The Homosexual Agenda, The aclu, And Your Children...

[Doug]

Shogun: She doesn't want you to drive her home. It would pollute the planet. Or something.

She would prefer to hitchhike. Don't question her about her motives, they're none of your business. Maybe she doesn't like you. Maybe she likes you too much and doesn't want to be tempted. Who knows?

She wants to hitchhike. After all, she and her 6 foot6 Marine boyfriend hitchhiked last month, in broad daylight, on the main street, both of them wrapped in their heavy winter coats. But now it's spring, and she is dressed appropriately.

What do you say?

Mattskramer has made the sensible reply: "Don't!"

I think I probably speak for all conservatives here in saying that we would agree: "Don't do it!" (Okay, maybe I don't speak for that large proportion of conservatives who are rapists and murderers.) But the rest of us cry, "No, no! Don't do it!"

And the liberal advice would be ...

Over to you.

 

[Shogun]

I let her do what she wants.

and then, if she gets raped, I blame the rapist for criminal behaviour instead of her for her dress and decision to walk. So, by your own hypothetical, she still says she doesn't want a ride are you going to FORCE her into your car? See, this is where your examples crumble.




Oh, and RGS!

Dude.. I'm a little disapointed that you didn't call me out so I'll post it anyway:

Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality

What Is Sexual Orientation?
Sexual orientation is an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual, or affectional attraction toward others. It is
easily distinguished from other components of sexuality including biological sex, gender identity (the
psychological sense of being male or female), and the social gender role (adherence to cultural norms for
feminine and masculine behavior).
Sexual orientation exists along a continuum that ranges from exclusive heterosexuality to exclusive
homosexuality and includes various forms of bisexuality. Bisexual persons can experience sexual, emotional,
and affectional attraction to both their own sex and the opposite sex. Persons with a homosexual orientation
are sometimes referred to as gay (both men and women) or as lesbian (women only).
Sexual orientation is different from sexual behavior because it refers to feelings and self-concept.
Individuals may or may not express their sexual orientation in their behaviors.
What Causes a Person To Have a Particular Sexual Orientation?
There are numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual orientation. Most scientists today agree
that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and
biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable
recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role
in a person's sexuality.
It's important to recognize that there are probably many reasons for a person's sexual orientation, and the
reasons may be different for different people.
Is Sexual Orientation a Choice?
No, human beings cannot choose to be either gay or straight. For most people, sexual orientation emerges in
early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our
feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily
changed.
Can Therapy Change Sexual Orientation?
No; even though most homosexuals live successful, happy lives, some homosexual or bisexual people may
seek to change their sexual orientation through therapy, often coerced by family members or religious groups
to try and do so. The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not
changeable. However, not all gay, lesbian, and bisexual people who seek assistance from a mental health
professional want to change their sexual orientation. Gay, lesbian, and bisexual people may seek
psychological help with the coming out process or for strategies to deal with prejudice, but most go into
therapy for the same reasons and life issues that bring straight people to mental health professionals.
What About So-Called "Conversion Therapies"?
Some therapists who undertake so-called conversion therapy report that they have been able to change their
clients' sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. Close scrutiny of these reports, however. show
several factors that cast doubt on their claims. For example, many of these claims come from organizations
with an ideological perspective that condemns homosexuality. Furthermore, their claims are poorly
documented; for example, treatment outcome is not followed and reported over time, as would be the
standard to test the validity of any mental health intervention.
The American Psychological Association is concerned about such therapies and their potential harm to
patients. In 1997, the Association's Council of Representatives passed a resolution reaffirming psychology's
opposition to homophobia in treatment and spelling out a client's right to unbiased treatment and
self-determination. Any person who enters into therapy to deal with issues of sexual orientation has a right
to expect that such therapy will take place in a professionally neutral environment, without any social bias.
Is Homosexuality a Mental Illness or Emotional Problem?
No. Psychologists, psychiatrists, and other mental health professionals agree that homosexuality is not an
illness, a mental disorder, or an emotional problem. More than 35 years of objective, well-designed scientific
research has shown that homosexuality, in and itself, is not associated with mental disorders or emotional or
social problems. Homosexuality was once thought to be a mental illness because mental health professionals
and society had biased information.
In the past, the studies of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people involved only those in therapy, thus biasing the
resulting conclusions. When researchers examined data about such people who were not in therapy, the idea
that homosexuality was a mental illness was quickly found to be untrue.
In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association confirmed the importance of the new, better-designed research
