Why not, Templar. After all, whatever would deter any of you perverse and vicious liberal degenerates from doing what you do best. God knows you crowd has a special talent for these sorts of things. You also have an enormous advantage over devout Christians and Jews since one can't call anyone on your side a hypocrite by simple virtue of the fact that none of you have any standards to begin with. No matter, we can still call you vicious, unprincipled cocksuckers. (Marie)
Thank you oh lord for the cum we are about to receive.
Pass the lips, enter the gums, bless us oh lord I'm about to cum.
Oh Mary mother of Christ, spread your legs so I can fuck you twice.
Communion:
The body of Christ, the body of Christ, the body of Christ. Hey that's not the body of Christ, it's attached to you, and that's not wine either, wine isn't white.
WOW! Rene-Marie -Fay --Barb ect. You are so full of hate that
you could poison somene by breathing on them. Your
toxic words sound like they come from the evil one.
I was just wondering how David Kelly REALLY died. Good Americans should go into hiding after they tell the-TRUTH. It isn't safe to do that anymore.
On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 00:06:13 GMT, "Light Templar" wrote:
Er, Good to hear, I guess (unless you're a woman, in which case it might piss your guy off eventually)
Well I don't think Marie's use of "cocksucker" has ever implied the actual act of sucking cocks, do you? So even if you *had* sucked cocks it wouldn't..... well you get the picture.
Man, I don't have the ambition, nor the constitution to go spelunking into
Marie's mind to try to figure out what the hell she's talking about at any
given time. If you want to dive in to that quagmire, then please be my
guest. Don't expect a rescue party though.
On 19 Jul 2003 15:47:58 -0700, [email] (Marie A.) wrote:
Marie?
I wanna have your baby.
"We are going to fight them and impose our will on them and we will capture or, if necessary, kill them until we have imposed law and order upon this country," -- Viceroy Paul Bremer, explaining how America is going to 'hearts and minds' the subjugated people of Iraq
Ignoring the obvious biological incompatibilites, you'll never be able to. She's being sterilized to ensure that she can't pass her stupidity on to any offspring.
On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 03:03:56 GMT, "Exatron" wrote:
How do you know a mustelid can't mate with a neo-con until someone TRIES?
"We are going to fight them and impose our will on them and we will capture or, if necessary, kill them until we have imposed law and order upon this country," -- Viceroy Paul Bremer, explaining how America is going to 'hearts and minds' the subjugated people of Iraq
I've never posed nude for a boyfriend while still legally married, with my 8 year old son in the next room. "Dr." Laura has. Odd that you're not calling her the degenerate.
Gee, Bart will try to have sex with anything it seems, now cameras lenses with the need for vasoline. He should go back to black holes and that wheel chair guy.
To be fair, the famous pics were taken before Derky was born. That said, I think he was 13 or 14 when Laura told the story about how he would get her out of the shower every morning to "pour his milk." It was also about that time that she chewed out a man who was concerned that his girlfriend showered with her teenage son.
Here's something neut wrote about both a few years back:
"The 47 yr old mom's boyfriend called in and wondered if it was healthy for her to be showering with her 16 yr old son. Laura said it was none of the caller's business, to stay out of it and NOT to call any authorities.
The big arguement at the time was over speculation that if it had been a 47 yr old DAD and a 16 yr old Daughter in the shower together, Laura would have traced the call and led an FBI swat team into the house personally. This led into speculation she might be sympathetic to this "Shelly Winters as Ma Barker" type woman because of a Laura promoted "ain't my kid cute" story:
During this era came Laura's oft repeated stories of the special little tradition between her and her son, who would come to her morning shower and say "Pour!" theoretically to get her to come and "pour his milk" onto a bowl of cereal. This being a cutesy "I'm still helpless mommy" thing hanging on into his teen years (as she wanted us to take it). Of course, given the denizens of ARTD-L, this evolved continually from a modest assumption that Durkee was really showing up to see how much he could see while naked mommy dried off. Over months & years this led to that and "pouring his milk" has become a catch phrase for illicit, secretive or incestuous sex.
Laura has teased us many times with eyebrow raising stories of Durkee and Laura rolling about on the floor and wrestling, of her waking Durkee by tickling him, of licking his face, sucking his face etc. We all know Lew is too geriatric to wrestle with the boy, but still with the many stories Laura relates of her close physical relationship with her son (and she couldn't even bear to give "HER" son his dad's last name..) it does add up to something to wonder about."
Re your self-serving comments about Dr. Laura: One never ceases to be amazed at how the liberal degenerates in society set about "insulting" and attacking their betters by accusing them of that which they themselves actively practice and promote in their own personal lives.
Thus, to a homosexual, an insult is to call someone else a homosexual!
Thus, liberals who get tongue-tied over the excesses of that drunken sot, Ted Kennedy, can come in here and pretend they're concerned about Bush's drinking way in the past.
Thus, liberals who generally haven't an ounce of decency or shame can fabricate stories about Dr. Laura and feign shock at that which they otherwise see as a routine matter in their own lives.
Thus they can attack some televangelist who solicits a hooker when they spend most of their lives making saints of hookers. Or, they call the guy a hypocrite, which amounts to little more than this crowd saying they can't be attacked because they profess NO values, NO morality. Neat, huh?
Hate to tell ya--there are Republican homosexuals.
I would guess that Republicans consume more alcohol than Democrats. Certainly you can't prove that we drink more, so your argument is fairly weak on this matter.
She denied that she posed naked for pictures, then she had to come clean when the truth was revealed. It's called "hypocrisy". Moral bankruptcy has nothing to do with party affiliation. That's an argument you lsoe every time.
Like Jesus?
But that said, name one Democrat that has made a saint out of a hooker? That's an incredibly ignorant and stupid statement.
Anyone can be attacked for being a hypocrite in the political realm, and they often are. Again, you can find no correlation between party affiliation and lack of morals. Your problem is that you rely of that argument to make the case that Republicans have better ideas. That will only play for so long. Time to come up with something more thought provoking.
"JC Martin" wrote in message news:dnBSa.3399$[email]...
has
Didn't she file suit against the boyfriend to remove the pictures in question from the internet? Of course, by that time it was a bit late, the pictures were all over the place. But to sue for that, she finally had to admit the pictures were of her.
The part that Marie A will not understand, or even acknowledge, is that it
isn't the 'liberals' that generally run about poking their noses in everyone
else's lives in criticism of their morality, then ignore and support
immorality when it presents itself within their own ranks unless they are
absolutely forced to do so. Jimmy Swaggart had been a womanizing creep for
decades prior to the first time he was pulled over and arrested. Many
among his congregation knew it, his superiors definately knew it, but
nothing was done about it until his arrests. It wasn't the prostitutions
fault that Swaggert couldn't control himself.
Similarly, it's society's fault that homosexuals can't control themselves. Just let us marry, darn it, and we'll crank it down from 150 partners a year to one.
As for poking our noses in the private lives of people, your crowd brought this fight on by insinuating your vile lifestyle into every facet of our existences, from movies to television to busting up the Boy Scouts to the Catholic priesthood to Heather Has Two Mommies in our schools and on and on. You are no longer private about your nasty sexual practices, so you're now fair game. You can't have it both ways, pun intended. (Marie)
Do you want to marry a homosexual? I don't. So what's the big deal? It's not like permitting homosexual marriage would lead to less heterosexual marriages. I personally don't care who someone marries as long as they're sincere about it.
"JC Martin" wrote in message news:ZeISa.3509$[email]...
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 04:25:11 -0400, "JoettaB" wrote:
Meretricious Marie is a homophobe, simply hates gays and lesbians with no basis in reality for her hatred.
It is only explicable when one considers that the word at the core of the definition of homophobia is "irrational."
a typical rant:
She finds that we have "insinuating (our) vile lifestyle into every facet of (her) existence."
EVERY facet?
Here is where the irrational part of the definition seizes on her raggedy mind -- clearly he is obsessing over other peoples privacies to a degree that can only be assessed as pathological.
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 19:34:46 GMT, Ward Stewart wrote:
The problem with this term that sounds scientific, and it ain't, is that you try to apply it to anyone who disagrees. Who here believes that half or more of the American people are "irrational"???
The Frog
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "The multicultural project will never fully succeed if 'diversity' is defined as one's own preferred ideologies and political groups."
--Richard E. Redding, "Grappling With Diverse Conceptions of Diversity," American Psychologist, April 2002, p. 301.
Delusion is the steady state theory of conservatives.
Psychoanalytic theory holds that homophobia -- the fear, anxiety, anger, discomfort and aversion that some ostensibly heterosexual people hold for gay individuals -- is the result of repressed homosexual urges that the person is either unaware of or denies. A study appearing in the August 1996 issue of the Journal of Abnormal Psychology, published by the American Psychological Association (APA), provides new empirical evidence that is consistent with that theory.
On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 17:27:25 GMT, David Lampert wrote:
Is this the same APA that has also publised articles concluding that Pedophilia is not that bad for the kiddies and may even be beneficial? The same APA that was also censured by an act of the entire Congress for this?
Is *that* what you use for credibility?????!!!!!!!! APA doesn't do any research into homo. Why? They have a huge homo caucus that mysteriously appeared only 2 years after they took homo off the "list'. Can you say "inside job"? Who really believes that all those queers joined within those two years?
Your argument STINKS
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "The multicultural project will never fully succeed if 'diversity' is defined as one's own preferred ideologies and political groups."
--Richard E. Redding, "Grappling With Diverse Conceptions of Diversity," American Psychologist, April 2002, p. 301.
You know if you people did not have your lies you would have nothing at all. Your lies that there is a god, lies there is a sin of homosexuality in the bible, and your lies that marriage is only between a man and a woman in the bible, if it weren't for lies all you would have to hate would be yourselves. Since when is congress a scientific organization? Who cares what a body of bigots thing or do.
What would you have me use NARTH, or the Family Research Council, is that what you call credibility? A bunch a homophobic hacks that could not get published in a credible journal so formed their own little homo-hate groups? Like a KKK against homosexuals.
And the sky is falling, the sky is falling, they're every where, they're every where, and you wonder why we call you clods homophjobics.
Homos and Faggots and queers, oh my. Seek help rk.
When Evelyn Hooker, Ph.D. found that no other Doctors could tell the difference between a heterosexual or a homosexual the definition of homosexuality as a mental illnesshad to be changed.
