There are an awful lot of people I know in the world of public policy, many of whom I respect and admire. But beyond respecting his wisdom and admiring his courage, I just plain like Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League. I like his Irish feistiness. I like his sense of loyalty. I like his sense of humor. Most of all, I like how he drives his opponents mad. And with his new book, "Secular Sabotage: How Liberals are Destroying Religion and Culture in America." he could be expected to be stricken from all manner of Christmas card lists -- except the people he skewers don’t believe in Christmas.
Disclaimer: I’m on the Board of Advisors of the Catholic League. I’ve been involved with this terrific organization for many years because Bill Donohue invited me, and I’ve never been able to refuse Bill Donohue anything.
"Secular Sabotage" is serious business. Donohue insists the United States should be considered unequivocally a Christian country. Eight out of ten Americans consider themselves as such. Indeed – and I didn’t realize this – the United States is the most Christian country, in quantitative terms, in the world.
"In fact," states the author, "the U.S. is more Christian than Israel is Jewish." And yet if this is so, why can’t we celebrate Christmas? Why can’t our children pray in school? How did we just elect a president who insisted the United States ought not to be considered a Christian nation?
The popular culture’s hesitation to acknowledge the truth of this country’s Christian identity is a direct measure of the success a tiny minority of Americans has enjoyed in thoroughly intimidating the majority. While Donohue discusses secular sabotage, he is clear that these ought not to be considered simple secularists existing alongside the faithful. They are nihilists out to expel Christianity not just from the public square but from the public conversation entirely. And they are powerful enough to be succeeding.
The Christian nation has at its core the nuclear family. Erase the notion of the nuclear family and you’ve destroyed the Judeo-Christian identity of America. The secular saboteurs know this, which is why the author writes they "not only seek to destroy the public role of Christianity, they seek to sabotage the Judeo-Christian understanding of sexuality." The sexual revolution of the 60s, no matter how morally improper, at least believed itself to be governed by the goal of love. The sexual revolution today has no such illusions. As Donohue documents, it is about instant self-gratification; and rather than build a separate societal structure, the nihilists simply want to tear down existing norms. How else to explain the radical feminists’ zealous obsession with abortion?
How else to explain the radical gays’ overt hatred of the Catholic Church? Several years ago I attended an early morning Mass at St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York City. It was celebrated by the late John Cardinal O’Connor. I noted a large battery of uniformed police guarding the door and lining the aisles. When I raised this issue later at breakfast with Cardinal O’Connor, he just smiled rather sadly. An aide pointed out that the size of the daily police presence was in direct relation to the number of death threats aimed at him.
But the anti-Christian, anti-Catholic agenda of the nihilistic secularists is not confined to the cultural. It is now in the open, very political, and absolutely determined to crush the Judeo-Christian identity in America.
Donohue tracks the increasingly shrill attacks against Christians in general and the Catholic League in particular by the radicals at the Democratic National Committee; he exposes how in 2004 Sen. John Kerry, a self-described "devout Catholic," hired a spokeswoman for ACT-UP, the gay group that attacked St. Patrick’s Cathedral, as his Director of Religious Outreach; and how in 2007 presidential candidate John Edwards hired religious bigots to organize his internet presence.
Donohue believes there are some positive signs. Young people seem not to be as radical as their parents. There are new alliances being created among conservative Catholics, Protestants and Jews. And there’s this nugget: "But not all agnostics and atheists are secularists at heart."
At first blush this doesn’t seem to make sense. The late great Steve Allen didn’t make sense, either. A fallen Catholic, Steve was a self-proclaimed agnostic who openly championed all manner of liberal political causes. But few were as upset and outspoken as he against the left’s attacks on Christianity and Catholicism.
In the final analysis it may be liberals who are trying to destroy religion and culture in America, but it’s not all liberals, as Steve Allen, Sen. Joe Lieberman and others have shown. But no matter who is attacking the Christian faith, there’s one thing for certain: that fellow will have to face Bill Donohue.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Mileage may differ
August 18, 2009 - 11:34 ET by StarAZAt our house, we call Donohue the "Catholic shouter guy."
You say that as if it were
August 18, 2009 - 14:47 ET by motherbeltYou say that as if it were a bad thing! LOL
Donohue is just what the Catholic Church needs...a no-holds-barred advocate who doesn't back down when up against the agents of political correctness!
I'll confirm his comment
August 18, 2009 - 11:39 ET by WhoIsJohnGaltthat not all aetheists are secularists. I am an aetheist, but I have no problem with Christmas, prayer in school or anything of the sort. As long as it's not forced or coerced. Growing up I always felt that I didn't have to pray during the school prayer, I always recited the Pledge of Allegiance without the "under God" words.
I tell my kids the same thing; learn for yourself what to believe, but don't let anyone intimidate you or keep you from expressing your beliefs.
I'm not offended when someone bows their head at a meal, I just sit quietly while they do their thing. It doesn't affect me. Why are these idiots on the left so nuts about people being Christians?
"Why are these idiots on
August 18, 2009 - 11:44 ET by Chris Norman"Why are these idiots on the left so nuts about people being Christians?"
Maybe it's another facet of their general embarassment about and hostility towards all things of western civilization?
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
secularism
August 18, 2009 - 11:58 ET by AgnosticI agree that the liberal paranoia of anything Christian is ridiculous. I have great respect of the faith of others and their various rituals.
I do get annoyed at the fact that a few conservative Christians think the problems of society are completely my fault for not praising their God but those are few in comparison of those that understand that for the most part where our faith lies doesn't constitute societal problems. A population that has faith in government and goups of extremism are the dangers we face not each other.
A person may be won over with logic and reason but the masses must be bought with spectacle and platitudes. - 2008 Elections
Few people understand that
August 18, 2009 - 13:36 ET by mattmFew people understand that religious freedom is a Christian concept. Prior to the rise of Christianity, religion was pretty much a government mandate, and even branches of Christianity didn't get away from that apostasy for over 1500 years.
It wasn't until the Protestant Reformation that the words of scripture "...let each man be fully pursuaded in his own mind" (Rom. 14:5) became generally accepted (because the Bible was available to the common people thanks to Gutenberg), and then it took another 250 years for religious freedom to be established by a government.
The problem with the "secularists" is that they are not pushing for secularism, but they are pushing for their secular-humanist religion to be the state religion. Indeed, it already unofficially is. It permeates the school system, the media and the three branches of government.
"In humanity we trust" is their motto - that's the religion they seek to prescribe for everyone.
Who is like God?
August 18, 2009 - 15:58 ET by acumen"In humanity we trust" is their motto...
In government we trust is probably more accurate.
Most of the first schools established in the US were established by Christian Organizations.
Most of the first hospitals established in the US were established by Christian Organizations
Most of the first charities, food kitchens, asylums, orphanages, homeless shelters, etc, etc in the US were established by Christian Organizations.
All combined, that is an ambundace of people grateful to the Church that self-centered politicians wanted to cash in on for themselves (read votes). But how could the Government take credit for the good works of the Church?
As part of the Reorganization Plan Number 1 of 1953, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare was created. This new Cabinet Department of the US government was later broken into two seperate Departments - The Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Resources (both in the Carter Administration). The Government had found their way to really compete with God in adoration.
Most politician today are still not satified. It is not possible such massive egos can share glory...even with the Divine. It is all or nothing for these politicians. That is why they continue to attack the Church. Lacking any conscience, politicians seek all of the glory while proudly rejecting any personal fault. They believe that the glory should be theirs alone - that being their true interpretation of seperation of Church and State. The more money politicians can rob from citizens in the form of taxes, the less money the citizens have to support the charitable work of the Church - Eliminate the competition. Sounds eerily similar to the recently proposed Healthcare bill(s).
And then there is the Church-bashing media. The only reason I can imagine that the establishment media chooses to support government over religion is unlike the Christian faith, the government doesn't encourage others to abandon an immoral lifestyle - that is, as long as the media goes along with increased tithing (read raising taxes). And it is obvious by the reporting that the media finds no fault in increaed taxes....Buying a stairway to heaven I suppose.
Depends on which religion...
August 18, 2009 - 11:51 ET by Anneke9"But the anti-Christian, anti-Catholic agenda of the nihilistic secularists is not confined to the cultural. It is now in the open, very political, and absolutely determined to crush the Judeo-Christian identity in America."
It's important to emphasize that secularists are trying to crush Judeo-Christian identity. Secularists seem to have no problem with Islam. Just go to the ACLU's website and type "Islam" into the search engine. For a group that's so intent on protecting the "rights" of atheists and removing Christian symbols from government and public institutions, they seem to have an affinity for protecting the religious rights of Muslims. Dhimmis.
___________________________________________
Camouflage conservative in Baghdad-by-the-Bay
"It's important to emphasize
August 18, 2009 - 12:04 ET by celator"It's important to emphasize that secularists are trying to crush Judeo-Christian identity"
I would agree with that, perhaps adding "traditional".
My own theory is that the leftists whack jobs have a hands off policy with Jihadists because:
1. The radical Islamist/jihadists have the same goal of destroying the United States
2. They have noticed that those who strongly oppose the Jihadists sometimes get their head separated rather brutally from their body.
No citizen's right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, or property is safe as long as Obama is President of the United States.
Reader's Digest in Ch 11
August 18, 2009 - 12:18 ET by Nortoand I told them years ago when they leaned left, feminist and secular that this would happen. We used to be given a subscription every Christmas and I had to cancel it and tell our dear Nana, thanks but no thanks. Eventually she agreed.
You can lead them to an idea, but you cannot make them think.
Ditto For my money, I
August 18, 2009 - 13:22 ET by BuffNBoneDitto
For my money, I think Guideposts took the same detour about 10 years and lost my business as a result. If it already hasn't lapsed that's what will happen when our RD subscription comes due.
"Fighters are fun but bombers make policy"
I cancelled RD several
August 18, 2009 - 14:15 ET by KarmaI cancelled RD several years ago for the same reasons. They practically kept trying to give it away but I still refused their offers. I wonder if Men's Health is also feeling the awesomeness of my wrath? Probably not, but I miss none of the mags I used to subscribe to. Wow...they did succeed in greening me, if only just a little.
Healthcare...Food...Education...Housing... - What sprouted as free for some is maturing into a free-for-all.