and removed homosexuality from the official manual that lists mental and emotional disorders. Two years
later, the American Psychological Association passed a resolution supporting this removal.
For more than 25 years, both associations have urged all mental health professionals to help dispel the stigma
of mental illness that some people still associate with homosexual orientation.
Can Lesbians, Gay Men, and Bisexuals Be Good Parents?
Yes. Studies comparing groups of children raised by homosexual and by heterosexual parents find no
developmental differences between the two groups of children in four critical areas: their intelligence,
psychological adjustment, social adjustment, and popularity with friends. It is also important to realize that a
parent's sexual orientation does not indicate their children's.
Another myth about homosexuality is the mistaken belief that gay men have more of a tendency than
heterosexual men to sexually molest children. There is no evidence to suggest that homosexuals molest
children.
Why Do Some Gay Men, Lesbians, and Bisexuals Tell People About Their Sexual Orientation?
Because sharing that aspect of themselves with others is important to their mental health. In fact, the process
of identity development for lesbians, gay men and bisexuals called "coming out" has been found to be
strongly related to psychological adjustment;the more positive the gay, lesbian, or bisexual identity, the
better one's mental health and the higher one's self-esteem.
Why Is the "Coming Out" Process Difficult for Some Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual People?
For some gay and bisexual people the "coming out" process is difficult; for others it is not. Often lesbian, gay
and bisexual people feel afraid, different, and alone when they first realize that their sexual orientation is
different from the community norm. This is particularly true for people becoming aware of their gay, lesbian,
or bisexual orientation in childhood or adolescence, which is not uncommon. And depending on their
families and their communities, they may have to struggle against prejudice and misinformation about
homosexuality.
Children and adolescents may be particularly vulnerable to the harmful effects of bias and stereotypes. They
may also fear being rejected by family, friends, co-workers, and religious institutions. Some gay people have
to worry about losing their jobs or being harassed at school if their sexual orientation became well known.
Unfortunately, gay, lesbian, and bisexual people are at a higher risk for physical assault and violence than are
heterosexuals. Studies done in California in the mid-1990s showed that nearly one-fifth of all lesbians who
took part in the study, and more than one-fourthof all gay men who participated, had been the victim of a
hate crime based on their sexual orientation. In another California study of approximately 500 young adults,
half of all the young men participating in the study admitted to some form of anti-gay aggression, ranging
from name-calling to physical violence.
What Can Be Done to Overcome the Prejudice and Discrimination that Gay Men, Lesbians, and Bisexuals
Experience?
Research has found that the people who have the most positive attitudes toward gay men, lesbians, and
bisexuals are those who say they know one or more gay, lesbian or bisexual person well, often as a friend or
co-worker. For this reason, psychologists believe that negative attitudes toward gay people as a group are
prejudices that are not grounded in actual experience but are based on stereotypes and misinformation.
Furthermore, protection against violence and discrimination are very important, just as they are for any other
minority groups. Some states include violence against an individual on the basis of his or her sexual
orientation as a "hate crime," and ten U.S. states have laws against discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation.
Why Is it Important for Society to be Better Educated About Homosexuality?
Educating all people about sexual orientation and homosexuality is likely to diminish anti-gay prejudice.
Accurate information about homosexuality is especially important to young people who are first discovering
and seeking to understand their sexuality,whether homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual. Fears that access
to such information will make more people gay have no validity; information about homosexuality does not
make someone gay or straight.
Are All Gay and Bisexual Men HIV Infected?
No. This is a common myth. In reality, the risk of exposure to HIV is related to a person's behavior, not their
sexual orientation. What's important to remember about HIV/AIDS is that contracting the disease can be
prevented by using safe sex practices and by not using drugs.
(c) Copyright 2004 American Psychological Association
Documents from apahelpcenter.org may be reprinted in their entirety with credit given to the American
Psychological Association. Any exceptions to this, including requests to excerpt or paraphrase documents
from apahelpcenter.org, must be presented in writing to [email protected] and will be considered on a
case-by-case basis. Permission for exceptions will be given on a one-time-only basis and must be sought for
each additional use of the document.

http://apahelpcenter.org/articles/pdf.php?id=31



So much for Allie's retarded claim about studies and scientific consensus, eh?


I apologize for the formatting but I guess that just means you'll have to follow the link and see what a viable source looks like...

 

[Doug]

Shogun: You raise a good question. She decides to hitchhike home. I strongly advise her not to do so. She rejects my advice. What do I do? It's a good question. I'll think about it -- I suppose the "friends don't let friends drive drunk" advice is relevant somehow. Forcing her into my car? Probably not even physically possible. I might just have to shake my head and say, "Well, you're mad, but do what you like. Can I have details of next of kin?"