"In 1953, Hooker applied to the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) for a six-month grant to study the adjustment of nonclinical homosexual men and a comparable group of heterosexual men. If the study section thought it worthwhile, she would pursue it. The reply was not long in coming. John Eberhart, chief of the Grants Division, flew out to spend a day with her. The application, she was told, was quite extraordinary, especially because it was then the height of the McCarthy era. The legal penalties for homosexual behavior were severe. The psychiatric diagnosis was severe and pervasive emotional disorder. There were simply no scientific data about nonimprisoned, nonpatient homosexuals. Eberhart said, "We are prepared to give you the grant, but you may not receive it, and you won't know why and we won't know why." Not only did she receive it, but NIMH continued the renewal until 1961, when she received the Research Career Award.
Hooker's research (1957) demonstrating that expert clinical judges could not distinguish the projective test protocols of nonclinical homosexual men from a comparable group of heterosexual men, nor were there differences in adjustment ratings, was validated soon thereafter by other investigators. Not until 1973, however, did the American Psychiatric Association delete homosexuality from its diagnostic handbook. Meanwhile, the gay and lesbian liberation movement in the 1960s took cognizance of these research findings. It was a source of great satisfaction for Hooker to have contributed in some measure to this new freedom and to a partial lifting of the stigma."
It is either true or it is not. I believe it is true. I also believe that you don't wish to explore this issue of the credibility of the APA because you use them for credibility.
Try these souces for information on this subject.....
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "The multicultural project will never fully succeed if 'diversity' is defined as one's own preferred ideologies and political groups."
--Richard E. Redding, "Grappling With Diverse Conceptions of Diversity," American Psychologist, April 2002, p. 301.
And you believe so out of ignorance. You haven't read the study (not that you could understand it anyway). You continually distort what the study says because you are only capable of parrotting people who share your ignorance and prejudices.
The APA has made clear its position regarding pedophilia and child sexual abuse, but you continue to lie about it. The only one with an issue of credibility is you--the one who continues to lie in order to further your agenda.
=================================== http://www.paedosexualitaet.de/science/APA.html#diff1 ------------------------------------------ The article which is the basis for this controversy, A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples , is one of hundreds of studies which appear in the psychological literature on the effects of childhood sexual abuse. Unfortunately, the findings of this meta-analysis (a meta-analysis studies the data of multiple previous research projects on the subject) are being misreported by some in the media. The actual findings are that for this segment of the population (college students) being the victim of childhood sexual abuse was found to be less damaging to them than generally believed. However, one overall statement of the results was that students who were the victims of child sexual abuse were, on average, slightly less well-adjusted than students who were not victimized as children. One important follow-up question raised by the study is what happens to these students as they enter adulthood and start families of their own. Do they further experience detrimental effects of their childhood experiences later in life?
Furthermore, some of the conclusions expressed by the authors are inconsistent with the positions of the APA. For example, it is the position of the Association that children can not consent to sexual activity with adults and that such activity should never be considered harmless or acceptable. The facts are that the majority of the psychological literature reveals that childhood sexual abuse has serious negative effects on its victims . The question raised by the study is an important one - Does sexual abuse cause varying degrees of harm to children? In other words, can the child's age, resiliency, and/or family environment ever mitigate the ill effects of the abuse? If such mitigating factors can be shown through this and further research child abuse prevention and treatment programs could put that knowledge to work helping both children and families. Such knowledge would, however, in no way excuse any form of abuse. All abuse is wrong, but all abuse may not be equally harmful. ===================================
=================================== http://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug99/as4.html ------------------------------------------------ The article, "A meta-analytic examination of assumed properties of child sexual abuse using college samples," by Bruce Rind, PhD, graduate student Philip Tromovitch, and Robert Bauserman, PhD, examined 59 studies of college students and concluded that the harm done to the victims of sexual abuse was less then generally believed.
The study also suggested that some victims, especially the males, seemed not to have suffered especially intense psychological harm through the years, and in some cases even reported the experiences as neutral or positive.
The authors of the study also argued that the term "child sexual abuse" uncritically lumped all victims together--whereas, they said, the level of potential damage differed greatly in the case of a very young girl raped by her father and a "mature" teen-ager sexually involved with an adult. Citing a need for research clarity, the authors suggested these specific cases should be labeled with "value neutral" terms such as "adult-adolescent sex" or "adult-child sex."
The article's findings point to the conclusion that there is hope for victims of child sexual abuse, says Gary VandenBos, PhD, APA executive director for publications and communications.
"Society will not always be effective at preventing it," he says. "Victims and their families need to know that when the unthinkable happens, the victim is not destroyed forever. Psychotherapy can help. Time will help." ===================================
And in the opposite, the reason why you attack the APA is that they do not agree with you loony tunes idea that homosexuality is wrong and bad, and to be obsessed with such notions constitutes homophobia.
Since I know you never click on link I will post what the APA said, now you have no excuse:
APA defends stance against the sexual
abuse of children
Concern over APA journal article prompts Congress to question
the association's position.
By Sara Martin
Monitor staff
APA has strongly reaffirmed its long-standing condemna-tion of child sexual
abuse in response to a political controversy sparked by an article in the July
1998 issue of Psychological Bulletin.
The article, "A meta-analytic examination of assumed properties of child sexual
abuse using college samples," by Bruce Rind, PhD, graduate student Philip
Tromovitch, and Robert Bauserman, PhD, examined 59 studies of college
students and concluded that the harm done to the victims of sexual abuse was
less then generally believed.
The study also suggested that some victims, especially the males, seemed not to
have suffered especially intense psychological harm through the years, and in
some cases even reported the experiences as neutral or positive.
The authors of the study also argued that the term "child sexual abuse"
uncritically lumped all victims together--whereas, they said, the level of potential
damage differed greatly in the case of a very young girl raped by her father and
a "mature" teen-ager sexually involved with an adult. Citing a need for research
clarity, the authors suggested these specific cases should be labeled with "value
neutral" terms such as "adult-adolescent sex" or "adult-child sex."
The article's findings point to the conclusion that there is hope for victims of
child sexual abuse, says Gary VandenBos, PhD, APA executive director for
publications and communications.
"Society will not always be effective at preventing it," he says. "Victims and their
families need to know that when the unthinkable happens, the victim is not
destroyed forever. Psychotherapy can help. Time will help."
In March, critics of the article, including House Majority Whip, Tom DeLay
(R-Texas) and several Republican members of Congress, along with national
family-oriented organizations and radio host Laura Schlessinger, argued that the
article sanctioned pedophilia, and that APA, by allowing it to be published, was
doing the same.
In May, Rep. Matt Salmon (R-Ariz.) proposed a House resolution condemning
the article and, by association, APA for publishing it. The proposal quickly
gained co-sponsorship and it appeared that if the resolution was brought before
the House it would pass.
In response to the House resolution, Raymond D. Fowler, PhD, APA's chief
executive officer, wrote to DeLay to clarify APA's position on child sexual
abuse and to outline APA's intentions regarding the article and the controversy it
created.
"We take very seriously the responsibility of maintaining a rigorous and
independent peer-review process for our 37 scientific journals," Fowler said in
his letter to DeLay.
Fowler told DeLay he had asked for an independent expert evaluation of the
scientific quality of the article--a step he called "unprecedented in the
association's history of scholarly publishing."
He promised to make the results of that study known. The review is expected
to be final sometime this fall.
"Clearly, the article included opinions of the authors that are inconsistent with
APA's stated and deeply held positions on child welfare and protection issues,"
he wrote. "It is the position of the association that sexual activity between
children and adults should never be considered or labeled as harmless or
acceptable...children cannot consent to sexual activity with adults."
One criticism of the article was that those charged with child sexual abuse might
use in their defense the fact that APA, by inference, supported the findings.
Fowler, however, told DeLay "there is no defense for child sexual abuse. It is
always wrong."
Speaking out against abuse
To ensure that APA's position is known to courts, public policy officials and
parents, Fowler said the association has instituted a five-point plan. In addition
to sending the article out for independent evaluation, the plan includes:
Publishing a special "Psychology in the Public Forum" section in a future issue
of American Psychologist to examine the methodological challenges and
contributions of research on child sexual abuse.
Preparing amicus briefs that can be adapted in any court to challenge any
effort to use the data in the article--or any other study--to condone or
"normalize" sexual interactions of any type between children and adults.
Creating and distributing nationwide this fall a brochure for parents and
caregivers on how to protect against child sexual abuse.
A clear affirmation of APA's Board of Director's condemnation of sexual
abuse of children.
Along with the plan, Fowler told DeLay, "We do not support the 'normalization'
or decriminalization of any form of sexual relations between adults and children.
Such behavior must remain criminal and punishable to the full extent of the law."
In a press release issued shortly after reading Fowler's letter, Delay said "I
cannot express fully my deep appreciation and pride for the APA's bold actions
today.... I congratulate the American Psychological Association for publicly
clarifying its opposition to any adult-child sexual relations, denying pedophiles
from citing APA studies in a legal defense and re-evaluating the social, legal and
political impact of its editorial board's decisions when publishing scientific
studies."
Fowler has met with several key members of Congress to discuss APA's
position and efforts opposing child abuse, along with the proposed
congressional resolution.
In light of APA's vigorous stance against any kind of abuse of
children--particularly sexual abuse of children, "It would be unfortunate," said
Fowler, "if a single article was weighted more than the 20-year record of the
work we've done in this area."
Fowler also noted that while APA publishes thousands of research articles
every year, that does not make them APA policy.
"APA's policies are set by the Council of Representatives and are based on
many more factors than a single article," he explained. "The nature of research
and science is that much of what is published is later refined or even disproven
by other research. The critical thing is not the controversial nature of the
statements, but whether they hold up to further research."
Because APA publishes more than 3,000 articles each year, identifying those
that are of interest to the public or that have public policy implications is
difficult.
Journal editors are asked to be aware of those variables and to alert APA's
Public Affairs Office to articles in press that should be the subject of a press
release or other information for the public.
"A responsible scientific and professional organization has an obligation to be
sensitive to the policy implications as well as the scientific integrity of its
publications," said Fowler. "There is no reason APA cannot do both and be
fully respectful of academic freedom and editorial independence."Y
don't like the source, choose another one....I gave several......
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "The multicultural project will never fully succeed if 'diversity' is defined as one's own preferred ideologies and political groups."
--Richard E. Redding, "Grappling With Diverse Conceptions of Diversity," American Psychologist, April 2002, p. 301.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "The multicultural project will never fully succeed if 'diversity' is defined as one's own preferred ideologies and political groups."
--Richard E. Redding, "Grappling With Diverse Conceptions of Diversity," American Psychologist, April 2002, p. 301.
Three sources is lotsa sources, yet if there is only three hermaphrodites in the USA (and there are many more) there is not enough of them to chance the discrimination against homosexuals to make sure hermaphrodites can marry.
