David Koch

[Teahive]

Really? You want to play it that way?
Posting stories about gay people that 'prove' all these 'arguments'?

For every one you post, we should be able to find many more involving heterosexuals.

Absolutely! And since homosexuals make up approximately 2% of the population, there should be 49 times as many examples of heterosexual molestation as Homosexual molestation. I don't think you are going to like the results if and when you look into this.

That's assuming molestation is always an expression of sexuality. If bulls do it to assert dominance, the same should be considered in humans.

Also, based on population composition, there should be a roughly equal number of cases involving men and women. What do you make of that?

Homosexuality is always the "odd' or "queer" exception to the rule since homosexuals select themselves out of the gene pool. If you grant the gay pride claim that their behavior is genetic, then you're stuck with the fact that genetic trait can and should be left to die off. Forcing heterosexuals to adopt a position of acceptance toward homosexuality is obviously not working and in fact, this extremely progressive attitude is one of the reasons the Islamic world considers the US "The Great Satan". Accepting homosexuality is in fact placing all America at risk.

So what's wrong with "leaving it to die off" without forcing homosexuality underground?

I hope you're not suggesting giving in to terrorist demands.

[choff]

You guys should check out www.UKColumn.org vid's on the BBC and Jimmy Savile. Shocking stuff coming out of Britian these days on the very subject.

[Diogenes]

Really? You want to play it that way?
Posting stories about gay people that 'prove' all these 'arguments'?

For every one you post, we should be able to find many more involving heterosexuals.

Absolutely! And since homosexuals make up approximately 2% of the population, there should be 49 times as many examples of heterosexual molestation as Homosexual molestation. I don't think you are going to like the results if and when you look into this.

That's assuming molestation is always an expression of sexuality. If bulls do it to assert dominance, the same should be considered in humans.

What might be normal or useful behavior for an animal that has taken a different evolutionary path from humans, may not be normal or useful behavior for humans.

Also, based on population composition, there should be a roughly equal number of cases involving men and women. What do you make of that?

Bad extrapolation. The vast (and I do mean VAST) Majority of sexual aggressors are male. The differential between men and women in this regard is probably 90%/10% . (Even that might not be high enough.)

Men and women are decidedly not equal in terms of sexual aggression.

Homosexuality is always the "odd' or "queer" exception to the rule since homosexuals select themselves out of the gene pool. If you grant the gay pride claim that their behavior is genetic, then you're stuck with the fact that genetic trait can and should be left to die off. Forcing heterosexuals to adopt a position of acceptance toward homosexuality is obviously not working and in fact, this extremely progressive attitude is one of the reasons the Islamic world considers the US "The Great Satan". Accepting homosexuality is in fact placing all America at risk.

So what's wrong with "leaving it to die off" without forcing homosexuality underground?

It is not likely to die off. Evidence indicates that if it does have a genetic component, whatever that component is, it must be sufficiently valuable evolutionarily to carry on through generation after generation. One theory is that the gene is useless for males, but it makes females more fertile and productive, and the males descendants just get saddled with it as a result of it's evolutionary benefit on the Female side of the equation.


As for forcing it underground, that was never the intent throughout history. That was the unavoidable consequence of efforts to suppress the conduct. The argument is that if this behavior is allowed to flourish, it will result in dire consequences for those societies which indulge it. Had Modern Medicine not discovered HIV, and had Modern Media not spread the word throughout the world, many millions of homosexuals who are now alive, would have died. The Gay community is a vast repository of sexually transmitted diseases, which are only in modern times able to be kept under control. Prior to the development of anti-virals and anti-biotics, the behavior was itself a virtual death sentence.

We are in uncharted waters here. Modern techniques are changing the dynamics to make a once deadly behavior survivable. None of this addresses the psychological problems though. Hitler's group shows what happens when that aspect gets out of control.

Ludwig Lenz worked at the Sex Research Institute in Berlin, which was destroyed by Hitler's Brown Shirts in 1933 likely because its records, including 40,000 confessions from members of the Nazi Party, would have exposed the sexual perversions of Nazi leadership. Lenz said that "not ten percent of the men who, in 1933, took the fate of Germany into their hands, were sexually normal."

