|
Post by franko on Jun 23, 2006 11:23:34 GMT -5
Is Superman gay? Have his endowments been digitally reduced in order not to offend? Jamie Portman, CanWest News Service Published: Thursday, June 15, 2006HOLLYWOOD — If you can believe the editors of The Advocate, America’s most influential gay publication, Superman is about to be dragged out of the closet.
Or, at the very least, he’s going to be celebrated as a gay icon when Warner Brothers releases its $200 million US summer blockbuster, Superman Returns on May 28.
But is the Man of Steel gay himself? That’s the question which has been stirring a frenzy not only in the tabloids and on the Internet but also in the mainstream press. more, Canada.comSuperman was modelled on Jesus CanWest News Service Published: Saturday, June 17, 2006Forget The Da Vinci Code. This summer's hottest religious controversy comes not from the ancient crypts of Catholic churches -- Opus Dei can take a breather --but from the ice planet Krypton. Superman, Canada's most famous contribution to pop culture, is flying like a speeding bullet through the Internet's religion pages, the subject of intense debate, thanks to a new book by U.S. author Stephen Skelton. The Gospel According to the World's Greatest Superhero has spelled out the Christian-Krypton theory like never before, exciting evangelicals, as well as upsetting Jews and atheists. Mr. Skelton argues Superman's co-creators, Toronto-born Joe Shuster and his high school pal Jerry Siegel, deliberately fashioned their hero after Jesus. CanWest (National Post)
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jun 23, 2006 16:30:54 GMT -5
There has been an endless crusade by the gay community to legitimize themselves trough the Goebbel method....and this is one more attempt. Have you ever heard of a gay activist speak? First,thing that comes out of his mouth is that "20% or maybe as much as 30% of the man are secretly gay". Where did this number come from? Nowhere, but if they keep repeating, people will start quoting it AND believing it. Of course, if you DARE argue, you are a homophobic neanderthal. Yeah, whatever..... “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it". Joseph Goebbels Nazi minister of propaganda.
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Jun 24, 2006 9:36:37 GMT -5
There has been an endless crusade by the gay community to legitimize themselves trough the Goebbel method....and this is one more attempt. Have you ever heard of a gay activist speak? First,thing that comes out of his mouth is that "20% or maybe as much as 30% of the man are secretly gay". Where did this number come from? Nowhere, but if they keep repeating, people will start quoting it AND believing it. Of course, if you DARE argue, you are a homophobic neanderthal. Yeah, whatever..... “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it". Joseph Goebbels Nazi minister of propaganda. Is it pronounced Gobles, Gables....or Gobbles?
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Jun 24, 2006 12:30:51 GMT -5
There has been an endless crusade by the gay community to legitimize themselves trough the Goebbel method....and this is one more attempt. Have you ever heard of a gay activist speak? First,thing that comes out of his mouth is that "20% or maybe as much as 30% of the man are secretly gay". Where did this number come from? Nowhere, but if they keep repeating, people will start quoting it AND believing it. Of course, if you DARE argue, you are a homophobic neanderthal. Yeah, whatever..... “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it". Joseph Goebbels Nazi minister of propaganda. To dare to speak unapprovingly of homosexuality is to invite abuse from many in our culture. I view the issue as something of a bellweather of cultural madness. The homosexual agenda is more about the deification of sex and imaginned rights to pursue personal pleasure than about homosexuality itself. Most people could care less, and therefor have willingly bought tinsel town's smooth pacifiers and the medias acquiescence in spreading the new social mantras. It's the social twin of our culture's (especially the US's treatment of the Iraq war, respun as the "war against terrorism". Look underneath the rhetoric and you find deception on a massive scale. Repeated often enough it becomes "truth", popular "opinion", and indeed most in our culture (about two about of three) have bought the bogus agenda concerning homosexuality, even to the point where a homosexually active person in BC is now "vetting" the BC sex education program that will be indocrtinated into all British Columbia children, whether theri parents like it or not. Many will applaud this as a victory of tolerance and acceptance of diversity. The madness continues. What's the big deal? The big deal is on the scale of what it is to be human itself. The ten percent figure that is commonly put out by the homosexual lobby (there's nothing gay about it), is based upon Kinsey's number. He based his number however on very unusual populations (prisons and some pretty weird groups). I have read that he too had bizarre sexual proclivities. Even he estimated the percentage of homosexually oriented persons at only four percent, which is still considered high. As the research was hard to do and unusual, the serious flaws were just ignored and the media, as it likes to do, just accepts homosexual material uncritically. That goes for just about all "science" supporting the idea that people are "just born that way." The most recent and methodically superior research, especially random studies which are inherently more reliable, put the mumber between 1% and three. Some of the research I thought most credible, found the rate to be just over 1 %. The homosexual agenda in our culture is mostly built upon a house of cards. It's biggest push was from