"And yet if this is so, why
August 18, 2009 - 12:50 ET by 24enak"And yet if this is so, why can’t we celebrate Christmas? Why can’t our children pray in school? How did we just elect a president who insisted the United States ought not to be considered a Christian nation?"
Really you can't celebrate Christmas? That is just plain stupid and false. Children can pray in school it just isn't class lead, they can do it quietly by themselves. Obama insisted the United States isn't a Christian nation, OR a Jewish nation, OR a Muslim nation.
Them damn liberal founding fathers who decided that freedom of religion should be at the top of the list of the bill of rights.
~Freedom of religion
August 18, 2009 - 14:24 ET by choselife3xDoes not mean NO religion. It means that the government has no right to stick their noses in people's personal religious beliefs.
None of that changes the fact that this country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles.
John Adams:
“ The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were
the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and
now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and
immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”
• “[July 4th] ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance
by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.”
–John Adams in a letter written to Abigail on the day
the Declaration
was
approved by Congress
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human
passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or
gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes
through a net. Our Constitution was made only
for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government
of any other." --October 11, 1798
"I have examined all religions, as well as my narrow sphere,
my straightened means, and my busy life, would allow; and the result is
that the Bible is the best Book in the world. It contains more philosophy
than
all the libraries I have seen." December 25, 1813
letter to Thomas Jefferson
Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
Dissent: It's not just for liberals anymore.-kudzupolitics, USA Today
Chose... good
August 18, 2009 - 16:17 ET by celatorChose... good references.
The First Amendment is extremely clear about the issue--no state-established religion and no government prohibition in the practice of one's religion. Period.
-------------------------------
First Amendment
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ......."
The secular government, in its obsession to mock and eliminate religion from American culture, has gone out of its way to prevent the free exercise. Cause, you know, some people might be "offended".
No citizen's right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, or property is safe as long as Obama is President of the United States.
~No one should be allowed to be offended!
August 18, 2009 - 16:27 ET by choselife3xUnless it's white people. Especially Christian white people.
I think that liberals look at--shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion-- and don't realize that "respecting" in this case means "concerning" or "having to do with". They think religion just shouldn't be treated with respect or given any credence by elected officials. Unless it's Islam, Buddhism, Shintoism....liberals just have a hate-on for the God of Christianity. Funny, how that works...
Dissent: It's not just for liberals anymore.-kudzupolitics, USA Today
Leftist hypocrisy
August 18, 2009 - 23:02 ET by Unsane...and that is what gets me about Leftists. They are 100% okay with anyone else practicing their religious beliefs, but man, if you see those Christians partaking...look the hell out!
I'm kind of an all or nothing type...sure, let Engle v Vitale stand, but don't sit there and tell me that Muslim students need a separate room for prayer at the same time. (for example) What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
(Personally, I think one good way to render Engle v Vitale moot is to have a school voucher program which allows parents to [gulp!] decide on what sort of academic and religious instruction they want their children to get on their own. So that way, if a parent sends their kids to a Christian school, and it is the parents making that decision...what's the problem?)
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
24e, here is a 30 sec video...
August 18, 2009 - 16:03 ET by upcountrywaterThe Twilight Zone by Vernon Robinson
and this video. Start at 5:48
Reagan VS Liberalism
For our resident Socialist
August 18, 2009 - 22:57 ET by UnsaneReally you can't celebrate Christmas? That is just plain stupid and false. Is it? I think that calling Christmas breaks at school "winter breaks" for fear of offending others is silly. Not to mention other efforts to try and delete Christmas from the public square. (for some examples)
I do not subscribe to any religion yet do not get in a tizzy when people tell me "Merry Christmas." (for example) That's just me.
Children can pray in school it just isn't class lead Oh, really? You've never been to a football game or a high school play, er, graduation, in TX, I see.
Obama insisted the United States isn't a Christian nation, OR a Jewish nation, OR a Muslim nation. His Majesty The Shahinshah says that because He hates competition, methinks. HE is to be the center of all worship, and you demonstrate this perfectly, as you seem to believe, like other Leftists, that He is bigger and better than Christ. Besides, He believes it is His job to rule, not govern, the United States.
Them damn liberal founding fathers who decided that freedom of religion should be at the top of the list of the bill of rights. Yep. Read it carefully: "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
My views on government and religion are admittedly complex and too much so for me to type them all here, but consider that opening phrase of the First Amendment.
By the way, I bet it fills you with uncontrollable rage to know that the Ten Commandments can be found on a small plot of land in the midst of the grounds of the TX state capitol...
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
"Why can't we celebrate
August 18, 2009 - 16:23 ET by balboa"Why can't we celebrate Christmas?"
You can.
You're Being Deceived By The False Prophet Jabba The Don-Of-Puke
August 19, 2009 - 00:56 ET by The7SticksJust watch the South Park episode "Fantastic Easter Special" and you will see the sick and twisted evil that permeates out of Jabba the Don-of-puke. You'll also get to see Jesus put on his sunglasses and become a Keanu Reeves by using his holy ninja shuriken and bifurcating the big ton of bloody goo.
http://www.southpark...
Curses. Those sinister Catholic Leaguers exposed our secret agenda, which is trying to free you of the sick and twisted evil of the Catholic Church. That's what Penn and Teller have been trying to tell you, and that's what South Park has been trying to tell you. Don't forget that Pope Pius the XII aided Hitler in hunting down and murdering us Jews during the Holocaust. The Vatican actively aided Nazi war criminals to escape to South America to avoid prosecution. The Church is pure evil. Get it through your heads. You don't have to be a liberal or conservative to get it through your head: Ignore the sickness and ban the Church from your life. It will save you from centuries of pain and suffering, the kind we secular Jews suffered from under the Church.
Now I gotta watch that South Park episode again. I get so angry at these pernicious Catholic Leaguers I just have to watch that fat peice of Don-of-puke being sliced like mincemeat by Jesus. It's such a beautiful thing to watch.
Your mom was pure evil.
August 19, 2009 - 02:39 ET by JWFthat is why we withheld her medicine when she was in prison.
Oh Lord, may someone shove five of those sticks up his *ss,
August 19, 2009 - 05:29 ET by SickofLibssideways.
Anti-American Civil Loonies Union (ACLU)
August 19, 2009 - 05:59 ET by ThisnThatAnd here's what's happening in Floriduh: Frank Lay, Pace High School principal, and Robert Freeman, the school's athletic director, will appear on criminal contempt charges for offering public prayer in a public school. The administrators face up to 6 months in jail and a $5,000 fine for offering a mealtime prayer.
They could also lose their retirement (Fox & Friends, this morning). They didn't even say a prayer to students.
In another story, a student (also in Florida) has been banned from speaking at the commencement. His crime? He might say something religous. Key word is might. So, this student has been pre-punished. Not even for his thoughts. Because he might think about saying something religous.
Where is this country going?
___________________________________
"Tax the rich" is a basically unstable way of governing - The NYT
TnT... I saw that segment
August 19, 2009 - 21:22 ET by bigtimerTnT...
I saw that segment too...heard about this earlier, so I was glad to kow information about it beforehand.
I am more than past furious about this, the msm and others remaining silent about this does make me wonder when/where is this going to ever end?
Saying Grace over food...possibility of losing their retirement after all the decades of work, serious time behind bars...for the love of God this has to end!
The ACLU and all their ilk need to GO!
Where I'd like to see them go is obvious.
Obama's a Community Agitator, a walking, talking destroyer. ~ Rush Limbaugh
Anti Christian Litigation Unit
August 21, 2009 - 06:47 ET by m1xramI prefer Anti Christian Litigation Unit for ACLU.
And, their suit violates the principal of Separation of Church and State as laid out by Jefferson. If the Government is not to interfere with religion as stated by Jefferson, certainly the ACLU should not.
He has already failed... his country.
I try not to be insulting
August 19, 2009 - 08:09 ET by mamabearI try not to be insulting here, but this is paranoid, divisive, and hurtful.
No one is stopping anyone else from celebrating Christmas. What people of many different faiths or beliefs want is for government institutions not to be seen endorsing one religion at the expense of others.
That's not persecution, it is protection designed FOR RELIGION, not for secularism. Christianity may be the dominant religion in the US now, but there is no guarantee that it stays that way, and certainly the dominant forms of Christianity practiced in the US today were a minority at the time when our government was created. Perhaps the tradeoff for having such a wide range of choices as to how to be a Christian today is that you don't get to showcase any of those choices on the courthouse steps.
Now, gay people. This is ridiculous. Gay people do not want acceptance as part of an evil plot to destroy the Judeo-Christian identity. They want acceptance because EVERYONE wants acceptance. It is a goal in and of itself, not a sinister conspiracy! And seriously, you need to look for reasons why gay people might not like the Catholic Church? How about these reasons?
1) The church condemns their lifestyle
2) The church dismisses their identity as a lie
3) The church has the gall to feel self-satisfied about "loving the sinner," thus telling gays that if they just give up one of the greatest joys known to man, that of a committed relationship with the love of your life, then they can achieve marginal acceptance
So, those sound like pretty good reasons to me. Threats exist because you make them. The only reason the gay lifestyle is a threat to the American family is because YOU have decided that the gay lifestyle has no place in the American family. Change your mind and poof, threat gone.
That's a nasty little bit of implication, there, by the way. Do you have some proof that the death threats received by the cardinal were from gay people? If not, don't imply it. This is the guy who said that atheists were "not fully human," so I can see crazies coming at him from a lot of different directions. He didn't get death threats because he's Christian, he got them because he chose to make some of his most extreme views public. Same as the man who produced a play about gay Christ. He got death threats, not because he's gay (presumably), but because he chose to make a controversial statement. There are crazy jerks out there for all of us!
~Actually
August 19, 2009 - 08:45 ET by choselife3xWhat is divisive and hurtful when a tiny minority demands acceptance and approval from the dissenting majority.
They want acceptance because EVERYONE wants acceptance.
Yeah, rapists, pedophiles, thieves, drug addicts, gangbangers, and nudists want acceptance too, I'm sure. There is a reason that society as a whole has regarded homosexuality as an abberation throughout the entire course of human history.
You may have noticed that male/female copulation is the standard design on this planet. Maybe there's a reason.You know, like, reproduction. You believe in evolution?
Dissent: It's not just for liberals anymore.-kudzupolitics, USA Today
Homosexuality does not
August 19, 2009 - 09:29 ET by mamabearHomosexuality does not infringe on anyone else's rights. Comparing it to rape, etc is ridiculous.