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 01:07:37 GMT, David Lampert wrote:
Wonder how common this birth defect is? Where can we find credible numbers?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "The multicultural project will never fully succeed if 'diversity' is defined as one's own preferred ideologies and political groups."
--Richard E. Redding, "Grappling With Diverse Conceptions of Diversity," American Psychologist, April 2002, p. 301.
As per usual with conservative, when in doubt repeat it out.
You have said this again and a gain and again, what are you stupid?
It only proves what a despotic anit-American, anti-constitution maggot that you are. That for you the constitution is a numerical document, that there has to be enough in a group before they are considered human.
Intersex Society of North America
Total number of people whose bodies differ from standard male or female, one in 100 births.
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 17:27:59 GMT, David Lampert wrote:
Thanks for your kind words, and I know you mean well, but this 'source' is hardly an unbiased source.
On top of that, they extrapolate byu reading articles of the past. There was never any real research done.
In other words, it's a crock
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "The multicultural project will never fully succeed if 'diversity' is defined as one's own preferred ideologies and political groups."
--Richard E. Redding, "Grappling With Diverse Conceptions of Diversity," American Psychologist, April 2002, p. 301.
Excuse me! Are you some kind of retard or something? Intersexuals, as you are saying, are the last ones you want to trust on how many intersexuals there are. And sparky, the constitution is not a numerical document, rights are not doled out only when there is a sufficient number of people to overcome those being denied there rights. Even if there was only one hermaphrodite in the USA it would still be a high enough number to force DOMA laws to be over turned. You just don't get the fact that the USA does not allow making humans be subhumans.
Sparky, nor can there be, the doctor themselves have made a concerted effort to cover up the numbers of mutilations they do. They lie on the birth certificates, and do not tell the patient they were altered.
No, in other words you are still a anti-american, anti-constitution bigot.
If gay people are allowed to marry then Christianity will be destroyed.
Fine, upstanding Christian men will quit their jobs in order to provide more time to have anal sex with each other. Once proud Christian boys will prostitute themselves in exchange for drugs and homosexual pornography. These are the facts. This is what Christian research has shown.
If gay couples are allowed to marry than virtuous Christian women will start to practice witchcraft, seeking abortions as part of their Satanic rituals. They will feminize your sons and turn your daughters into lesbians.
This is what people mean when they talk about the gay "Threat" to marriage.
It's true.
What can you do to counter this threat?
For starters, you can give up your rights as a citizen, your personal freedoms. If there's one thing that 9/11 has taught us, as demonstrated by the Patriot Act, it's that your constitutional rights, your personal freedoms are a danger to yourself and your family.
Just imagine if the 9/11 hijackers were American citizens with all the rights you once enjoyed. Think of how much easier things would have been for them, how much more damage they might have inflicted.
Your personal freedoms are a danger to the lives of every child in America, and a weapon for the radical homosexual agenda, the homosexual war against Christianity and the family.
Do it. Do it now. Protect yourself and your family. Do it for the children. Surrender every last constitutional right that you once had, or support the radical homosexual agenda and the Islamic terrorist.
Are you in favor of kiddie porn? Do you endorse human sacrofice in the form of abortion? Are you in favor of your sons prostituting themselves to strange men in order to buy drugs?
If you answer "No" to any of these question then you must give up your personal freedoms.
This message brought to you by:
Halliburton, the color orange and the letter "Dubya."
Homosexual people are allowed to marry now, so your hysteria is unwarranted. They're not allowed to marry each other, but neither are brothers and sisters, 1st cousins, fathers and daughters, mothers and sons, etc. etc. etc. Society has ALWAYS placed NUMEROUS restrictions on marriage.
Oh yeah, you'd like it if we believed that.... wouldn't you?
Well we know the truth. If gay couples are allowed to marry then there's not one person capable of reading these words who won't be having sex with farm animals.
That's the truth. Marriage and the traditional family can not survive two gay people taking financial responsibility for each other. The family, Christianity itself will be destroyed. The children of the former traditional families will be feminized, forced into protestitution and witchcraft. The boys will sell their bodies to strange men while the girls will seek pregnancies so they can have abortions.
That's what will happen if homosexuals are allowed to marry, and you know it.
No, you had fretted about homosexuals showing any financial concern for one another. So I asked you, "What's to prevent two homosexuals from doing that now??"
That's all part of the radical homosexual plot, one of your hosts of lies.
Homosexuals like to pretend that, just because countless rights belong to ONLY married couples, they someone can't get these right because they aren't allowed to get married.
Like I said, it's one of your liberal-feminist lies you people use to attack the American family.
Fine, let your homosexual acquaintances pretend that all they want, Rob.
Ever watch little children aged 5 and 6 at play, Rob? They're like your homosexual friends - they pretend that they are "married", and pretend that therefore they have the countless "rights" to "play the mommy" and "play the daddy". We let them continue pretending like that, just as your homosexual friends can pretend all they want also, Rob.
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 20:00:14 GMT, "Barbara Walker" wrote:
Why not children? You could make the "argument" that they are being discriminiated against based solely on their age. Pedophiles are now using this to gain the same legitimacy as the homos have. Same route, different perversion.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "The multicultural project will never fully succeed if 'diversity' is defined as one's own preferred ideologies and political groups."
--Richard E. Redding, "Grappling With Diverse Conceptions of Diversity," American Psychologist, April 2002, p. 301.
The difference is that consenting adults have the right to choose which other human they want as a partner. We have laws on the books to protect our children because they are not old enough to make a proper judgment and are easily manipulated. Whether or not homosexuality is a perversion is also debatable.
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 15:47:39 GMT, "JC Martin" wrote:
Well JC,
As we have seen with the recent Supreme Court decisions, laws can change and change radically. At some time we may lower the age of consent to say 10, with all the liberals telling us that discrimination of sex based solely on age is a sin. Don't think it can't happen. Who would have thought queer groups are going into middle schools and teaching all about queer sex to teenagers?
Froggy
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "The multicultural project will never fully succeed if 'diversity' is defined as one's own preferred ideologies and political groups."
--Richard E. Redding, "Grappling With Diverse Conceptions of Diversity," American Psychologist, April 2002, p. 301.
You are convincing me with every post that you are a retard. The radical thing the court did was make homosexuals equal to heterosexual who had a special right to have any sex they wanted and homosexuals were solely targeted, and singled out for unequal treatment. If making humans equal to each other is radical to you, I'm sure when the blacks were allowed to marry whites must of just killed you.
It is already 12 in Kansas, got a problem with that sparky? And where do you derive a problem with that, because it certainly don't come form the bible, because Mary the mother of Jesus who was 12 had sex with a kajillion year old God.
Gee the sky is falling isn't it, hysteria is the battle cry of conservatives. "Queers" have the right to teach other "queers" that they are normal, and that the others around them should treat them normal, because there is no medical or constitutional reason to treat them as anything but equal human beings under the constitution, but then you feel there is not enough intersexuals to count as humans (10 million), so who cares, it ain't like they are humans or anything.
The Deception and Desensitization of America's Youth 'Day of Silence' - Wednesday, April 9, 2003 Stephen Bennett
Thursday, February 20, 2003
An Organization with a "Passion" for Children On Wednesday, April 9, 2003, the daily routine of public schools and colleges across America will once again come to a halt as a minority of administrators and students demand America's approval and acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle. What should be more appropriately called the "Day of Disruption," the 8th annual "Day of Silence" will be sponsored by GLSEN, the Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network. GLSEN is a "gay" activist organization which aggressively lobbies, intimidates and in some cases legally threatens America's public schools into teaching the acceptance and tolerance of the homosexual lifestyle. The homosexual pressure group also demands that schools draft and enforce 'special rights' and protection policies for those teachers and students who consider themselves to be lesbian, "gay," bisexual or transgendered (LGBT). GLSEN in well known for organizing "Gay/Straight Alliances" (GSAs), better known as "gay" clubs, within public schools. They also establish "Safe Zones" for sexually confused students - rooms marked by an inverted pink triangle. The "gay" pink icon indicates students can go and openly speak to that teacher or administrator about their same-sex attractions. Rather than sharing the truth that no one is born "gay," that in most cases homosexuality develops in one's childhood and that complete change to "healthy heterosexuality" is completely possible, the students are mislead. "The "gay" or homo-sympathetic counselor, in many cases following GLSEN guidelines, will usually affirm the questioning youths' 'gay' feelings and encourage them down the homosexual path. These counselors will then often refer the students to outside homosexual organizations and 'gay' clubs - without parental knowledge or consent. Unfortunately for many of these children, this will be the beginning of the end. Exposed GLSEN drew national attention several years back for co-sponsoring a controversial homosexual conference for teachers and students in Massachusetts called "Teach Out." One of the day's many "gay" workshops focused specifically on "queer sex" for teenagers. Children as young as twelve years old were in attendance. A teacher secretly recorded the seminar and the audio tape was later released to the media, exposing the real sinister agenda behind the day's events. In the audio tape, the "gay" and lesbian adult instructors describe in explicit detail the "how to's" of homosexual sex, including a dangerous practice by many "gays" and lesbians known as "fisting." While no physical sexual acts took place in the workshop, the children were asked to role play, pretending they were "gay," and not to be ashamed to talk descriptively. The event was dubbed "Fistgate." (To read the entire story originally published in The Massachusetts News, click here - **warning: language used in the article is graphic**) Under the guise of seeking to end "discrimination" against LGBT students in schools, GLSEN proselytizes administrators, students and even unsuspecting parents to further its deceptive plan. April's upcoming "Day of Silence" is just another one of their blatant attacks on the Judeo/Christian morals and principles this great nation was founded on. The Sound of Silence Participants in the "Day of Silence" are instructed to refuse to talk throughout the entire school day. Rather than speaking, the protestors are encouraged to hand out flyers explaining their "silence for sin." Openly "gay" principals, teachers, students and sympathizers will lead the homosexual offensive by flooding the school hallways with posters and signs demanding the acceptance and tolerance of an immoral, deviant lifestyle. At many schools, the rainbow flag - a symbol of "gay" and lesbian rebellion - will be hoisted, proudly flying for the entire day underneath America's stars and stripes. Students will also don their graphic and offensive shirts, billboarding the aberrant message, even louder than ever. Finally at the end of the day's mayhem, students and administrators will be joined by "gay" supporters and guest speakers, converging in a variety of closing ceremonies called "Breaking the Silence," boasting of their message of sin. This year, GLSEN's website claims to have over 2,000 schools and nearly 100,000 participating students and faculty (I believe those numbers are just a "bit" elevated.) A Call to Action The "gay" "Day of Silence" will no doubt cost tens of thousands of dollars in wasted time, salaries and resources - courtesy of your tax payer dollars and mine. But more importantly, how many lives of America's children will it cost before we open our eyes to the destructiveness of the militant 'gay' agenda? GLSEN's "Day of Silence" is an outrage to all with any morals and values and both this organization and event deserve no place whatsoever in our children's public schools. Our youth are clearly the target of "gay" activists because they feel they can wipe out "homophobia" in one generation - by deceiving and desensitizing the children now. "Gay" activists are like a freight train out of control, running over everyone and anyone in their paths, desperately seeking and desiring one thing: acceptance of their sin. Christians have remained silent for far too long. While many godly men, women, churches and organizations continually answer the call to speak out against the promotion of immorality, sin and the murder of the unborn - it's not enough. 