But am I correct in saying that when she tells you she is going to hitchhike home, dressed provocatively, at midnight, through a dangerous area ... you would say nothing?

You say you would "let her do what she wants". But you don't say what you would advise.

Would you really not warn her that she is taking a huge risk, rights or no rights?

Really?

 

[Shogun]

I would try to convince her to let me take her home or call a cab. Not because I assume she will be raped because that won't even cross my mind. Who can predict rape but the RAPIST? I would offer her any means that I can think of out of consideration for lack of transportation. however, she is still an autonomous American and capable of making her own decisions. COULD it be the case that my insistence would circumvent a rape? sure, who knows. Does this decision guarantee anyone will get raped? not at all. There is no causal relationship between her decision to walk home dressed like a slut and weather or not a rapist is out prowling the street and CERTAINLY not between the decisions of a man who has by that time ALREADY made his choice to rape and her decision on what to wear.

But, lets say she insists on walking no matter what you say. You won't force her into your car or a taxi. You can't change her mind. She's dressed like a slut and will walk through central park at 3am on saturday...

Lets say she DOES get raped.

Are you going to tell her that you told her so? Did you predict the possibility of the rape? Do her choices to walk make her at all responsible for getting raped? Is it risky? Sure, i'm not going to be stubborn about that. Sure, it's not as safe as walking into a church on Sunday BUT her decision to make her choice is, in no way, reflective of the motives of her RAPIST. Likewise, sure Matt may have been better suited for The Manhole in SanFran rather than the bar he went to.. BUT. and I'll even factor in that he flirted openly with two strait dudes (who played the ball game to get him into the truck, btw)... THAT in no way makes him responsible for getting killed than any other horny man on any other horny Saturday night hitting on any other woman in any other bar. Is it fair to suggest that you provoked a woman into killiing you because you flirted with her at a bar? Likewise.



Have a great weekend, Doug. I have not been agreeing with you in this thread and have noticed the padded gauntlets youve been swinging at liberals but your posts are better than some of the other riffraff from your team.

peace

 

[Doug]

Thank you, Shogun, and the same to you. (But I think it is very judgemental and hurtful to call people "riff-raff". That's the kind of thing we wicked conservatives do, of course, but I expect better from your side.)

 

[mattskramer]

Thank you, Shogun, and the same to you. (But I think it is very judgemental and hurtful to call people "riff-raff". That's the kind of thing we wicked conservatives do, of course, but I expect better from your side.)

I would ask her to not hitchhike but I can’t force her to not hitchhike. It is not right to make decisions for people or to force people to do what we think that they should do. Again, I’d simply recommend that the not hitchhike.

 

[mattskramer]

I let her do what she wants.

and then, if she gets raped, I blame the rapist for criminal behaviour instead of her for her dress and decision to walk. So, by your own hypothetical, she still says she doesn't want a ride are you going to FORCE her into your car? See, this is where your examples crumble.




Oh, and RGS!

Dude.. I'm a little disapointed that you didn't call me out so I'll post it anyway:

Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality

What Is Sexual Orientation?
Sexual orientation is an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual, or affectional attraction toward others. It is
easily distinguished from other components of sexuality including biological sex, gender identity (the
psychological sense of being male or female), and the social gender role (adherence to cultural norms for
feminine and masculine behavior).
Sexual orientation exists along a continuum that ranges from exclusive heterosexuality to exclusive
homosexuality and includes various forms of bisexuality. Bisexual persons can experience sexual, emotional,
and affectional attraction to both their own sex and the opposite sex. Persons with a homosexual orientation
are sometimes referred to as gay (both men and women) or as lesbian (women only).
Sexual orientation is different from sexual behavior because it refers to feelings and self-concept.
Individuals may or may not express their sexual orientation in their behaviors.
What Causes a Person To Have a Particular Sexual Orientation?
There are numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual orientation. Most scientists today agree
that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and
biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable
recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role
in a person's sexuality.
It's important to recognize that there are probably many reasons for a person's sexual orientation, and the
reasons may be different for different people.
Is Sexual Orientation a Choice?
No, human beings cannot choose to be either gay or straight. For most people, sexual orientation emerges in
early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our
feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily
changed.
Can Therapy Change Sexual Orientation?
No; even though most homosexuals live successful, happy lives, some homosexual or bisexual people may
seek to change their sexual orientation through therapy, often coerced by family members or religious groups
to try and do so. The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not
changeable. However, not all gay, lesbian, and bisexual people who seek assistance from a mental health
professional want to change their sexual orientation. Gay, lesbian, and bisexual people may seek
psychological help with the coming out process or for strategies to deal with prejudice, but most go into
therapy for the same reasons and life issues that bring straight people to mental health professionals.
What About So-Called "Conversion Therapies"?
Some therapists who undertake so-called conversion therapy report that they have been able to change their
clients' sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. Close scrutiny of these reports, however. show
several factors that cast doubt on their claims. For example, many of these claims come from organizations
with an ideological perspective that condemns homosexuality. Furthermore, their claims are poorly
documented; for example, treatment outcome is not followed and reported over time, as would be the
standard to test the validity of any mental health intervention.
The American Psychological Association is concerned about such therapies and their potential harm to
patients. In 1997, the Association's Council of Representatives passed a resolution reaffirming psychology's
opposition to homophobia in treatment and spelling out a client's right to unbiased treatment and
self-determination. Any person who enters into therapy to deal with issues of sexual orientation has a right
to expect that such therapy will take place in a professionally neutral environment, without any social bias.
Is Homosexuality a Mental Illness or Emotional Problem?
No. Psychologists, psychiatrists, and other mental health professionals agree that homosexuality is not an
illness, a mental disorder, or an emotional problem. More than 35 years of objective, well-designed scientific
research has shown that homosexuality, in and itself, is not associated with mental disorders or emotional or
social problems. Homosexuality was once thought to be a mental illness because mental health professionals
and society had biased information.
In the past, the studies of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people involved only those in therapy, thus biasing the
resulting conclusions. When researchers examined data about such people who were not in therapy, the idea
that homosexuality was a mental illness was quickly found to be untrue.
In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association confirmed the importance of the new, better-designed research
and removed homosexuality from the official manual that lists mental and emotional disorders. Two years
later, the American Psychological Association passed a resolution supporting this removal.
For more than 25 years, both associations have urged all mental health professionals to help dispel the stigma
of mental illness that some people still associate with homosexual orientation.
Can Lesbians, Gay Men, and Bisexuals Be Good Parents?
Yes. Studies comparing groups of children raised by homosexual and by heterosexual parents find no
developmental differences between the two groups of children in four critical areas: their intelligence,
psychological adjustment, social adjustment, and popularity with friends. It is also important to realize that a
parent's sexual orientation does not indicate their children's.
Another myth about homosexuality is the mistaken belief that gay men have more of a tendency than
heterosexual men to sexually molest children. There is no evidence to suggest that homosexuals molest
children.
Why Do Some Gay Men, Lesbians, and Bisexuals Tell People About Their Sexual Orientation?
Because sharing that aspect of themselves with others is important to their mental health. In fact, the process
of identity development for lesbians, gay men and bisexuals called "coming out" has been found to be
strongly related to psychological adjustment;the more positive the gay, lesbian, or bisexual identity, the
better one's mental health and the higher one's self-esteem.
Why Is the "Coming Out" Process Difficult for Some Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual People?
For some gay and bisexual people the "coming out" process is difficult; for others it is not. Often lesbian, gay
and bisexual people feel afraid, different, and alone when they first realize that their sexual orientation is
different from the community norm. This is particularly true for people becoming aware of their gay, lesbian,
or bisexual orientation in childhood or adolescence, which is not uncommon. And depending on their
families and their communities, they may have to struggle against prejudice and misinformation about
homosexuality.
Children and adolescents may be particularly vulnerable to the harmful effects of bias and stereotypes. They
may also fear being rejected by family, friends, co-workers, and religious institutions. Some gay people have
to worry about losing their jobs or being harassed at school if their sexual orientation became well known.
Unfortunately, gay, lesbian, and bisexual people are at a higher risk for physical assault and violence than are
heterosexuals. Studies done in California in the mid-1990s showed that nearly one-fifth of all lesbians who
took part in the study, and more than one-fourthof all gay men who participated, had been the victim of a
hate crime based on their sexual orientation. In another California study of approximately 500 young adults,
half of all the young men participating in the study admitted to some form of anti-gay aggression, ranging
from name-calling to physical violence.
What Can Be Done to Overcome the Prejudice and Discrimination that Gay Men, Lesbians, and Bisexuals
Experience?
Research has found that the people who have the most positive attitudes toward gay men, lesbians, and
bisexuals are those who say they know one or more gay, lesbian or bisexual person well, often as a friend or
co-worker. For this reason, psychologists believe that negative attitudes toward gay people as a group are
prejudices that are not grounded in actual experience but are based on stereotypes and misinformation.
Furthermore, protection against violence and discrimination are very important, just as they are for any other
minority groups. Some states include violence against an individual on the basis of his or her sexual
orientation as a "hate crime," and ten U.S. states have laws against discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation.
Why Is it Important for Society to be Better Educated About Homosexuality?
Educating all people about sexual orientation and homosexuality is likely to diminish anti-gay prejudice.
Accurate information about homosexuality is especially important to young people who are first discovering
and seeking to understand their sexuality,whether homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual. Fears that access
to such information will make more people gay have no validity; information about homosexuality does not
make someone gay or straight.
Are All Gay and Bisexual Men HIV Infected?
No. This is a common myth. In reality, the risk of exposure to HIV is related to a person's behavior, not their
sexual orientation. What's important to remember about HIV/AIDS is that contracting the disease can be
prevented by using safe sex practices and by not using drugs.
(c) Copyright 2004 American Psychological Association
Documents from apahelpcenter.org may be reprinted in their entirety with credit given to the American
Psychological Association. Any exceptions to this, including requests to excerpt or paraphrase documents
from apahelpcenter.org, must be presented in writing to [email protected] and will be considered on a
case-by-case basis. Permission for exceptions will be given on a one-time-only basis and must be sought for
each additional use of the document.

