Quoted: You can get a lot more curious who dabble in it, but that's about it, from an accurate, unbiased historical perspective.

Absolutely untrue.

Homosexual behavior was MUCH more common in Roman society than in Jewish society of the same period....and it was even more common in Corinthian society than it was in Roman society.

It was a more *NORMAL* fact of life in Rome than Jerusalem....which is not in the least bit surprising given how differently the respective cultures viewed the topic.

People arguing that culture has no effect on people's behavior are spitting in the wind.

That there has always been *some* amount of it taking place in practically every society is indisputable...but that does not provide evidence that the same levels of it take place in every society no matter what. To allege that is to deny human nature itself.

Quoted: Quoted: destruction of family unit, destruction of values and personal responsibility, etc. Very very bad for our society as a whole. Funny, sounds like a win-win to me. Fear of gays converting you is not a reason to hate them, sorry.

So, this guy thinks destruction of the family, destruction of values, and destruction of person responsibility are all good things?

Two guys a$$-f@#king doesn't bother me.  But when they start preaching that families are bad, personal responsibility and having values are all bad things...  The homosexual political agenda is very bad for society.  In fact, you can clearly see from the quoted post that one of it's goals is to destroy society by eliminating the things that make society possible.

Quoted: Quoted: While being gay may not be genetic, it certainly is not a choice.   Wrong! There are plenty of people who had kids who chose to be gay degenerates afterwards. There are plenty of gays who chose to have kids and live a normal lives afterwards. So obviously it's a choice because one can switch between the other by deciding and acting to change one's lifestyle.

Mainly because there is no such thing as a definate state of homo or hetero sexuality.  Placement on the spectrum of sexuality is a result of a variety of environmental factors in addition to how one is wired based on their own childhood development.

You can and will find gay men who form a relationship with a woman and vice versa.

There is also the added layer of emotional vs. physical traits.  People do not form lasting relationships based solely on genitalia.

You met someone who chose to form a relationship with an individual that had different physical traits than someone he was previously hooked up with.  Suddenly it becomes "obvious" that homosexuality is a choice?

Jesus Christ... thanks for breaking it down for us all.  To think people have wasted years researching the anthropological, pyschological, and biological reasons for homosexuality when they could simply have talked to you on the internet.

- BG

Quoted: So I'm a abject failure at life cause I don't have kids?  Thats the only purpose or standard by which to measure success? Well I got to be sure, so I'll rape a few women on the side to make sure my genes are passed on. You know just in case I never get married.

There's always a bright side Paveway, at least you're not gay!

Don't you worry. Immigrants like me will take over the country when your family line is gone. I suppose the gays need some straight company when they die off. Damn I love being an American.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Reading another thread this comment got me thinking: "The whole "Gays are bad" thing is based only in the bible and has no facts to go with it." First of all it is an over simplification and I agree that "gays are not bad" but the homosexual choice is bad for society as a whole and that there are plenty of facts to back that up. 1. HIV is statisticly staggering in gays compared to hetrosexuals 2. Pedophiles and serial killers are statisticly way over reperesented by homosexuals 3. Homosexuals do not procreate So it can be said that I do not "hate" gays but their choice of lifestyle is very bad for society as a whole, furthermore I could not care less what consenting adults do in private with each other but I am fed up of the forced "tollerance" that is being pushed In summary do what you want with consenting adult partners in private DO NOT EXPECT me to accept or condone your lifestyle According to Dr. Robin Baker PhD, who has done a ton of research on human sexuality, that is not necessarily true. I Highly suggest reading his book Sperm Wars. It is fascinating. If Phd Baker is trying to convince people that 2 males procreate If he is saying that a queer happens to knock someone up then leaves once again the impact to society is a harmfull one Of course he isn't suggesting that two males can procreate.

There is a good example.  It is pyhsically impossible for two males to reproduce.  What they are doing is seeking to erase that distinction.  When you hear about states considering removing "Mother" and "Father" from a birth certificate and replacing it with "Parent 1" and "Parent 2" for the expressed purpose of not stigmatizing adopted children of homosexuals couples....  It isn't hard to figure out that the homosexual political agenda of .....

You know what, this is fuckin retarded.

Quoted: Jesus Christ... thanks for breaking it down for us all.  To think people have wasted years researching the anthropological, pyschological, and biological reasons for homosexuality when they could simply have talked to you on the internet. - BG

Actually, you are wrong again! They could've simply followed God's teaching and afterwards Jesus, and they would've saved lots of time, effort, and money instead of waiting for me. But thanks for the compliment and for bowing in frustration to my superior ideas.

Hey Bucc_Guy, I noticed that you're in CT. Don't they have a bunch of gay politicians there? How about gay marriage? Is that why you're there?

Quoted: Quoted: I would certainly hope that we have progressed beyond the mere purpose of "passing on genes."  In this day and age, people can choose to reproduce or choose to avoid it.  Being gay, sterile, or choosing to not reproduce does not mean anyone is living a meaningless life. Passing on genes is the main purpose, or do you propose another alternative way to get around mortality? Yes, you can choose not to have kids. But that also means you chose a meaningless existence because you might as well not have existed if you have no relatives to carry forward. We live in a time when not reproducing may actually have more positive effects than negative.  Our purpose has extended past individual reproduction and into the realm of betterment of community/nation.  If a 14 year old addict pops out another useless slug in society, she has clearly accomplished more than a childless man who cured a disease, in your view.  Usefulness to society far outweights the importance of individual reproduction. To claim otherwise puts one on the same level as the squirrel outside my window. It is not feasible to think that everyone in society will suddenly choose to stop reproducing, so don't bother saying "we need reproduction to continue as a society."  If a segment of the population does not reproduce, it is not the end of that society.  We have plenty of idiots pumping out kids as it is. And what does that have to do with being gay and the deviancy of such a life? NOTHING. It's just some hot air your blowing out onto the screen because you know you're in the wrong and so you go on the defense by guilt-tripping others into not being so judgemental. I don't feel that I am in the wrong.  I have only stayed in this thread for so long because I was actually beginning to enjoy the academic discussion with another poster.  I am not on the defensive because any form of riposte in the effort of convincing an irrational individual is borderline impossible.  Although you can't be reasoned with, you are providing me with entertainment. Please... continue.   You seem to really be standing by the "most homosexuals are going to be abjects failures" (sic) statement in addition supporting the "truth" in your blanket statements. Where the hell are you getting your information?  What is influencing you to be so stupidly hurtful?  Does your church feed this crap to you, or did daddy teach you how them queers really are? I've read a lot on this thread so far and obviously there hasn't been anything presented to change my mind. That means that so far I must be right! If the opposing view was correct, they would've put forth something I could have sided with by now. I really do not feel that there is any purpose in trying to sit here typing in order to convince you of anything.  What occurred earlier with another poster was, for Arfcom, a fairly serious academic discussion.  It moved far beyond the "gays are icky and bad" vs. "no they aren't" argument.  You, sir, have returned to the "icky or not" argument.  If the end of your thinking is by simply calling gays deviant and icky, then, by all means, please go do something else with your time.  Fix a car, work on the plumbing, make a bookshelf... just run along and do something masculine. What you are spewing is not "common knowledge."  It is the usual crap you hear from angry religious leaders and insecure fratboys. - BG Well BG, a simple anatomical examination or a quick glance at some science books should be sufficient. But you can consult religious leaders and fratboys if you like. And here resides your problem.  This argument is far beyond a "quick glance at some science books."  It is an interdisciplinary matter that crosses a variety of fields, from anthropology to psychology to history to sociology to religion.  I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer, nor do I profess to be a wealth of knowledge about anything in particular.  However, my life has revolved around nothing but academic study for years and my career has come full circle back into the realm of education.  My new purpose is to get young people to think critically about various subjects.  Clearly, sir, you do not have such capacity.