The Brown Shirts were Hitler's enforcers. According to Nazi historian Louis Snyder, Roehm recruited homosexuals into the SA because Roehm felt Germany needed "a proud and arrogant lot who could brawl, carouse, smash windows, kill and slaughter for the hell of it. Straights, in (Roehm's) eyes, were not as adept in such behavior as practicing homosexuals."

Historian H.R. Knickerbocker writes, "Roehm, as the head of 2,500,000 Storm Troops, had surrounded himself with a staff of perverts. His chiefs were almost without exception homosexuals. Indeed, unless a Storm Troop officer were homosexual, he had no chance of advancement."

[GIThruster]

That's assuming molestation is always an expression of sexuality. If bulls do it to assert dominance, the same should be considered in humans.

This is an argument based on the fallacy called an "appeal to nature" (which is not to be confused with the "naturalistic fallacy".) Basically you're saying that because we can explain the behavior of a steer or stallion with dominance, we can do the same with people. This is incorrect. People think, and in that ability to reason is a responsibility toward others to do no harm. Steers and stallions have no sense of such responsibility.

So what's wrong with "leaving it to die off" without forcing homosexuality underground?

I agree, but we are not leaving it to die off. Our culture actively persecutes anyone who does not offer consent for homosexuality. They're termed "homophobes" and ostracized. It is because of these special rights afforded a minority group based upon behavior--something we have never seen in human civilization before--that homosexuality is growing. The vector from molestation is causing it to flourish where with the social stigmas in the past it was restrained to small numbers. Furthermore, the vector from genetics is being thwarted because we award children to homosexual couples in the attempt to make them "normal" and this is completely wrong, both morally and ethically. Homosexual couples are not "married" and they cannot be parents. They absolutely cannot model normal sexual roles before their children and they cannot hope to nurture them to be happy, healthy individuals because from the start, what they have modeled is not happy nor healthy.

I hope you're not suggesting giving in to terrorist demands.

Not at all. I'm merely noting that our behavior towards the sexual behavior of a tiny fraction of society has placed us all at risk. It makes people hate us and if we hadn't swung the pendulum quite so far from social rejection, we would not have the hatred around the world that we have. There are far more than two options in how to cope with homosexuality socially. It's not punish or champion. Right now, we're actually championing people who are both abuse victims and abusers themselves.

[Teahive]

Also, based on population composition, there should be a roughly equal number of cases involving men and women. What do you make of that?

Bad extrapolation. The vast (and I do mean VAST) Majority of sexual aggressors are male. The differential between men and women in this regard is probably 90%/10% . (Even that might not be high enough.)

Men and women are decidedly not equal in terms of sexual aggression.

Exactly my point. Compare that to the homosexual/heterosexual imbalance. What do you make of it?

As for forcing it underground, that was never the intent throughout history. That was the unavoidable consequence of efforts to suppress the conduct. The argument is that if this behavior is allowed to flourish, it will result in dire consequences for those societies which indulge it.

And the implied argument is that efforts to suppress the conduct actually have a positive outcome. I'm not convinced by either one.

That's assuming molestation is always an expression of sexuality. If bulls do it to assert dominance, the same should be considered in humans.

This is an argument based on the fallacy called an "appeal to nature" (which is not to be confused with the "naturalistic fallacy".) Basically you're saying that because we can explain the behavior of a steer or stallion with dominance, we can do the same with people. This is incorrect. People think, and in that ability to reason is a responsibility toward others to do no harm. Steers and stallions have no sense of such responsibility.

That's not what I'm saying, and my point is unrelated to responsibility (which applies in any case). It's about numbers, and the assumption that all same-sex child molesters would self-identify as homosexual, thus making them statistically part of the 2% as Diogenes claims. However, there is the possibility that some child molesters are not sexually motivated.

I agree, but we are not leaving it to die off. Our culture actively persecutes anyone who does not offer consent for homosexuality. They're termed "homophobes" and ostracized. It is because of these special rights afforded a minority group based upon behavior--something we have never seen in human civilization before--that homosexuality is growing.

I'd say "our culture" is still split on that issue. Is homosexuality actually growing, or just getting more visible?

It makes people hate us and if we hadn't swung the pendulum quite so far from social rejection, we would not have the hatred around the world that we have. There are far more than two options in how to cope with homosexuality socially. It's not punish or champion. Right now, we're actually championing people who are both abuse victims and abusers themselves.