Hollywood, where, frankly, the money was in sexual license. It's what they had to sell. Cute little phrases like "pushing the boundaries" etc, are often just reducible to crotch shots. The agenda of of the North American media is to sell advertising. Sex sells. Larry Flint of the "money shots" in Penthouse is rewritten as a heroic defender of the inviolability of the sacrosanct dignity of human expression. Sure he is. One of the most serious aspects of the cultural somnambulance concerns predatory homosexual men who are responsible for one third of sexual assaults upon children. It is common for the advocates of homosexual behaviours to declare that most of the men who assault children are heterosexual (it is almost always men) and that's true. What they don't and the media (who trumpet each bit of bogus "science" re sexual orientation) don't tell people, that the numbers of homosexuals who are preying on kids is staggering by comparison. Do the math. If the 1% to 3% of the population that homosexual in its behaviour is responsible for a full third of sexual abuse against children, then the 97% are responsible for the reamaining two thirds against girls. It becomes chillingly obvious that those who engage in homosexual acts are vastly more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexually oriented individuals. The recent scandals in the Catholic church in the US and Canada which were the result of the good intention of not refusing on the basis of homosexual orientation, have tragically reflected this reality.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jun 26, 2006 17:53:19 GMT -5
I don't care one way or another if a man or woman is homosexual (until the topic of adoption is brought up and then I have to really think about it). However, if we are to discuss what homosexuality is (which is not at all on topic here) I put forth the question:
Why are humans the only species on earth that regulary practice homosexuality? This "gene" should present itself in other species shouldn't it? So to me it is a choice. Which is ok. Not my life.
Is this "new math"? This doesn't make sense. You are basically saying that only homosexuals commit sexual abuse on children. I understand the hypothetical "if 3% of the population who are homosexual are responsible for one-third of the sexual abuses against children. ................... but the 97% only makes sense if you are saying that the heterosexual community is responsible for the other two-thirds. But why only girls? Are you saying women can not sexual abuse male children? I direct you to the case of Mary Kay Letournaeu. She was a teacher that had sex with a sixth grade student. She spent 10 years in prison for sexual assault and when she was finally released she married the student she had sex with.
We can't make blanket generalizations
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jun 26, 2006 19:27:13 GMT -5
I don't care one way or another if a man or woman is homosexual (until the topic of adoption is brought up and then I have to really think about it). However, if we are to discuss what homosexuality is (which is not at all on topic here) I put forth the question: Why are humans the only species on earth that regulary practice homosexuality? This "gene" should present itself in other species shouldn't it? So to me it is a choice. Which is ok. Not my life. Actually, they are not. The presence of same-sex sexual behavior was not scientifically observed on a large scale until recent times, possibly due to observer bias caused by social attitudes to same-sex sexual behavior. It appears to be widespread among insects, birds and mammals, particularly the apes. Many male penguins that apparently mate for life have been observed in homosexual pairs and refuse to pair with females when given the chance [4].
One report on sheep cited below states:
"Approximately eight percent of [male] rams exhibit sexual preferences [that is, even when given a choice] for male partners (male-oriented rams) in contrast to most rams, which prefer female partners (female-oriented rams). We identified a cell group within the medial preoptic area/anterior hypothalamus of age-matched adult sheep that was significantly larger in adult rams than in ewes..." [citation needed]
Same-sex sexual behavior should only be identified as a sexual orientation with caution. In humans the behavior is considered distinct from the orientation - many heterosexuals engage in same-sex behavior at times, and many homosexuals have heterosexual lifestyles. In animals this distinction is still being explored. wikipediaOr National Geographic's article Homosexual Activity Among Animals Stirs Debate. An interesting discussion-slash-debate. Preconception rules perception.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Jun 26, 2006 21:04:54 GMT -5
I don't care one way or another if a man or woman is homosexual (until the topic of adoption is brought up and then I have to really think about it). However, if we are to discuss what homosexuality is (which is not at all on topic here) I put forth the question: Why are humans the only species on earth that regulary practice homosexuality? This "gene" should present itself in other species shouldn't it? So to me it is a choice. Which is ok. Not my life. Is this "new math"? This doesn't make sense. You are basically saying that only homosexuals commit sexual abuse on children. I understand the hypothetical "if 3% of the population who are homosexual are responsible for one-third of the sexual abuses against children. ................... but the 97% only makes sense if you are saying that the heterosexual community is responsible for the other two-thirds. But why only girls? Are you saying women can not sexual abuse male children? I direct you to the case of Mary Kay Letournaeu. She was a teacher