Quoted: Quoted: Jesus Christ... thanks for breaking it down for us all.  To think people have wasted years researching the anthropological, pyschological, and biological reasons for homosexuality when they could simply have talked to you on the internet. - BG Actually, you are wrong again! They could've simply followed God's teaching and afterwards Jesus, and they would've saved lots of time, effort, and money instead of waiting for me. But thanks for the compliment and for bowing in frustration to my superior ideas. Hey Bucc_Guy, I noticed that you're in CT. Don't they have a bunch of gay politicians there? How about gay marriage? Is that why you're there?

I see you are basing some thought on the Old Testament.  I prefer the New one, myself.

John 8.15: Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man

I will also assume, based on your serious taking of the Old Testament, that you prefer kosher foods.  A noble choice indeed, as I am weak and cannot stick to such a diet.

We do not have gay marriage in CT, yet.  Civil unions are legal now, though.  Government should stay out of the marriage business anyway.

-  BG

Quoted: We live in a time when not reproducing may actually have more positive effects than negative.  Our purpose has extended past individual reproduction and into the realm of betterment of community/nation.  If a 14 year old addict pops out another useless slug in society, she has clearly accomplished more than a childless man who cured a disease, in your view.  Usefulness to society far outweights the importance of individual reproduction. To claim otherwise puts one on the same level as the squirrel outside my window.

Yeah, but that useless slug might grow up into a man that cures another disease. The gay is at the end of the line, no more future potential left. What if we never get the cure for cancer because some gay freak didn't sire the child who would've come up with the cure?

I don't feel that I am in the wrong.

That's your mistake, you are working on "feel". Let me set you straight. You ARE WRONG, skip the feelings part and grow a pair.

I have only stayed in this thread for so long because I was actually beginning to enjoy the academic discussion with another poster.  I am not on the defensive because any form of riposte in the effort of convincing an irrational individual is borderline impossible.  Although you can't be reasoned with, you are providing me with entertainment. Please... continue.

It's good that you are using the word "please", that means you are learning Grasshopper.

I really do not feel that there is any purpose in trying to sit here typing in order to convince you of anything.  What occurred earlier with another poster was, for Arfcom, a fairly serious academic discussion.  It moved far beyond the "gays are icky and bad" vs. "no they aren't" argument.  You, sir, have returned to the "icky or not" argument.  If the end of your thinking is by simply calling gays deviant and icky, then, by all means, please go do something else with your time.  Fix a car, work on the plumbing, make a bookshelf... just run along and do something masculine.

Didn't you just say "please" continue? Are you a flip-flopper too?

And here resides your problem.  This argument is far beyond a "quick glance at some science books."  It is an interdisciplinary matter that crosses a variety of fields, from anthropology to psychology to history to sociology to religion.  I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer, nor do I profess to be a wealth of knowledge about anything in particular.  However, my life has revolved around nothing but academic study for years and my career has come full circle back into the realm of education.  My new purpose is to get young people to think critically about various subjects.  Clearly, sir, you do not have such capacity.

Bwa ha ha ha! You're an academic? You must be the only one "pruhfeshunal" enough to handle a Glock Fohtee, too! May I make a suggestion? Instead of trying to get young people to think critically, try getting them to see the obvious instead. Gays are deviants and the male anatomy is designed (by God or natural selection) to work with the female anatomy.

BTW, I heard that those in the education profession tends to score the lowest. You might want to do some "academic research" on that topic.

Quoted: Quoted: We live in a time when not reproducing may actually have more positive effects than negative.  Our purpose has extended past individual reproduction and into the realm of betterment of community/nation.  If a 14 year old addict pops out another useless slug in society, she has clearly accomplished more than a childless man who cured a disease, in your view.  Usefulness to society far outweights the importance of individual reproduction. To claim otherwise puts one on the same level as the squirrel outside my window. Yeah, but that useless slug might grow up into a man that cures another disease. The gay is at the end of the line, no more future potential left. What if we never get the cure for cancer because some gay freak didn't sire the child who would've come up with the cure? I don't feel that I am in the wrong. That's your mistake, you are working on "feel". Let me set you straight. You ARE WRONG, skip the feelings part and grow a pair. I have only stayed in this thread for so long because I was actually beginning to enjoy the academic discussion with another poster.  I am not on the defensive because any form of riposte in the effort of convincing an irrational individual is borderline impossible.  Although you can't be reasoned with, you are providing me with entertainment. Please... continue. It's good that you are using the word "please", that means you are learning Grasshopper. I really do not feel that there is any purpose in trying to sit here typing in order to convince you of anything.  What occurred earlier with another poster was, for Arfcom, a fairly serious academic discussion.  It moved far beyond the "gays are icky and bad" vs. "no they aren't" argument.  You, sir, have returned to the "icky or not" argument.  If the end of your thinking is by simply calling gays deviant and icky, then, by all means, please go do something else with your time.  Fix a car, work on the plumbing, make a bookshelf... just run along and do something masculine. Didn't you just say "please" continue? Are you a flip-flopper too?  And here resides your problem.  This argument is far beyond a "quick glance at some science books."  It is an interdisciplinary matter that crosses a variety of fields, from anthropology to psychology to history to sociology to religion.  I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer, nor do I profess to be a wealth of knowledge about anything in particular.  However, my life has revolved around nothing but academic study for years and my career has come full circle back into the realm of education.  My new purpose is to get young people to think critically about various subjects.  Clearly, sir, you do not have such capacity. Bwa ha ha ha! You're an academic? You must be the only one "pruhfeshunal" enough to handle a Glock Fohtee, too! May I make a suggestion? Instead of trying to get young people to think critically, try getting them to see the obvious instead. Gays are deviants and the male anatomy is designed (by God or natural selection) to work with the female anatomy. BTW, I heard that those in the education profession tends to score the lowest. You might want to do some "academic research" on that topic.

I consistently scored in the 97th percentile for standardized testing and 99.8th percentile on the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale.  If you happen to have an IQ of 145 or more, do continue to pontificate.

-  BG

EDIT:  I wouldn't be caught dead with a Glock .40

Quoted: I see you are basing some thought on the Old Testament.  I prefer the New one, myself. John 8.15: Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man I will also assume, based on your serious taking of the Old Testament, that you prefer kosher foods.  A noble choice indeed, as I am weak and cannot stick to such a diet.

You're wrong again, you're assuming I'm Jewish.

We do not have gay marriage in CT, yet.  Civil unions are legal now, though.  Government should stay out of the marriage business anyway. - BG

Yes, government should stay out of the matter. It's better left to the general public, and judging from the stunning defeats of gay marriage ballots, the general public thinks that gays are deviants. Judging from how gay apologists keep bashing religion(ious), the faithful think that gays are deviants too. Sounds like my generalizations on CT had solid basis, eh?

Quoted: snip I consistently scored in the 97th percentile for standardized testing and 99.8th percentile on the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale.  If you happen to have an IQ of 145 or more, do continue to pontificate. -  BG EDIT:  I wouldn't be caught dead with a Glock .40

Look at me!
I be smarts and shit

Quoted: I consistently scored in the 97th percentile for standardized testing and 99.8th percentile on the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale.  If you happen to have an IQ of 145 or more, do continue to pontificate. -  BG

The WAI and IQ tests have never been administered or required of me. But I did beat you on the percentile scoring for several standardized tests that seem to be all the rage here in the USA. I guess you can't get a job or get into school without taking a zillion of those things.

At the same time, I performed well enough for an athletic scholarship too.

Quoted: In summary do what you want with consenting adult partners in private DO NOT EXPECT me to accept or condone your lifestyle

Agreed.  Out of sight, out of mind.  Do what ye will, but I don't want to know about it.  