43 million murdered babies since Roe vs. Wade proves our failure as the church of Jesus Christ. How many more children need to be sacrificed on the altar of homosexuality? What Would Jesus Do? Jesus never "tolerated" or "accepted" sin. While His response to sin was swift and sometimes harsh, His motive was always one of unconditional love. Jesus didn't "pussy foot" around, fearful He may "offend" someone or worried He may appear "hate-filled," "intolerant" or "bigoted." No, Jesus called it like it was: sin is sin is sin. Many times He openly exhibited a holy, righteous anger and zeal for "His Father's business." Jesus rebuked and exposed - always offering hope, redemption and reconciliation - "�go and sin no more." It's high time Christians - followers and Ambassadors of Christ - did the same. The Gospel: the Truth That Sets Us Free As a former homosexual, my heart's desire is to share the truth about homosexuality with the world - especially the youth. Maybe I can spare a few from what I went through, maybe even save a few lives from the death sentence of AIDS. I've buried too many friends in the ground already. I was a man once trapped and deceived by the "gay" lifestyle until I was 28 years old. Many of my 100+ partners a dead today from AIDS and it's a miracle that I'm even alive. I know it was the Lord who spared me from infection with HIV. Thank God for the Christian who came to my door in 1990 with a Bible in her hand. She was not afraid to confront me and my homosexual sin with the only thing that could set me free: the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I'm eternally grateful to her for not buying into the false gospel of "L-U-V" today called "tolerance and acceptance." I'm sure my wife and two little children today would thank her as well. You Can Make a Difference So, what can you do on April 9, 2003 - the "Day of Silence" - to make a difference? Don't be silent. Share the truth with these students - the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The Gospel is the only thing that can bring the sinner to repentance and salvation. It's not my words, nor yours - but God's Word alone that can save. Contact your area schools. See if they are allowing any of these pro-'gay' pep rallies/demonstrations to take place on school property, on your "dime." If so, voice your objection to the superintendent, the principal, the teachers, the PTA or PTO - anyone you can - to stop this "gay" activism from taking place. Be vocal about your objection to the school condoning and promoting a lifestyle that is unnatural, unhealthy, immoral and in many cases - deadly. Get other Christians, parents, pastors and churches to flood your local schools with calls as well. Even call your local city or town hall and get the mayor to step in to stop the event. There is strength in numbers. You won't believe what a difference you can make by starting the ball rolling. Finally, if these events are permitted to take place and the school defiantly allows the young anarchists a "gay" platform for the day� choose to participate. Brand New Tract on Homosexuality We are flooding the nation with a brand new evangelistic tract called "I Was Gay." The tract biblically and practically deals with the truth about homosexuality and is ideal for Christians and students to pass out that day or anytime. In the tract, I share my personal story and complete deliverance from the homosexual lifestyle over 11 years ago by coming into a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. I address the homosexual issue from an insider's perspective and boldly share God's view on the deceptive sin. You may download the tract and print it out, or you can order these tracts from the ministry in quantities of 50, 100, 250, 500, 1000 or more by clicking here. I would strongly suggest donating a supply of the tracts to your church for your church "Tract Rack." Stand for Righteousness I can tell you first hand - there is nothing "gay" about being "gay." Many homosexual men and women, when brutally honest, would also agree. The truth is no one is born "gay" - no one. In most all cases one's homosexuality has everything to do with childhood. But most importantly, Jesus Christ offers hope and complete deliverance. Complete change is completely possible! Let's join together and give America, our schools, our youth and GLSEN a real message of hope, of love, of change and salvation through Jesus Christ. Remember, God loves the sinner - yet He hates the sin. Don't be silent on April 9th or any other day. You can make an eternal difference in the life of another human being. Choose to take a stand for righteousness. Choose to take a stand for Jesus Christ.
By definition if a person can change, or have a choice, they are by definition bisexuals and bisexuals just switch sides, they don't have to, but they can. Sexuality is a spectrum, you can be 80 percent heterosexual and 20 percent homosexual and the 20 percent is repressed and they never even care or probably even know consciously, only when it gets up to probably 60 to 40 percent does it become openly noticeable to the individual, and if they hate the idea, you get your homophobes like you, because homophobia is self loathing.
Now if you said you were not born homosexual or had a predisposition for homosexuality, then you are saying we are all born bisexuals and at some magical moment the weight of attraction accumulates to the point that the scale tips and a decision is make that I am X, a homosexual or a heterosexual. Then the brain forms the necessary pattern recognition to call the necessary stimuli for the sexual response to a given body structure pattern recognition. I and most scientist fill this is a product of the structure in the making of a baby, a predisposition, not a gene as it were, but a blue print as to what will be the finial weight of simulative pattern recognition. Not a choice and not exactly a single gene but a complex interaction of genetic make up.
If that piece of paper is so important that you wish to deny it to intersexuals and homosexual, then it is important enough that to deny it to intersexuals and homosexuals constitutes a violation of their rights. Marriage and procreation are fundamental rights that cannot be denied.
The sky HAS fallen, the sky Has fallen and it fell on Rob Blade. Which mental hospital have you escaped from? Are the men in white coats after you? You're a grade A nut case.
Go back to your liberal masters at the ACLU and tell them that we're not interested in your radical homosexual plan to destroy marriage and the family, and we're not interesting in helping Saddam Hussein to pull off another 9/11.
That's what you want, isn't it? Saddam didn't kill enough red-blooded American Christians on 9/11 and you won't be happy until he's allowed to hide behind your "rights" as a citizen so he can order another attack.
Well, please, do us all a favor and ignore me. I wasn't talking to you. I was only speaking to those true Americans, the ones who don't want their sons to be feminized and forced to perform in homosexual pornography. I was only talking to the people who don't think it's a good idea for women to intentionally become pregnant so the can get an abortion, ritually "sacrificing" a human life to a Satanic god.
That's what your "constitutional rights" stand for. That's what "personal freedom" means. It means child pornography, broken families and America's daughters forced into lesbian relationships. That's what you want, what your heart cries out for, and gay marriage is how you'll do it.
Um, hello? Evidence? You mean, besides the decades old homosexual war against marriage and the traditional family?
Besides *That* evidence? Is that what you mean?
"Just because homosexuals and feminist came up with the idea of gay marriage in order to destroy marriage in the family, and have openly promoted this agenda for years, is no reason to think that they're interested."
Yeah, right.... and then you woke up.
Please. You're not fooling anybody.
The homosexuals and the feminists know that traditional marriage, the family & Christianity itself can not survive two gay people getting married. Christianity just isn't that big. The bonds of a traditional Christian family just aren't that strong. Homosexuality is much bigger & stronger than Christianity and the family, and you know it.
You can always tell how little credibility a person has when they start arguing about the "traditional family" in a country where 50 percent of marriages end in divorce...
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 15:49:56 GMT, "JC Martin" wrote:
How would it be any different for him if his daughter were a schizophrenic instead? Would he be an American then, as well?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "The multicultural project will never fully succeed if 'diversity' is defined as one's own preferred ideologies and political groups."
--Richard E. Redding, "Grappling With Diverse Conceptions of Diversity," American Psychologist, April 2002, p. 301.
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 04:42:49 GMT, "JC Martin" wrote:
Who knows? I did not vote for Mr. Bush and have never claimed to be a Republican. In your simple black and white world,. the 'enemy' is monolithic. All I can tell you is that there has been no evidence, NONE, that homosexuality is an immutable characteristic which is one of the three qualilfications to become a "special group" and receive preferred treatment.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "The multicultural project will never fully succeed if 'diversity' is defined as one's own preferred ideologies and political groups."
--Richard E. Redding, "Grappling With Diverse Conceptions of Diversity," American Psychologist, April 2002, p. 301.
Who said anything about equal rights being reserved for "immutable" characteristics?
Funny how we accord "preferred treatment" for the elderly, the handicapped, veterans, cops, children and even diplomats but not for law-abiding citizens who happen to be gay.
And again where is that baptist gene located at? You are still confused, the ban on marriage is based solely on the sex one is born with, and sex is most certainly a protected class.
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 17:52:38 GMT, David Lampert wrote:
No ban...a definition. It requires a man and a woman.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "The multicultural project will never fully succeed if 'diversity' is defined as one's own preferred ideologies and political groups."
--Richard E. Redding, "Grappling With Diverse Conceptions of Diversity," American Psychologist, April 2002, p. 301.
Whether you know it or not you are arguing the point of equal application of the law, that the states and federal government are saying the law applies equally to heterosexuals and homosexuals. Equal application of the law is not equal protection nor due process of the law.
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) (USSC+) Instead, the State argues that the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause, as illuminated by the statements of the Framers, is only that state penal laws containing an interracial element [p*8] as part of the definition of the offense must apply equally to whites and Negroes in the sense that members of each race are punished to the same degree. Thus, the State contends that, because its miscegenation statutes punish equally both the white and the Negro participants in an interracial marriage, these statutes, despite their reliance on racial classifications, do not constitute an invidious discrimination based upon race.
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) Virginia's statutory scheme to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications held to violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.
In answer to:
Virginia's argument: Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And, but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriage. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.
I guess ignorance of the law is all you have then, let me repeat, if the only legal marriage is one between exclusively a man and a woman who does a hermaphrodite "legally" marry? Which are they exclusively a man or a woman?
Your crocodile tears would go a lot farther if you had not said there is not enough of intersexuals, especially hermaphrodites to cause the change of traditional family values as marriage. Thus relegating intersexuals to subhuman status. Your concern is not for intersexuals, just like your concern is not for children being abused, your concern is you see that intersexuals are born that way, and you have no defense to counter the God don't make homosexuals, or that homosexuals choose to be homosexuals so there is no reason to allow them to marry, tired old argument. You are using intersexuals the same as you use boys being abuse, but never girls being abused, as a weapon of mass destruction against homosexuals. For your self loathing homophobia.