Unless your definition of "human history" doesn't include ancient greece, you are wrong.
Homosexuality exists in species other than humans, males in polygynous species with high reproductive skew can form pair bonds with each other. We can change the hormone levels that rats are exposed to during development and produce male rats that behave like females, female rats that behave like males, or rats that display no sexual behavior at all.
For whatever reason, god or evolution, there is not a perfect developmental coupling between anatomical sex and gender of the brain. You can take whatever meaning from that you want, but I take it to mean that sexual orientation is not necessarily a choice, and therefore discriminating on the basis of it is no different than discriminating on the basis of sex or race.
~I was comparing it
August 19, 2009 - 11:53 ET by choselife3xTo other behaviors that are traditionally considered unacceptable by society. But I'm glad you didn't jump to conclusions.
Every society has eventually degenerated into hedonism and been wiped out. Try reading "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire". There is a reason that societies which condone perversion and self-indulgence collapse upon themselves. Selfish behavior is destructive, both to the selfish individual and the people around him/her. I shouldn't even have to say that, it's obvious to anyone who has even scratched the surface of human history.
not a perfect developmental coupling between anatomical sex and gender of the brain.
The fallacy to your rat analogy...is that those rats had to be altered by an outside force in order to behave abnormally. Last I looked no one was injecting hormones into babies, in the womb or otherwise. FAIL. Please try again.
For further instruction..see here.
Dissent: It's not just for liberals anymore.-kudzupolitics, USA Today
It's a deliberately
August 19, 2009 - 21:07 ET by mamabearIt's a deliberately inflammatory comparison and you know it.
I said ancient greece, not roman empire-- the difference between the two should be obvious to anyone who has even scratched the surface of human history ;) But let's talk about Rome. Some historians blame the fall of the empire on the germanization of the military, some on economic problems and an agricultural failure. Some say that they became morally bankrupt, others actually blame Christianity for the downfall, because it made the people less interested in worldly matter. I think that's stupid, but so is distilling an incredibly complex process down to the point where you think you can blame man-on-man action!
You clearly missed the point with the rats. The point isn't that injecting rats with things changes them, that's obvious. The point is that injecting things at different times has different effects, and so does hormone exposure sans needle. Look up endocrine disruptors or phytoestrogens or congenital adrenal hyperplasia sometime. In a system that has so many failsafes, (like being able to put a cell anywhere and have it turn into the right kind of cell based on its neighbors. Crazy.) why aren't anatomical sex and psychological or external sex just determined by the same things at the same time? They could be, but they aren't. Maybe there's some benefit to having flexibility, I don't know.
But the fact is that there are thousands of people in the world who have genes, gonads, and secondary sex characteristics that don't match. That's got to be a tough tough deal, and it's no wonder it isn't more widely talked about, but their existence does, sadly, make it impossible for you to argue that there is a perfect coupling between the different levels of sex determination in human development.
FAIL, as some might say. Not me, of course, but some :)
~Sigh
August 19, 2009 - 22:36 ET by choselife3xDo I need to draw you pictures? The ancient Greeks were wiped out and replaced by Romans. Who were in turn wiped out after they fell into the same style of hedonism. The point is...every culture that condones hedonistic behavior crumbles within a few generations.
It's a deliberately inflammatory comparison and you know it.
Put on your big girl panties and deal with it. Why aren't you whining about the comparison to nudism? It was a list of unacceptable behaviors. Deal.
The point is that injecting things at different times has different effects, and so does hormone exposure sans needle.
Injecting things at different times has different effects? DUH. Quit screwing around with those poor animals. I'm sure they'd prefer cancer to idiots trying to make them gay.
Hormone exposure sans needle? You mean nature? You seriously want to use thousands of people out of a world population of over 6 billion to try to make your case? And what do genetic abnormalities have to do with homosexuality? None of the homosexuals I've ever met had anything genetically abnormal with them whatsoever. If you're going to try to hinge your argument on that you'll have to back it up with something. Like the percentage of homosexuals who do have a scientifically proven genetic abnormality. There is no logic in even bringing it up otherwise. FAIL.
but their existence does, sadly, make it impossible for you to argue
that there is a perfect coupling between the different levels of sex
determination in human development.
Hmmmmm...funny, I don't remember ever positing such a thing. (Especially considering it makes no sense whatsoever. Was that supposed to be English?) I said homosexual behavior is biologically abnormal. I also said that a tiny majority cannot force a dissenting majority to approve/condone this socially maladaptive behavior. And I said that studying animals that have been treated with hormones in order to apply the conclusions to humans that have not been treated with hormones is a fallacy. It's stupid, too. FAIL. Please try again.
Dissent: It's not just for liberals anymore.-kudzupolitics, USA Today
You are ignoring every
August 20, 2009 - 10:04 ET by mamabearYou are ignoring every point I've tried to make.
Co-incidence does not equal cause and effect. You have to have a reason to think that hedonism destroys civilization, not just a correlation. I brought up several other possible reasons which have an easily understood direct cause and effect relationship with government stability-- outsourcing the military to a hostile foreign population. Easy to see how that could cause problems. If you want to blame homosexuality, you are going to need to explain how that works a little more clearly!
You aren't going to understand the rat thing, and that's fine. I think you could get it if you gave it a little thought, but you don't seem interested. However, I also didn't say anything about genetic abnormalities, and only one of my examples has a genetic cause. It is a common misunderstanding among non-scientists that biological=genetic. That allows people to argue that the lack of a proven gentic cause of homosexual orientation must mean it is a choice. It is a false dichotomy that ignores a whole range of ways in which development can affect adult behavior.
I suggested that you look up a few terms, and I'm going to suggest it again. Then think twice about drinking soy milk or microwaving food in plastic containers!
~Okay, I'll draw you another picture
August 20, 2009 - 10:41 ET by choselife3xHedonism- –noun
1.
the doctrine that pleasure or happiness is the highest good.
2.
devotion to pleasure as a way of life: The later Roman emperors were notorious for their hedonism.
Ooh, look they even mention the Romans!
Origin:
1855–60; < Gk hēdon() pleasure + -ism
Synonyms:
2. sensualism, libertinism, debauchery, dissipation, carousal.
Antonyms:
2. puritanism, asceticism, abstemiousness, self-denial.
Wow, Greek origins, who'da thunk it.
I see you're trying to get away now that the vacuousness of your rat analogy is overwhelmingly apparent, but I'm going to draw you an elaborate diagram nonetheless.
The family unit is the building block of society. If you are a mother, you know that being a parent (or spouse for that matter) requires a certain level of unselfish behavior. Pregnancy, child-birth, changing diapers, staying up all night with a sick child...all require tending to another's needs. The antithesis of hedonism.
Since the 60's, when 'free love' and 'if it feels good just do it' became socially acceptable the family unit has been decimated. Divorce rates, child abuse, homosexuality, and crime (juvenile murderers, heretofore unheard of) have all skyrocketed. AKA societal breakdown. "Co-incidence"? Riiiiiight. Just like the Greeks? The Romans? The Babylonians?
Do you think this country (and the world) would be better off if people acted out of loving self-sacrifice..or hedonism?
Added: And I haven't ignored every point you've tried to make, I've obliterated every point you've tried to make.
Dissent: It's not just for liberals anymore.-kudzupolitics, USA Today
Lots of other things have
August 21, 2009 - 00:17 ET by mamabearLots of other things have changed since the 60s and free love-- the amount of sugar in our food, the temperature of the planet (sorry, have to slip that one in there), the population density of the country. My point is that you have to have a logical framework to explain how hedonism causes all of those things, and frankly I can see a pretty clear connection with all of the things you mentioned except for homosexuality!
I guess a large part of our disagreement stems from the idea that homosexuality is any more hedonistic in principle than heterosexuality. Why is it any different? I don't know how on earth you'd measure it, maybe by the amount of birth control prescribed, but I'd be very surprised if more than, say, ten percent of sex people are having in this country has any purpose other than pleasure. So how is it more hedonistic when it is between two men?
I'm going to make one last attempt to explain why the rats are important. If you think a certin hormone is causing something, it isn't enough in scientific fields to simply report the correlation and declare yourself right. You have to prove cause and effect by manipulating the system.
So let's say have a theory that sexual behavior in adulthood is organized not by X and Y chromosomes, but by prenatal hormone exposure. I can't simply measure hormones and declare victory when I discover that male testes are producing androgens during the period in development. In order to isolate the variable of the hormone from everthing else going on, I undertake a two part experiment. First, I remove the variable in question, and the response should disappear. Then, I replace the variable from an external source (this is where the needles come in.) Only if the response reemerges have I really proven that that particular hormone causes that particular response.
So the experiment doesn't add anything artificial, it just allows the researcher to determine cause and effect, as well as get more detailed. Once I've determined which ormones cause which events, I can test theories about timing. I can also look for sources of natual variation, at which point I'd discover that both male and female rats can be masculinized or feminized in their behavior as adults when their prenatal endocrine environment is changed by the sex of their littermates.
We do these studies in rats instead of people for several reasons. One is that while the ethics of animal testing are dubious, manipulating the hormones of human babies to see what happens is definitely out of the question. But even correlational studies take fifteen years before you can even measure variables related to adult sexuality. Finally, we can't keep people in glass aquaria and measure what kind of sex they have and how often, so instead we rely on survey data. People lie, especially about things that carry a stigma like homosexuality.
Whew! NOW, do you understand why I started talking about rats?
I guess a large part of our
August 21, 2009 - 08:03 ET by dvdaughtryI guess a large part of our disagreement stems from the idea that homosexuality is any more hedonistic in principle than heterosexuality.
[Edited to add] The real, large part, of the disagreement is the opposing world views.
Why is it any different?
There is probably not that much, except for that procreation aspect.
How is homosexuality NOT hedonistic?
You trying to say Jesus Christ can't hit a curveball?
I'm not arguing that it
August 22, 2009 - 07:45 ET by mamabearI'm not arguing that it isn't hedonistic, I'm arguing that it isn't ANY MORE hedonistic. So unless the contention is that before homosexuality becomes accepted people aren't having any sex at all, it seems troublesome to blame the activity for the downfall of Rome or any other society.