that had sex with a sixth grade student. She spent 10 years in prison for sexual assault and when she was finally released she married the student she had sex with. We can't make blanket generalizations There's a long history of people beating up on people who do homosexual things and it is not my intention to beat up on people caught up in these behaviours. That said, the behaviours, their causes and consequences, I perceive to be one of the most serious issues facing human society for the issues go to the root (no leger de mot intended) of what it is to be human. How can anybody watching two pudgy middle-aged guys hug each other on tv after "marrying" (an ontological and physical impossiblity) and oppose this little vignette of loving acceptance and commitment? How indeed. The cultural phenomenon, one person at a time concerning this issue is pretty staggering to me. All societies have propaganda to some degree, and the methodology of propaganda is not new, but the issues surrounding homosexuality in our culture are a case study. THe cultural treatment (media largely) of the issue is similar to what the DaVinci code is to reality. A very tenuous link. In the Star yesterday, the mantra was repeated yet again by a celebrant, that "We are just born that way." If that were true and homosexual acts are consistent with human wellbeing and happiness, then I'd indeed be a real son of a pregnant doggyh for having the gall to oppose it. But such acts are not consistent with human well-being and happiness, and in fact carry a monstrous price in human unhappiness, illness and despair. There is no " gay gene". There never was. There never will be. There are different degrees of responsibility for choices made, and some truly do find themselves homosexually "oriented" without knowing how this could have come about, but, there is no genetic basis to the idea that persons who do homosexual acts are "just born that way.", the prevalent cultural flat earth dogma. When I point out that modern research indicates that persons so acting, constitute 1 to 3 % of the population and that one third of sex abuse against children is from homosexually active males, this is to counteract the cutural "truths" or selling jobs that we are constantly fed. A homosexually active man is statistically vastly more likely to sexually abuse children (15 to 45 times more likely form the statistics above) than is a heterosexual man. 97% to 99% of the populaton is heterosexual, and yet only two thirds of the sex abuse is perpetrated against children by what is almost all of the population. A very small number of homosexually active persons does a very large ammount of the abusing. Most of us (guys) naturally (by definition) feel repugnance at the idea or thought of kissing anothe male sexually. UGHHH! How can women stand it? This is just our nature. not prejudice. It's part of being a healthy male human. The goods of nature follow this order, and not just for us, but for all. we owe our actual existence to this simple fact. Apparently, though women can and do abuse children sexually, they do so on a vastly less common basis than do men. it seems. I for one, believe that telling kids who often don't have well-defined self images and who rely upon us supposed adults to help them discover themselves as young men and women, that "they just might be born that way" if false, and it is false, constitutes a massive deception and gross disservice of staggering proportion. So. The truth about this matter is for all kinds of reasons, a compelling objective. One that requires some courage in my experience. Incidentally, and tellingly Skilly, your natural reservaton concerning children is again natural and good sense. Both Belgium and a recent report to the govenment of France opposed adoption of children. Children have a right to both a mother and father, though we screw this up for them pretty well too. France opposed the notion of homosexual "marriage" out of fear that it woud lead as it has in Canada to the demand to adopt children. Children's rights (to my very considerable surprise) were respected over the subjective desires of homosexual pairs. I will in the course of this subject treatment no doubt be considered someone who is as MacGill's Margaret Somerville was labelled "hate-filled" and "homophobic" and such horseSaperlipopettet, but it ain'd so. A good tennis buddy of mine was into the lifestyle, and knows me pretty well and what I think and why, and he knows I have a genuine interest in his best happiness. Much of it stirkes me as sad and unhappy, and necessarily so.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Jun 26, 2006 21:35:49 GMT -5
Same-sex sexual behavior should only be identified as a sexual orientation with caution. In humans the behavior is considered distinct from the orientation - many heterosexuals engage in same-sex behavior at times, and many homosexuals have heterosexual lifestyles. In animals this distinction is still being explored. [/i] wikipediaOr National Geographic's article Homosexual Activity Among Animals Stirs Debate. An interesting discussion-slash-debate. Preconception rules perception. [/quote] Preconception can indeed rule perception, especially as part of the cultural propaganda, but of course if preconception always ruled, we would never know it. Animal studies claiming parallels and applicatioin to human homosexuality are frought with peril, as Eduard Stein has shown very well in "The Mismeasure of Desire" Virtually all homosexual acts are voluntary, though with differing degrees of personal responsiblity.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jun 27, 2006 7:44:22 GMT -5
Do you have a link to those statistics? This is the first time I have heard that 3% of the population commits 33% of the sexual abuse acts. That is a claim that needs proof.