So, those things don't exist right now without gay marriage? How is gay marriage related to kiddie porn and broken families?
Using "Rob Blade"'s argument, hetero marriage should be banned because obviously there wouldn't be broken families and kiddie porn without it. This argument is completely preposterous and does not deserve to be considered seriously.
I guess the Secret Service agent who saved Gerald Ford's life and one of the heroes who tried to take on the 9/11 hijackers, weren't real Americans either in these morons' eyes? And if the rumors about Abe Lincoln were true, then obviously he wouldn't be a real American in their eyes.
Which leads to the conclusion that the bigots would be far happier living in a society like Saudi Arabia or Cuba than the U.S.
And if it wasn't for Alan Turing, no one would be posting on Usenet because there would be no computers as we know them today.
Funny how the GOP, despite the influence of the religious right, is taking a Sartrian position on free will!
The difference is, sparkies like you say homosexuals choose to be homosexuals, but those with schizophrenia (like Bill Taylor) do not choose to have it. You sparkies say that becoming homosexual is due to the lack of good parenting, that reflects on your sparky buddy old big Dick.
Are you going to squirm out of your own beloved NARTH collective?
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 17:49:43 GMT, David Lampert wrote:
There is little evidence and the APA has been compromised. They have a powerful "Gay Caucus" that has powerful influence within the organizaion. As a result, they suppress all resarch.
My statement stands. There is NO EVIDENCE that homosexuality is an immutable state.
What I DID say, is these people suffer from an irregularity. They are simply "broken people". However, it is a free country and they do as they wish and I will tolerate them. However, to celebrate their "diversity" is about as sane as celebrating the diveristy of a Narcoleptic........
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "The multicultural project will never fully succeed if 'diversity' is defined as one's own preferred ideologies and political groups."
--Richard E. Redding, "Grappling With Diverse Conceptions of Diversity," American Psychologist, April 2002, p. 301.
How many persons belong to this "Gay Caucus"? How many belong today? How many belonged in 1973? Exactly what percentage of the population of APA membership belongs to this "Gay Caucus" (today and in 1973)?
Homos and faggot and queers oh my, and you wonder why we call you a homophobe.
You don't fix what ain't broke. There is nothing to research.
And it is irrelevant because there is no law that is based on the sexual orientation of the individuals. After all a gay can marry a lesbian. I don't care even if homosexuals wake up one day and say humm I like to suck a dick, so do Baptist, but Baptist are not banned from marrying Catholics anymore, and there is no reason to deny intersexuals the right to marry, just to keep your bigotry in the law.
So are Baptist, they need help to be deprogrammed out of their cult addiction, but they are not banned from marring, intersexuals are.
Yeah right, is that why you have so much of a problem with teaching tolerance of homosexuals in the schools?
Narcoleptic? What the hell you got aginst people that go to sleep if they get excited?
Narcoleptic A disorder characterized by sudden and uncontrollable, though often brief, attacks of deep sleep, sometimes accompanied by paralysis and hallucinations.
You better tell that to the scientific community sparky, they think it is not only a real word but real symptom as well.
Psychoanalytic theory holds that homophobia -- the fear, anxiety, anger, discomfort and aversion that some ostensibly heterosexual people hold for gay individuals -- is the result of repressed homosexual urges that the person is either unaware of or denies. A study appearing in the August 1996 issue of the Journal of Abnormal Psychology, published by the American Psychological Association (APA), provides new empirical evidence that is consistent with that theory.
"Dennis Kemmerer" wrote [---Satanic, liberal propaganda deleted---]
One look at a married gay couple -- just one look -- and Christianity is destroyed.
I don't want a world where witchcraft is taught in public schools. I don't want a world where young girls are taught that they if they don't pregnant and have an abortion that their mothers won't love them and their god will doom them to eternal suffering.
I don't want an America where boys are feminized.
If you're with me, if you want to avoid these things, the only thing you can do is fight to take away your rights as a citizen. If you have "rights" then so doesn't the feminists... the radical homosexuals... the witches.... the liberals....
The only way to stop them, take away their power and defend your children from Saddam is to take away all your personal freedoms.
If you don't have the "Right" to worship as you please then the liberals and the feminist don't have the "right" to practice witchcraft... to engage in satanic rituals.
If you don't have the "Right" to privacy then the feminists, the Satanists and the lesbians can't hide behind that "Right" in order to get themselves pregnant just so they can have an abortion and "sacrifice" a human life to their satanic god.
Protect yourself. Protect your neighbors. Give up all your rights as a citizen. Tell the feminists, the liberals and Saddam Hussein "no" to another 9/11 and the destruction of marriage. Do it for the children.
"Barbara Walker" wrote [---left-leaning liberals lies deleted---]
Go kill another fetus, you abortion-loving feminist terrorist!
I couldn't care less what you have to say. Go spill your satanic vile elsewhere. As far as I'm concerned, you and your lefty-liberal ACLU pals are talking to a brick wall.
Yes they want equal rights to the heterosexuals who do 97 percent of all child abuse in the family or by friends of the family. You see homosexuals want equal rights.
Nobgobbler, you have equal rights. You're allowed to rim and fist and fellate and sodomize and contract AIDS and HIV and STDs and other vile feces and blood-borne diseases to your heart's content. What more could you ask for? I mean, do you really think a marriage certificate is going to magically induce anyone in your community to clean up their act, or to reduce the number of men they have sex with from 100 to, say, 25 a year or so? Besides, a divorce every two weeks is stressful. You know how tempting those truck stops are. (Cordially, Marie)
Really, and where do I find that knob at on my wife, I'm always up for new things and it seems you are very experienced in these matters, I will rely on you to instruct me in the proper usage of her knob.
Where is it and how does one gobble it?
Oh maybe all the above fun stuff and a piece of paper to say no one can come into their home and tell them they cannot do it. You know, the simple thing called equal rights. Heterosexuals vastly outnumber homosexuals in the conducts you fantasize about above.
Maybe as a Ex-lesbian you could tell me, I don't know?
Yeah ReneA, they can marry who your lot chooses, but not who they choose, just like blacks could not marry who they choose, only who was chosen for them. You are using the old equal application thingy, equal application is not equal protection nor due process of the law. (Before you say it, the ban on marriage has nothing to do with orientation, only the sexual organs one is born with, a gay can marry a lesbian.)
Then they cannot marry who they choose with in the very same restrictions as the heterosexuals.
Restrictions yes, bans no, you cannot deny a person the right to marry, if the only legal marriage is one between a man and a woman who does a hermaphrodite legally marry?
Well, according to <http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/pedophiliaTR.htm>, I note well this statement re pedophilia:
"Diagnostic criteria for 302.2 Pedophilia (cautionary statement) A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger).
B. The person has acted on these urges, or the sexual urges or ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty.
C. The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A."
As far as I know, this is the current version of the DSM-IV, so I note with interest the difference from the claims I see in your citations, Frog. (By the way, could you ask the author of the 2nd citation what a "factition" is? It's not in any of my dictionaries.)
Furthermore, the APA has also issued a strongly-worded statement declaring its adamant opposition to pedophilia, which others have quoted.
But you might want to actually read the article in question. Rather than saying "hey, pedophilia's good for kiddies!", it instead says that a) kids can and do recover from sexual abuse, and b) there should be distinctions made in what is considered sexual abuse, e.g. the rape of a 6-year-old should not be lumped in the same realm as, say, children accidentally walking in on their parents having sex.
On 23 Jul 2003 08:27:21 -0700, [email] (Clay Colwell) wrote:
Thanks, Clay, but the APA is a crock.
They are, themselves, full of homosexuals. Ask about the Gay Caucus of the APA that mysteriously appeared just two years after the 1973 change to homoism. Who really believes that they all joined in that two year period? Can you say "inside job"???
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "The multicultural project will never fully succeed if 'diversity' is defined as one's own preferred ideologies and political groups."
--Richard E. Redding, "Grappling With Diverse Conceptions of Diversity," American Psychologist, April 2002, p. 301.
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 16:57:54 GMT, "M is for Malapert" wrote:
well you might try re-reading instead of snipping my response.....
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "The multicultural project will never fully succeed if 'diversity' is defined as one's own preferred ideologies and political groups."
--Richard E. Redding, "Grappling With Diverse Conceptions of Diversity," American Psychologist, April 2002, p. 301.
On 23 Jul 2003 14:44:57 -0700, [email] (Clay Colwell) wrote:
Anyone really believe THE ADVOCATE is an unbiased source for this? Got anything besides the most noted homo media? Anything from the APA? Why would you give "evidence" from this site?
Paleeeeze........
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "The multicultural project will never fully succeed if 'diversity' is defined as one's own preferred ideologies and political groups."
--Richard E. Redding, "Grappling With Diverse Conceptions of Diversity," American Psychologist, April 2002, p. 301.
[article about the origins of formal gay groups in the APA deleted]
There's no doubt that, whne it comes to gay issues, the Advocate is going to be a biased source. However, in this specific case, we're talking about the origins of formal gay groups that you claim "just shot up out of the blue". Bias, in this case, is going to be tan- gential at most.
Ummmmm, weren't you the one who won't accept evidence from the APA because they can't be trusted? Nice bit of circular-logically- powered blinders you've got there.
Because it is a researched article from a respected journalist. Hello! And it's far more than your vaunted "Oh, lookit all the homos! Who knows *where* they came from? Must be a group like the Elders of Zion! Save us from the Homo Horde!"
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 15:38:59 GMT, "M is for Malapert" wrote:
Would you like to hear the condemnation of the APA by Congress in 1999 by BOTH houses??
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "The multicultural project will never fully succeed if 'diversity' is defined as one's own preferred ideologies and political groups."
--Richard E. Redding, "Grappling With Diverse Conceptions of Diversity," American Psychologist, April 2002, p. 301.
"M is for Malapert" wrote in message news:T6zTa.127815$Ph3.16681@sccrnsc04...
and
One wonders what made congress experts in psychological matters in the first place, or was it that the right wing became so shrill they figured they'd better say something before they all exploded.
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 21:18:56 GMT, "Light Templar" wrote:
Common sense. It passed unanimously.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "The multicultural project will never fully succeed if 'diversity' is defined as one's own preferred ideologies and political groups."
--Richard E. Redding, "Grappling With Diverse Conceptions of Diversity," American Psychologist, April 2002, p. 301.
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 01:06:42 GMT, "Light Templar" wrote:
I read it, and so did the House of Representatives. The whole house and I agree on this issue. You are a homo and you don't No surprise there.....
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "The multicultural project will never fully succeed if 'diversity' is defined as one's own preferred ideologies and political groups."