~Here we go again
August 24, 2009 - 23:05 ET by choselife3xI just saw your reply, so I'll throw this out there before I "retire to my chamber". h/t Sterling
How is homosexuality more hedonistic than heterosexuality? Well, for starters, it serves no purpose other than pleasure. Heterosexual sex is a life-giving and life-affirming act by it's very nature. Whether or not conception occurs, it is still the act by which conception does occur. Every single human being on the face of this earth is here because a man's sperm joined a woman's egg.
Homosexual sex is an unnatural act. There is no such thing in the animal kingdom, therefore it is clearly the result of human neurosis. Have you ever wondered why anyone would inject animals with hormones and try to draw conclusions that can be applied to gay people? Why is it so important to attempt to find evidence that homosexuals are born that way? If they really think there is nothing wrong with it, why act like there is 'no choice' in the matter?
Because we all know it is a perversion of nature. Nature designed us to be heterosexual. Male and female. Anything other than that is a violation of natural law. That's not a religious or even a moral take, it's just biology.
Once it's okay, and natural, and 'we can't help it, we're born that way', the floodgates of 'acceptable' behavior open.
"Study after nationwide study (3)
has yielded estimates of male homosexuality that range between 1% and
3%. The proportion of lesbians in these studies is almost always lower,
usually about half that of gays. So, overall, perhaps 2% of adults
regularly indulge in homosexuality. Yet they account for between 20% to
40% of all molestations of children.
Child molestation is not to be taken lightly. Officials at a facility which
serves about 1,500 runaway youngsters each year estimate that about
half of the boys have been homosexually abused and 90% of the girls
heterosexually assaulted. (27)
Investigation of those suffering severe chronic mental illness
implicates child molestation as a primary cause (45% of Bigras et al’s (28) patients were homosexually abused).
If 2% of the population is responsible for 20% to 40% of something as
socially and personally troubling as child molestation, something must
be desperately wrong with that 2%. Not every homosexual is a
child molester. But enough gays do molest children so that the risk of
a homosexual molesting a child is 10 to 20 times greater than that of a
heterosexual.
Goals of the Gay Movement
The gay movement is forthright about seeking to legitimize child-adult
homosexual sex. In 1987, The Journal of Homosexuality – the scholarly
organ of the gay rights movement – published “Pedophilia and the Gay
Movement.” (29) Author Theo Sandfort detailed homosexual efforts to end “oppression towards pedophilia.” "
Dissent: It's not just for liberals anymore.-kudzupolitics, USA Today
Those statistics you just
August 25, 2009 - 08:59 ET by mamabearThose statistics you just used have been debunked a thousand times. Honestly, I though I was having a discussion with a reasonable person who just saw homosexuality as one expression of a worrying increase in general hedonism. I can understand being distressed by many aspects of the modern world, and I thought it might be worth pointing out the fallacy.
If you believe that crap, though, then your issue is much different.
Homosexual behavior exists all over the place in nature. It isn't common, but it's there. Look up bonobos sometime, you'll be horrified by the rampant hedonism displayed by a species that is arguably even more closely related to us than chimps!
Those statistics you just
August 25, 2009 - 10:39 ET by dvdaughtryThose statistics you just used have been debunked a thousand times.
Debunked where? Please provide support.
Homosexual behavior exists all over the place in nature. It isn't common, but it's there. Look up bonobos sometime, you'll be horrified by the rampant hedonism displayed by a species that is arguably even more closely related to us than chimps!
It's your claim. Why don't you support it?
If you believe that crap, though, then your issue is much different.
I told you a couple posts up that this was a difference of world view. So far, one has supported theirs.
You trying to say Jesus Christ can't hit a curveball?
~What he said
August 25, 2009 - 10:46 ET by choselife3x;-)
Seriously, back any of that up, mb.
Dissent: It's not just for liberals anymore.-kudzupolitics, USA Today
Okay, here's a great
August 25, 2009 - 20:24 ET by mamabearOkay, here's a great article that goes through every paper cited by conservatives claiming a link between homosexuality and either child abuse or pedophilia.
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html
Here are some highlights:
Similar essay debunking many studies used to support the argument and explaining how they distort the actual conclusions of the people who did the studies:
http://www.internationalorder.org/scandal_response.html
I could give you many more, but they all say approximately the same thing-- in order to make the argument that gays are more likely to abuse children, activists have had to distort data, twist the conclusions of scientists, and in some cases just lie. They can do it because no one bothers to read bibliographies these days :P
~Great
August 25, 2009 - 21:40 ET by choselife3xNow I have to read about the twisted perversions of perverts to prove that perverts are perverts. *groan*
Here's part of your refutation.
There's a "Stories of Man/Boy Love" link on the left hand side, but I can't bring myself to go beyond the main page.
Re: the first link you provide (I love that 'rainbow' is in the address, neutral source, right?*cough*)
This is a real gem, it starts out like this--
Members of disliked minority groups are often stereotyped as representing a danger to the majority's most vulnerable members.
For example, Jews in the Middle Ages were accused of murdering Christian babies in ritual sacrifices.
Black men in the United States were often lynched after being falsely accused of raping White women.
Yeah, I can tell this was an independent study conducted without bias. (The author's blog)
Here's one of the money quotes:
For the present discussion, the important point is that many child
molesters cannot be meaningfully described as homosexuals,
heterosexuals, or bisexuals (in the usual sense of those terms) because
they are not really capable of a relationship with an adult man or
woman. Instead of gender, their sexual attractions are based primarily
on age.
These individuals – who are often characterized as fixated – are attracted to children, not to men or women.
Lookit this tool trying to parse his way out of the pervert's corner.
That whole thing is crap. He's obviously trying to push his own agenda, normalizing homosexuality. I don't trust anything written by a guy whose blog is entitled "Beyond Homophobia". Here's a better source for ya.
The Innate-Immutable Argument
Finds No Basis in Science
In Their Own Words: Gay Activists Speak
About Science, Morality, Philosophy
Regarding change and the right to treatment, lesbian activist Camille Paglia offered the following observations:
"Homosexuality is not 'normal.' On the contrary it is a
challenge to the norm...Nature exists whether academics like it or not.
And in nature, procreation is the single relentless rule. That is the
norm. Our sexual bodies were designed for reproduction...No one is born
gay. The idea is ridiculous...homosexuality is an adaptation, not an
inborn trait.....
So gays aren't more inclined to be child molesters, you say?
Psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover reflects on the
Journal of Homosexuality's "Male Intergenerational Intimacy":
Gay advocates correctly state that most child
molesters are heterosexual males. However, this is
a misleading statement, since most males are
heterosexual.
In proportion to their numbers (about 1 out of 36
men), homosexual males may be more likely to
engage in sex with minors: in fact, some research
suggests a possible 3-to-one ratio (8).
However, research in this area is not conclusive
because the sexual orientation of male-on-male
abusers was not always clear (some abusers are
bisexuals).
These statistics do not, of course, take into
account the cases of homosexual child abuse which
are unreported. NARTH's Executive Director Dr.
Joseph Nicolosi, for example, says that about
one-third of his 400 adult homosexual clients said
they had experienced some form of homosexual abuse
before the age of consent, but only two of those
cases had been reported to legal authorities.
While no more than 2% of male adults are
homosexual, some studies indicate that
approximately 35% of pedophiles are homosexual
(9). Further, since male-on-male pedophiles
victimize far more children than do heterosexual
pedophiles (10), it is estimated that
approximately 80% of pedophilic victims are boys
who have been molested by adult males (11).
Homosexual Men were Often Childhood Victims
Dr. Nicolosi says that many of his clients' childhood sexual contacts occurred with a
trusted older person, and were perceived at the time of the abuse as loving. Other
sexual-reorientation therapists report similar high rates of molestation among their clients (12, 13).
Don't forget to read the bibliographies.....
Dissent: It's not just for liberals anymore.-kudzupolitics, USA Today
If you read the articles I
August 26, 2009 - 16:36 ET by mamabearIf you read the articles I gave you carefully, you would know why those studies about disproportionate numbers don't hold up. They make the assumption that all cases where boys are abused by men must be carried out by homosexuals, when in fact people who identify as homosexual and are attracted to appropriately aged members of the opposite sex (whether they self identify or not) are no more likely, and in some studies even less likely, to be abusers. The study detailing that is in both of the ssays I provided.
Men who abuse children are attracted to their age, not their gender, and in some cases even specify that they are interested in the feminine qualities of children, not to boys because they are boys.
It is an entirely unpleasant subject to study, which is why most people don't look too carefully, which is why this misinformation has survived for so long.
Mamabear
August 28, 2009 - 09:44 ET by RESTLESS 1If, as you and your study contend, chile molesters are attracted to the "feminine qualities" of children, then why is the gap between boys being molested and girls being molested narrowing?
Now, sexual assault of any kind is apalling and a power play by the agressor. I am loathe to paint homosexuals as child molesters without come very concrete evidence, but to say it is not a factor at all is naive to say the least.
"When the man, with the power, can't keep it under control...some heads are gonna roll." -Judas Priest
mambear - clearly you have no scientific curiosity.
August 30, 2009 - 15:48 ET by BO STINKSIf you did have any scientific curiosity, you would KNOW that chimps are far from being related to humans re: their DNA. And that another species' chain of DNA is much closer to our own. As well as being intellectually dishonest, you, mambear, are still allowing your emotions to form your opinions.
"...it must be known that we are at all times ready for war." G. Washington
~Debunk them, then
August 25, 2009 - 11:21 ET by choselife3xa discussion with a reasonable person who just saw homosexuality as one expression of a worrying increase in general hedonism.
I do, the pedophilia is a side issue. I used it to make the points that--
1. Once basic biology (male and female) is done away with as a parameter, where are the boundaries? There are none.
2. Hedonism is a downward spiral. Once one supremely selfish behavior is indulged in, others follow in short order. Hence the whole concept of "gateway drugs."
Please, actually 'debunk' my points with some links. Also, some sound, logical reasoning would be nice. Maybe you could explain to me how homosexuality is NOT a biological dead-end that results in species decline.
Look up bonobos sometime, you'll be horrified by the rampant hedonism
displayed by a species that is arguably even more closely related to us
than chimps!
Yes, these bonobos are dusgusting. I'm horrified!
Given its
peacemaking and appeasement functions, it is not surprising
that sex among bonobos occurs in so many different partner
combinations, including between juveniles and adults.
