsible manner and used PROVEN METHODS, they could have controlled this disease LONG ago. But 'gay activists' refused and the CDC capitulated. And WAY TOO MANY people have suffered because of it.

Teachers should teach the curriculum, passed by the school board and with parental approval.

Anyone who touches a child should DIE.

As I see it
When they find the so called gay gene I will be for abortion. Until then I see them most often as victems or just deviant and promiscuous. Common threads are sexual abuse or other abuse, very early sexual activity, or just plain recruitment into the culture/lifestyle. Been around long enough to see the sad stories and watch the destruction of these people including a few I loved. I really don't care what you do as long as you don't try to involve or indoctrinate my children. I would suggest that people that are violating nature or following the tendancies they have like they are helpless to do so should reflect on what they are doing and look into their hearts for the truth.

So called hate crimes
Since we don't even have a lie detector that is 100% how is it that can possibly prove what criminal was thinking or is motivated by during the commision of a crime. I believe in equally severe punishment for crime no matter what reason it was committed. If you hurt someone to take their wallet or don't like their haircut or somehow have gaydar and can somehow determine what someone does behind closed doors, if the crime is the same the punishment should be the same. Far more fair to the victems if the results/injury is the same.

Homosexuality, again
If homosexuality conserves nothing but a human-free planet, then where do gays come from?

Oh, I forgot. They're "recruited."

...and the cow jumped over the moon.

]-/

btw, I forgot to include "...and adopt children" at the end of my previous post.

my personal experience
My maternal grandmother was I suppose a bisexual or I wouldn't be here. By the time I was born though she was solely interested in females. Being raised in rural Pennsylvania (Yay!!) I was very naive about such things. But things were akward in my ways. We had quite a large family living in a three bedroom house so my six year old mind deduced that they shared a bedroom so everyone had a place to sleep. When my mother and siblings moved out of the family home and I would go to visit I thought it quite weird they still shared a room. I just figured that they were old friends set in their ways. They never openly displayed their affections, actually we were all unaware of what was going on. As i grew older maybe aroud twelve or so I began having nagging suspicions but I just kinda shut them out of my mind. The most devasting thing I remember though is an incident that happened when I was about fourteen. My siblings and I had gotten into a scrap with some of the neighbor kids(whom just happened to be related to my grandmother's paramour). Suffice it to say they won the argument when they unceremoniously declared "At least my gramma isn't a d*ke. My mouth dropped and I was in utter shock. Although I did attempt a half hearted defense of her.

You may wonder the reason for my story. Well a long time ago people kept sexuality (especially different variations of it)from being dicussed in front of children. Whether or not you believe it I think sexual matters are too complicated for children to comprehend. They are kids after all! I had a hard time grappling with it but I think in a way I was lucky I didn't find out until I did. I was better able to rationalize things. I decided that I loved my grandmaother anyways even though I didn't understand what she was doing or why.

What is disturbing about homosexuals these days though is that they seem to flaunt their sexuality the way a hormonal teen would. Children maybe more saavy today then they were ten or twenty years ago but I still think sexual matters are something they are not prepared for when they are extremely young.

Homosexual parents tend to portray their union as normal as any other and they have the right to think so. But what will happen if their child disagrees. Would they feel compelled to sanction something out of love for their parents despite any inner conflict they were feeling? Would said children be able to discuss these feelings with their parents?

I know I'm making generalizations and that differences in temperment must be accounted for. But with all the teaching for implicit acceptance of all types of behavior all ready directed at children one wonders when kids will actually be allowed to be kids. It's hard to do that when right from the start you have to explain why they have two mommies or two daddies.

Missing the Point
FireFlimMan writes that a "group of college-age homosexuals pestered Dr. Adams, so the entire subculture should be condemned? … Here's a similar big-tent screw-over: A group of Catholic priests and highers-up raped small boys for decades. Ergo, by Mike S. Adams logic, all Catholic priests are pedophiles and must be treated as such. But why stop there? All *Catholics*, and not only those protecting and making excuses for the priests in question, should be ostracized as well."

The point is not the group that is acting out (so to speak), the point is how the rest of the community is responding. For all its faults, the Catholic Church never has condoned pedophilia, and never will. A number of members have tolerated it at times, it is true, its teachings may smack of hypocrisy at times and at various times, it has tried to hush over the misdeeds of its priests, but doesn't that also come from a sense of shame linked thereto?