I am not into gay-bashing and such a claim serves no purpose without verification.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jun 27, 2006 7:48:52 GMT -5
I don't care one way or another if a man or woman is homosexual (until the topic of adoption is brought up and then I have to really think about it). However, if we are to discuss what homosexuality is (which is not at all on topic here) I put forth the question: Why are humans the only species on earth that regulary practice homosexuality? This "gene" should present itself in other species shouldn't it? So to me it is a choice. Which is ok. Not my life. Actually, they are not. The presence of same-sex sexual behavior was not scientifically observed on a large scale until recent times, possibly due to observer bias caused by social attitudes to same-sex sexual behavior. It appears to be widespread among insects, birds and mammals, particularly the apes. Many male penguins that apparently mate for life have been observed in homosexual pairs and refuse to pair with females when given the chance [4].
One report on sheep cited below states:
"Approximately eight percent of [male] rams exhibit sexual preferences [that is, even when given a choice] for male partners (male-oriented rams) in contrast to most rams, which prefer female partners (female-oriented rams). We identified a cell group within the medial preoptic area/anterior hypothalamus of age-matched adult sheep that was significantly larger in adult rams than in ewes..." [citation needed]
Same-sex sexual behavior should only be identified as a sexual orientation with caution. In humans the behavior is considered distinct from the orientation - many heterosexuals engage in same-sex behavior at times, and many homosexuals have heterosexual lifestyles. In animals this distinction is still being explored. wikipediaOr National Geographic's article Homosexual Activity Among Animals Stirs Debate. An interesting discussion-slash-debate. Preconception rules perception. I did not know this ..... but I do have one question. Were the researchers gay? What was defined as homosexual behaviour? I have seen animals engage in, what I will call, "dry humping". But they all have that animal instinct to mate. If you are suggesting that animals in fact "choose" their mates through instinctive preference than that implies they have free-will as well. But that is another debate. Now why is Superman supposedly gay and likened to Jesus? Clark Kent marries Lois Lane.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jun 27, 2006 8:27:53 GMT -5
Now why is Superman supposedly gay and likened to Jesus? Perspective. I can well imagine that those tho consider Superman as a Jesus figure would not agree that he might be gay. To see Superman as Jesus, Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, both Jewish, invented Superman in the late 1930's as a typically Jewish mythical hero. Jews were being oppressed by Adolph Hitler at that time and Superman or Super-Jew was their answer to Hitler. The "S" on Superman's shirt also stands for the last names of his creators. Superman comes from the planet Krypton -which sounds like "Tikkum olam" a Hebrew concept of restoring the world's wrongs.
The Jerusalem Post quotes Daniel Schifrin of the US National Federation for Jewish Culture as saying, "The older I got the more I saw there was something profoundly Jewish about Superman, that he was one of us." He further states, "Like Clark Kent we've been Diaspora Jews for so long, being viewed as timid and bookish when underneath there are fierce Hebrew warriors doing God's work."
. . .
The movie Superman essentially retells the life of Jesus Christ -the ultimate Super Jew. linkOr go to the Journal of Religion and Film for Superman-Jesus Parallels. As to Jesus being gay, there is nothing in the Bible that specifically identifies Jesus' sexual orientation or indicates whether he was gay or straight hetero. One can read whet he wants into different biblical passages. For example, in his Gospel, the disciple John frequently refers to himself in the third person as "the disciple whom Jesus loved" (Loved? Hmmmm.), or, when He was arrested, Jesus was in the company of a young man who wore nothing but a linen garment. Read what you want into that -- pro-gay literature makes much of this and other non-specific biblical incidents, also of (here we go again) some non-canonical writings (The Secret gospel of Mark, for example) which strongly imply Jesus' sexual relationships with men and women (but never out-and-out say there was sexual activity). Just Google jesus gay. As to your other questions . . . don't know.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jun 27, 2006 11:03:20 GMT -5
There is a stretch here ....
Originally it was Jor-L , not Jor-El. And there has been a lot written about the "house of EL". Superman had ancesters named Kem-L, Ran-L, Van-L, and Jan-L ..Sul-L and Tala-L.
Are these all God references too .... as far as I know God and Jesus had no ancesters that are referred to as God-like.
Also ... the planet Krypton blows up. Heaven its analogy has not blown up.
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Jun 27, 2006 11:10:19 GMT -5
Now why is Superman supposedly gay and likened to Jesus? Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, both Jewish, invented Superman in the late 1930's as a typically Jewish mythical hero. Jews were being oppressed by Adolph Hitler at that time and Superman or Super-Jew was their answer to Hitler. The "S" on Superman's shirt also stands for the last names of his creators. Superman comes from the planet Krypton -which sounds like "Tikkum olam" a Hebrew concept of restoring the world's wrongs.