OMO!!! There's your proof!!! Pedophilia is A-okay, the animals do it!!! The human perverts are now justified because the horny monkeys do it, too.
I just love how liberals look to animal society to learn lessons about human sexuality. It's just so progressive, and...and enlightened. Let's all learn from the monkeys and rub our organs together in the workplace to make peace. It's not like we can talk about it or anything......
One more thing...it doesn't say anywhere that the males, um.. insert anything in their contact with each other. Ditto the females. I'm not that familiar with homosexual practices, human or otherwise, but I'm pretty sure that actual insertion plays a significant role with humans.
I'll bet gays just love being compared to monkeys that like to rub each other for food.
Dissent: It's not just for liberals anymore.-kudzupolitics, USA Today
I also found in my cursory
August 25, 2009 - 11:30 ET by dvdaughtryI also found in my cursory search that the same sex contact was not for gratification, but for conflict resolution.
Homosexuality was not mentioned in this source.
You trying to say Jesus Christ can't hit a curveball?
~And yet another point
August 25, 2009 - 11:49 ET by choselife3xIs that none of these animals engage in exclusive homosexual contact like humans do. The bonobos are promiscuous, not gay. And they aren't even actually "doing it" with other members of the same sex, so to speak. They simply don't apply to any argument involving homosexuality.
Dissent: It's not just for liberals anymore.-kudzupolitics, USA Today
You are deliberately
August 25, 2009 - 20:36 ET by mamabearYou are deliberately twisting my argument here, or you just aren't understanding me.
YOU argued a morality based on the natural world-- that something is bad because it is unnatural. I am simply pointing out that homosexual behavior is in fact found in nature. However, I completely reject the idea that we should look to nature for morality either way! I think it is just as stupid to decide something is good because it is natural as it is to decide something is bad because it isn't.
By your argument, chemoptherapy and combustion engines are evil. My argument makes no judgements based on whether something is found in nature, nor am I comparing anyone to a monkey. You're probably not an idiot, so I assume you are just trying to piss me off.
You want an example where homosexuality doesn't lead to a biological dead end? Try parthenogenesis. There are species of lizards that have completely done away with males. Females court one another, display sexual behavior, then reproduce themselves without any help from males. There are also plenty of animals that are hermaphroditic, so the whole distinction becomes moot.
You want a list of animals that display documented homosexual behavior of varying degrees, including sex? Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mammals_displaying_homosexual_behavior
Yes, I know how conservatives feel about Wikipedia, but the last thing I have time to do is compile references for all 1500 species on that list. Wikipedia has a bibliography, so feel free to look up individual studies and try to refute them.
mamabear
August 25, 2009 - 20:56 ET by MrShy"nor am I comparing anyone to a monkey. You're probably not an idiot, so I assume you are just trying to piss me off."
No, she's not an idiot, and no, she's not trying to piss you off. She's just exposing you for doing what you and liberals love to do: defend "alternative" sexuality by pointing to various animals who engage in it.
She teased you about this in the post above, and I suspect she'll be back to tease you again as, low and behold, you're holding up lizards as the latest species for us to take our cues from.
Oh good lord, did you even
August 25, 2009 - 21:28 ET by mamabearOh good lord, did you even read what I just wrote?
I was asked to provide a specific example, which I did. I very explicitly stated that I do NOT think we should take our cues from nature. That appears to be the opposing argument.
I do not think things are okay because they happen in nature. I also don't think they are bad if they don't. Those are two sides of the same coin, and it's called the naturalistic fallacy.
The reason I bother with the argument in the first place, is that people who claim that homosexuality is bad because it doesn't occur in nature are not just committing a philosophical fallacy, they are also just plain wrong!
Whether or not you think we should derive our morality based on what does and doesn't exist in other species (an argument you'll be hard pressed to use to support any traditional family values at all), the fact remains that homosexual behavior does occur in other species, so the discussion is doubly meaningless.
mamabear
August 25, 2009 - 22:35 ET by MrShyTake your lumps below from someone who is defeating you on this whole issue.
Gays are gay. They have all the freedoms now to do whatever they choose. This whole debate over gays and their "rights" is such a non-issue, but libs need it to be one as another divisive card up their sleeve.
~Hahahaha
August 25, 2009 - 21:58 ET by choselife3xThose lizards and hermaphroditic animals...were designed that way by nature. They are fulfilling their biological functions, they are reproducing. Gay people are incapable of reproducing using their preferred sexual methods. They are however, capable of reproducing in the traditional way, if they so choose. Again...FAIL.
Those monkeys you used as an example aren't gay, they're indiscriminate. The males not only do not penetrate each other, they do not display a preference for each other. Neither do the females. FAIL.
I didn't say that morality is based on nature, I argued that homosexuality is a perversion based on simple biology. Male and female=biological match. Male and male or female and female=biological FAIL. Simple as that.
One of my points is that every culture in human history that has tolerated hedonism has crumbled within a few generations. The family unit is the building block of society, weaken it, destroy it, and society crumbles. Homosexuality is a phenomenon that flourishes only in a decaying society. Along with lots of other maladaptive behaviors.
I have no problems with combustion engines. Except that they break my nails when I take them apart. I hate that.
Dissent: It's not just for liberals anymore.-kudzupolitics, USA Today
chose
August 25, 2009 - 22:19 ET by MrShyWhere's Free Stinker when you need him?
And to your last paragraph, what are you, Marisa Tomei from "My Cousin Vinny"??
:)
~No
August 25, 2009 - 22:22 ET by choselife3xI'm much better looking. And a lot younger. And the proud owner of an F-150. ;-)
Dissent: It's not just for liberals anymore.-kudzupolitics, USA Today
chose
August 25, 2009 - 22:32 ET by MrShyWhat's amazing is, conservatives -- and basically, just about all of the world now (well, minus those fiesty Muslims... oh, but liberals give THEM a pass on a whole host of uber-intolerant behavior.... "have some respect for their religion, sheesh!" :p) -- are completely tolerating an odd, abnormal-for-humans perversion, but being lectured by God-complex liberals that this just isn't "enough".
And then we end up in goes-no-where arguments with the likes of mamabear.
~Goes-no-where
August 25, 2009 - 22:43 ET by choselife3xSeems to be the theme here!
She seems incapable of absorbing biological facts----
1. The hermaphroditic animals are born that way and reproduce according to their particular manner. It's the way their biology was meant to work.
2. The horny monkeys rub each other indiscriminately but only mate with members of the opposite sex. AKA reproduce.
But somehow these animals are supposed to prove that homosexuality is not just a human behavior.*sigh*
They aren't gay, they are reproducing!! Homosexuals are incapable of reproducing with their method of.....um, relations.
Biological goes-no-where.
(What really cracks me up is the fact that if liberals really thought there was nothing wrong with homosexuality, they wouldn't be so desperate to try to prove that they're "born that way". "See, see, I can't help it!!!")
Dissent: It's not just for liberals anymore.-kudzupolitics, USA Today
chose
August 25, 2009 - 23:57 ET by MrShyYes, but maybe what liberals are doing is (and this is warped) pushing for a hopeful evolutionary transformation. You know, if we all just start f-ing the same sex, over time nature and the universe will morph and adapt and, PRESTO, we'll start reproducing.... maybe genitalia will alter over millions of years, who knows.
Okay, this is really all very disgusting. Back to working on my follow-up video to Crossed the Atlantic.
EDIT: But in all seriousness, yes, you're right. And we're not having any "debate" with mamabear. There IS no debate on this. It is what it is, and it's not what it isn't.
Look, you can't ask for
August 26, 2009 - 16:30 ET by mamabearLook, you can't ask for specific examples and then mock me when I provide them. If you don't want to know about animals that reproduce despite being "designed" to perform sexual behavior with members of the same sex, then don't ask for examples where homosexuality is biologically viable. If you don't want to know about what monkeys do in their spare time (they're apes, by the way) then don't ask for examples of homosexuality in nature.
I've made the mistake of letting you choose the terms of the debate-- you ask for facts, I provide them, you mock instead of reading them. Seriously, did you read one source associated with the list of 1500 hundred species that have displayed documented same-sex activity? One?
The reason we are interested in proving that sexual orientation is not just a choice is because claiming it is is how conervatives avoid the civil rights issue. I don't think there is anything wrong with homosexuality.
~Please
August 26, 2009 - 18:01 ET by choselife3xSince they are capable of reproducing in that manner then it isn't homosexuality!!! It's nature! That's the way they reproduce. I pointed out that homosexuality (as in attracted to the same sex instead of the opposite sex that you are biologically capable of reproducing with) is a human trait. Those hermaphroditic animals don't have a choice between one sex or another to mate with! They are fulfilling their biological function.
Just because a male dog humps another male dog doesn't mean he's gay. That same dog won't turn down a female! Good grief.
If you don't want to know about what monkeys do in their spare time
(they're apes, by the way) then don't ask for examples of homosexuality
in nature.
Those 'apes' do not pair off in exclusively same sex relationships like human homosexuals. They also do not actually mate. They aren't homosexual.
This is beyond stupid. Every single creature that is dioecious (all mammals are!) requires separate male and female organisms to reproduce. Homosexual humans are incapable of reproducing using their method of intercourse. It is therefore an aberration from the design.
I don't think there is anything wrong with homosexuality.
If you didn't you wouldn't have researched it so much to try to prove it's natural. You must have a dog in the fight.
Dissent: It's not just for liberals anymore.-kudzupolitics, USA Today
Look, I have answered every
August 26, 2009 - 20:10 ET by mamabearLook, I have answered every challenge, and you have simply weaseld your way out by changing your argument each time. This was the original statement you made appealing to "naturalism" as the reason you have a problem with homosexuality:
"Homosexual sex is an unnatural act. There is no such thing in the
animal kingdom, therefore it is clearly the result of human neurosis."
I have proven that categorically false.
Oh, but of course, you didn't mean any old sex, you meant penetration, and only if it isn't used to form social bonds and only if it is exclusively same-sex and only if the animals weren't "designed" that way leaving them no other choice... It's a dance Bill Clinton would be proud of.
I realize at this point that I am beating my head against a brick wall, but I'm going to try one more time. Since you clearly don't like to read much, here is a slideshow put together by LiveScience which includes many examples of different types of homosexual behavior in nature. I apologize, you have to rate each photo to see the next one, but it is a good overview. It includes Guinean cocks-of-the-rock (no, I did not just make that up) in which some males are exclusively homosexual and never mate with females, walruses in which the closest they ever get to your definition of "normal" or "natural" is bisexuality, and black swans in which homosexual pairs stay together for years and raise eggs that they steal from other couples.