Quoted: Quoted: I see you are basing some thought on the Old Testament.  I prefer the New one, myself. John 8.15: Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man I will also assume, based on your serious taking of the Old Testament, that you prefer kosher foods.  A noble choice indeed, as I am weak and cannot stick to such a diet. You're wrong again, you're assuming I'm Jewish. You said "They could've simply followed God's teaching and afterwards Jesus..."  The Old Testament is generally thought to be God's word while the New Testament is based on the teachings of Jesus.  (The Old Covenant vs. New Covenant argument)  I did not assume that you were Jewish.  I did, however, assume that you were just another Christian that hasn't read the Bible at all. We do not have gay marriage in CT, yet.  Civil unions are legal now, though.  Government should stay out of the marriage business anyway. - BG Yes, government should stay out of the matter. It's better left to the general public, and judging from the stunning defeats of gay marriage ballots, the general public thinks that gays are deviants. Judging from how gay apologists keep bashing religion(ious), the faithful think that gays are deviants too. Sounds like my generalizations on CT had solid basis, eh?

The passing of Civil Unions in CT does not reflect the actual political leaning of the state at all.  I would assume that you would acknowledge, being a gun owner, that legislation is not a very good indicator of what the majority truly desires in all cases.  Connecticut is certainly not what I would call a Gay haven and the only "Gay bar" that I know of isn't officially a "Gay bar" any more.  I don't frequent such establishments and it would take a little research to get a better understanding of the realities of the matter.

-  BG

Quoted: the homosexual choice is bad for society as a whole and that there are plenty of facts to back that up...... 1. HIV is statisticly staggering in gays compared to hetrosexuals 2. Pedophiles and serial killers are statisticly way over reperesented by homosexuals 3. Homosexuals do not procreate So it can be said that I do not "hate" gays but their choice of lifestyle is very bad for society as a whole, .......

1.   HIV may be higher in the US heterosexual population, but look at underdeveloped countries and your statistics change.   Even in the US, heterosexual women is the group which is increasing the most for HIV infection.  

2. Although there may be a disproportionate number of homosexual pedophiles, the great majority of pedophiles are heterosexual.   If you were to eliminate all heterosexuals, you would eliminate 2/3 or more of the pedophile acts occuring each year by your logic.

3. Some homosexuals procreate due to "test tube" (in vitro) babies.  


Since the homosexual population is 3% or less of the general population (less than 2% by some estimates) , you will have to come up with more sensible reasons to hate gays instead of using sensationalism to prove a point.

Last timer I checked, commiting a homosexual act is a sin.   Morality is the only reason I have to object to homosexual acts.    

Quoted: Quoted: snip I consistently scored in the 97th percentile for standardized testing and 99.8th percentile on the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale.  If you happen to have an IQ of 145 or more, do continue to pontificate. -  BG EDIT:  I wouldn't be caught dead with a Glock .40 Look at me! I be smarts and shit

Hey, he questioned me so I answered.  I just don't appreciate anyone insinuating that I'd be a Glock .40 man.



- BG

Quoted: Quoted: You find more references to it in the literature, but that does not mean there was really a higher proportion of homosexuals in Roman days than other times.  It could simply be a reflection of acceptance by society in general. Things like pedophilia were an institution in Roman society and were much less so in other societies. It isn't a matter of them getting more ink....they got more ink because they were more widely practiced. Roman sources mention these things casually while outside commentators mention them with a sense of shock and revulsion.... Demonstrating that it was *HARDLY* a case of everybody everywhere doing the same thing in the same numbers. Hell, go look at Corinth. The place was so libertine that even the Romans looked on it with disdain....and when you visit the Corinthian ruins you can see depictions of a woman's genitals carved into the street itself advertising for one of the innumerable brothels that existed at Corinth. Not even the Romans went that far. While I am not an expert in the cultures of antiquity, I have done enough study and research to conclude that claims that the sexual practices of people are not influenced by culture and societal norms is poppycock.

Regarding pedophilia in the past, (not just Rome) How are you defining it? because it used to be commonplace in many societies for men in their twenties (or sometimes older) to marry a girl who was a young as 13 or 14. The whole 18 as an age of majority concept is a recent development. And from what I can tell (and what my classics prof seems to believe), the Classical Greece man/ boy thing isn't over boys who are pre-pubescent, but involves young men (Ie mid to late teens), however I'm not saying that the whole pre-pubescent thing never occurred, as anything is possible.

And IIRC the romans themselves were quite obsessed with male genitals, and carved that into walls etc.

I agree with your last sentence as well, for instance the acceptance of homosexuality (as well as orgies and other such behavior) died out as Christianity gained popularity.

Its their choice, who the hell are we to tell them who to love?

Quoted: Here is a question that I'd like answered; Lets say that gays are correct, there is a "gene" that makes them the way they are, it is not a "choice". Because they will be able to run genetic testing on unborn babies (to see if they're prone to any diseases etc.), and they find this "gay gene". And the woman wants to abort.. do you think they would be livid from this? Think they'll try to get laws passed that ban the abortion based on homosexuality? Its a long shot/extreme case, but I haven't really ever gotten a straight answer from anyone.

Here is your straight answer.  Since Abortion is murder, abortion based on homosexuality is murder and should be banned.  There are few if any health conditions which warrant aborting your fetus.  People make decisions based on percieved quality of life instead of having medical evidence to support such a decision.
Abortion has always been legal for medical reasons.  Abortion on demand has been new since Roe v Wade.  
There is no gay gene.  It has been proven long ago that gayness is not a disease.  You can't "catch gay".   The strongest evidence points to a hormone imbalance during the development of the fetus.  

Quoted: ...Abortion on demand has been new since Roe v Wade.

Not to 'jack the thread but that isn't quite true.  Availability of abortion on demand was a patchwork before Roe v. Wade.  In some states it was as available as it is today.

1. HIV is statisticly staggering in gays compared to hetrosexuals 2. Pedophiles and serial killers are statisticly way over reperesented by homosexuals 3. Homosexuals do not procreate

Gays adopt. How is this bad for society?

I find it odd that conservatives dont like abortion and suggest one of the alternatives is to give the child up for adoption. However when a gay couple tries to adopt that child its some how bad and the conservatives who dont want them to adopt dont have any adopited children themselves. Can someone explane this to me and not sound hypocritical?

Quoted: Regarding pedophilia in the past, (not just Rome) How are you defining it? because it used to be commonplace in many societies for men in their twenties (or sometimes older) to marry a girl who was a young as 13 or 14. The whole 18 as an age of majority concept is a recent development. And from what I can tell (and what my classics prof seems to believe), the Classical Greece man/ boy thing isn't over boys who are pre-pubescent, but involves young men (Ie mid to late teens), however I'm not saying that the whole pre-pubescent thing never occurred, as anything is possible.

Actually, pederasty would be a better description of what I was thinking of, but you illustrate my point nicely.

Not that long ago in human history nobody would bat an eye at a 30 something year old man taking a 14 year old as his wife and having sex with her. It happened all the time.

In our society today we do not allow that....and as a result a LOT less of it goes on.

Proving rather nicely the idea that culture and societal norms *DO* influence the behavior of individuals a great deal.

And IIRC the romans themselves were quite obsessed with male genitals, and carved that into walls etc.

...which again goes to demonstrate the point about culture and societal norms shaping the behavior of individuals.

While no society is ever able to abolish human behaviors they find distasteful 100%, the definition of a behavior as being distasteful or "wrong" itself is a powerful social dis-incentive that causes individuals to steer clear of it.

Never seen a thread like this before...I swear ARFCOM is way too concerned with the gays and their lifestyles.  I'm going to Dairy Queen and then to the gun range.