The Jerusalem Post quotes Daniel Schifrin of the US National Federation for Jewish Culture as saying, "The older I got the more I saw there was something profoundly Jewish about Superman, that he was one of us." He further states, "Like Clark Kent we've been Diaspora Jews for so long, being viewed as timid and bookish when underneath there are fierce Hebrew warriors doing God's work."
RE: Superman being Jewish. I forget the name of the Jewish comedian, but his bit stays with me: "Of course, all super heroes are Jewish. Just listen to their names: Super-man, Bat-man, Spider-man....." (pronounced as you would "Bettman, Silverman", etc.)
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jun 27, 2006 12:51:19 GMT -5
RE: Superman being Jewish. I forget the name of the Jewish comedian, but his bit stays with me: "Of course, all super heroes are Jewish. Just listen to their names: Super-man, Bat-man, Spider-man....." (pronounced as you would "Bettman, Silverman", etc.) Flash, Green Arrow, Green Lantern, Ghost Rider, Thing, Human Torch, Robin, Hulk, all the X-men (Cyclops, Storm, Wolverine, etc), the Wonder twins, ... all must be good devout catholics!!
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jun 27, 2006 13:39:38 GMT -5
There has been an endless crusade by the gay community to legitimize themselves trough the Goebbel method....and this is one more attempt. Have you ever heard of a gay activist speak? First,thing that comes out of his mouth is that "20% or maybe as much as 30% of the man are secretly gay". Where did this number come from? Nowhere, but if they keep repeating, people will start quoting it AND believing it. Of course, if you DARE argue, you are a homophobic neanderthal. Yeah, whatever..... “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it". Joseph Goebbels Nazi minister of propaganda. To dare to speak unapprovingly of homosexuality is to invite abuse from many in our culture. I view the issue as something of a bellweather of cultural madness. The homosexual agenda is more about the deification of sex and imaginned rights to pursue personal pleasure than about homosexuality itself. Most people could care less, and therefor have willingly bought tinsel town's smooth pacifiers and the medias acquiescence in spreading the new social mantras. It's the social twin of our culture's (especially the US's treatment of the Iraq war, respun as the "war against terrorism". Look underneath the rhetoric and you find deception on a massive scale. Repeated often enough it becomes "truth", popular "opinion", and indeed most in our culture (about two about of three) have bought the bogus agenda concerning homosexuality, even to the point where a homosexually active person in BC is now "vetting" the BC sex education program that will be indocrtinated into all British Columbia children, whether theri parents like it or not. Many will applaud this as a victory of tolerance and acceptance of diversity. The madness continues. What's the big deal? The big deal is on the scale of what it is to be human itself. The ten percent figure that is commonly put out by the homosexual lobby (there's nothing gay about it), is based upon Kinsey's number. He based his number however on very unusual populations (prisons and some pretty weird groups). I have read that he too had bizarre sexual proclivities. Even he estimated the percentage of homosexually oriented persons at only four percent, which is still considered high. As the research was hard to do and unusual, the serious flaws were just ignored and the media, as it likes to do, just accepts homosexual material uncritically. That goes for just about all "science" supporting the idea that people are "just born that way." The most recent and methodically superior research, especially random studies which are inherently more reliable, put the mumber between 1% and three. Some of the research I thought most credible, found the rate to be just over 1 %. The homosexual agenda in our culture is mostly built upon a house of cards. It's biggest push was from Hollywood, where, frankly, the money was in sexual license. It's what they had to sell. Cute little phrases like "pushing the boundaries" etc, are often just reducible to crotch shots. The agenda of of the North American media is to sell advertising. Sex sells. Larry Flint of the "money shots" in Penthouse is rewritten as a heroic defender of the inviolability of the sacrosanct dignity of human expression. Sure he is. One of the most serious aspects of the cultural somnambulance concerns predatory homosexual men who are responsible for one third of sexual assaults upon children. It is common for the advocates of homosexual behaviours to declare that most of the men who assault children are heterosexual (it is almost always men) and that's true. What they don't and the media (who trumpet each bit of bogus "science" re sexual orientation) don't tell people, that the numbers of homosexuals who are preying on kids is staggering by comparison. Do the math. If the 1% to 3% of the population that homosexual in its behaviour is responsible for a full third of sexual abuse against children, then the 97% are responsible for the reamaining two thirds against girls. It becomes chillingly obvious that those who engage in homosexual acts are vastly more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexually oriented individuals. The recent scandals in the Catholic church in the US and Canada which were the result of the good intention of not refusing on the basis of homosexual orientation, have tragically reflected this reality. I'll dare to take up the challenge and speak unapprovingly of homosexuality. 1. I consider myself politically conservative and socially liberal. (although true liberals may dispute that claim) 2. Anybody has the right to do whatever stupid thing they want in the privacy of their own bedroom as long as it includes consenting adults and not children or retarded or unwilling participants. 3. You can march in whatever parade you choose; but if one of my sons ever came home and said, "Dad, look how many gerbils I can stuff," marching in a Pride Parade would not be my automatic reaction. I don't think God ever said homosexuality is wrong and I don't care what half the Catholic priests do, but Darwin had it right when he observed that they can't reproduce and flourish no matter how often they try. The management of this board takes no responsibility for the opinions expressed by their members.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Jun 27, 2006 20:05:33 GMT -5