In the gay community, if I'm not mistaken, the response is different. Its philopsophy seems to come from a sense that they can do no wrong — by the very virtue of their gayness, they are heroes and/or martyrs — and that the arguments of its opponents and detractors, well-though-out or not, are inherently bad, even evil. In fact, it seems to come with an inherent agreement that they must be invariably fought with all means available, including below the belt (sic).

Which brings us to the next point. The point is, have any "spokesman" from the community spoken out about the abuse its members (college-age or otherwise) heap on its opponents? If what Malou says is true, that Adams's article amounts to nothing more than group-baiting and that obviously, "the less discerning members of that group are going to take the bait," shouldn't you expect someone to tell the "fair number of them [who] sink to his level" to refrain from doing so? Are gay websites currently filling up with comments to that effect? Is there a sense in the gay community that trying to destroy a would-be opponent's marriage is perhaps wrong or unfair (not to mention irrelevant to an intellectual discussion)? That is what it all boils down to.

Malou
Sorry to have distrubed you, and we hope you live a long time!

Bigotry - alive and well in America
"I decided that I loved my grandmother anyways"

This statement said it all. You wouldn't have to "love her anyways" if someone(society)hadn't taught bigotry.

Being gay is a deviation of the species only in the ways that other deviations happen. Skin color, eyes, hair color, tall, short, etc. Do you think for one minute science cares what your sexuality turns out to be? Honestly think about that statement. Science doesn't care, then why should you? Science doesn't "discriminate", then why should you? You can't make someone gay who isn't, not possible, it's a make up of genetics, just like your skin color, eyes, heart conditions, athletics, etc.

If you're honest with yourself, you would fess up to the fact that you have been indoctrinated into the thought process that "they are wrong". Do you think that way about Blacks, Mexicans, Women, Jews? If not, why not? There are just as many evil things said about them. Is it because of the "sex"?

I got news for you, plenty of "straight" men have done some very gay sex; plenty of "straight" women have done some very lesbian things - what does that make them? So if a man has anal sex with his wife, he's gay? So if two college girls kiss, fondle one another, perhaps have orgasms, they're lesbian?

Are you people even listening to yourselves? Do you realize how stupid, uniformed and unevolved you sound.

Whenever you think you have a prejudice, ask yourself the question: does science care? It's a fairly decent litmus test.

I find it fascinating that whenever our society is on the brink of change, there are those that just want to keep it from happening. These are the same people who don't get what terrorism is about; who don't understand what 9/11 is about; who don't understand what Islamic fanaticism is about; who don't understand anit-semetics; who think that "those people" in Iraq aren't our problem and on and on.

Imagine if you will that we still lived in the day when Blacks were discriminated; women didn't vote and were 2nd class citizens; alcohol was prohibited; slaves were okay; the world was considered flat, we walked on all fours.

Evolve. Try it, you might find yourself learning more than you ever did before.

Homosexuality, one last time.
Lydia:

First and foremost, I do respect your opinion, even if I disagree. I also want to clarify my perception of your position before I express mine.

The term "universally applied" is a bit vague to me, so I'll interpret your statement to mean "Homosexual acts can't lead to childbirth." Fair enough.

I ask the (rhetorical) question, "where do gays come from?" only to remind us that coitus between a heterosexual man and woman can and often does produce homosexual offspring. Who knows why. To muddle things further, we must keep in mind that nobody is 100% anything, and even if both people outwardly declare themselves gay, either or both likely have heteroerotic feelings to some extent, and may act on them. The reverse is true as well. Straight people have been known to act on homoerotic feelings and engage in homosexual acts, particularly when drunk. When I volunteered for a gay community hotline years ago, I got many such calls from straight men who told me they had "these feelings." They weren't drunk, either.

I have also known gay men who wanted kids and had them the conventional way, marriage, coitus and all.

Go figure.

Exploring and debating the origins or "causes" of homosexuality is a meaningless exercise to me; gays are what they are. The issue for me is how they conduct themselves. I want people to behave. That includes straight people.