And yes, I have a dog in this fight. It is people very dear to me, the kind of friends that you think of as the family you chose, and some of them are gay. I am sick and tired of seeing them hurt by the casually destructive things ignorant people say about them, their family, and their lifestyle. There are a couple of reasons I chose my screenname, and one is because I am very protective of people I love.
So, yeah, I have a dog in the fight, and the b***h bites hard.
I am sick and tired of
August 26, 2009 - 22:29 ET by dvdaughtryI am sick and tired of seeing them hurt by the casually destructive things ignorant people say about them, their family, and their lifestyle.
Their lifestyle is what is truly destructive.
You trying to say Jesus Christ can't hit a curveball?
~Riiiiight
August 27, 2009 - 08:38 ET by choselife3xyou didn't mean any old sex, you meant penetration,
Yeah, cause that's what homosexuals do. They don't just rub each other like bonobos. You "weaseled" it into something else. Bill Clinton.
and only if it isn't used to form social bonds
I pointed out that the "apes" are socializing, not mating, and not ever exclusively with the same sex. You know, like homosexuals do.
only if it is exclusively same-sex
Well, that is the definition of homosexuality.
only if the animals weren't "designed" that way leaving them no other choice
Are humans designed that way leaving them no other choice? (for reproduction) If you're talking about heterosexuality, YES. Homo, NO. You can't call naturally hermaphroditic animals (as in all of them are that way and they reproduce) gay. That's just beyond idiotic.
Your slideshow and your links are bogus. It's all a bunch of crap put together by gays to try to prove they're not practicing an aberrant lifestyle. Not a single one holds up under scrutiny. And if they didn't know in their hearts that they're perverts they wouldn't be desperate to "prove" that they're 'born that way'. *shrieking hysterically and running in circles* "I was born that way, I can't help it, I can't help it!! Don't judge me, I can't help it!!!!! It's not my fault; you're a homophobe!!!"
Pathetic, lame and pathetic.
black swans in which homosexual pairs stay together for years and raise eggs that they steal from other couples.
Do they molest the stolen young, too?
Did heteros come up with 'golden showers'? I can't remember the euphemism for when gays defecate on each other, and I'm not going to look it up. Homosexuality is an unhealthy aberration from the norm. It is destructive to the fabric of society, and society as a whole is right not condone it.
Arf.
Dissent: It's not just for liberals anymore.-kudzupolitics, USA Today
Yeah, cause that's what
August 27, 2009 - 16:14 ET by mamabearYeah, cause that's what homosexuals do. They don't just rub each other like bonobos
Okay, you need a lesson in female anatomy. I am NOT going to give it to you.
I pointed out that the "apes" are socializing, not mating, and not ever
exclusively with the same sex. You know, like homosexuals do.
Except that they are socializing AND mating, much like humans often are.
Well, that is the definition of homosexuality.
Right, except that you said "homosexual sex", not homosexuality. But then we've already established that you are free to change the terms of the argument in whatever way allows you to best avoid dealing with the evidence.
You can't call naturally hermaphroditic animals (as in all of them are that way and they reproduce) gay. That's just beyond idiotic.
You're right. Good thing all I did with that argument was try to refute the idea that nature had never seen same-sex relations until humans came along, and all such expressions were biological dead ends. You asked for examples of animals reproducing homosexually, I gave them to you.
Your slideshow and your links are bogus. It's all a bunch of
crap put together by gays to try to prove they're not practicing an
aberrant lifestyle. Not a single one holds up under scrutiny.
I would love for you to scrutinize them right now. Go for it, prove me wrong. Find your own links about the behavioral biology of those animals, or some evidence that the research published is a vast gay conspiracy. Do it.
I'm going to ignore the part of your message where you get disgusting as though talking about something in a nasty way makes it nasty. There are plenty of sexual behaviors that are entirely inappropriate to bring up here and which are engaged in by people of all orientations, including the things you felt the need to describe.
Incidentally, I am waiting for an invitation to the woodshed thread you referenced before. If you are planning to get any more graphic about this subject, I'm sure most NB readers would rather not read it.
~Hahahahahaha
August 27, 2009 - 20:54 ET by choselife3xOur comments will show up in the 'Recent Comments' no matter where we post them. Woodshed or not. If you really wanted, you could make your own forum on the topic and copy the relevant comments into it.
Yeah, cause that's what homosexuals do. They don't just rub each other like bonobos
Okay, you need a lesson in female anatomy. I am NOT going to give it to you.
You're avoiding the point again. And I don't want to know what women do to each other, thanks. The POINT is that homosexuals insert. And they are exclusive. Homosexuals do not rub each other indiscriminately to solve conflict, nor do they reproduce with females, like ALL bonobos and other animals do.
refute the idea that nature had never seen same-sex relations until
humans came along, and all such expressions were biological dead ends.
When I said homosexuality is a dead-end, I was referring to dioecious species. Because that's what humans are. Not just FAIL, MASSIVE FAIL.
some evidence that the research published is a vast gay conspiracy
Oh, I don't know...the author's blog entitled "Beyond Homophobia" might have been a clue that he had an agenda.....
I'm going to ignore the part of your message where you get disgusting
as though talking about something in a nasty way makes it nasty.
Hmmm, you must be referring to the gay men urinating and defecating on each other. So..I referred to it in a nasty way? Please, enlighten me. Refer to it in a way that isn't nasty. Since you think that it's only nasty because of the way I referenced it (using the gay-created euphemism), give it a shit, uh, shot.
Dissent: It's not just for liberals anymore.-kudzupolitics, USA Today
Oh, I don't know...the
August 27, 2009 - 22:56 ET by mamabearOh, I don't know...the author's blog entitled "Beyond Homophobia" might have been a clue that he had an agenda.....
Don't conflate things. I asked you to scrutinize the statements made in the slideshow that you claimed were bogus. Either rise to the challenge or admit that you don't have any facts to back your claim.
I'll wait.
~THEY don't back up their claims
August 28, 2009 - 08:36 ET by choselife3xDon't conflate things.
So you admit that his 'proof' is BS. Good for you, manbear.
Cock of the Rock: Males of this stunning perching bird delight in homosexuality. Almost
40 percent of the male population engages in a form of homosexual
activity and a small percentage don't ever copulate with females.
I am a world famous supermodel. Scrutinize that statement and prove it's bogus. See how that works? Just cause thay say it don't make it so. Lame@sses don't even get specific. What is a "small percentage"? 1/4 of 1 percent? 3%? I don't believe it, anyway. Why don't they show a video to back up their claim? Should be easy enough. But they don't. Because they can't. FAIL.
Splashing around in the water is brought to a completely new level in gray whales, where homosexual interactions are quite common. In
slip-and-slide orgies, as many as five males roll around, splashing
water, and rubbing their bellies against each other so that their
genitals are touching.
Football players shower together, tackle each other, and slap each other on the @ss. O M G!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Who'da thunk it. I thought they were playing a game, turns out they're queers. Excuse me, I must alert the press.
Male walruses don't reach sexual maturity until they are four years
old. During that time, they are most likely exclusively involved in
same-sex relationships. The older males are typically bi-sexual, mating
with females during breeding season and copulating with other males the rest of the year. Males rub their bodies together, embrace each other
and even sleep together in water.
"Most likely". That's some kinda definitive scientific observation, there. Again, no video of this supposed "copulation". Someone must have observed this phenomenon, why didn't the dolt videotape it? I'm sure it would make great gay porn. He coulda been rich. Too bad. They sleep together in the water?!?!?!?! Wow, that's, like, what herd animals do. For protection against predators. Maybe for a walrus it's "friends with benefits".
Black Swans: Homosexual couples account for up to 20 percent of all pairings annually. Almost a quarter of all families are parented by homosexual couples that remain together for years. At times, male couples use the services of a female by mating with her. Once she lays a clutch of
eggs, the wanna-be fathers chase her away and hatch the eggs. Other times, they just drive away heterosexual couples from their nests and adopt their eggs. What gentlemen.
I am so frickin' disappointed. I popped corn. I sent the kiddos outside to play. I dimmed the lights. And what do I get? Zip. Zero. Nilch. Nada. No video. I was ready to get me an edumacation about freaky animals gettin' it on. How excessively disappointing.
Kob Antelope: On average, females mount with other females a couple of times an hour
during the mating season. Homosexual mounting encompasses almost 9
percent of all sexual activities within these hoofed mammals in the wild. While courting, the pursuer sidles up behind a pal and raises her foreleg, touching the other female between her legs. This leggy
foreplay ultimately leads to mounting.
Oooooohhhh. I wanna see, I wanna see!! Lesbian antelopes, whoopee!! Do they wear strap-ons? Do they refuse the advances of those nasty men and cavort only with each other? What, no young-stealing from the straight antelopes???? These girls need to get with the program. And take videos.
Giraffes, oohh I hoped for giraffes. Those legs...those lips.....those necks, oh gawd, those necks. "Necking" just took on a whole new meaning, didn't it?!
Male courtships are frequent amongst these long-necked mammals. Often a
male will start necking with another before proceeding to mount him. This affectionate play can take up to an hour. According to one study (where, oh where can it be?!),
one in every 20 male giraffes will be found necking with another male at any instant. In many cases, homosexual activity is said to be (by whom?) more common than heterosexual.
AT ANY INSTANT?!?!?!?! That is so exciting, there must be video..hold on....my hands are trembling, just a second......AIIIIEEEEEEE...*keens with disappointment, tears hair* "At any instant" and "is said to be more common" and there's still no video? They go out and do all these painstaking studies, sweating in the terrible heat, nobly sharing the protection of their tiny tents with the native boys every night, doing ferocious battle with mosquitos and coiffe-wrecking humidity, and they didn't take videos?!?! Must've used up their memory chips filming their Twister games around the campfire every night.
I could do this all day. Unfortunately, since there is no video, no wonderful and glorious video to prove once and for all that queers are animals, too--wait, that didn't sound right--queers are anim..peop..no, wait..aha! I've got it, queers are people, too!! But the animals do it and that means that it's natural for people to.....uh, sorry, I forgot which line of liberal BS I was trying to spew. I'm opening the blinds and letting the kids back in now. We're going to watch lions eat queer antelopes. And eat all this popcorn.