--Richard E. Redding, "Grappling With Diverse Conceptions of Diversity," American Psychologist, April 2002, p. 301.
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 01:47:41 GMT, "Light Templar" wrote:
Let me repeat.....UNANIMOUS. Both Conservatives and Liberals.
Well, aren't you the articulate one.......
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "The multicultural project will never fully succeed if 'diversity' is defined as one's own preferred ideologies and political groups."
--Richard E. Redding, "Grappling With Diverse Conceptions of Diversity," American Psychologist, April 2002, p. 301.
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 21:04:12 GMT, "Light Templar" wrote:
I would like to know more about how the conservatives were able to push ALL of the Democrats into voting unanimously on this issue. Can you please explain to us how this was done?
Mutually exclusive - Debate and Insult
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "The multicultural project will never fully succeed if 'diversity' is defined as one's own preferred ideologies and political groups."
--Richard E. Redding, "Grappling With Diverse Conceptions of Diversity," American Psychologist, April 2002, p. 301.
Scare tactics 101. Accuse anyone that doesn't agree with your agenda of supporting child molestation. Worked well to, hell the Democrats didn't even read the report, of course, neither did the republicans.
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 21:29:20 GMT, "Light Templar" wrote:
Is this speculation or do you have something to support this assertion? You seem so convinced. Do you have anything?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "The multicultural project will never fully succeed if 'diversity' is defined as one's own preferred ideologies and political groups."
--Richard E. Redding, "Grappling With Diverse Conceptions of Diversity," American Psychologist, April 2002, p. 301.
In alt.radio.talk.dr-laura article The Frog wrote:
Maybe. Just what part of the design do you have a problem with, and do take into account the followups in Sexualiy & Culture and the 2001 Psychological Bulletin (Nov) when discussing this.
Discussions directed at the findings are not appropriate unless the methodology is unsound.
and so did the House of Representatives.
No, they didn't. As to the people in the house, I doubt any but a small few could understand it, even if they had a PhD on staff. Hell, Matt Salmon (spit) even lied about the recidivism rates in his resolution and speech. Ferchrissakes, the man was in congress - he could have called the DoJ and gotten the reports. Did he seek to be informed? No, he didn't. He spoke and the House voted in the same ignorance as Larua promugated.
Francis Bacon (1561 to 1626). The prejudices that obstruct human progress. One the tendency to see only those facts which support an opinion one wishes to entertain. Two the prejudices in the individual by particular environment and education. (Because what you personally know and when you know it determine what you believe, whether correct or not.) Third is the prejudice that comes about because everyone you know believes a certain thing. (As everyone knows the world is flat.) The forth is the result from the tendency to become attached to particular theories, beliefs, and philosophies. To hold on to them long after the logical basis for their continuance has disappeared.
There is a difference between fact and loudly and oft stated opinion devoid of any basis in reality such as the crap NARTH spews. You should learn the difference.
Ever notice how the conservatives always cut your post, to make it say whatever they like, then answer it anyway they like? Well it is due to their tiny little brains, that they cannot hold more than 10 words in their tiny brain bus or it overloads it, and the rest is not processed and is truncated. It is then replaced with the error message of Liberal, and is treated as low ordered subroutine filled with boiler plat preprogrammed text started by: Liberals are all idiots, and the error that caused it is inserted.
Actually, as far as I recall, all members of the HoR, both Democrat and Republican, voted to censure.
Like I said, though, I'll take the word of trained accredited doctors over politicians looking to maintain their voting bloc, and who evidently did not do the research necessary to understand what the APA article actually stated.
On 23 Jul 2003 14:54:19 -0700, [email] (Clay Colwell) wrote:
Well, Mr. Clay, When all is said and done, and the "tapdancing" is over.....it doesn't take a Ph.D in Anatomy or even Statistics to know that by any definition, queer is an anomoly, an irregularity, and not a pretty one. These are simply "broken people". Some people have physical issues, others mental or emotional. Good luck in your queer world.
Your friend,
The Frog
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "The multicultural project will never fully succeed if 'diversity' is defined as one's own preferred ideologies and political groups."
--Richard E. Redding, "Grappling With Diverse Conceptions of Diversity," American Psychologist, April 2002, p. 301.
More like those with Bi-polar, and schizophrenia, Autism, etc. Simply a mistake of nature only this time it affects one's sexuality. Nothing to rail against, but nothing to celebrate, either. Certainly nothing to give special favored status to.
Frog
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "The multicultural project will never fully succeed if 'diversity' is defined as one's own preferred ideologies and political groups."
--Richard E. Redding, "Grappling With Diverse Conceptions of Diversity," American Psychologist, April 2002, p. 301.
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 15:17:32 GMT, Mitchell Holman wrote:
Marry who you wish, as long as your and your partner satisfy the definition of marriage. If it doesn't, then what you are suggesting is not marriage simply because it doesn't fit the definition.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "The multicultural project will never fully succeed if 'diversity' is defined as one's own preferred ideologies and political groups."
--Richard E. Redding, "Grappling With Diverse Conceptions of Diversity," American Psychologist, April 2002, p. 301.
Remember when that "definition" barred interracial marriage? I bet you would have been a big defender of the contemporary "definition" back then as well.
You conservatives are always seeking to limit freedom when others want to expand it.
Feel free to detail exactly what "special favored status" gayfolk aspire to. I note that, at least when it comes to marriage, it's the straightfolk who've got the special rights.
Oh? You're finally giving up on your malicious misrepresentations? Cool!
It doesn't take an English major to note that your "not a pretty one" addition renders your statement false (note your "by ANY definition" condition). You might try sticking with facts instead of unfounded suppositions.
To quote a good friend of mine, "Er, no."
And still others have educational issues. Thankfully, for those who have the drive and the will, those can be corrected.
And the scientific credentials of both houses are? and the peer-reviewed data they supplied to refute the APA was? and it was published in which scientific journal?
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 19:36:19 -0400, "L. Michael Roberts" wrote:
Passed unanimously. "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "The multicultural project will never fully succeed if 'diversity' is defined as one's own preferred ideologies and political groups."
--Richard E. Redding, "Grappling With Diverse Conceptions of Diversity," American Psychologist, April 2002, p. 301.
So in other words you could not answer the question, since when does a congressmen know the first thing about science?
More pedophobia.
Joel 3: 3 And they have cast lots for my people; and have given a boy for an harlot, and sold a girl for wine, that they might drink.
Songs 8: 8 We have a little sister, and she hath no breasts: what shall we do for our sister in the day when she shall be spoken for?
Song 4: 10 How fair is thy love, my sister, my spouse! how much better is thy love than wine! and the smell of thine ointments than all spices!
2 Samuel 13: 11 And when she had brought them unto him to eat, he took hold of her, and said unto her, Come lie with me, my sister. 14 Howbeit he would not hearken unto her voice: but, being stronger than she, forced her, and lay with her.
Genesis 19: 36 Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.
Numbers 31: 17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 20:09:08 GMT, David Lampert wrote:
What they are saying is that they are unwilling to change the culture to accomodate predatory pedophiles. It has little to do with science and everything to do with culture. Unanimously...........all of them....hundreds......
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "The multicultural project will never fully succeed if 'diversity' is defined as one's own preferred ideologies and political groups."
--Richard E. Redding, "Grappling With Diverse Conceptions of Diversity," American Psychologist, April 2002, p. 301.
But Froggie, the report in question wasn't trying to accomodate predatory pedophiles, so what was their vote based on? Science? No... Emotionalism? You bet!
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 21:31:03 GMT, "Light Templar" wrote:
Now you are catching on. It is a very emotional issue. These people are pariahs and enemies of the culture. It isn't hard to understand why 100% voted against the APA trying to soften up the public like the did with the homo issue.
There is no room for these dangerous deviates.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "The multicultural project will never fully succeed if 'diversity' is defined as one's own preferred ideologies and political groups."
--Richard E. Redding, "Grappling With Diverse Conceptions of Diversity," American Psychologist, April 2002, p. 301.
"Do these findings mean, then, that homophobia in men is a reaction to repressed homosexual urges, as psychoanalysis theorizes? While their findings are consistent with that theory, the authors note that there is another, competing theoretical explanation: anxiety. According to this theory, viewing the male homosexual videotape may have caused negative emotions (such as anxiety) in the homophobic men, but not in the nonhomophobic men. As the authors note, 'anxiety has been shown to enhance arousal and erection,' and so it is also possible that 'a response to homosexual stimuli [in these men] is a function of the threat condition rather than sexual arousal per se. These competing notions can and should be evaluated by future research.'"
(I do realize that you're just twitting the guy, but I don't think such twitting is helpful.)
You know, when it comes to scientific analysis and knowledge, I'd rather go to, gee whiz, *scientists* than to politicians. How about you? That Congress did not exhibit an understanding of the article does not surprise me in the slightest, especially as "pedophilia" is such a hotword, and far too many people vote with their emotions rather than with their heads.
Let's see -- accredited doctors vs. random USENET posters.
Where's the contest?
??? Given the mention of the study by David Lampert, that counts as one big ol' counterexample to your assertion. Your thesis is simply incorrect.
Ah, yes, the Huge Homo Hegemony theory. Amazing what POWER they wield! The field of psychology stands plundered!
What a loony-ass conspiracy theory you present.
You might want to actually try to grasp the concept of "argument", as well as "debate" and "evidence". "Logic" would be helpful to you as well.
On 23 Jul 2003 08:41:14 -0700, [email] (Clay Colwell) wrote:
<snip for clarity of issue>
Can you provide us with another credible explanation?
Blah....Blah.....Blah...."I'm right and Froggy is
wrong"......Blah.....Blah.......
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "The multicultural project will never fully succeed if 'diversity' is defined as one's own preferred ideologies and political groups."
--Richard E. Redding, "Grappling With Diverse Conceptions of Diversity," American Psychologist, April 2002, p. 301.
"After you eliminate the impossible, whatever is left, no matter how improbable, is the truth"
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "The multicultural project will never fully succeed if 'diversity' is defined as one's own preferred ideologies and political groups."
--Richard E. Redding, "Grappling With Diverse Conceptions of Diversity," American Psychologist, April 2002, p. 301.
When Evelyn Hooker, Ph.D. found that no other Doctors could tell the difference between a heterosexual or a homosexual the definition of homosexuality as a mental illnesshad to be changed.