To dare to speak unapprovingly of homosexuality is to invite abuse from many in our culture. I view the issue as something of a bellweather of cultural madness. The homosexual agenda is more about the deification of sex and imaginned rights to pursue personal pleasure than about homosexuality itself. Most people could care less, and therefor have willingly bought tinsel town's smooth pacifiers and the medias acquiescence in spreading the new social mantras. It's the social twin of our culture's (especially the US's treatment of the Iraq war, respun as the "war against terrorism". Look underneath the rhetoric and you find deception on a massive scale. Repeated often enough it becomes "truth", popular "opinion", and indeed most in our culture (about two about of three) have bought the bogus agenda concerning homosexuality, even to the point where a homosexually active person in BC is now "vetting" the BC sex education program that will be indocrtinated into all British Columbia children, whether theri parents like it or not. Many will applaud this as a victory of tolerance and acceptance of diversity. The madness continues. What's the big deal? The big deal is on the scale of what it is to be human itself. The ten percent figure that is commonly put out by the homosexual lobby (there's nothing gay about it), is based upon Kinsey's number. He based his number however on very unusual populations (prisons and some pretty weird groups). I have read that he too had bizarre sexual proclivities. Even he estimated the percentage of homosexually oriented persons at only four percent, which is still considered high. As the research was hard to do and unusual, the serious flaws were just ignored and the media, as it likes to do, just accepts homosexual material uncritically. That goes for just about all "science" supporting the idea that people are "just born that way." The most recent and methodically superior research, especially random studies which are inherently more reliable, put the mumber between 1% and three. Some of the research I thought most credible, found the rate to be just over 1 %. The homosexual agenda in our culture is mostly built upon a house of cards. It's biggest push was from Hollywood, where, frankly, the money was in sexual license. It's what they had to sell. Cute little phrases like "pushing the boundaries" etc, are often just reducible to crotch shots. The agenda of of the North American media is to sell advertising. Sex sells. Larry Flint of the "money shots" in Penthouse is rewritten as a heroic defender of the inviolability of the sacrosanct dignity of human expression. Sure he is. One of the most serious aspects of the cultural somnambulance concerns predatory homosexual men who are responsible for one third of sexual assaults upon children. It is common for the advocates of homosexual behaviours to declare that most of the men who assault children are heterosexual (it is almost always men) and that's true. What they don't and the media (who trumpet each bit of bogus "science" re sexual orientation) don't tell people, that the numbers of homosexuals who are preying on kids is staggering by comparison. Do the math. If the 1% to 3% of the population that homosexual in its behaviour is responsible for a full third of sexual abuse against children, then the 97% are responsible for the reamaining two thirds against girls. It becomes chillingly obvious that those who engage in homosexual acts are vastly more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexually oriented individuals. The recent scandals in the Catholic church in the US and Canada which were the result of the good intention of not refusing on the basis of homosexual orientation, have tragically reflected this reality. I'll dare to take up the challenge and speak unapprovingly of homosexuality. 1. I consider myself politically conservative and socially liberal. (although true liberals may dispute that claim) 2. Anybody has the right to do whatever stupid thing they want in the privacy of their own bedroom as long as it includes consenting adults and not children or retarded or unwilling participants. 3. You can march in whatever parade you choose; but if one of my sons ever came home and said, "Dad, look how many gerbils I can stuff," marching in a Pride Parade would not be my automatic reaction. I don't think God ever said homosexuality is wrong and I don't care what half the Catholic priests do, but Darwin had it right when he observed that they can't reproduce and flourish no matter how often they try. The management of this board takes no responsibility for the opinions expressed by their members. It takes some balls to stand up, and a fair ammount of confidence in one's position to speak your mind. Part of the toolkit of propaganda, is being labelled and villified, by public opinion and the average citizen who is bombarded with breakbacking BS. If a relative of mine presents as attracted to the same sex, it is not an "orientation" or "preference" as attest the people who help and treat those so-afflicted, but a developmental disorder and one that is very treatable. Sex addicts, a common fate for those who engage in same sex behaviours, though living truly tragic lives, and given to any number of serious psychological disorders, strongly fight the idea that the disorder is treatable. The evidence is in however. I would do everythning in my power to help a person ovecome the fatal attraction. Not to intervene positively would be atrocious.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Jun 27, 2006 20:36:51 GMT -5