Gays and straights who flaunt themselves in public, rape, abuse children, and so on, p*** me off. They should be punished. Those in loving relationships who are discreet and private have no effect on my life and I am content to live and let live, not to judge, condemn or reject them. There are more important and pressing issues to deal with.








Who's zoomin who!
"In the gay community, if I'm not mistaken, the response is different. Its philopsophy seems to come from a sense that they can do no wrong"

Wrong - there are plenty of people who speak out against the inappropriate behavior of gay people, irregardless of being gay. Problem is, no one in the gay community gives them a voice to be heard AND no one in the heterosexual community allows them to be heard, both sides are guilty of their self-righteousness.

Think of it this way, the far left democraps and the far right whacks, don't let moderate-responsible voices heard either. It doesn't sell.

Here! Here!
Chad - well said.

Yes Yes Yes
It's about time somebody said it. And while we're at it, has anyone noticed the disproportionately large number of blacks who commit violent crimes and fill up our jails. They can't teach or adopt either. Oh, and no muslims too.

JohnUnderhill
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. How about we let gays teach and adopt and in return we get rid of Loony Left Logic like yours.

sex with beasts
If they decrimialized having sex with animals should we start educating their puppies?????

Yeah, right scooter
I guess that's why all your complaining in this thread is against the kweers that harassed and tried to destroy the marriage of Dr. Adams. Oh wait - it wasn't. What a pity that you wasted your voice in this thread when you could have been proving your point.

Chad and the Origin of Gays
What does the origin of homosexuals have to do with anything, Chad? You're making no sense here. I think Lydia was speaking about a concept known as the "moral imperative" - a secular source of morality for godless people: anything that cannot be done by everyone should not be done by anyone. "Universally applied", homosexuality destroys the human race, so it shouldn't be practiced by anybody.

Homosexuality does not come from birth or genes, the studies basically prove that for those whose minds aren't bent out of shape on this issue: identical twins are discordant for homosexuality the vast majority of the time. Humans are born totally depraved as a spiritual matter, but that does quite the opposite of justifying any immoral behavior such as homosex.

Alright Class
Scooter says there's no difference between these two sets of attributes:

homosexuality
brown eyes
black hair
olive-colored skin
height of 6 feet

So tell me, class, which of the above items does not belong? Why?

(A: Could it be that you cannot brown your eye, black your hair, olive your skin, or 6 foot your hight, but that you can have sex with someone of the same sex type? I think so! One of the items in the list, homosexuality, is an action, whereas the others are attributes.)

Thank you for playing.

Homosexuals thinking about themselves is an assault on intelligence, as Dr. Adams stated in this very article. To blur the distinction between an action and an attribute is their goal, and they count on our lack of mental vigilance for their success.

The War on Humans
Most humans agree, that you need love and and nuturing to be an effective human. Man and Woman, create life and nuture their offspring. So why are humans always trying to complicate the natural order of things, corrupting the very foundation of being human? Love, respect, self discipline, morals, values, honesty, truth, selfmovitation, freindship and all the elements of the human experience is what makes for an excellent human. Faith in God Almighty, the rightoues one, and Jesus are light, let the light and hope, for a mankind out of control, Come in and comfort a tortuned soul. Stop this war. Man against Woman and let the true nature of mankind flourish, replenish and feed the heart, soul and body and mind. Let get back to basic's and stop the drug oriented minds and bodies of this age.

The Heart of Mankind
We are born at enmity with God and in open rebellion against Him. That's what's going on here. We all rebel in different ways: some of us rebel against our God-given sex. He's written it in 20 trillion different nuclei in our bodies: male and female. Some of us have a hard time defending our masculinity or our femininity from various pressures and give up the fight, which is short-sighted because a God-given sexual mandate is one we have the authority and the right to defend for ourselves, sometimes by relatively drastic measures.

celtic and scooter
Celtic my post went right over your head.

The only way you can form an opinion of someone you don't yet know IS their previous actions. To simply dismiss the notion that homosexuality is ok simply because you consider people who disagree 'bigots' IS BIGOTRY.

(Note the discussion below is on the ACT of homosexuality, not people who engage in it)

Scooter:
"Evolve. Try it, you might find yourself learning more than you ever did before."