"In 1953, Hooker applied to the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) for a six-month grant to study the adjustment of nonclinical homosexual men and a comparable group of heterosexual men. If the study section thought it worthwhile, she would pursue it. The reply was not long in coming. John Eberhart, chief of the Grants Division, flew out to spend a day with her. The application, she was told, was quite extraordinary, especially because it was then the height of the McCarthy era. The legal penalties for homosexual behavior were severe. The psychiatric diagnosis was severe and pervasive emotional disorder. There were simply no scientific data about nonimprisoned, nonpatient homosexuals. Eberhart said, "We are prepared to give you the grant, but you may not receive it, and you won't know why and we won't know why." Not only did she receive it, but NIMH continued the renewal until 1961, when she received the Research Career Award.
Hooker's research (1957) demonstrating that expert clinical judges could not distinguish the projective test protocols of nonclinical homosexual men from a comparable group of heterosexual men, nor were there differences in adjustment ratings, was validated soon thereafter by other investigators. Not until 1973, however, did the American Psychiatric Association delete homosexuality from its diagnostic handbook. Meanwhile, the gay and lesbian liberation movement in the 1960s took cognizance of these research findings. It was a source of great satisfaction for Hooker to have contributed in some measure to this new freedom and to a partial lifting of the stigma."
<http://www.advocate.com/html/stories/836/836_archives_172.asp>, which details that an informal network of gay psychologists and psychiatrists already existed.
And when I see numbers like "400 delegates" to a conference and "a mailing list of 50", I fail to see how they could hold such sway over the tens of thousands of psychiatrists and psychologists that were given their chance to vote on the removal.
Let's see -- you've given us poor supposition, unsubstantiated allegations, and misrepresentations for your evidence. Yeah, I feel completely confident in declaring that I am right and you are wrong.
On 23 Jul 2003 14:51:37 -0700, [email] (Clay Colwell) wrote:
And you hold up the most biased of all sources and tell us it must be the truth.......maybe another queer would agree, but not me.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "The multicultural project will never fully succeed if 'diversity' is defined as one's own preferred ideologies and political groups."
--Richard E. Redding, "Grappling With Diverse Conceptions of Diversity," American Psychologist, April 2002, p. 301.
When Evelyn Hooker, Ph.D. found that no other Doctors could tell the difference between a heterosexual or a homosexual the definition of homosexuality as a mental illnesshad to be changed.
"In 1953, Hooker applied to the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) for a six-month grant to study the adjustment of nonclinical homosexual men and a comparable group of heterosexual men. If the study section thought it worthwhile, she would pursue it. The reply was not long in coming. John Eberhart, chief of the Grants Division, flew out to spend a day with her. The application, she was told, was quite extraordinary, especially because it was then the height of the McCarthy era. The legal penalties for homosexual behavior were severe. The psychiatric diagnosis was severe and pervasive emotional disorder. There were simply no scientific data about nonimprisoned, nonpatient homosexuals. Eberhart said, "We are prepared to give you the grant, but you may not receive it, and you won't know why and we won't know why." Not only did she receive it, but NIMH continued the renewal until 1961, when she received the Research Career Award.
Hooker's research (1957) demonstrating that expert clinical judges could not distinguish the projective test protocols of nonclinical homosexual men from a comparable group of heterosexual men, nor were there differences in adjustment ratings, was validated soon thereafter by other investigators. Not until 1973, however, did the American Psychiatric Association delete homosexuality from its diagnostic handbook. Meanwhile, the gay and lesbian liberation movement in the 1960s took cognizance of these research findings. It was a source of great satisfaction for Hooker to have contributed in some measure to this new freedom and to a partial lifting of the stigma."
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 01:22:05 GMT, David Lampert wrote:
And this is from where?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "The multicultural project will never fully succeed if 'diversity' is defined as one's own preferred ideologies and political groups."
--Richard E. Redding, "Grappling With Diverse Conceptions of Diversity," American Psychologist, April 2002, p. 301.
Are you stupid or something? Don't you know how to use google.com? Is that why you are always asking Rob Wade (the Ex-heterosexual), oh I need this do you have a link, oh this is important I'm too stupid to look it up on google and can you provide me with a link.
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 18:34:07 GMT, David Lampert wrote:
Hope this helps www.prozac.com
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "The multicultural project will never fully succeed if 'diversity' is defined as one's own preferred ideologies and political groups."
--Richard E. Redding, "Grappling With Diverse Conceptions of Diversity," American Psychologist, April 2002, p. 301.
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 01:22:05 GMT, David Lampert wrote:
How it took 14 years for this one to reach the point of actually changing the definition of homosexuality is amazing -- homophobia, even amongst scientists is deeply entrenched.
Hookers paper was elegantly simple, easy to comprehend and utterly convincing.
Like Galileo dropping the two weights from the tower at Pisa to demonstrate that heavy weights and light weights fell at the SAME speed it's thesis was self-evident and, on its face, incontrovertible.
ward
--------------------------------------------------- "A black man voting for the Republicans, makes about as much sense as a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders."
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 01:22:05 GMT, David Lampert wrote:
Could Dr. Hooker, or anyone else, tell the difference between a regular person and a pedophile?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "The multicultural project will never fully succeed if 'diversity' is defined as one's own preferred ideologies and political groups."
--Richard E. Redding, "Grappling With Diverse Conceptions of Diversity," American Psychologist, April 2002, p. 301.
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 18:36:42 GMT, David Lampert wrote:
Well, what is the difference? If the good Dr. is willing to legitimize one group with this criteria, why would another not qualify?
Well, we are all listening...............
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "The multicultural project will never fully succeed if 'diversity' is defined as one's own preferred ideologies and political groups."
--Richard E. Redding, "Grappling With Diverse Conceptions of Diversity," American Psychologist, April 2002, p. 301.
You know, if your whatever above was even remotely comprehensible maybe I could answer it, want to try again sparky?
I don't speak Conservative. Nor do I have the luxury of being collectively connected to the Bork collective.
How is defining a symptom legitimizing anything?
Ever notice how the conservatives always cut your post, to make it say whatever they like, then answer it anyway they like? Well it is due to their tiny little brains, that they cannot hold more than 10 words in their tiny brain bus or it overloads it, and the rest is not processed and is truncated. It is then replaced with the error message of Liberal, and is treated as low ordered subroutine filled with boiler plat preprogrammed text started by: Liberals are all idiots, and the error that caused it is inserted.
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 21:58:37 GMT, David Lampert wrote:
OK, I'm going to type real slow so that you will understand. The above statement tells us the criteria that Dr. Hooker used to change the status of homosexuality wer if doctors could tell them apart from striaghts, right?
Using the same test of the doctors not being able to tell the difference between normal and deviate would arrive at a conclusion that they must, too, change pedophilia from a mental illness to a condition that is not pathological.
Using this test, how could they arrive at any other conclusion. The fact that they haven't shows the bias toward the queer community.
Thanks for your attention,
Your friend,
The Frog
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "The multicultural project will never fully succeed if 'diversity' is defined as one's own preferred ideologies and political groups."
--Richard E. Redding, "Grappling With Diverse Conceptions of Diversity," American Psychologist, April 2002, p. 301.
On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 17:27:25 GMT, David Lampert wrote:
There is a real problem -- homophobia, an otherwise inexplicable phenomenon, must have a root of some sort and the scientists are seeking that root cause of this irrational behavior.
There are many of these primitive atavisms subsumed under the more general xenophobia.
The scientific hypothesis is just that, an hypothesis -- actually a pretty good one and one borne out by observation and research.
ward
-----------------------------------------------------
"Dr. Paul Cameron...has himself made misrepresentations
to this Court" , , , "There has been no fraud or
misrepresentations except by Dr. Cameron."
Judge Buchmeyer of the U.S. District Court of Dallas
-----------------------------------------------------
"Normal" and "Irrationality" are functions of a statistical "bell" curve. By definintion, half the American people cannot be deemed irrational. The term "homophobe" is hardly used in medical circles, it is simply a political tool to suppress dissention. This is no secret. It has been so overused that it has lost it's intended effect.
Your friend,
The Frog
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "The multicultural project will never fully succeed if 'diversity' is defined as one's own preferred ideologies and political groups."
--Richard E. Redding, "Grappling With Diverse Conceptions of Diversity," American Psychologist, April 2002, p. 301.
Irrational -- ADJECTIVE:
1a. Not endowed with reason.
b. Affected by loss of usual or normal mental clarity; incoherent,
as from shock.
c. Marked by a lack of accord with reason or sound judgment: an
irrational dislike.
None of these relate to statistics in any fashion. Emotions themselves are irrational in nature. Think on that. How many human beings are true emotionless automatons? In that arena, the vast majority of people *are* irrational, and there's no shame in that.
Now, if you want to bandy statistics, that's fine, but it would help you far more if you knew what you were talking about.
On 23 Jul 2003 11:07:21 -0700, [email] (Clay Colwell) wrote:
You can pick language, but you cannot fix the queer problem. Saying that it is normal will not pass muster with more than half of the American people. Sorry, Charlie.....spin your wordsmithing to someone from New York or California. Just don't try it with the majority of the American people. They won't go for it.....
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "The multicultural project will never fully succeed if 'diversity' is defined as one's own preferred ideologies and political groups."
--Richard E. Redding, "Grappling With Diverse Conceptions of Diversity," American Psychologist, April 2002, p. 301.
Indeed. Boston just finished addressing a HORRIFIC period in which OVER
1,000 young men and boys were sexually molested, fondled, and/or raped by
homosexual priests in the Boston Archdiocese of the Roman Catholic Church.
The Massachusetts attorney general couldn't file suit against those
homosexuals, however, because (he said) the needed child protection laws
weren't in place at the time those homosexuals were raping and molesting
those young boys. The queer problem has NOT been fixed, obviously.
"Barbara Walker" wrote in message news:ugBTa.116659$[email]...
Of course Barbara fails to mention that these molestations occurred over a 60 year period, and most of them could not be prosecuted because the statue of limitations had run out.
Additionally, she also cannot show that all the molestations were by homosexuals.
Not even counting the fact that over half of them were male/female molestations.
Child Molestation isn't something you file suit for Babbling Barbara, you file charges.
And of course they are homosexual priests because they molested boys. Sparky, there are no alter girls to molest.
"Children are most often sexually victimized by someone they know... the perpetrator is a parent, step-parent, family member, family friend, or other acquaintance. People known to the victim were offenders in 93% of sexual assaults of juveniles reported to the police from 1991 to 1996. A person known to the victim was the perpetrator in 97% of cases where the victim was under age six, 95% of cases where the victim was age 6 to 11 and in 90% of cases where the victim was age 12 to 17." (Bureau of Justice Statistics, "Sexual Assault of Young Children as Reported to Law Enforcement, " 2000)
Integrating the armed forces probably wouldn't have "passed muster" with more than half of the American people at the time, yet few will argue today that it was the right thing to do. You're simply arguing to support existing prejudice.