Dissent: It's not just for liberals anymore.-kudzupolitics, USA Today
Hi ladies,
August 28, 2009 - 09:21 ET by RESTLESS 1I'll just leave a few thoughts of my own on this.
First, that animals engage in homosexual behavior is not proven. That they do it for sexual gratification is even less so. Mostly, it is an exercise of control over a rival. Even so, it doesn't make homosexual activity natural, and certainly doesn't make it equal to heterosexual activity.
If one wants to argue that homosexuals have all the rights of heterosexuals, then I doubt you would get much push back from here. If you argue that homosexuals have the right to marry, then you are wrong. There is no inherent right to marry, that can be granted by the govt., for anyone. "What God has brought together, let no man put asunder". I doubt that God is bringing two men, or two women together in matrimony, as He has said that homosexuality is an abomination.
Finally, even if every other species shows to have homosexual acitvity within its membership, do we not as humans have a higher intellect? Are we not higher than the animals? I mean, many animals kill for no reason, and many often eat their young. Does that make it okay for humans to engage in such activities? Or should be aspire to higher. (Nice little rhyme there :))
"When the man, with the power, can't keep it under control...some heads are gonna roll." -Judas Priest
~And all God's people
August 28, 2009 - 09:27 ET by choselife3xSaid "Amen." she said piously.
Good to see you again, R1.
Dissent: It's not just for liberals anymore.-kudzupolitics, USA Today
CL3X
August 28, 2009 - 09:48 ET by RESTLESS 1Good to see you too. I've been following your discussion here, and decided to chime in. You are doing such a dutiful job, that I didn't want to interrupt before.
"When the man, with the power, can't keep it under control...some heads are gonna roll." -Judas Priest
~R1
August 28, 2009 - 10:01 ET by choselife3xI'm glad you decided to take the plunge, it's nice to know I'm not talking to myself here.
Dissent: It's not just for liberals anymore.-kudzupolitics, USA Today
With the most sincere intent
August 28, 2009 - 09:42 ET by dvdaughtryLet's celebrate!
You trying to say Jesus Christ can't hit a curveball?
DVD
August 28, 2009 - 09:49 ET by RESTLESS 1So that's where my kids got that!!! They sing that one from time to time.
"When the man, with the power, can't keep it under control...some heads are gonna roll." -Judas Priest
~That
August 28, 2009 - 09:59 ET by choselife3xCalls for more popcorn!
Dissent: It's not just for liberals anymore.-kudzupolitics, USA Today
Just had to say thanks choselife!
August 28, 2009 - 10:43 ET by MightyMouthSeveral good Coffee spews in there!!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
~:-)
August 28, 2009 - 10:58 ET by choselife3xThanks, I'm here all week. Have some popcorn.
Dissent: It's not just for liberals anymore.-kudzupolitics, USA Today
Okay, I'm very torn as to
August 28, 2009 - 20:47 ET by mamabearOkay, I'm very torn as to how to respond to this, mostly because I think you are trying to trap me. I don't want to prove my point with videos because videos are a TERRIBLE way to prove any scientific point.
For one thing, my point about the cock-of-the-rock is that some males are exclusively homosexual and never mate with females. I can't show you that in a video, there is no way to record an animal not doing something. Second, video of anything, even a positive event, can be incredibly misleading. I could record the only time a male animal ever had sex with a male animal and claim that the event is common, there is no way for a video to give you information about whether something is common enough to be biologically significant.
I'd much rather have you read papers like:
MacFarlane, Blomberg, Kaplan & Rogers. 2007. Same-sex sexual behavior in birds: expression is related to social mating system and state of development at hatching. Behavioral Ecology v. 18 (1): 21 - 33.
It's not the only paper reviewing scientific literature on homosexuality in animals (which goes back to at least 1942), but it is the only one I could find on line for free, so you can read it without subscribing to the journal. Do me a favor and go to the end of the paper and look through the references. THAT is the kind of information that sheds light on homosexual behavior in animals, not videos of dogs humping. Behavioral Ecology is a well repsected scientific journal, not a propaganda piece.
Sadly, you seem to be fixated, and kind of shrill, about videos, so I am going to trepidatiously provide them. I fully expect you to turn around and play gotcha: "that's not proof, that's just a bunch of videos!" When you do that, you will be right. It's not proof, it's just apparently what you want to see. If you wantactual, useful evidence, you will have to read something.
I am not making these links, because I have no desire to get banned because someone clicks on them and gets offended by what they see, so you are going to have to paste them into your browser. These are all clips from a National Geographic program on the subject.
The one about macaques, incidentally, goes through and systematically rules out several ways you have tried to dismiss homosexual behavior in animals-- dominance, social climbing, etc. Before you start complaining about a lack of numbers, this is a TV show. The researcher who is interviewed is Paul Vasey, and he has published papers with numbers, but you'll have to go to a library to read them because they are not freely available online. Some titles you might look up include:
"Skewed sex ratios and female homosexuality in Japanese macaques: an experimental analysis."
"Male-female and female-female mounting in Japanese macaques: a comparative study of posture and movement."
"Pre- and post-conflict interactions between female Japanese macaques during homosexual consortships."
Finally, just to reiterate for those who are still confused... I am not advocating any behavior based on whether it exists in other species. I am simply correcting factually false statements made about the existence of homosexual behavior in non-human animals.
Here are your precious videos:(WARNING: don't follow links if you don't want to see animals having sex)
youtube.com/watch?v=Nd4Hbq-syQI
youtube.com/watch?v=7R1TAyNI8WE
youtube.com/watch?v=b0vGamcQIYs
(in order to keep these from automatically becoming links, I am typing them by hand and leaving out the www. If I did something wrong and they don't work, search on youtube for "Lesbianism in Macaques" and "Homosexuality in Animals" and you'll find them)
LOL... mamabear, with all
August 28, 2009 - 20:54 ET by Clear thinkerLOL... mamabear, with all due respect, did you escape from somewhere?
Huffington Post BUSTED!
http://iamnotaracist.wordpress.com/
CT
August 28, 2009 - 21:03 ET by MrShyIs mamabear still going all obsessively stealth on the gay thing? Man, liberals seriously expend so much wasted energy on crapola, it's not even funny.
Gays. They're gay. They're proud. They're happy. We get it. We're leaving them alone. Now onto important ISSUES.
And they say that we are
August 28, 2009 - 21:11 ET by Clear thinkerAnd they say that we are obsessed with gays. Not me!!!
Huffington Post Hatred BUSTED!
http://iamnotaracist.wordpress.com/
LOL... mamabear, with all
August 29, 2009 - 00:03 ET by mamabearLOL... mamabear, with all due respect, did you escape from somewhere?
I did! I escaped from science... but they keep pulling me back in!
Yeah, well,
August 28, 2009 - 22:02 ET by RESTLESS 1Why don't you peruse this. Mutations you say? No can't be. Outdated and dying evolutionary mechanisms? No way! The gay community just can't have that.
"If the man, with the power, can't keep it under control...some heads are gonna roll." -Judas Priest
~Hahahaha
August 29, 2009 - 09:30 ET by choselife3xHave you no sense of humor?
Everything you've used as "evidence" has been weak homosexual propaganda. Hint: If it's "researched", "studied", or "written" by homosexuals, about homosexuals, there's going to be a certain outcome.
You still haven't described the homosexual behaviors that so offended you in a way that isn't nasty. Cause it was only nasty because of the way I referred to it, right? That is what you said. Why do you avoid the golden showers? Embrace the golden showers. Come on, take one for the team.
Now, while you're pondering that, I have corn to pop and videos to watch.
Dissent: It's not just for liberals anymore.-kudzupolitics, USA Today
I'll wait
August 29, 2009 - 14:04 ET by mamabearI'll wait
~This is going to be fun
August 30, 2009 - 15:02 ET by choselife3xAlright, here we go...
Lesbianism in macaques-----
(What really cracks me up is that the user who posted this stuff is
named "groyn88" and his profile picture is of his naked torso. Classy. And professional. Or something.)
Hmmm..this research scientist doing the study...something about him, what is it..*drumming fingers* ahhhhh....my gaydar just went off like a trapped Tasmanian wombat. I'll just bet he's impartial.
Oooh, they're grooming each other! I wonder if a pillow fight is going to break out...hold on. Hmmm, looks like they could really use one of those "adult toy" parties I've heard about. Humping, grooming, hot baths together...someone give these ladies some chocolate and a Harlequin romance novel. Annnd they breed with the males and produce young...sorry, that makes them horny animals humping each other. Not gay. Moving on.
Dang it, the second video "is not available". I'm devastated.
NEXT!
"The male dolphins travel together in search of females"---30 seconds in. Just like gay guys do. Right? "May well have been" "may search in vain"...that's definitive...they sure aren't leaving any wiggle room there, huh? They may form a "foursome"? Like communal animals do? Fancy that. Oooooh look, the exceptionally impartial researcher just made an appearance. Wow. She is one tough lookin' dude. Love the mullet, Denise.
Two videos available, about research done by two gay people, both posted by a guy named "groyn88". Priceless. Thanks. Popcorn? *extends bowl with an inviting shake* Say, ya wanna groom each other and go scope out some a them lonely male macaques later? *leers and scratches*
Still no animals that form exclusive pair bonds and completely shun the opposite sex. Like homosexuals do. FAIL.
"Homosexuality is not 'normal.' On the contrary it is a
challenge to the norm...Nature exists whether academics like it or not. And in nature, procreation is the single relentless rule. That is the norm. Our sexual bodies were designed for reproduction...No one is born gay. The idea is ridiculous...homosexuality is an adaptation, not an inborn trait.....---Camille Paglia
I love that chick. She's hot, too.
Dissent: It's not just for liberals anymore.-kudzupolitics, USA Today
You're ignoring the main
August 30, 2009 - 15:58 ET by mamabearYou're ignoring the main point about the dolphins, which is that male-male pair bonds are longer lasting that male-female bonds. If you think that gay men do not ever have sex with women you are very naive. You are also ignoring the main point about macaques, which is that female homosexual relations seem to be entirely about pleasure. Given that your whole argument is centered around hedonism, and how unnatural it is, I would have expected you to find that interesting. As for exclusive pair bond and shun the opposite sex, I gave you evidence, it just requires a little work on your part. All knowledge can't come from TV, sadly.