I don't know who you are talking to in this post, but no Christians I have met want to use law to force homosexuals to do anything except stay away from their children. I am sure in your mind this is tyranny, but that is to be expected.

I am still waiting to see why you think your view that homosexuality(the act) is just fine. How long did you think before arriving at this conclusion? Simply put you have made yourself judge.

"self-righteous comments from those of you who seem to know it all and are wise from all aspects of life - it's simply astonishing."

Here is the reason faith is actually rejected: people have the childish notion that they know best. They simply cannot accept the fact of a higher power-morally or otherwise.

Continue on thinking you are 'more evolved' than Christians. The man who passed the morals we follow beat death on the 3rd day. Your credentials is you 'feel' that its ok.

Enough said.

BrianR
I couched my argument to you in terms of mental disease first. I assume you do not believe mental illness to be a divine-afterlife issue, but you dismissed it as though it were. That leaves me not knowing your opinion on the matter, which is cool. I enjoyed the gun talk.

DavidM
I loved this comment of yours: "Continue on thinking you are 'more evolved' than Christians. The man who passed the morals we follow beat death on the 3rd day."

You rock, bro!

Soli deo gloria.

Falling Hook, Line, and Sinker
Please direct your attention to the following excerpt from Dr. Adams' column:

"Despite the volume and intensity of this gay vitriol, I have always refused to reciprocate with threats of violence or strings of profanity. Instead, I have relied on the far more powerful tool of heavy sarcasm."

It's apparent to me that the tool of heavy sarcasm is in extensive use in this column and, frankly, I'm shocked at the amount of wailing and gnashing of teeth. In other words, you're not getting it people. Some of the postings I've read would make sense coming from the gay rights people, not from "Townhall regulars".

Re: Misnomers?

prrrplegrrrl said:

> While it is unfortunate that a small group of rude people
> chose to vulgarly insult Mr. Adams, it is also unfortunate
> that he chooses to judge an entire section of society based
> on their actions."

Whether officially designated or not, the people who yell
the loudest are the de facto spokesmen of any community.
If they weren't, others would rise up to contest them.
Since that doesn't seem to be happening with gays, we can
safely conclude that the rude and profane are in fact
representative of the views of much of their section of
society.


> I think we can all agree that there are groups of people
> on every side of every debate who choose to use profanity
> and violence to express their misinformed opinions."

Ah yes, the old "But EVERYBODY does that" defense -- a
favorite of liberals, who use it as an excuse not to be
"judgmental."

If "everybody" does something, but one particular group
is singled out for it, then obviously it's a matter of
degree: the group in question displays the trait to the
extent that it's reasonably come to be associated with
them.

Re: Alright Class

jerubaal writes:

> Could it be that you cannot brown your eye, black
> your hair, olive your skin, or 6 foot your hight,
> but that you can have sex with someone of the same
> sex type? I think so! One of the items in the list,
> homosexuality, is an action, whereas the others are
> attributes.)


Homosexuality is NOT an action; it's an inclination.
Would you consider your younger self not heterosexual
until you had sex for the first time? Didn't think so.

Homosexuality is the quality of being sexually attracted
to people of the same sex, not the deed of acting on that
attraction.

98 comments already
and it's not even 9AM EST yet!

Seems the topic is a sensitive one. So maybe Dr. Adams' style of delivery is effective after all. Since so few seem to read the NARTH website.

Re: CHILD MOLESTERS

PuppyChen writes:

> As noted child sexual abuse expert David Finkelhor puts it:
> "boys victimized by older men were over four times more likely
> to be currently engaged in homosexual activity than were non-
> victims. The finding applied to nearly half the boys who had
> had such an experience. . . . Further, the adolescents them-
> selves often linked their homosexuality to their sexual
> victimization experiences."


"Some men were born gay. Others got sucked into it." Heh...

It seems to me that a person who "became" gay because of being
"victimized" as an adolescent would have to have already been
leaning that way. Think about it: do you believe that anyone
would be able to convert YOU to homosexuality?

Too Late
The ranks of K-12 teachers is already filled with "gays" and lesbians, and has been for many a decade. I suspect this is so because school environments at all levels are safe havens. We have recently become aware of what colleges and universities are harboring, not least in departments of education. But the situation in lower schools has to date not been seriously examined for a complete range of aberrant influences (so far as I know). It isn't just socialists, feminists and radical liberals quietly working away at the indoctrination of our children.