http://apahelpcenter.org/articles/pdf.php?id=31



So much for Allie's retarded claim about studies and scientific consensus, eh?


I apologize for the formatting but I guess that just means you'll have to follow the link and see what a viable source looks like...

Wow. I guess that I disagree with the APA. While I think that homosexuals should be free to be homosexuals and I even think that civil unions should be recognized at the federal level, I think that sexual orientation can be changed. If someone is given enough of a desire to change, if he is given enough “reprogramming” and is exposed to a long and painful wide variety of treatments, he can be conditioned to change. It would be a long and arduous process but preferences and desires can be conditioned and changed, but why? I don’t think that homosexuals need to change.

 

[007]

if by Liberal Handbook you mean APA standards then I'm sure I'll live knowing that a person like you is dubious of my sources.

No that's not what I mean, and you know it. But the APA is a liberal organization, and they have proven themselves to be partisan in their efforts to further the homosexual agenda.

You are no better in your attitude, acknowledged as hatred or not, as George wallace standing on the steps of Foster Auditorium at the University of Alabama.

You know what I do like? I like the fact that you, meaning ALL you queer enabler liberals here, HAVE to listen to me. You also HAVE to be exposed as the name calling, smart ass, holier than thou, know it all, enlightened, THINK you're smarter than everybody else, MINORITY! Yes... YOU are the MINORITY, and I LOVE IT! That's eats you up inside KNOWING I'm right and you're WRONG. You argue the most RIDICULOUS points simply because how you FEEL, and you ignore facts with absolute totality. It's fun to watch you liberals melt down into your name calling. It's also easy to get you there. You invariably lose most arguments on this board within the first ten posts. From there on out it's name calling, smart ass, buzz words and psychobabble spin. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA..... how's it feel... LOSER?! HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!

 

[AllieBaba]

Shogun and Jillian: You are confusing two different things: sensitivity in talking to people who have been traumatized, and the content of what we might say to them, perhaps at another time, about their own behavior.

If a young woman were to be so foolish as to dress as Jillian asserts she has the right to, and to hitchhike across town, say through an area where white stockbrokers live, late at night, and met her likely fate ... were she to survive, of course the first thing I would say to her would not be "Hmmm... perhaps you shouldn't have dressed like that, nor hitchhiked, and especially at night."

But if I were talking to her about the wisdom of her act at a different time -- say, before she did it -- I would say: anyone whose only advice to you is that you have the "right" to dress that way in any time and place you choose, is an ... well, I fear Jillian's anger, so I shall say, such a person is mistaken.

I do not understand why no one from the "do whatever you please, when you please", kamikaze camp wants to at least discuss seriously the example I raised.

Quite right, that the snow bears no moral responsibility for killing the people who risk their lives climbing. This is why I chose that example. It allows us to dispense with one part of the problem, and look at the other: the person who, knowing that their behavior is going to be risky, does it anyway, and dies.

What is our attitude to them, besides sadness at their death, and sympathy for their surviving friends and relatives?

What liberals -- or at least the kind of liberal we are arguing with here -- hate to even think about is personal responsiblity.

Everyone should be able to do whatever they feel like, and the world consists only of victims with rights, and their oppressors.