I certainly wouldn't claim that all homosexuals are abuse victims or abusers. But I agree there are middle ground positions that make more sense.

[GIThruster]

I certainly wouldn't claim that all homosexuals are abuse victims or abusers. But I agree there are middle ground positions that make more sense.

I think we're about as close to complete agreement as we could be. Before Stubby comes on and tells me I'm a hateful, horrible person I would just remind again that I had my first friendship with a gay guy back in 1978. At that time, it was still not socially acceptable for someone to be gay openly. This guy was the more courageous sort who lived in an openly gay relationship back before people generally thought that acceptable, and he bore up under the weight of that pretty well. I would not say he was happy, and we worked together. I am completely cognizant of the social forces arrayed against him. I can tell you, the cause of his unhappiness was not related to social rejection. He had a volatile relationship with his partner and this is pretty common with people in his position. I've had several friends who were gay since, and I don't think any of these people deserve to be stigmatized or shunned. I also don't think they need to shove their sexuality in the faces of others.

In my experience, even inside religious groups, people don't much want to stigmatize gays. They also don't want the sexual practices of others shoved in their faces. "Live and let live" is the common theme here and I think a nice middle ground where people can agree to disagree and otherwise avoid the unpleasantries of conflict. It's when gays assert they have a right to adopt, or to marry and otherwise make their behavior seem mainstream that there are problems.

[Diogenes]

Also, based on population composition, there should be a roughly equal number of cases involving men and women. What do you make of that?

Bad extrapolation. The vast (and I do mean VAST) Majority of sexual aggressors are male. The differential between men and women in this regard is probably 90%/10% . (Even that might not be high enough.)

Men and women are decidedly not equal in terms of sexual aggression.

Exactly my point. Compare that to the homosexual/heterosexual imbalance. What do you make of it?

That the vast majority of homosexual aggressors are male, but with less than an average heterosexual male's self control.

As for forcing it underground, that was never the intent throughout history. That was the unavoidable consequence of efforts to suppress the conduct. The argument is that if this behavior is allowed to flourish, it will result in dire consequences for those societies which indulge it.

And the implied argument is that efforts to suppress the conduct actually have a positive outcome. I'm not convinced by either one.

And why should you be? You haven't yet seen very much information on the subject. I would be surprised if you changed your mind on the basis of the few details discussed so far. You need more information. A LOT more information.

That's assuming molestation is always an expression of sexuality. If bulls do it to assert dominance, the same should be considered in humans.

This is an argument based on the fallacy called an "appeal to nature" (which is not to be confused with the "naturalistic fallacy".) Basically you're saying that because we can explain the behavior of a steer or stallion with dominance, we can do the same with people. This is incorrect. People think, and in that ability to reason is a responsibility toward others to do no harm. Steers and stallions have no sense of such responsibility.

That's not what I'm saying, and my point is unrelated to responsibility (which applies in any case). It's about numbers, and the assumption that all same-sex child molesters would self-identify as homosexual, thus making them statistically part of the 2% as Diogenes claims. However, there is the possibility that some child molesters are not sexually motivated.

There are some who would say that homosexuals were not sexually motivated, but are instead acting out as the result of deep seated psychological trauma which is the result of having been molested themselves as children.

The theory is, that in an effort to convince themselves that there is nothing wrong with it, they are driven to engage in it with a reckless abandoned that makes a heterosexual whoredog look like a virgin. Homosexuals tend to be promiscuous on a scale which heterosexuals cannot imagine. During the Bath-House days in San Fransisco, Surveys indicated that the average homosexual male might engage in 10 sexual encounters in one evening. Zounds!

I agree, but we are not leaving it to die off. Our culture actively persecutes anyone who does not offer consent for homosexuality. They're termed "homophobes" and ostracized. It is because of these special rights afforded a minority group based upon behavior--something we have never seen in human civilization before--that homosexuality is growing.

I'd say "our culture" is still split on that issue. Is homosexuality actually growing, or just getting more visible?

Both. Modern medicine has currently interdicted to save them from the diseases that heretofore would have thinned the herd, and the resulting bubble in surviving homosexuals is expanding both in presence and influence.