Thing that made me go hmmmmmmm.
Gay men threatened to rape his wife?


It just reinforces that people CHOOSE who they have sex with, that's it's not some innate quality like gonads or melanin. Which of course we all know, but most gays are loathe to admit directly. Interesting that they admit it so indirectly!

Creighton
It seems you experienced little difficulty converting homosexuality into an action by way of inclination to act. Now please do so for eye color, skin tone, hair pigmentation, and height. Else, my point remains valid.

Creighton
What I mean is that homosexuality::homosex and eye color::_______ has nothing to correspond with it. Your point is well taken, though: homosexuality is not an action (except insofar as inclinations and thoughts are actions of the cognitive organ).

As for whether I considered myself heterosexual before I first had sex, the answer is "no", but I'm not a typical case, and so I get your point.

Your inability to assimilate
It's not so shocking that jerubaal and david are having issue with my posts, mainly since their beliefs come from a ficitonal book called the bible, but that's okay, you're probably from the same ilk that read the Qur'an and believe that the only options for the world is to convert, subjugate or die. Good for you. Keep pressing that philosophy. We'll help you.

Doc - looking for a record...
Initially I thought you might be looking for a record with the number of posts. After browsing through them, I realized that you've gotten people so incensed that they lost their patience, clicking the "Post Your Comments" numerous times while impatiently waiting for their comments to post.

Brian: I do agree with you in that it's not one of Doc Adams best (not bad) though it has succeeded in drawing a lot of response (even though many marxist (lib) trolls have given up on this site as (with the preventative measures of TownHall to eliminate language that conservatives find offensive) their use of perverted language to incense conservatives has been eliminated).

Interesting...
In its observation it's interesting that you decided to attack only those aspects of people's writings that didn't address your bigotry and hatred, but then if you did, you'd have to admit that you're not very christian.

Your next tactic will be to start quoting "god's word" to justify all your statements. Yeah, yeah, yeah, we all know the christian talking points by heart. Why, just ask Falwell, Swaggert, Baker, Roberts - all outstanding examples of christian behavior. Why, you ALL must be like that then.

Creighton RE: Child Molesters
How do you explain, then, the threefold increase in probability for a victim rather than a non-victim of child molestation to practice homosexuality as an adult? Are sexual predators prophets who use their prescience to prey only on those who will be gay anyway? Or is there a phenomenological field of gayness in which sexual predators and future homosexuals co-exist?

Teacher in Batavia, NY is having....
a sex change operation - man to woman. Check out wkbw.com (News Channel 7). This is in Batavia, New York (near Buffalo)
This is being shoved in the faces of the community.
It seems that the deviants of society have all the rights

Re: homosexuals should be banned from sc
SekhmetSatRa writes:

> puppy chen has it right... my cousin, and ALL of his male
> friends were victimized by a public high school homosexual
> music teacher. my cousin now is homosexual. it's disgusting.


Uh, with all due respect...have you considered the possibility
that your cousin was homosexual anyway, and would've been even
without the involvement of the music teacher? You're committing
a logical fallacy known as "post hoc ergo propter hoc" -- after
the fact, therefore BECAUSE of the fact.


Re: NARTH

jerubaal writes:

> I would dispute Rogue's assertion that any homosexual
> is a person of integrity, since they have sacrificed
> their bodily integrity. Not that they cannot become
> a person of integrity if they give up their debauched
> lifestyle.


I have difficult time wrapping my brain around the idea
that having a "debauched lifestyle" or not is a function
of who one has sex with. I mean, there are so many factors
that make up a lifestyle; sex is only one of them.

What is the "gay lifestyle" I keep hearing about, anyway?
We never hear about the "heterosexual lifestyle," and for
good reason: it would never occur to anyone to equate man-
woman sex with an entire lifestyle. It's taken for granted
that there's so much more to any random heterosexual's life-
style than who he or she sleeps with.

scooternyc
I'm assuming, then, that the bigotry and hatred comments were directed at me. I didn't know that until now, seeing as I'm not a bigot, nor do I hate homosexuals.