Since in the real world there is likely to be a high death or injury toll among members of the chosen victim-group who actual follow this suicidal advice, of course we need to continually expand the power of the state to protect them. Thus the concept of "hate crimes" and even "assaultive speech".

Our liberal friends do not want to admit of the concept of personal responsibility even in my artificial case where all other issues have been removed.

Why?

Because to let under the tent the camel's nose of the concept of personal responsibility in our imperfect world would then allow us to discuss the issue without demagogic emoting, thus depriving them of their best weapon, and perhaps even of their reflexive method of arriving at their opinions. (Anger be damned.)

We might then even take up the question raised by the Emmett Till case, as exemplified by my conservative quotation, where the issue of racist victimization was mixed in an unsettling way with the issue of the oppression of women.

Very good.
The only change I would make is that when you talk to a person who has made some bad choices, and subsequently been victimized, you don't say, "maybe you shouldn't have..." you say "What choices can you make in the future that might improve your chances of staying safe?"

And that's not an excuse for the scum who victimize people. It's good advice for people who don't want to be victimized any more.

 

[AllieBaba]

Using the hypothesis that a victim should never be obligated to look out for his/her own safety, then the mother of a 4-year-old who lets her new boyfriend watch her baby, is absolutely not in any way responsible when her bf kills the baby in a drunken rage.

Or the meth-addicted mother, who allows her children, ages 5, 10 and 12, wander the street, is in no way responsible when those kids are raped and victimized repeatedly by the predators lurking around.

Neither wanted their kids to get hurt, and ultimately, the people who did the harm are the bad guys.

But they made really bad choices which increased the probability of such a thing happening.

It's the same with adults who are making bad choices for themselves. It doesn't mean they're the ones to blame when they get hurt. But if they make different choices, the chances of them getting hurt go way, way down.

 

[doniston]

Ya know... you won't suck me into your long, drawn out, worthless tirades of psychobabble. It's not worth it. You don't listen.

But I will tell you this "once, I DON'T HATE QUEERS, HOWEVER, I DO FIND THEIR LIFESTYLE AND SEXUAL ACTIONS FULLY DISGUSTING AND PERVERTED." And that is the "NORMAL" reaction for "NORMAL" people, which is, by the way, the vast majority of people on earth. So you throwing around your buzz words you read out of your liberal response handbook doesn't mean shit son. It's old and stale, and doesn't work on me. Try and be original for once, and address the truth. I know that's hard for you liberals who base all your arguments on your "FEELINGS," but try understanding FACT for once. If you can't see and understand facts, then this argument is perpetual and senseless with the likes of you, jillie, the old pervert penis man doni, the incest boy mattskramer, and the rest of you homo enablers and apologists.

For a closeted homophobe who obviously isn't sure of his own sexuality You sure have your speil down pat. I wonder who wrote it for you.

 

[Doug]

I don't know what our liberal friends would say about this thread, but I believe a real hard-core Leftist would not be quite happy with what anyone has said so far.

The liberals have argued, following the general liberal line on these things, that someone whose unwise behavior leads to their victimization by violent criminals must not be in any way blamed, criticized, chided ... or, almost, even advised before the fact ... with regard to that unwise behavior. You've got your rights, dammit, and you shouldn't let the nature of the real world hinder you in your full and heedless exercise of them!

This seemed a bit strange to me. I don't think that in practice liberals would act very different from conservatives here. We would all say, "Don't Do It!" And if they did it, and lived, we would, I hope, be very very tactful about our earlier warning. AlliBaba puts it very well -- I suspect she's speaking as a professional here.

Then it occurred to me ... wait a minute, the liberals are blaming the criminals. Now I can see how blame and condemnation of the criminals is utterly natural for liberals in the Matt Shepard case: they were white, homophobes, etc. Obviously guilty.

But in our hypothetical midnight-hitchhiker case ... what if the rapist (or rapists) were Black or Hispanic???

Would they really be worthy of the same unrestrained utter condemnation that liberals poured -- quite justifiably -- onto Matt Shepard's killlers?

Don't we always hear from the Left that crime among non-whites is caused by poverty and racism and the legacy of past racism and George Bush and big corporations, etc. etc. etc?

Doesn't the concept of personal responsibility, if we are going to see the world from a consistently-Leftist standpoint, have to be withdrawn from the poor racially-oppressed rapists, too?

Of course the Left has a history of admiring and supporting Black rapists, so long as they come up with a good story about how white racism made them do it. But I am not talking about this prediliction.

I'm just questioning if it is not the case that the general Leftist world view, which blames the successful element of society for society's failures, and the law-abiding for crime, has been fully applied in the examples we have discussed.