[Stubby]

I certainly wouldn't claim that all homosexuals are abuse victims or abusers. But I agree there are middle ground positions that make more sense.

I think we're about as close to complete agreement as we could be. Before Stubby comes on and tells me I'm a hateful, horrible person I would just remind again that I had my first friendship with a gay guy back in 1978. At that time, it was still not socially acceptable for someone to be gay openly. This guy was the more courageous sort who lived in an openly gay relationship back before people generally thought that acceptable, and he bore up under the weight of that pretty well. I would not say he was happy, and we worked together. I am completely cognizant of the social forces arrayed against him. I can tell you, the cause of his unhappiness was not related to social rejection. He had a volatile relationship with his partner and this is pretty common with people in his position. I've had several friends who were gay since, and I don't think any of these people deserve to be stigmatized or shunned. I also don't think they need to shove their sexuality in the faces of others.

In my experience, even inside religious groups, people don't much want to stigmatize gays. They also don't want the sexual practices of others shoved in their faces. "Live and let live" is the common theme here and I think a nice middle ground where people can agree to disagree and otherwise avoid the unpleasantries of conflict. It's when gays assert they have a right to adopt, or to marry and otherwise make their behavior seem mainstream that there are problems.

Why would I say you are a horrible person?I think you are only misguided. You don't come across as feeling they are diseased, that if only somehow they accept Jesus as their Saviour and really really pray, that they will be magically restored to heterosexuality. That thin veiled religious website is full of hateful crap.

I don't know why you think gay people can't make good parents.
Do you think that adoption would be some sort of recruiting mechanism for gay people?

And what is this about marriage? Are you saying that homosexuals are incapable of a life time commitment? Tell you what, we will call it Life Time Commitment, give them the tax benefits any other committed bonded pair have and problem solved.

What do you think about black people's attempts to be more mainstream back in the 60s? Were they just 'uppity niggers' that didn't know their place in your mainstream society? I view them as people tired of being judged for something they have no control over

What is your definition of 'mainstream society'?

[Stubby]

D
i am not going to address any of the 'points' as you call them.
you can pick and choose any number of stats and stories that seemingly satisfy your position.

EDIT

Stubby wrote:

And while the list of references of impressive, i have no doubt the authors of that hate mongering religious whack-job website picked data to suit their religious hatred. It might be that some of the authors of the references are of the likes of Kent Novind, Ray Comfort or Ken Ham.



Most people do not even know of these people whom you mention. Only someone who seeks out this information is likely to know this, and that identifies you as a likely involved partisan. As Groucho would say, "I resemble that remark." With a name like "Stubby", no doubt you are a bottom.

I was more interested in whether you knew who they are. It seems like you do and from your tone i would say you probably believe what they say about the age of the earth i.e. they take a hyper literal view of the bible. This tells me you are willing to suspend rational thought to make yourself feel good.

What the hell does 'involved partisan' mean?


You are a bigot and and a waste of my time.

(It seems I had a little more time to waste)

[Teahive]

It's when gays assert they have a right to adopt, or to marry and otherwise make their behavior seem mainstream that there are problems.

We may disagree more than you think then.

I do think heterosexual couples should be preferred as adoptive parents. I do not think, however, that homosexual couples should be categorically excluded from adopting (and neither should single parents).

I also think marriage shouldn't be regulated by the state. However, where government extends certain benefits to people committed to sharing a life together, that should be available to all regardless of their gender. Similarly, such benefits concerning families should apply to all families.

[GIThruster]

However, where government extends certain benefits to people committed to sharing a life together, that should be available to all regardless of their gender.

Well this is where you're mistaken. Government does not extend special benefits to people based upon commitment to sharing a life together. It extends special benefits to married couples specifically because a man and woman bound by marriage form the ideal support structure for the nation's future. A single parent or a pair of homosexuals do NOT form that ideal support structure. Furthermore, force feeding young children propaganda that explains why Sally has two mothers and no father is not in the child's interest, but rather is child abuse, because it perverts from the start, that child's view of what a healthy family is all about.