So, you did exactly what I thought.
You know, it's okay to say that you think homosexuality is wrong no matter what animals do. We all have beliefs that we hold because they came to us from a moral authority and we believe what we've been told. There's nothing wrong with that.
However, if you purport to hold a view that is influenced by facts, that is logical instead of dogmatic, then there is a crucial test that it must pass-- there must be some form of evidence or piece of data that would disprove it. If there isn't, then you are talking about a blind belief, in this case a prejudice, and not a logical position. A theory that can't be disproved is not a real theory.
So I'd like you to imagine if there was some form of evidence that I could possibly have shown you, that you would not have discounted either because it was in the wrong format or because you would simply assume bias in any research that disagreed with your views. Incidentally, the accusation that anyone who studies homosexuality must be gay is the reason so few people take the risk of studying it-- we'd probably know a lot more about the phenomenon if people like you weren't so quick to snigger at anyone who tries to learn about it.
I know you don't agree with me, and you certainly don't owe me anything (aside from a few hours of my life wasted on the hope that you might be amenable to reason), but I hope you'll think about it: is there even a hypothetical piece of evidence that I could have brought to you that would have made any dent in your self-assurance? If not, I hope you'll consider sparing other people the headache of trying to reason with you and have a debate based on facts.
In any case, thanks for the energetic discussion. If there is some reason for me to come back here and keep trying, I will, but you've made it very clear that you aren't interested in expanding your perspective, no matter how wide a view I show you.
~But in all seriousness
August 30, 2009 - 15:47 ET by choselife3x(Now that I've gotten a few jokes out of my system)
What I'm looking for here is some definitive research from an impartial source. Both the videos were based on the research of gay 'scientists' and did not contain information about their credentials. Animals humping each other means nothing in itself, it's a mindless animal urge. My grandmother's chihuahua humps his bed, does that mean he's formed an emotional bond with it? He's just doing what comes naturally to an animal.
The structure of human society is based on the male-female relationship. All human life on this earth came about due to the joining of a man's sperm with a woman's egg. There is no other way. This is what a family is meant to be. Man + Woman = Children = continuation of the species. This male-female bond has traditionally been both exclusive and life-long. A committed man and woman raising their children together is the ideal environment in which to nurture a well-adjusted human being. Homosexuality is a deviant behavior that weakens the social structure. It is the antithesis of a healthy relationship.
Normal, healthy people don't relieve themselves on each other. Much less do it for kinky thrills.
Dissent: It's not just for liberals anymore.-kudzupolitics, USA Today
Oh you are such a tease!
August 30, 2009 - 16:20 ET by mamabearOh you are such a tease! You sound like you actually want to learn, and here I am doing the work and spoon-feeding it to you again when all you are going to do is throw it in my face.
I really must be an incurable optimist.
Here is Paul Vasel's CV: http://www.yirsite.com/paul_vasey/Vasey.html Finding someone's credentials is as easy as typing "Paul Vasey CV" into Google. If you actually want to know, you don't need me to do this for you.
Here's Janet Mann (the researcher most commonly cited for dolphins) and her page at Georgetown listing her academic credentials and her publications: http://biology.georgetown.edu/faculty/Mann/. Incidentally, if you look at her publications you'll see that homosexuality is far from the focus of her work. It is hard to argue that she must be an activist devoted to justifying her deviant lifestyle when in fact homosexuality is the subject of only 2 out of her 44 publications.
Discrediting them both because you decided they were gay after watching 2 minutes of video is ridiculous. If you don't trust them, please explain to me what an "impartial source" means, and for the love of god please don't say "anyone who doesn't look mannish." It hurts my brain to think that you might actually evaluate information not based on the quality of data and strength of evidence, but on the haircut of the person delivering it.
I swore I wasn't coming back, this is the last time, I mean it!
Oh, and here's the second
August 30, 2009 - 16:23 ET by mamabearOh, and here's the second video. As warned, I mistook an I for a 1 and mistyped it.
youtube.com/watch?v=7RlTAyNI8WE
~Tease? Me?
August 30, 2009 - 17:16 ET by choselife3xWhen did you begin to suspect? :-p
I'll check your stuff after I get the kids in bed tonight.
Dissent: It's not just for liberals anymore.-kudzupolitics, USA Today
So,
August 28, 2009 - 15:10 ET by RESTLESS 1You are now advocating that homos steal hetero babies because it is done in nature? Geez, please stop watching Animal Planet. :)
"When the man, with the power, can't keep it under control...some heads are gonna roll." -Judas Priest
"Homosexual sex is an unnatural act."
August 26, 2009 - 00:18 ET by shawn228"Homosexual sex is an unnatural act."
Yes it is. So is sodomy, its okay when heteral couples engage in starfish action?
Felatio is also unnatural, I would imagine a sexy organ does not belong inside something that is used for eating corn. ;-)
"I swear sometimes the self-appointed moral police are as obnoxious and demanding of big government interference as "environmentalist" gun control advocates, labor unions and trial lawyers"~fitzfong
~Starfish action?
August 26, 2009 - 08:06 ET by choselife3xI don't think I want to know what that means.
Mamabear posited that homosexuals want the 'right' to marry because they want 'acceptance'. She also posits that homosexuality is natural..people are 'born that way', 'animals do it, too' and so forth. I'm pointing out the fallacies in her arguments and putting forth my own theory that rampant hedonism causes social decay.
I have absolutely no idea why anyone would use any orifice other than the one made for such things. My use of 'natural' and 'unnatural' is based on human anatomy/biology. That's it. Pardon my bluntness, but neither the anus nor the mouth are designed for intercourse. *shiver*
The point of this conversation is whether or not homosexuality is natural, and whether or not society as a whole should condone it. The oddball things married couples may or may not do exclusively with each other has no bearing on homosexuality and it's relative place in society.
Dissent: It's not just for liberals anymore.-kudzupolitics, USA Today
Don't take this personally
August 26, 2009 - 14:43 ET by QueenMumDon't take this personally cl3. My comment is meant for all the posters on this sidebar. I think it's time to adjourn and continue this topic in the Woodshed.
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out
of other people's money."
—Margaret Thatcher
~Thank you
August 26, 2009 - 14:52 ET by choselife3xFor your opinion. On this old thread.
Still got your thread on homosexuality and pedophilia up? Maybe you could send mb an invitation to it.
Dissent: It's not just for liberals anymore.-kudzupolitics, USA Today
Thanks for ruining my day Chose!!
August 27, 2009 - 09:06 ET by shawn228"but neither the anus nor the mouth are designed for intercourse. *shiver*"
:-(
"I swear sometimes the self-appointed moral police are as obnoxious and demanding of big government interference as "environmentalist" gun control advocates, labor unions and trial lawyers"~fitzfong
~Ruining a liberal's day...
August 27, 2009 - 09:19 ET by choselife3xIt's a talent of mine. A gift, and a curse. It's a heavy responsibility, I assure you. One I do not take lightly. Excuse me, I must meditate now.
Go in peace, and sin no more, my son.
Dissent: It's not just for liberals anymore.-kudzupolitics, USA Today
Shawn,
August 28, 2009 - 08:53 ET by RESTLESS 1Why should Chose's comment ruin YOUR day. ;)
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Good morning
August 28, 2009 - 10:02 ET by shawn228Good morning restless,
Beats me, I guess it is all in my head. Sometimes words from Chose's mouth make me feeling like blowing up.
"I swear sometimes the self-appointed moral police are as obnoxious and demanding of big government interference as "environmentalist" gun control advocates, labor unions and trial lawyers"~fitzfong
~Oy
August 28, 2009 - 10:07 ET by choselife3xAi yiyiyiyiyiyiyiyiyiyi!
Dissent: It's not just for liberals anymore.-kudzupolitics, USA Today
Shawn
August 28, 2009 - 15:02 ET by RESTLESS 1I was just thinking that maybe her better half should be the one concerned about her post, but then again, I'm guessing he knew that going in, so if his day is not ruined...
"When the man, with the power, can't keep it under control...some heads are gonna roll." -Judas Priest
~Hahahahahaha!
August 28, 2009 - 15:12 ET by choselife3xGoing in?! I read that twice before I caught the double entendre, that was funny! Male humor..*sigh*
He knew when we married that he was going where no man has gone before. So his day is far from ruined. In fact, his constant smirk gets on my nerves sometimes... ;-)
Dissent: It's not just for liberals anymore.-kudzupolitics, USA Today
You got a point Restless
August 28, 2009 - 15:32 ET by shawn228I just know that I have to be content with the fact that in life I have the pleasure of giving and receiving. Perhaps in Chose's home there is only once entrance. I guess you would consider that " missionary diplomacy."
"I swear sometimes the self-appointed moral police are as obnoxious and demanding of big government interference as "environmentalist" gun control advocates, labor unions and trial lawyers"~fitzfong
Self-appointed NB ombudsman, huh?
August 19, 2009 - 08:48 ET by SickofLibsWould you be insulted if I called YOU "paranoid"?
Last time I looked, homosexuals have the freedom to worship anywhere they choose. They can find an accepting liberal Catholic parish, or another Christian denomination that even has ordained homosexual ministers.
And although you may not want to accept it, atheism is also now a religion, and they'll take your money just like any church.
Yes. I would be
August 19, 2009 - 21:08 ET by mamabearYes. I would be insulted. That's why I said "Normally I try not to be insulting, but..."
Because I was about to be insulting. That was the point.
"Normally I try not to be insulting, but..."
August 20, 2009 - 10:34 ET by SickofLibs"...since this is a special occasion, I will."
OK, got it now.
Atheists/Communists forget
August 25, 2009 - 21:40 ET by RR GOPAtheists/Communists forget that people turned to God in the first place largely because of evil people like themselves populating the planet, and doing evil to others because they feared no retribution and felt they were better, smarter and more entitled than everyone else.
I guess these guys came along when Man became "civilized". Their manipulations and cunning could be shielded by laws and the desire of decent people to maintain law, order and fairness rather than stoning them the first time they opened their big mouths or sought to co-op the society to their personal benefit (a lot like politicians, priest castes, landowners and merchants come to think of it).
Mere bloodsuckers is what they are. Shallow, angry, narcissistic, misanthropes.
One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 86% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory.
RRG
August 25, 2009 - 22:40 ET by MrShyGreat!!