As to the first, whether I'm a bigot. This depends on the definition; wiki has it as "a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from their own." This turns on the definition of "prejudiced", also from wiki, prejudice is: "the process of "pre-judging" something. It implies coming to a judgment on a subject before learning where the preponderance of evidence actually lies, or forming a judgment without direct experience."

A bigot with regard to homosexuals must be prejudiced towards them; I am not. To be prejudiced is to come to a judgment without learning the weight of the evidence or possessing direct experience. I am not prejudiced towards homosexuals because I have read alot of research on the topic, as well as the Bible, and I have direct and personal experience with this very issue. Because I have weighed the evidence and have personal experience with this issue, I am not prejudiced towards homosexuals. Because I am not prejudiced towards homosexuals, I am not a bigot.

I also do not hate homosexuals. I do, however, hate homosexuality. Both of these sentiments are closely related to my direct experience with the issue. They are also not at all unrelated to the fact that God hates homosexual acts.

Just because you reject the Truth Who alone can set you free, scooter, doesn't mean that I do or should, nor does it elevate you except greatly in your own eyes.

Re: Gay men as fathers

Paladin writes:

> I work with many gay men. They are really nice guys, but
> they are all very bitchy just like women.


On the other hand, many gay men don't fit the stereotype.
It wouldn't surprise me if you knew a number of gay men
whom you'd never in a hundred years suspect of being
homosexual.


Creighton,
"It seems to me that a person who "became" gay because of being
"victimized" as an adolescent would have to have already been
leaning that way. Think about it: do you believe that anyone
would be able to convert YOU to homosexuality?"

I don't know about this... We have lots of evidence that a large percentage of adults that have been sexually molested as children suffer from emotional and mental illness as a result of dealing with the trauma they experienced. Therefore, is it really so far fetched to believe that a young male child that has been molested by a homosexual over a period of time wouldn't question his own sexuality, especially if he experienced any 'erotic feelings' during any of the encounters? I don't think so.

Creighton RE: Gay Lifestyle
Before I go any further, I want to point out something that won't otherwise come across. I love your posts. I can't get away with laziness with you, and you come across as very intelligent.

The only content I meant in "debauched lifestyle" is the gay sex. I have similar discomfort with the notion of a "gay lifestyle" - I don't know what it means beyond the sex acts. That's probably why I did not use the term.

Creighton,
Are you saying that you wouldn't consider someone that 'has sex with 6 & 7 year olds' as living a life of debauchery? Sex with animals?

The definition of debauchery is: excessive endulgence in sensual pleasures, intemperance... seduction from duty, allegience, or virtue

How do you seperate a sex life from the term debauchery?

Re: Creighton RE: Child Molesters

jerubaal writes:

> How do you explain, then, the threefold increase in
> probability for a victim rather than a non-victim of
> child molestation to practice homosexuality as an adult?


I suspect that there's a certain percentage of people who
are somewhere toward the middle of the Kinsey scale, and
that when they have an early homosexual experience, they
see that they enjoy it; it sets a behavioral precedent for
them.

Absent such an experience, I reckon, such people manage to
bury their homosexual tendencies and gravitate to a hetero-
sexual self-image.


hetero before first sex act?
I remember, upon seeing the new patch of young priests coming into the parish as a nine year old altar boy who hadn't even THOUGHT about having sex yet, knowing, without having to be told, they were weird and to be avoided.

We are what we do...
Creighton Beryll writes:

'Homosexuality is NOT an action; it's an inclination. Would you consider your younger self not heterosexual until you had sex for the first time? Didn't think so.

Homosexuality is the quality of being sexually attracted to people of the same sex, not the deed of acting on that attraction.'

Not quite! If this is to be a rhetorical exam, I don't concur with your line of reasoning. This is a perfect example of how advocates try to blur the distictions between thoughts and acts. The next step, of course, is to concoct a lable and apply it, which is supposed to make it so.

Suppose you thought of killing someone - does that make you a murderer? You might have even been inclined and had the opportunity to do it - but chose not to. Should you be tagged as a murderer?

People every day are entrusted with someone else's property. They may have thought and even been inclined to steal it - but chose not to. Does that make them a thief?

A resounding NO - choice is involved as it is in homosexuality - just as it is in most everything.