-MEI

Quoted: 1. HIV is statisticly staggering in gays compared to hetrosexuals 2. Pedophiles and serial killers are statisticly way over reperesented by homosexuals 3. Homosexuals do not procreate Gays adopt. How is this bad for society? I find it odd that conservatives dont like abortion and suggest one of the alternatives is to give the child up for adoption. When a gay couple tries to adopt that child its some how bad and the conservatives who dont want them to adopt dont have any adopited children themselves. Can someone explane this to me and not sound hypocritical?

Sure

There are always exceptions but by and large same sex couples are not going to be able to provide a stable loving household for a child

Sure There are always exceptions but by and large same sex couples are not going to be able to provide a stable loving household for a child

Would you mind proving that?

Quoted: Never seen a thread like this before...I swear ARFCOM is way too concerned with the gays and their lifestyles.  I'm going to Dairy Queen and then to the gun range.

Great choice for post 1911, MEI.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: snip I consistently scored in the 97th percentile for standardized testing and 99.8th percentile on the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale.  If you happen to have an IQ of 145 or more, do continue to pontificate. -  BG EDIT:  I wouldn't be caught dead with a Glock .40 Look at me! I be smarts and shit Hey, he questioned me so I answered.  I just don't appreciate anyone insinuating that I'd be a Glock .40 man. - BG

BG

1.  Nothing wrong with a Glock 40
2.  My advice is not to post stupid shit on the internet that says "hey look at me i'm special" because #1 you are probably lying, and #2 who gives a shit.



-MEI

The Canadian Psychological Association has ceased to be a scientific organization and instead, has become a political organization promoting politically correct thought.

In November 2003, the Association made the startling announcement that there is no heightened risk of problems from same-sex parenting, or an increased likelihood for children living in such partnerships to become gay themselves.

According to the Association, "studies have shown almost no difference in sexual preference or in psychosocial development for children of same-sex parents." On what basis did the Association reach such a conclusion? Certainly, it could not have looked at recent findings in social science journals to reach this conclusion. If the Association had troubled itself to look at the current literature, it would have, in all decency, been disturbed by their conclusions, and, with professional integrity, issued quite a different statement.

According to the American Journal of Diseases of Children and The Advocate, close to 60% of adolescent AIDS sufferers were infected by adult bisexual and homosexual men. Thousands of these American boys are now dead. The same is probably true for other western countries like Canada, where many young runaway boys end up prostituting themselves for men.

Child development is fragile and a complicated matter. Several million years of heterosexuality explain the present human condition. A family headed by two men or two women is a new phenomenon, which entails great uncertainty.

It is bizarre, therefore, that experts and politicians often express concerns about the emotional impact of single-parent families on children, as indicated by the Statistics Canada National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth, October, 1996, while, on the other hand, they appear to be absolutely indifferent to the plight of children who grow up in same-sex partnership arrangements. Public policy makers should be concerned - deeply concerned.

Same-sex Parenting

According to the recent quantitative analysis on same-sex parenting by Lerner and Nagai, 49 American studies, which advocate homosexual parenting, have fatal flaws, rendering them statistically invalid (non-representative samples, imprecise hypotheses, confused political objectives, etc.). The researchers concluded that the studies repeatedly referred to by American, European and Canadian homosexual lobbies should not be used to influence the politics of their respective governments. This conclusion was also expressed by Professor Stephen L. Nock, Professor of Sociology, University of Virginia, who, in an affidavit submitted by the federal Attorney General in the Ontario Court of Appeal same-sex marriage case, evaluated statistics on same-sex parenting and concluded that the studies were flawed in either design or execution, which rendered them totally invalid.

According to a paper published by Professor Bradley P. Hayton, there are serious concerns about the effects of a homosexual lifestyle on children.

Professor Hayton states:

Homosexuals... model a poor view of marriage to children. They are taught by example and belief that marital relationships are transitory and most sexual in nature. Sexual relationships are primarily for pleasure rather than procreation. And they are taught that monogamy in a marriage is not the norm [and] should be discouraged if one wants a good 'marital' relationship.

The reason that same-sex parenting is detrimental to the well being of children is due to several factors:

1. Higher Incidence of Violence

There is a higher rate of violence in lesbian and homosexual relationships than in married, heterosexual relationships. A study in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence examined conflict and violence in lesbian relationships. The researchers found that 90% of the lesbians surveyed had been recipients of one or more acts of verbal aggression from their intimate partners during the year prior to this study, with 31% reporting one or more incidents of physical abuse. This is verified in a number of other studies. According to the homosexual authors of Men Who Beat The Men Who Love Them, domestic violence affects half of all gay couples. The vast majority of violent crimes against homosexuals are committed by homosexuals, and are not considered hate crimes. According to the leading US gay magazine The Advocate, 75% of its readers admit engaging in violent sex, 20% in sadistic sex and 55% are using painful objects.

2. Higher Incidence of Mental Health Problems

There is a higher incidence of mental health problems among homosexuals and lesbians. These include problems of substance abuse, as well as a greater risk for suicide. Homophobia is often blamed for the high suicide rate of young gays but this cause is only one among many, such as prostitution, broken families, sexual assault at a young age, disappointments in love affairs, and premature homosexual labeling.

3. Reduced Life Expectancy

Male homosexuals have a significantly reduced life expectancy. A study published in the International Journal of Epidemiology on the mortality rates of homosexuals stated as follows:

In a major Canadian center, life expectancy at age twenty for gay and bisexual men is eight to twenty years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged twenty years will not reach their sixty-fifth birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban center are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871.

4. Higher Incidence of Same-sex Orientation

Same-sex parents are inclined to influence their children's sexual orientation. A study published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, stated as follows:

...there are developmentally important, statistically significant differences between children reared by homosexual parents compared to heterosexual parents. For example, children raised by homosexuals were found to have greater parental encouragement for cross-gender behaviour [and] greater amounts of cross-dressing and cross-gender play/role behaviour.

5. Greater Risk of Sexual Involvement with Parents

According to a study published in Adolescence, 29% of the adult children of homosexual parents have been specifically subjected to sexual molestation as a child by a homosexual parent, compared to only 0.6 percent of adult children of heterosexual parents.

These findings were confirmed in a study published in the American Sociological Review.

6. Greater Risk of Social or Psychological Problems

The vast majority of the American studies widely used by homosexual activists claim that same-sex parenting is as valid as opposite-sex parenting. However, as mentioned previously, these earlier studies have been found to be seriously flawed. According to a study there were noticeable problems with children raised by same-sex parents in regard to discipline expectations, and general parent-child relationships. Other studies have also reported that boys raised by homosexual mothers may have a lower self-image, regarding masculinity.

A study of children of lesbians revealed many problems, including a "defensiveness" on the part of the children of lesbian couples she studied, a pattern of denial - especially deep in the youngest child in the lesbian couples, hostility from older boys, especially directed at the mother's lesbian lover, the children expressed concern for the welfare of siblings, the children had concerns about their own sexuality, the children had concerns about the integrity of their family, concerns about their mother's homosexual activities, there was evidence that one of the lesbian mothers expressly encouraged her daughters to make lesbian sexual choices, and that the children were forced to conceal one parent's secret sexual behaviours from the other parent.

All these problems have led to the children raised by same-sex parents becoming dysfunctional and disadvantaged.

7. Higher Incidence of Child Molestation

Proportionately, homosexual men are more inclined to child molestation than heterosexual men.

According to American studies, the evidence indicates that homosexual men molest boys and teenagers at rates completely disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls. A study shows that the homosexual child molester accounts for approximately 7 times more victims than the heterosexual molester. When it comes to child sex abuse, men are almost always the perpetrator. Less than 3% of the population is homosexual, yet one-third of the sex abuse cases are committed again boys.