Do you have a link to those statistics? This is the first time I have heard that 3% of the population commits 33% of the sexual abuse acts. That is a claim that needs proof. I am not into gay-bashing and such a claim serves no purpose without verification. You are dead right to demand evidence for these claims. They are surprising because we have all been spoonfed the 10% figure, which itself misrepresents the Kinsey who also apparently had some serious sexual problems, like using intimidation on young men. Homosexuality is a personality disorder. It likely has some biological dimensions, but it is not a result of genetic makeup, any more than a predisposition to being tall, makes you a basketball player. All of us have to deal with and to some degree struggle with our natures and environmental influences, but we are not simply passive matter. Interestingly, a fresh study based upon birth order and a mother's immune system response was on Radio Homosexual Canada today, the CBC, and I look forward to checking the claims and data. Almost all "science" showing genetic or biological etyologies has come from persons with homosexual behaviours like Levay and Hamer, who is being investigated . The science is junk. Franko's reference is three years old and has long since been shown to be unwarranted vis a vis homsexuality in the animal kingdom, let alone, human. I am not a gay basher either, but there is no way that homosexual acts lead to any human wellbeing or happiness, and the disorder is in fact very treatable. This is not offered in a judgemental sense, but is simple fact. Reality is about facts. From a moral perspective, an adulterer is perpetrating an evil parallel to the harms of homosexual behaviours. You should have heard the fool on CBC radio this morning. Narrow, narrow- minded. People who do homosexual acts are typically very narrow-minded. They reduce human identity to sexual attraction and behaviours. You can't be much more narrow-minded than that. The following website, has a lot of material, and I believe also has the material concerning child sexual abuse and people attracted to homosexual behaviours and practices. www.narth.comWhile there for sure are some uptight, self-righteous a$$holes who also oppose homosexual behaviours, the one in three on the street, every third person, does not, and neither do I fill that bill, and I've had more than enough of the bullship abuse.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jun 27, 2006 21:43:04 GMT -5
Be careful, Thab, when discounting older thoughts -- after all, the Christian Church is based on 2,000 year old documents! There are more recent studies made, updating the studies mentioned. Interesting thoughts on that CBC study. You'd think that every guy with an older brother would therefore be gay.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jun 27, 2006 21:46:29 GMT -5
Narrow, narrow- minded. People who do homosexual acts are typically very narrow-minded. They reduce human identity to sexual attraction and behaviours. You can't be much more narrow-minded than that. Paul, how many gay people do you know? Or maybe a better question is, how many people that you know admit to being gay? I thinkt hat they might not identify themselves as such to you. All that to say, I think that your generalization is wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Jun 27, 2006 23:46:32 GMT -5
People who do homosexual acts typically narrow identity down to sexual attraction.. They reduce human identity to sexual attraction and behaviours. That is a serious narrowing of view, something I noticed today listening to a speaker on CBC talk about adoption and utterly indiscriminating sex. Obsession is narrow, and sexual addiction is obsessive. Paul, how many gay people do you know? Or maybe a better question is, how many people that you know admit to being gay? I thinkt hat they might not identify themselves as such to you. All that to say, I think that your generalization is wrong. I'm not closed to gay people. And you're probably right in your criticism of the narrow-minded comment, but it is a truism. There is a "gay" community. And Gay Tennis. and a Gay Parade. We don't play hererosexual tennis or golf, or hockey for that matter. My doubles partner was gay. He may be out of that life now. And two close friends of the family were as well. I am not aware of any hostility on my part towards such persons, and most of the several I have known were likeable people I liked. I am not against them. There is such a thing as a "gay" lifestyle. Many "gay" persons identify themselves as "gay"' It is common experience and many do in fact find their primary personal identity as a "gay". This is narrow. Most heteros don't self-define as hetero., but as men or women. Sexual orientation is just a part of us, critical part, but not defining. I chose to turn the common descriptor on its head intentionally. Narrow-minded fits a lot of what is described above. There is a pronounced narrowness of focus. I can see why you'd have problems with the usage, and I should have explained my meaning better than I did. My expression was too narrow. I will edit the piece Thanks Franko.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Jun 28, 2006 0:00:26 GMT -5