Traditional families with one father and one mother, consistently demonstrate themselves as uniquely capable of successfully rearing children. It is a socialist dogma that it takes a village to raise a child, and that child rearing is a communal activity. It is not. It takes a pair of committed parents to raise a child, and pretending single parents can do the same job as a married couple has gotten us into this screwed up culture that is self destructing all around us. It is also responsible for how the educational institutions have consistently pushed to replace the parents in important matters in the life of the child.

If you believe that single parents and homosexual couples can do the same job as a pair of traditional parents in raising children, you are hopelessly out of touch. Do a little research and see exactly what were the consequences when the Soviet Union deliberately disabled the traditional family by teaching this sort of propaganda. Alcoholism through the roof. Crime off the scale. Unemployment rampant. Suicide exploding. All this due to undermining what the traditional family is all about.

[Teahive]

Government does not extend special benefits to people based upon commitment to sharing a life together.

That may not be the intention, but de facto it does. After all, legal marriage does not require a commitment to have children. And some of the legal arrangements do make sense for any couple. Special benefits intended for families should be set up so they apply to families, and not to all married couples.

If you believe that single parents and homosexual couples can do the same job as a pair of traditional parents in raising children, you are hopelessly out of touch.

Heterosexual couples have a substantial advantage, I admit that (that's why I said heterosexual couples should be preferred for adoption). However, reality is not an ideal world, and some children won't grow up with both their biological parents.

But yes, there are single parents and homosexual parents who successfully raise children. There are heterosexual couples that fail. The world is not black and white.

[GIThruster]

But yes, there are single parents and homosexual parents who successfully raise children. There are heterosexual couples that fail. The world is not black and white.

I've got no argument with that. However, tax laws that promote marriage; are not based on the exception, but rather on the rule.

I have no issues with homosexual couples having the same rights and privileges as married couples when it comes to things like hospital visitation. I partner is a partner, regardless if it's hetero or homosexual. However, the tax breaks and special status of "married" relates to the huge benefits all society obtains when a man and woman agree to marry and raise children.

And it's key to note, these disputes about "marriage" for homosexuals, they really have to do with the desire for homosexuals to be accepted as normal. They are not normal. They are abnormal by any useful definition.

[Stubby]

But yes, there are single parents and homosexual parents who successfully raise children. There are heterosexual couples that fail. The world is not black and white.

I've got no argument with that. However, tax laws that promote marriage; are not based on the exception, but rather on the rule.

I have no issues with homosexual couples having the same rights and privileges as married couples when it comes to things like hospital visitation. I partner is a partner, regardless if it's hetero or homosexual. However, the tax breaks and special status of "married" relates to the huge benefits all society obtains when a man and woman agree to marry and raise children.

And it's key to note, these disputes about "marriage" for homosexuals, they really have to do with the desire for homosexuals to be accepted as normal. They are not normal. They are abnormal by any useful definition.

But why this judgement for homosexuals and not say inter racial couples?
Many people would define inter racial marriage as abnormal (and we say those people are bigots).

If you need to 'reward' man/woman unions via tax breaks to get them to marry, i don't know what to say.

And why do you want to penalise the children of same sex marriages? You want to give advantages to man/woman couples that make it easier to raise a family.

[GIThruster]

But why this judgement for homosexuals and not say inter racial couples?

I can't imagine this is an authentic question looking for an authentic response. You're looking to paint opponents of your position as bigots even when you know there is no evidence of bigotry. I'm sure it goes without saying that races intermarry and have children. There is no reason to treat them differently than any other authentic marriage. The fact people have on various grounds objected to interracial marriage in the past in no way comes to bear on this conversation or issue.

If you need to 'reward' man/woman unions via tax breaks to get them to marry, I don't know what to say.

I'm not sure we need to have such a reward system, but the fact is we do have such a reward system. Again, you are misconstruing the issues and don't appear the have an authentic question to pose or point to make.

And why do you want to penalise the children of same sex marriages? You want to give advantages to man/woman couples that make it easier to raise a family.

I don't want to penalize anyone. Not giving a special bonus to someone is not the same as penalizing them. I don't receive the special bonuses for being a female or minority when I want to start a company. That doesn't mean I'm being penalized. And note too, there can be no children of same sex marriages. There are no such things as same sex marriages and even if there were, they could not by definition, create children.

You're hopelessly confused on a host of issues here and I can't see any evidence you're looking for real answers. I think you want to remain confused and confusing to others.