Although pedophilia is condemned by most homosexuals, it remains condoned by many leading gay and lesbian North American activists who lobby for the lowering of the age of consent for sex. Early sex is said to be healthy for boys claims the self-proclaimed homosexual association NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association). Intergenerational sex (an often used euphemism for pederasty) is an undeniable fixture of gay literature, gay films, gay travel and gay prostitution. In the 70's, The Advocate repeatedly ran full page adds for a "penetrable boy doll" and in the 90's, 21% of its readers admitted having been molested before the age of 15.

Conclusion

What is behind the statement by the Canadian Psychological Association? Are its members just plain mad? Clearly, its statement on same-sex parenting has a lot to do with politics and pressure from homosexual activists. Unfortunately, the Association¡¦s conclusions have almost nothing to do with genuine social science research. The Canadian Psychological Association should be embarrassed and ashamed.
____________________________________________________________________________

1. "AIDS Amongst Adolescent," America's Journal of Diseases of Children, October 1990; "America's Worst Kept Secret: Aids is devastating the Nation's Children and Gay Kids are dying by the Thousands," The Advocate, March 4 1992, at 40-41
2. R. Lerner and A. Nagai, "No Basis: what the studies don't tell us on same sex parenting," (Marriage and Law Project, Ethics and Public Policy Center, [Washington], 2001), http://marriagelaw.cua.edu.
3. Hayton, Bradley P., "To Marry or Not: The Legalization of Marriage and Adoption of Homosexual Couples," (Newport Beach: The Pacific Policy Institutes, 1993), p.9
4. Lockhart, Lettie L. at al., "Letting out the Secret: Violence in Lesbian Relationships," Journal of Interpersonal Violence 9 (1994): 469-492
5. Lie Gwat Yong and Gentlewarrier, Sabrina, "Intimate Violence in Lesbian Relationships: Discussion of Survey Findings and Practice Implications," Journal of Social Service Research 15 (1991): 41-59; Island, D. and Letellier, P., Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence, (New York: Haworth Press, 1991), p.14
6. Insults, Hitting, Shouting, Fear; Add printed in Gay City News, New York, Jan. 31 2003, Anti Violence Project, New York 24 Hour Hotline 212-714-1141
7. Lever, Janet, "The 1994 Advocate Survey of Sexuality and Relationships: The Men Sexual Revelations," The Advocate, Aug. 23 1994 at 21
8. Bradford, J. et al., "National Lesbian Health Care Survey: Implications for Mental Health Care," Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 62 (1994): 239, cited in Health Implications Associated with Homosexuality, p.81
9. Hall, Joanne, "Lesbians Recovering from Alcoholic Problems: An Ethnographic Study of Health Care Expectations," Nursing Research 43 (1994): 238-244
10. Herrell R. et al., "A Co-twin Study in Adult Men," Archives of General Psychiatry 56 (1999): 867-874; Fergusson, D. et al., "Is Sexual Orientation Related to Mental Health Problems and Suicidality in Young People?" Archives of General Psychiatry 56 (October 1999)
11. G. Remafedi, "Sexual Orientation and Youth Suicide," Journal of American Medical Association, Vol. 282, No 13, (Oct. 6, 1999): 1291
12. Hogg, Robert S. et al., "Modeling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men," International Journal of Epidemiology 26 (1997): 657
13. Green, Richard et al., "Lesbian Mothers and Their Children: A Comparison with Solo Parent Heterosexual Mothers and Their Children," Archives of Sexual Behaviour 15 (1986): 167-184; Tasker and Golombok. S., Adults Raised as Children in Lesbian Families, p.213; Bailey, J.M. et al., Sexual Orientation of Adult Sons of Gay Fathers, position.127, 128; Tasker and Golombok S., Do Parents Influence the Sexual Orientation? p.7
14. Cameron, Paul Dr. and Cameron, Kirk Dr., "Homosexual Parents," Adolescence 31 (1996): 772; Wyers, Norman L., "Homosexuality in the Family: Lesbian and Gay Spouses," Social Work 32 (1987): 144
15. Stacey, Judith and Biblarz, Timothy J., "(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter," American Sociological Review 66 (2001): 174, 179
16. Hayton, Bradley P. Dr., (supra.); Stacey, Judith and Biblarz, Timothy J, (supra.)
17. Belcastro, Philip A. et al, "A Review of Data Based Studies Addressing the Affects of Homosexual Parenting on Children's Sexual and Social Functioning," (1993) 20 Journal Divorce and Remarriage 105; Nick, Lowell Steven, Professor of Sociology, University of Virginia, in an affidavit submitted in evidence by the Attorney General of Canada in the same-sex marriage challenge, Halpern v. Canada (Attorney General) et al, (2002), O.R. (3d) (S.C.J.,Div.Crt.); Rekers, George and Kilgus, Mark, "Studies of Homosexual Parenting: A Critical Review," Regent University Law Review Vol. 14:343;
http://www.regent.edu/acad/schlaw/lawreview/articles/14_2Rek...
"No Basis: What the studies don't tell us on same sex parenting, Marriage and Law," Project, Ethics and Public Policy Center, [Washington], 2001), http://marriagelaw.cua.edu;
David Cramer, "Gay Parents and Their Children: A Review of Research and Practical Implications," Journal of Counseling and Development 64 (April 1986): 506
18. Ghazala Afzal Javaid, "The Children of Homosexual and Heterosexual Single Mothers," 23 Child Psychiatry & Human Dev. 243, (1993).
19. ibid. at 236-38 (discussing studies).
20. Karen Gail Lewis, "Children of Lesbians: Their Point of View," 25, SOC WORK 198, 202-03 (1980)
21. ibid. at 201-02
22. ibid. at 199
23. ibid.
24. ibid. at 199-200
25. ibid. at 200
26. ibid. at 200, 202
27. ibid. at 200
28. ibid. at 201
29. Baldwin, Steve, "Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement," http://www.regent.edu/acad/schlaw/lawreview/articles/14_2Bal...
30. 150 homosexual victims for 20 heterosexual victims per molester, Gene Abel et al., "Self-reported Sex Crimes of Non incarcerated Paraphiliacs", 2 J. Interpersonnal Violence 3,5-25(1987)
31. The Alyson Almanac: The Fact Book Of The Gay and Lesbian Community (23rd edition); Spartagus international Gay Guide (Bruno Gmunder ed.,2001)
32. Lever, Janet, "The 1994 Advocate Survey of Sexuality and Relationships: The Men Sexual Revelations," The Advocate, Aug 23 1994

Please lock this never ending no-win, I'm right, you're not, bullshit thread already.

Quoted: Quoted: Never seen a thread like this before...I swear ARFCOM is way too concerned with the gays and their lifestyles.  I'm going to Dairy Queen and then to the gun range. Great choice for post 1911, MEI.

Queen

Nice catch Cali_Kid.



-MEI

Quoted: Would you mind proving that?

When you examine the behavior of homosexual males in aggregate, you don't exactly see a model of stability and decent homelife. From a statistical standpoint heterosexual married couples in aggregate do a better job of providing a stable homelife.

This does not mean there are no unfit homosexual parents or that heterosexual parents are universally fit.

It is just a recognition of trends that seem to exist within people who make those choices.

Quoted: Quoted: I would certainly hope that we have progressed beyond the mere purpose of "passing on genes."  In this day and age, people can choose to reproduce or choose to avoid it.  Being gay, sterile, or choosing to not reproduce does not mean anyone is living a meaningless life. Passing on genes is the main purpose, or do you propose another alternative way to get around mortality? Yes, you can choose not to have kids. But that also means you chose a meaningless existence because you might as well not have existed if you have no relatives to carry forward.