 

[AllieBaba]

Or if the criminal is a homosexual that has been victimized his whole life, then goes on a murderous rampage, killing, let's say, a minister.

I think I know whose side they'd be on then.

 

[mattskramer]

Then it occurred to me ... wait a minute, the liberals are blaming the criminals. Now I can see how blame and condemnation of the criminals is utterly natural for liberals in the Matt Shepard case: they were white, homophobes, etc. Obviously guilty.

I’ve been called a liberal. I can’t speak for all liberals, but I think that in general, liberals would condemn the criminals because – they murdered someone.

But in our hypothetical midnight-hitchhiker case ... what if the rapist (or rapists) were Black or Hispanic???

Would they really be worthy of the same unrestrained utter condemnation that liberals poured -- quite justifiably -- onto Matt Shepard's killlers?

I think that they would hold the same condemnation even if the rapist were Black or White or Hispanic or European or American.

Don't we always hear from the Left that crime among non-whites is caused by poverty and racism and the legacy of past racism and George Bush and big corporations, etc. etc. etc?

Sure, in some cases by some people of the extreme left.

Of course the Left has a history of admiring and supporting Black rapists, so long as they come up with a good story about how white racism made them do it. But I am not talking about this prediliction.

I almost fell out of my chair when I read these. Please give me a clear precise specific example of there the “left of center” admired and supported a Black rapist who was clearly guilty of his crime.

 

[Doug]

I don't know how old you are, Matt. I am 64, and lived through the Sixties. I was pretty heavily involved in the Left then, and was in California for several years while the Black Panthers were being idolized by the Left.

One of their main leaders was one Eldridge Cleaver, whom the Peace and Freedom Party (they're still around, I think) nominated as their Presidential candidate. He wrote a book -- Soul on Ice -- which all the PC school teachers adopted as required reading for the kiddies as an example of great literature. (Later, when Cleaver became a rightwinger, this book mysteriously lost its designation as a classic and disappeared from the California curriculum.)

Anyhow, here's an excerpt from the Wiki article.

In the book, Cleaver infamously acknowledges the rape of several white women, which he defended as "an insurrectionary act". He also admitted that he began his career as a rapist by "practicing on black girls in the ghetto." He maintains that his felonious acts have nothing to do with the views expressed in the book. Cleaver was released from prison in 1966, after which he joined the Oakland-based Black Panther Party, serving as Minister of Information (spokesperson).

He was a Presidential candidate in 1968 on the ticket of the Peace and Freedom Party.

Full article here .

There are a number of other examples of how the Left has seen rape as "an insurrectionary act" in Susan Brownmiller's[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Against-Our-Will-Women-Rape/dp/0449908208/ref=sr_1_1/103-9655811-7155832?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1192236687&sr=8-1] Against Our Will[/ame], which I think is one of the dozen or so Marxist/leftist/feminist books which ought to be on every political person's reading list.

I'll bet you didn't know that the Left has opposed votes for women either, did you?

 

[mattskramer]

I don't know how old you are, Matt. I am 64, and lived through the Sixties. I was pretty heavily involved in the Left then, and was in California for several years while the Black Panthers were being idolized by the Left.

One of their main leaders was one Eldridge Cleaver, whom the Peace and Freedom Party (they're still around, I think) nominated as their Presidential candidate. He wrote a book -- Soul on Ice -- which all the PC school teachers adopted as required reading for the kiddies as an example of great literature. (Later, when Cleaver became a rightwinger, this book mysteriously lost its designation as a classic and disappeared from the California curriculum.)

Anyhow, here's an excerpt from the Wiki article.



Full article here .

There are a number of other examples of how the Left has seen rape as "an insurrectionary act" in Susan Brownmiller's Against Our Will, which I think is one of the dozen or so Marxist/leftist/feminist books which ought to be on every political person's reading list.

I'll bet you didn't know that the Left has opposed votes for women either, did you?

Okay. I consider that as ancient history. Also, the Black Panthers does not strike me as a slightly-left-of-center group. It constitutes the far loony left. Some people at that far end of political spectrum might idealize rapists.

Perhaps you should objectively and concretely define the left. Does David Duke constitute your typical conservative?

 

[Doug]

No, I would not call David Duke a conservative.

However I would say that he is "on the Right".

And I grant you that there is a difference between liberals and those further Left -- which is why I was careful not to say that "liberals" have idolized rapists.

But it is not so simple. Liberals are easily influenced by the far Left, as many examples will show. Just look at the rapturous reception people like Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn get on those bastions of American liberalism, our college campuses. Note how many Schools of Education use Zinn's history textbook.