Be careful, Thab, when discounting older thoughts -- after all, the Christian Church is based on 2,000 year old documents! There are more recent studies made, updating the studies mentioned. Interesting thoughts on that CBC study. You'd think that every guy with an older brother would therefore be gay. In this update, people who had older, but not related "brothers" were studied to see if the younger members' rate of homosexuality was higher as was that for natural boys. It wasn't. He therefore concludes that it might be an immune response of the mother to xy pregnancies in an xx body. It is also true that only about thirty percent of homosexually behaving people have the older brothers situation. Now if gays are 1 to 3 percent of the population, then 1/3 of 1% percent or 1% of the population may have this situation obtain. What about all the other younger males of all the other families? I have no problem with certain biological characteristics leading to certain life situations and challenges, interrelational , and psychological etc. The gay community is a study in severe problems. My beef is all the bogus "science" being interpreted in a deterministic manner. The genes did it. The behaviours are still inherently in oppositon to human wellbeing and happiness.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jun 28, 2006 7:13:57 GMT -5
Sex addicts, a common fate for those who engage in same sex behaviours, though living truly tragic lives, and given to any number of serious psychological disorders, strongly fight the idea that the disorder is treatable. The evidence is in however. I would do everythning in my power to help a person ovecome the fatal attraction. Not to intervene positively would be atrocious. Homesexuality does not necessarily equal sex addiction. Sure, there are many in "the lifestyle" (and it is a particular lifestyle), but many who are not, who calmly and quietly go about their daily business . . . and no one knows their sexual orientation or persuassion. And there are hetero sex addicts as well.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jun 28, 2006 7:18:50 GMT -5
There is a "gay" community. And Gay Tennis. and a Gay Parade. We don't play hererosexual tennis or golf, or hockey for that matter. You're right -- becasue that is the "norm". In Canada we don't play "ice hockey", we play "hockey"; it is "ice hockey" by definition. Again, the norm means that we haven't needed to/don't need to define ourselves as such -- it is a given. Those in the homosexual community who are homosexual are stepping out publicly as different and so must "define" or "show" themselves as such.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Jun 28, 2006 13:39:01 GMT -5
There is a "gay" community. And Gay Tennis. and a Gay Parade. We don't play hererosexual tennis or golf, or hockey for that matter. You're right -- becasue that is the "norm". In Canada we don't play "ice hockey", we play "hockey"; it is "ice hockey" by definition. Again, the norm means that we haven't needed to/don't need to define ourselves as such -- it is a given. Those in the homosexual community who are homosexual are stepping out publicly as different and so must "define" or "show" themselves as such. As far as I know Franko, while it is true that there are hetero sexa addicts, and acknowledging prostitution, I know of no hetero equivalent to the homosexual bathhouse scene. Sex addiction is a prominent part of homsexual life, as monogamy is not, even with AIDS. People who behave homosexually do very often use the terms as personal identity, not simply to define themselves over and against the rest of society. It does tend to colour an immense number of perspectives.
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jun 28, 2006 15:26:41 GMT -5
You're right -- becasue that is the "norm". In Canada we don't play "ice hockey", we play "hockey"; it is "ice hockey" by definition. Again, the norm means that we haven't needed to/don't need to define ourselves as such -- it is a given. Those in the homosexual community who are homosexual are stepping out publicly as different and so must "define" or "show" themselves as such. As far as I know Franko, while it is true that there are hetero sexa addicts, and acknowledging prostitution, I know of no hetero equivalent to the homosexual bathhouse scene. Sex addiction is a prominent part of homsexual life, as monogamy is not, even with AIDS. People who behave homosexually do very often use the terms as personal identity, not simply to define themselves over and against the rest of society. It does tend to colour an immense number of perspectives. From the age of 16 to 18, I tried my best to keep up with Wilt's hetero record without wilting. I admit to not knowing how it compares to the bathhouse numbers. Those were the days my friend.
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jun 28, 2006 18:06:29 GMT -5
And there are hetero sex addicts as well. There are? I knew there was something wrong with me.......
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jun 28, 2006 21:06:21 GMT -5
Superman, gay? Ever notice how "Mickey Mouse" always is seen in short pants, hmmmm........... And what about Donald Duck, no underware at all................. And that Teletubby that always carries a purse.......... The sky is falling, the sky is falling................
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Jun 28, 2006 23:27:58 GMT -5
Vive la difference, alright..powerful stuff...
|
|