That is absolutely untrue, and you should know that very well. Since you say:

Actually, you are wrong again! They could've simply followed God's teaching and afterwards Jesus, and they would've saved lots of time, effort, and money instead of waiting for me.

I don't think it's a tremendous leap to assume you're a Christian, and given your views you seem a rather devout one at that. At least when it comes to the homo-hating parts of the Bible. Maybe not the "love your neighbor as yourself" parts. And I'm guessing you cut the hair at the sides of your head. Anyway, the point is, if childless people, as you say, "[choose] a meaningless existence" and "might as well have not existed," then where does that leave poor, childless Jesus?

Did Jesus live a meaningless existence because he didn't have children?

I imagine I know your answer already; you're probably going to say he was a special case. Well, consider some others. Isaac Newton. Father of Calculus (well, technically, him and Leibniz arrived at it independently at about the same time and Leibniz published first). Father of classic mechanics. Father of no children. Did he, today hailed as one of, if not the greatest genius yet to have lived, he who established so many of the laws of physics still used today, did he live a meaningless life? What of Albert Einstein and Nikola Tesla (who developed alternating current)? Did they all live meaningless lives, though their names, inventions, and theories will likely live on for centuries?

Quoted: Quoted: We live in a time when not reproducing may actually have more positive effects than negative.  Our purpose has extended past individual reproduction and into the realm of betterment of community/nation.  If a 14 year old addict pops out another useless slug in society, she has clearly accomplished more than a childless man who cured a disease, in your view.  Usefulness to society far outweights the importance of individual reproduction. To claim otherwise puts one on the same level as the squirrel outside my window. Yeah, but that useless slug might grow up into a man that cures another disease. The gay is at the end of the line, no more future potential left. What if we never get the cure for cancer because some gay freak didn't sire the child who would've come up with the cure?

What if he grows up to be another never-hold-a-job welfare leech? What if he grows up to be a heroin dealer? What if he grows up to be a child rapist, or a murderer, or a future socialist dicator under which your children will suffer? Or, apparently far worse in your view, what if he grows up to be (OH TEH NOES) gay?

If if were a fish then we'd all have a dish.

And homosexuals aren't necessarily "at the end of the line." Many have married and had children in order to maintain an illusion to avoid discrimination. Some are simply bisexual.

I don't feel that I am in the wrong. That's your mistake, you are working on "feel". Let me set you straight. You ARE WRONG, skip the feelings part and grow a pair.

But on the other hand, "skipping feelings" and taking into account my "pair," I say you are wrong. Homosexuals are human beings as you and I and, on average, contribute exactly the same to society as other human beings. But then, I guess if a millenia-old book about some sky-god and son is where you get all your facts, you can't help but be misinformed.

And here resides your problem.  This argument is far beyond a "quick glance at some science books."  It is an interdisciplinary matter that crosses a variety of fields, from anthropology to psychology to history to sociology to religion.  I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer, nor do I profess to be a wealth of knowledge about anything in particular.  However, my life has revolved around nothing but academic study for years and my career has come full circle back into the realm of education.  My new purpose is to get young people to think critically about various subjects.  Clearly, sir, you do not have such capacity. Bwa ha ha ha! You're an academic? You must be the only one "pruhfeshunal" enough to handle a Glock Fohtee, too! May I make a suggestion? Instead of trying to get young people to think critically, try getting them to see the obvious instead. Gays are deviants and the male anatomy is designed (by God or natural selection) to work with the female anatomy.

Really? It's obvious that "gays are deviants?" Doesn't seem so obvious to me. Proof, please?

As far as genitalia go, well, consider other animals. Take the bonobo chimpanzee (Pan paniscus). Bonobos engage in recreational sexual activity, as do humans. The most common form of this is female-female genital contact, similar to the human sexual activity known as "tribadism" or "bumping clams." Males will also engage in genital contact, sometimes known as "penis fencing" (an activity that in humans is sometimes known as "frot").

Anal sex occurs between male bison. Some male penguin couples mate for life. Homosexual behavior of one kind or another has been observed in around 1,500 species of animals and is relatively well-documentd in about 500 species. Some have theorized that in certain species, such as dolphins, it may be an evolutionary advantage to reduce intraspecies aggression by causing bonding. Certainly, in most cases homosexuality is not the majority or plurality of sexual behavior (though some exceptions, such as the aforementioned bonobo chimpanzee), but it most certainly does exist.

Unnatural, eh?

Quoted: Here is a question that I'd like answered; Lets say that gays are correct, there is a "gene" that makes them the way they are, it is not a "choice". Because they will be able to run genetic testing on unborn babies (to see if they're prone to any diseases etc.), and they find this "gay gene". And the woman wants to abort.. do you think they would be livid from this? Think they'll try to get laws passed that ban the abortion based on homosexuality? Its a long shot/extreme case, but I haven't really ever gotten a straight answer from anyone.

THIS IS GREAT!!!! I love it when you can shut a liberal up with their own hipocracy!!!

I'll bet a paycheck that the libs would push a bill saying this if it was "possible".

By the way, it's not a gene, it's a choice.

And like the OP said.....Do what you want, don't try and force me to accept it however.  Your choice is your choice....not mine.

If there is one area of the debate over homosexuality that seems to make pro-family groups squeamish and homosexuals indignant, it is the issue of molestation. Do homosexuals pose a direct danger to children?

It is probably safe to say that, for most of this century most Americans intuitively saw homosexuals as a threat to their children. After all, homosexuality was by definition a sexual perversion, and where there was one perversion (homosexuality) there would likely be another (molestation).

But by the mid-1990s homosexual activists had succeeded in hijacking the public debate on sexual orientation issues, and a new creed had replaced the old: homosexuals posed no danger to children.

Is this true? Are children safe in the presence of homosexuals, or are they in danger of sexual abuse that may, in fact, lead them into the homosexual lifestyle?


Homosexuality and pedophila

It should be said from the outset that a homosexual orientation does not automatically lead to pedophilia, and most homosexuals do not abuse children. Moreover, most homosexual activist groups publicly denounce pedophilia.

But that is not the end of the story. Psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover says in his book Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth that there is a “substantial, influential, and growing segment of the homosexual community that neither hides nor condemns pedophilia.”

One reason for this may be that the homosexual movement is based on the rather simple ethic of individual sexual freedom. In the activist magazine Gayme, writer Bill Andriette said, “The only standard for moral sex…is that it be freely and equally consented to by the persons involved.”

From that sexual ethic to one which includes intergenerational sex is but a short leap. Andriette said, “There is no question that blacks, whites, women, men, children, and adolescents can consent to sex …. If we want really to respect the authenticity of individuals we have to let people take risks, explore different values, and recognize that we will be challenged and threatened by what they discover.” (Emphasis added.)

This homosexual perspective was in full view nearly three decades ago, with the release of the 1972 Gay Rights Platform. Activists in Chicago, representing the fledgling homosexual movement, demanded the “[r]epeal of all state laws prohibiting private sexual acts involving consenting persons,” and the “[r]epeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent.”

Such homosexuals see society’s disapproval of adult-child sex as the transgression, rather than the adult-child sex itself. In The Age Taboo: Gay Male Sexuality, Power and Consent, lesbian author Pat Califia said, “Boy lovers and the lesbians who have young lovers…are not child molesters. The child abusers are priests, teachers, therapists, cops and parents who force their staid morality onto the young people in their custody.”

Moreover, for many homosexuals, this same-sex attraction to minors may stem from their own sexual experiences. Research shows that very often homosexuals had their own initial same-sex encounter with an adult while children. (See AFA Journal, May 1999.)