Jerubaal - Thanks for allowing me to address the class.

"post hoc ergo propter hoc"
It may be a fallacy, but it's all of science. We only assume an effect because of its correlation in order of necessity or time, and we assume that the cause must be sufficient in kind and capacity to produce the effect.

The homosexuals that were molested seem to have experienced a potential cause sufficient in kind to provoke the effect of homosexuality later, the cause being earlier homosexual experiences.

The argument over capacity of the cause to produce the effect is where we may differ. I think sexuality is malleable, especially in youth, by almost any kind of experience. I have no certainty as to that, and so one can freely disagree.

Also, it may be self-evident that sexual molestation is a cause of homosexuality if only absurd explanations exist for the datum that victims of homosexual molestation as children are four times as likely to practice homosex as adults. Prescience on the part of molestors seems unlikely to me, but it may not be, and so one can freely disagree.

Re: Creighton,

4thbux writes:

> Are you saying that you wouldn't consider someone
> that 'has sex with 6 & 7 year olds' as living a
> life of debauchery? Sex with animals?

My comments addressed homosexuality. I don't recall
saying anything at all about child molestation or
bestiality.


> The definition of debauchery is: excessive endulgence
> in sensual pleasures, intemperance... seduction from
> duty, allegience, or virtue.

So then you equate homosexual sex withg "excessive" sex?
Seems to me, the usual objection to homosexuality is the
nature of it, not the supposed frequency of it.


> How do you seperate a sex life from the term debauchery?

By the nature of the sex life. If sexual relationships are
consensual and fulfilling to both partners, who's to say
that they amount to debauchery?



Useless discussion
I understand from these exchanges that it's useless to go back/forth because those that have made up their minds that homosexuals are deviant people will do nothing but example things that help support their archaic point of view - just like the over-emotional democraps they are - yeah baby, beat that bible.

Wow, it's like trying to have a discussion with George Wallace about blacks.

Or trying to have a discussion with Jesse Jackson about whites.

Neandathals are alive and well and posting on Townhall.com - good for you, I'm sure you feel like you need an outlet. God would want you to hate the homos anyway.


Actually, Grabowski
In my religion, having murderous - or even angry - thoughts does make you a murderer, and I assume the same for having thoughts of stealing. Definitely so for lust.

This standard of course makes me guilty of every possible sin.

Neanderthals?
I find it quaint that evolution is cited as a reason in favor of the homosexual agenda, since, if homosexuality truly is in-born, it serves as an argument against evolution.

Lydia: sexual orientation per se...
... is apolitical. Do you think a person is defined as homosexual because that person likes the same sex and is liberal? Or simply because that person likes the same sex?

LOL

The Assumption Behind Consent
Consent is not an element of moral action unless people are viewed as owning themselves. I do not see people as belonging to themselves, but rather to their Maker who requires certain things of them. The dereliction of their duties to the Maker through seduction makes them debauched in their lifestyle. Gays are by far not the only ones living a debauched lifestyle - we all have and perhaps do. Homosexuality would not be getting so much attention but for the current attempt by its practicioners to whitewash the act.

jerubaal: re your post...
... in which you discuss the issue as being a mental disorder.

That's not what I was talking about in saying it will be judged in the afterlife. In that I was responding to those who talk about its sinfulness. That, to me, is virtually never an issue, as I live in the corporeal world, and I virtually never get into theological discussions, as I consider them endless and no-win.

My own personal opinion (which is what you seem to be asking): it's certainly not the norm for human behavior modes, if nothing else the numbers speak for themselves. Very small percentage of the populace. Does it make me uncomfortable? No. Do I think homosexual = pedophiliac? Absurd. Do I think homosexuals should be punished or ostracized? No. Would I have been upset if my daughter had told me she was gay? No. I'm sorry, this whole thing is just simply not an issue to me.

Now, as to the radical activists: that's a whole other ball game, because of their political agenda, which is one I vehemently oppose. I am not for redefining society simply to accommodate the behavior preferences of the few.

BrianR
Thanks, BrianR :).

It doesn't make me uncomfortable either, and I don't think homosexual=pedophile, though for all I know that could be the case in some way. I would be sad if someone I loved thought they were gay, though, just because I think of homosexuality as a life-destroying mental illness, as well as a sin.