Another example: Hillary Clinton is not a pro-Communist. Yet she was probably going to appoint a pro-Communist as the Secretary of Education in the first Clinton Administration.

And: the Panthers were and are idolized by many liberals, especially academics. The standard history of them produced for schools is a complete whitewash of their activities.

In general, as Irving Kristol pointed out long ago, liberals are incapable of opposing any movement supported by large numbers of poor people.

 

[Shogun]

Way to wiggle out from under the standard of the APA with a whole fistful of generalized shit talk, guys!


BRAVO!





Doug, you can lambaste "the left" as some spooky boogeyman while Allie cheer leads from the sidelines but, last I heard, abstract rhetoric and generalized shit talking doesn't trump evidence.


I posted evidence from the APA despite Allie's instance that the general scientific consensus is in your court. It's not... But, I bet a few more generalizations about the big evil left will work as well for the RIFF RAFF, yes?


Hey, when in doubt just insist that it's some big liberal conspiracy to acknowledge that the earth revolves around the sun....



ps, if Allie is the professional in this conversation I bet she has a real high suicide rate among her former clients. I had a real good laugh about this thread with my sociology professor girlfriend last night... I guess this kind of thread takes the mystery out of how people like ole phelps sticks to his opinion despite reality. He probably has a long list of evil LIBERAL organizations too. I bet he agrees that the APA is just a liberal think tank.

 

[Doug]

Is homosexuality -- persistent sexual desire for people of your own sex -- a choice?

I doubt very much that it is. I wouldn't pay much attention to what the APA or any other so-called "professonal" association says. Their views are heavily conditioned by the political atmosphere of the day.

No one has yet identified a "gay gene". It is simply false to assert that we know that "homosexuality is genetic". And it is equally false to assert that we know that it is not genetic.

We know little about the human genome yet -- it has been mapped, but by and large the function of each stretch of DNA we call a gene remains a mystery.

In any case, a personal characteristic may have biological roots, without those roots being directly genetic. I may have been overtaken by new developments here, but when I last read up on this subject, no one had identified a gene for "handedness", or for autism, even though there is a good deal of evidence that genes are in some way involved in the latter condition.

There is some good evidence that many human preferences and behaviors have some sort of genetic, or at least biological, roots. The most compelling evidence for this comes fromstudies of identical twins separated at birth. But even here, we must be cautious .

I do not understand people who say that homosexuality is a "choice". I did not "choose" to be heterosexual, and I could not "choose" to be homosexual.

Those who argue that it is a choice seem to assimilate it to other sexual behavior which they find objectionable, such as adultery. But adultery is a powerful temptation for every married (normal) person -- committing it, or resisting committing it, is indeed a choice. (Although sometimes a painful one. ) What is not a choice is the initial attraction to an interesting and attractive person who seems to return the interest.

What arguably is a "choice" is behavior. Given enough social pressure and rewards and threats, someone who is homosexual can be prevented from acting out their sexual orientation, and even of imitating the other orientation. (And probably vice-versa.) But that is quite a different thing.

Assuming that homosexuality is biologically rooted -- either directly via gene expression, or via some subtle interaction of genes and the foetal biochemical environment in the womb, or by some other biological path -- then we can be pretty confident that in the future, we will be able to detect whether a fetus is going to develop into a homosexual person. We may even be able to directly control its sexual orientation.

Now, given that, despite a lot of liberal piety, few parents would want a homosexual child, we can then predict that the number of homosexuals, like the number of autistic or Down's Syndrome children, will rapidly decline, either through abortion, or through some more subtle medical intervention.

Shogun: I would like to debate with you, but you don't give me much to work with. Why not take something I have said, that you disagree with, and give your reasons for disagreeing with it? Then we can have a potentially enlightening argument.

A suggestion: why not ask your girlfriend to contribute to the thread, either via you, or by registering directly. The perspective of a sociology professor would be very interesting here.

 

[Shogun]

Well, see Doug, when your rebuttal amounts to "I wouldn't pay much attention to what the APA or any other so-called "professonal" association says. Their views are heavily conditioned by the political atmosphere of the day." and "liberal this, liberal that" then you don't really have much to debate against beyond your OPINION. Obviously, that means more to you than the entire Psychological consensus so there really is no point to take you seriously.

It's just like how Jillian bitchslapped Allie with the very same study Allie name dropped. What's the point?

Like I said, I posted evidence. You post rhetorical opinions and blame anything that doesn't fall within your cookie cutter schema on liberals..


Sorry if that's just enough to illicit a major effort on my part.