Writing in The Advocate, a magazine for homosexuals, Carl Maves agreed. “How many gay men, I wonder, would have missed out on a valuable, liberating experience – one that initiated them into their sexuality – if it weren’t for so-called molestation?” he said.

Perhaps the most notorious group advocating adult-child sex is the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). An unashamedly pedophile organization, NAMBLA wants society to appreciate, rather than deplore, intergen-erational sex, and to abolish laws banning sex between adults and minors.

While most homosexual activist groups publicly denounce NAMBLA and its agenda, the pedophile group is still allowed to march in “gay” pride parades in New York, San Francisco and Boston under its own NAMBLA banner.

Furthermore, some suggest that public disavowal of NAMBLA by homosexual groups is a smokescreen. David Thorstad, a founding member of NAMBLA and former president of New York’s Gay Activists Alliance, says homosexual activists have supressed pedophilia in order “to sanitize the image of homosexuality to facilitate its entrance into the social mainstream.”

Do homosexuals molest children?

Such talk of molestation enrages homosexual activists, eliciting charges that pro-family groups paint the entire homosexual community with too broad a brush. They argue that such pro-pedophile views are simply the perspective of fringe groups.

Homosexuals additionally charge that most molestation cases involve heterosexuals. One frequently-cited study, Jenny, Roesler and Poyer, 1994, published in Pediatrics, supposedly demonstrated that 98% of men who abused children self-identified as heterosexual.

But in a review of the Jenny study, Dr. Paul Cameron of Family Research Institute said the researchers merely examined hospital charts: “[N]either the victims, perpetrators, nor even those who prepared the charts were interviewed” to discover their sexual orientation.

In fact, said Cameron, in the only study (Erickson, Walbek, and Seely, 1988) in which perpetrators were asked to declare their sexual orientation, almost the opposite was found to be true: 86% of child molesters identified themselves as homosexual or bisexual.

If heterosexuals make up the preponderance of child molesters in raw numbers, it is not surprising. Heterosexuals, after all, make up more than 97% of the population.

A more accurate assessment, however, would compare ratios of population size to incidences of involvement in pedophilia. In this regard, according to the National Association on Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), in proportion to their numbers, homosexual men are more likely to engage in sex with a minor.

Citing a study (Freund and Watson, 1992) which was reported in the Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, NARTH found that homosexual males were “three times more likely than straight men to engage in adult-child sexual relations.”
Cameron’s own research shows even higher rates of homosexual molestation. In the Nebraska Medical Journal Cameron said that when data from both genders are combined, homosexuals are at least 8-12 times more likely to molest children than are heterosexuals.

In the face of such overwhelming evidence, homosexual activists resort to a circular argument: since true homosexuals only desire sex with another adult, then pedophiles cannot be homosexual. In effect, activists have simply defined homosexual molestation of children out of existence.

But the words of homosexuals themselves betray them. Writing in the homosexual magazine Out, columnist Dan Savage mentioned that he lives near a park where some local high school soccer teams practice. “Some of the boys are really something else, and during practice they play shirts and skins. Any gay man who tells you he can walk by a boy’s soccer team without looking is a liar…,” Savage said.

Homosexual access to children

Such evidence has chilling public policy implications. The momentous changes in Americans’ attitudes towards sexual orientation are giving homosexuals unprecedented access to the nation’s children.

Parents, for example, were mortified when New York City’s WNBC-TV uncovered the existence of pedophiles within the public school system. According to an article by John Leo in U.S. News & World Report, the City Board of Education had known about at least one pedophile – teacher Peter Melzer – since 1984, but did nothing about it.

Melzer, as it turned out, is on the NAMBLA steering committee and the editorial board of the organization’s periodical, the NAMBLA Bulletin. In the past, the Bulletin has recommended the best tactics to its pedophile readers for seducing children into sexual encounters.

Leo said, “Child molesters don’t just hang around playgrounds. They apply for jobs at schools, camps, the Boy Scouts, Big Brothers, YMCAs. ‘Boy lovers’ love to work where the boys are.”

When pedophiles strike, the results are often disastrous. A recent review (Holmes and Slap, 1998) of the research on the molestation of boys, published in the prestigious Journal of the American Medical Association showed that adolescent boys who were abused by men were up to seven times more likely to identify themselves as homosexual or bisexual.

Furthermore, research also shows a strong link between the sexual abuse of a child and that child’s later pedophilia as an adult. At the Connecticut Correctional Institution, for example, clinical psychologist A. Nicholas Groth, director of the sex offender program, said 85% of the pedophiles were themselves sexually assaulted as youths.

This casts certain parts of the homosexual agenda in a more sinister light – such as the drive to lower the legal age of sexual consent and to expunge sodomy laws from the books. It might also cause parents to wonder why homosexual activists are tireless in their efforts to use the courts as a crowbar to pry open the doors of the Boy Scouts to homosexual troop leaders.

Again, it would be unfair to imply that all – or even most – homosexuals are a threat to children. Nevertheless, there are some elements of the homosexual movement which openly endorse pedophilia. And opening the social “doors” to all homosexual groups will allow pedophile groups in as well.

Future shame

What will research show in ten years? Twenty years? Will we discover that we have handed over an entire generation, only to discover that homosexuality in this nation has doubled or tripled?

If it is true, as evidence suggests, that children can be recruited into the homosexual lifestyle, what will history say about a generation of adults that swallowed – hook, line and sinker – the lies fabricated by the very ones who abused their children?

Quoted: When you examine the behavior of homosexual males in aggregate, you don't exactly see a model of stability and decent homelife. From a statistical standpoint heterosexual married couples in aggregate do a better job of providing a stable homelife.

Oh really. Actually, most gays have more disposable income than your average heterosexual..if they don't have stable productive lives, how did they get all of this income? Don't mistake the gays you see in the media as the norm.

Quoted: Quoted: 1. HIV is statisticly staggering in gays compared to hetrosexuals Some men consciously seek the virus, openly declaring themselves bug chasers, he says, while many more are just as actively seeking HIV but are in denial and wouldn't call themselves bug chasers. Cabaj estimates that at least twenty-five percent of all newly infected gay men fall into that category. With about 40,000 new infections in the United States per year, according to government reports, that would mean around 10,000 each year are attributable to that more liberal definition of bug chasing. Bug Chasers

Ok, then this proves that they are bad for society....they activly seek a dangerous disease that they can give to others.

case closed

Quoted: Quoted: Here is a question that I'd like answered; Lets say that gays are correct, there is a "gene" that makes them the way they are, it is not a "choice". Because they will be able to run genetic testing on unborn babies (to see if they're prone to any diseases etc.), and they find this "gay gene". And the woman wants to abort.. do you think they would be livid from this? Think they'll try to get laws passed that ban the abortion based on homosexuality? Its a long shot/extreme case, but I haven't really ever gotten a straight answer from anyone. THIS IS GREAT!!!! I love it when you can shut a liberal up with their own hipocracy!!! I'll bet a paycheck that the libs would push a bill saying this if it was "possible". By the way, it's not a gene, it's a choice. And like the OP said.....Do what you want, don't try and force me to accept it however.  Your choice is your choice....not mine.

No, they shouldn't be allowed to abort based on that gene.

No ones forcing anyone to accept anything just because they say they shouldn't be forced to live in the closet. If you guys are uncomfortable even hearing about gays, you need to examine yourselves for your own biases, not criticize the gay community.

Quoted: Oh really. Actually, most gays have more disposable income than your average heterosexual..

Which has little bearing on the homelife of potential children.

if they don't have stable productive lives, how did they get all of this income? Don't mistake the gays you see in the media as the norm.

Britney Spears has more disposable income than most of this board put together. Does that mean she is a stable and productive person who provides a great home for her kids?