I'm with you on the political activists, too.

I'm curious about one more thing - do you think that openly gay people should serve in combat, like in a stack in a fire squad? I have no position on this issue, but I lean in the direction of no since that is current policy.

Look, here's the thing
In reading the posts, I see a lot of people getting their knickers in a knot because Bruce likes Adam (though not so much because Shirley likes Mary, interestingly enough, as statistics show).

So, heterosexuality is the only accepted behavior.

How about, within the set of heterosexual behavior, the subsets of: bondage, domination, S&M, voyeurism, fantasization, unusual positions, one-night stands, and all the other variations?

You guys going to issue a manual, or what?

jerubaal, I'm against...
... openly gay people serving in regular units because of the tensions that can be engendered due to exactly what we're discussing, and combat units depend on cohesion for effectiveness. The barracks climate would be uncomfortable, to say the least. But, of course, we don't quarter heterosexual men and women together, either.

I wouldn't be opposed to gay units, but of course that could never be countenanced because that would be discriminatory.

Gay combat units
This thread has detoured into the absurd.

The Manual, 1st edition
I Two married people can do whatever they want with each other.

II Nothing else.

"Thus saith..."

scooter shows his colors
He tries to associate a behavior with a race, therefore throws out the racist bulls__ since he has no argument except 'Homosexual behavior is ok because I said so'.

He obviously does not realize he is INTOLERANT of my VIEWS AND OPINIONS. Which makes him a Bigot.

Of course he still ignores the parts of my posts when I speak of homosexual actions, not people engaged in homosexuality. This also does not apply to homosexual urges.

Like has been posted, urges to do immoral things are present in all human beings, period. This is in the Bible scooter, but you may believe it reguardless. By the way, why don't you share with us why you think the Bible is false? I am sure you are aware that you cannot *prove* it is false, so you are accepting what others have told you.

We call this FAITH. Yes, athiesm requires faith too.

Acting on these urges, or wishing you could act on these urges is immoral in the Bible.

He claims I spew hatred except I have only been talking behavior. Again he is devoid of an actual position and has resorted to the tactics mentioned in Dr Adams article.

Jerubaal: exactly why...
... I don't get into theological discussions. That's your manual -- and mine, too, actually -- but not everybody's.

More of the same
I really enjoy it when Mike writes about the sexual deviants in our society. All the gender benders come out in droves to rant and rave about whatever, and proceed to make Mikes point. It would be a real shame if they just lived there lives without trying to ram there lifestyle down our throats. If they did that we wouldn’t have the enjoyment and humor of their clucking. They are the only group of people that put themselves on a pedestal and demand in a shrill voice “Look at me” and then get bent out of shape when their actions draw comments.

FAITH
"Faith is believing in something when common sense tells you not to." - Maureen O'Hara in Miracle on 34th St.

"WHEN COMMON SENSE TELLS YOU NOT TO!".

Your arguments are so weak, it's just shocking. I don't care about your religion, I don't care about your beliefs, have them, enjoy them, stay in your unevolved life - who cares. I believe you should have your beliefs no matter how out of whack I think they are. I don't think you have a right to discriminate against someone for civil rights, legal rights, jobs, housing, etc. simply because you disagree with his/her "lifestyle" as you probably deem it.

I agree that gay people should just live their lives, I despise these stupid gay parades, but it's ignorant to think that just because a small aspect of a community happens to get press, because that's what sells, it speaking for everyone. That wouldn't be true.

There are many gays, blacks, hispanics, asians, jews, who all live their lives, are creative contributing members of society, without any fanfare, without any "in your face" attitude.

But when you and your leader, Mr. Adams, puts ALL of them in the same boat, then you're just being stupid, ignorant and behaving like an idiot.

There's a danger in being so f*cked up you don't realize how f*cked up you really are!

Like the islamic extremists and the anti-semites in the world, there is no changing your mind, which is fine, live it, who cares. But there will always be responsible moderate reasonable citizens like myself who will not tolerate your vitriol.

Good luck with your losing again to the Republicans this fall, it'll be further proof that you're so out of step with the evolving world around you.

Today's Article
I like sarcasm and I