Risky personal behaviors like substance abuse and risky sexual practices have higher rates among homosexuals (males especially) than they do among heterosexuals.

This does not mean that all homosexuals would be bad parents or that heterosexual parents are universally good. (as Ms. Spears demonstrates)

It simply shows a correlation between one choice and another. If we were to compare the diet of the average smoker to the average non-smoker, for instance, we would probably find a correlation between smoking and poor dietary choices. While we could find smokers who have healthy diets and non-smokers who have diets that would make a pig puke, the correlation would still be there.

Correlation is not causation, but it is also not something to be brushed aside as irrelevant either.

Quoted: Quoted: 1. HIV is statisticly staggering in gays compared to hetrosexuals Some men consciously seek the virus, openly declaring themselves bug chasers, he says, while many more are just as actively seeking HIV but are in denial and wouldn't call themselves bug chasers. Cabaj estimates that at least twenty-five percent of all newly infected gay men fall into that category. With about 40,000 new infections in the United States per year, according to government reports, that would mean around 10,000 each year are attributable to that more liberal definition of bug chasing. Bug Chasers

This is by far some of the most insane shit I've ever read. 'Bug Chasers' WHAT THE HOLY FUCK!!!
According to the stats posted, 25% of the homo society is certifiably insane, yeah that shit right there goes a long way toward making me feel more tolerant. (yeah right)

I'm dying to hear what our resident practicing homosexuals have to say about that??? Convince me how this shit is normal....

JW777,
winner!

We are not talking about individuals but  the norms of a group

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 1. HIV is statisticly staggering in gays compared to hetrosexuals Some men consciously seek the virus, openly declaring themselves bug chasers, he says, while many more are just as actively seeking HIV but are in denial and wouldn't call themselves bug chasers. Cabaj estimates that at least twenty-five percent of all newly infected gay men fall into that category. With about 40,000 new infections in the United States per year, according to government reports, that would mean around 10,000 each year are attributable to that more liberal definition of bug chasing. Bug Chasers This is by far some of the most insane shit I've ever read. 'Bug Chasers' WHAT THE HOLY FUCK!!! According to the stats posted, 25% of the homo society is certifiably insane, yeah that shit right there goes a long way toward making me feel more tolerant. (yeah right) I'm dying to hear what our resident practicing homosexuals have to say about that??? Convince me how this shit is normal....

Your extrapolation of the estimate given on infection is not correct. It said 25% of new infections, not of all gays.

Quoted: This poll is absurd.  The existence of homosexuality in a fraction of the human population is as old as history, and it also exists in many other species.  It has nothing to do with personal choices. They're queer, they're here, they're part of life and that is that.

+1




To th original poster, your biases are event and clear. So be it, you are entitled to your opinion. But save your breathe and stop trying to tell me I or anyone else is WRONG for choosing to think differently.

Quoted: Quoted: This poll is absurd.  The existence of homosexuality in a fraction of the human population is as old as history, and it also exists in many other species.  It has nothing to do with personal choices. They're queer, they're here, they're part of life and that is that. +1 To th original poster, your biases are event and clear. So be it, you are entitled to your opinion. But save your breathe and stop trying to tell me I or anyone else is WRONG for choosing to think differently.

I am not telling you how to think, I am trying to have a discussion

Quoted: This is by far some of the most insane shit I've ever read. 'Bug Chasers' WHAT THE HOLY FUCK!!!

It is indeed nuts.

According to the stats posted, 25% of the homo society is certifiably insane, yeah that shit right there goes a long way toward making me feel more tolerant. (yeah right)

Don't take it beyond what it is.

I doubt bug chasers make up more than a single digit percentage of homosexuals in general, and even at that the very low end of the single digits. If I remember what I have read on the topic correctly the bug chasers are almost all male homosexuals who are prone to the riskiest sort of sexual practices anyway.

Quoted: ...I am not telling you how to think, I am trying to have a discussion

I have to congratulate you on nursing this topic to 10 pages without having it degrade to a hopeless flame war.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 1. HIV is statisticly staggering in gays compared to hetrosexuals Some men consciously seek the virus, openly declaring themselves bug chasers, he says, while many more are just as actively seeking HIV but are in denial and wouldn't call themselves bug chasers. Cabaj estimates that at least twenty-five percent of all newly infected gay men fall into that category. With about 40,000 new infections in the United States per year, according to government reports, that would mean around 10,000 each year are attributable to that more liberal definition of bug chasing. Bug Chasers This is by far some of the most insane shit I've ever read. 'Bug Chasers' WHAT THE HOLY FUCK!!! According to the stats posted, 25% of the homo society is certifiably insane, yeah that shit right there goes a long way toward making me feel more tolerant. (yeah right) I'm dying to hear what our resident practicing homosexuals have to say about that??? Convince me how this shit is normal.... Your extrapolation of the estimate given on infection is not correct. It said 25% of new infections, not of all gays.

Thank you for correcting my interpritation, so it's only 25% of 'NEW' gays that are bug chasers??? If one in four is actively looking to be infected  that is 25% That is how I read it.

I understand it is not 25% of the gay population as a whole, but how do you distinguish a 'new' bug chasing gay versus a retro regular run of mill gay???

I'm not trolling, I'm really trying to wrap my brain around this.....

Quoted: *SNIP* Thank you for correcting my interpritation, so it's only 25% of 'NEW' gays that are bug chasers??? If one in four is actively looking to be infected  that is 25% That is how I read it. I understand it is not 25% of the gay population as a whole, but how do you distinguish a 'new' bug chasing gay versus a retro regular run of mill gay??? I'm not trolling, I'm really trying to wrap my brain around this.....

What that person is saying is that 25% of all new HIV infections are men who want to get it. It has no bearing on past infections. I'm not sure what percent of gays get infected so it would be hard to find what percent of the whole gay population is actually doing this.
For example (I'm making this number up) if 20% of the entire gay population was infected, and 25% of those were (had been) actively seeking the virus, then only 5% of the total pop would be  "bug chasing".
But all of these numbers (except reported infections) are estimates and no one knows or could know for sure what the exact numbers are, and it doesn;t take into account those who have HIV but don't know it.

Quoted: You said "They could've simply followed God's teaching and afterwards Jesus..."  The Old Testament is generally thought to be God's word while the New Testament is based on the teachings of Jesus.  (The Old Covenant vs. New Covenant argument)  I did not assume that you were Jewish.  I did, however, assume that you were just another Christian that hasn't read the Bible at all.

Then you need to re-read your response to my post and see how artfully you've constructed a trap for yourself! Apparently you need more change in your sarcasm meter: God, Jesus, and myself, hah! You should know better, Mr. Academic.

The passing of Civil Unions in CT does not reflect the actual political leaning of the state at all.  I would assume that you would acknowledge, being a gun owner, that legislation is not a very good indicator of what the majority truly desires in all cases.  Connecticut is certainly not what I would call a Gay haven and the only "Gay bar" that I know of isn't officially a "Gay bar" any more.  I don't frequent such establishments and it would take a little research to get a better understanding of the realities of the matter.

Actually, in cases of gay marriage, the ballot results show a clear pattern. Rejection. BTW, that's a nice stretch between gun control legislation and gay marriage legislation with respect to voting results. It's amazing what you can achieve when you "think critically" because CT supports "civil unions" but isn't a "gay haven". You know I am right that gay marriage has been struck down when placed before the electorate, that forced you to stretch and figuratively "hide behind momma's skirt" by appealing to the issue of gun ownership.

Let me bring up something that is actually directly related to guns and gays. I heard that some gays feel that they are so reviled in society that they have to own a gun to protect themselves. Amazing, eh? What are your thoughts on that? Aren't there queer vigilantes in cities that protect other queers from being oppressed by "da system" or "da man"?