I am telling you what the American people want. There is little doubt that if the armed forces are queered up, then many, many fine bright minds, becuase they have free will, will choose not to serve. The talent drain will be similar to the publics schools when forced busing was instituted. Right or wrong, that is what is likely.
Froggy
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "The multicultural project will never fully succeed if 'diversity' is defined as one's own preferred ideologies and political groups."
--Richard E. Redding, "Grappling With Diverse Conceptions of Diversity," American Psychologist, April 2002, p. 301.
Remember the flight of bigots from the armed forces when Truman desegregated them? Was the country worse off because certain pinheads refused to serve in the same units as "those people?
You kinda have to wonder about the depth of patriotism of people would quit the armed forces over that..........
Hey bigots are like that, they probably left when blacks were allowed in the military, pussies like that don't need to be in the military.
In 1987 this Defense Personnel Research and Education Center (PERSEREC) was directed to examine,among other things, homosexuality as a condition related to trust violation. PERSEREC chose Ted Sarbin, professor emeritus from the University of California at Berkley, and Kenneth Karols, a navy captain and resident psychiatrist, to conduct the study. Sarbin and Karols quickly concluded that trust or security risk was also related to a larger problem; namely, the suitability of homosexuals for military service. Thus, when Sarbin and Karols completed their study in December of 1988, they commented both on security and suitability. They found unequivocally that gay men and lesbians pose no security risk and are every bit as suitable for military service as heterosexuals (Sarbin and Karols, 1988).
The Pentagon reacted angrily to the study, telling PERSEREC Director Carson Eoyang that he exceeded his authority. Officials in the office of the secretary of defense labeled the report as a draft, so that it would not have to be released to the public, and directed PERSEREC to re-do the report omitting the section on suitability. But, the Pentagon's actions backfired. In the fall of 1989, Congresswoman Patricia Schroeder (D-CO) and Congressman Gary Studds (D-MA) obtained the reports and gave them to the media. The attempt to bury the report only heightened Congressional and public interest in the subject and led members of the Congress to pose questions to Secretary of Defense Cheney and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Colin Powell, on the subject. As Powell noted after receiving a question on the subject in February 1992 House Budget Committee hearing, "There it was, out in the open, the hottest social potato tossed to the Pentagon in a generation" (Powell, 1995, 547). During the period from 1989 to 1992, several things became clear. First, the PERSEREC reports were not the first ones that the Pentagon tried to bury. For example, in 1957 Navy Captain S.H. Crittenden Jr. completed a 639-page report on the navy's policies toward homosexuals. Crittenden concluded that there is no correlation between homosexuality and suitability or achievement. Some 20 years later the chief of naval personnel replied in the negative when he was asked by the navy's judge advocate general whether the navy had any empirical proof that homosexuality in the navy has an adverse effect on mission completion.
It's not a problem. Saying that it is, is like saying that there's a blue-eyed problem.
In the statistical sense, homosexuality *isn't* normal, given that it's a sexual orientation held by a minority of the general population. I've no problem with that. However, I do have a problem with folks like you using "normal" in the "defective" sense, as opposed to the "statistical variation" sense.
I can understand your lack of faith in people's intelligence. Look at the success of Jerry Springer, or the success of some of the more GAWD-awful "(un)Reality Shows" like "Who Wants To Marry A Millionaire?" Look at the poll in which 25% of those polled believed that WMDs were used by Saddam Hussein in the most recent Iraq war. Still, I have faith that, generally, when folks are confronted by facts, they will take them to heart and modify their worldview (unless, of course, they're being willfully ignorant, as we've seen plenty of times in a.p.h).
But, again, you might want to take that refresher course in statistics so you won't be chewing on shoe leather the next time you want to connect "normal" with "irrational".
Froggy is the master of willful ignorance. He is incapable of learning, as he has proven time after time. When confronted with facts that directly contradicts his prejudices, he jumps to another lily pad in order to avoid the issue. Don't worry though. He'll come back to that lily pad without ever having understood a word you said.
Seriously, "Irrationality" has nothing to do with a bell curve, 100% of a sampling could be irrational on a given topic. Check out the text for Synonym below. A good example of irrationality involving more than 50% was the 70% support drummed up in the US for Bush's war in Iraq.
From Webster's:
irrational (ir rase nel, i ras-) adj. 1 lacking the power to reason 2 contrary to reason; senseless; unreasonable; absurd 3 Math. designating a real number not expressible as an integer or as a quotient of two integers
irrationality (-e nale te), pl. -ties, n. irrationally, adv.
SYN.irrational implies mental unsoundness or may be used to stress the utterly illogical nature of that which is directly contrary to reason [an irrational belief that everybody was his enemy]; unreasonable implies bad judgment, willfulness, prejudice, etc. as responsible for that which is not justified by reason [unreasonable demands] ANT. rational, reasonable
Etymology [ME < L irrationalis: see in-2 & rational]
(C)1995 Zane Publishing, Inc. (C)1994, 1991, 1988 Simon & Schuster, Inc.
And your "medical" credential are, i.e., on whose behalf do you speak??
No, it's a common English word built on 2 roots: "homo-" meaning "same", e.g., homosexual, homogenized; and "-phobe" meaning "hatred", e.g., "homophobe", "Francophobe", etc.
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 01:24:10 GMT, David Lampert wrote:
Well, if you truly believe that the APA is not in the pocket of the homos, then please tell us why they stifle research on this irregularity?
"The APA is too goddamn politically correct...and too goddamn obeisant to special interests!" said Robert Perloff, 1985 President of the American Psychological Association. Dr. Perloff delivered those uncensored remarks during a rousing speech to psychologists at the 2001 APA Annual Convention. In an expression of public anger and frustration, Dr. Perloff condemned the APA's one-sided political activism. http://www.narth.com/docs/barring.html
AT least these guys are willing to research. Why is the APA unwilling? There is no political gain. Their attitude is one of promotion.
Your friend,
The Frog
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "The multicultural project will never fully succeed if 'diversity' is defined as one's own preferred ideologies and political groups."
--Richard E. Redding, "Grappling With Diverse Conceptions of Diversity," American Psychologist, April 2002, p. 301.
You conservatives are one of three things, incapable of learning, intentionally repeating what works for you over and over, or just lying stagnationists.
One more time:
When Evelyn Hooker, Ph.D. found that no other Doctors could tell the difference between a heterosexual or a homosexual the definition of homosexuality as a mental illnesshad to be changed.
Hooker's research (1957) demonstrating that expert clinical judges could not distinguish the projective test protocols of nonclinical homosexual men from a comparable group of heterosexual men, nor were there differences in adjustment ratings, was validated soon thereafter by other investigators. Not until 1973, however, did the American Psychiatric Association delete homosexuality from its diagnostic handbook.
When you find an actual credible source, let us know.
National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, president of NARTH and a proponent of reparative therapy for homosexuals who want to change.
"More Research" Will Not Provide More Answers "What is needed is not more research," NARTH's Joseph Nicolosi countered in response to reports describing the symposium. "What psychology really needs for its advancement is not another study, but a more accurate worldview. That worldview must take into account our creator's design, which inevitably involves gender complementarity.
There is no reason to fix what ain't broke, if not for bigotry what research would be needed?
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 18:52:56 GMT, David Lampert wrote:
NARTH Officers:
Charles W. Socarides, M.D. Past President (New York, N.Y.) Clinical Professor of Psychiatry Albert Einstein School of Medicine
Benjamin Kaufman, M.D. Chairman of the Board (Sacramento, CA) Clinical Professor of Psychiatry University of California at Davis Psychoanalyst
A. Dean Byrd, Ph.D., M.B.A., M.P.H. Vice President (Salt Lake City, Utah) President, Thrasher Research Fund Clinical Professor, University of Utah
Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D. President (Encino, CA) Director, Thomas Aquinas Psychological Clinic Psychologist �
That's the political part of the APA. Let's face it, it is an anomoly and we should try to learn as much as possible. The activists rail against any reseach and influence the APA not to support any research.
Truth from emperical research. How can that be bad?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "The multicultural project will never fully succeed if 'diversity' is defined as one's own preferred ideologies and political groups."
--Richard E. Redding, "Grappling With Diverse Conceptions of Diversity," American Psychologist, April 2002, p. 301.
Ever notice how the conservatives always cut your post, to make it say whatever they like, then answer it anyway they like? Well it is due to their tiny little brains, that they cannot hold more than 10 words in their tiny brain bus or it overloads it, and the rest is not processed and is truncated. It is then replaced with the error message of Liberal, and is treated as low ordered subroutine filled with boiler plat preprogrammed text started by: Liberals are all idiots, and the error that caused it is inserted.
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 21:54:04 GMT, David Lampert wrote:
Notice how Brother Dave is stunned at the firepower of the credentials of those Narth officers listed below.....
Dave, you look like a deer in the headlights.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "The multicultural project will never fully succeed if 'diversity' is defined as one's own preferred ideologies and political groups."
--Richard E. Redding, "Grappling With Diverse Conceptions of Diversity," American Psychologist, April 2002, p. 301.
I'm so stunned that all I need to ask is this, if they are such a high caliber then why is it they are never published in any credible journal that all the other scientists are published in? Could it be they are hacks and quacks? Sending 8 years passing classes and being fortunate to be hired as a professor does not equate to credible or following scientific methodology. That is the only thing that counts, there sparky.
Where have they been published other than hack journals or on the NARTH web? Huh where sparky?
I might look like one, but you are one. There is a big difference.
Um, it's already been noted that the APA supported the study re the study of homophobic men re the viewing of homosexual imagery. There *is* research supported by the APA re gay issues; just because it's not the kind that starts from the assumption that homosexuality is badBadBAD is the reason for your knickers being in a twist, eh?
Lampert, we always have to remind you parrots that merely repeating the word, bigot, over and over is not an argument and is worth little more than a teaspoon of warm spit in this debate. Moreover, if you think your crowd can cavalierly dismiss as lacking credibility any source your opposition cites, then be equally prepared for us to tell you to take your APA "studies" and jam them. Very few professional organizations are as politically motivated these days as is that one. Beginning with the early seventies, they're become little more than an arm of the Gay Lobby and really ought to publish their stuff in The Advocate.
Neither do I need to remind you that not one specialty in the mental health field can be even remotely considered a science. Any group can cook up any damn study they want using just about any set of criteria they cherry pick and publish their idiotic melange of claptrap. About all these studies now done by liberals with predetermined ideas about homosexuality now amount to is: "It's normative behavior because we say it's normative behavior." (Cordially, Marie)
Darlin' Marie/Jason/Rene (delete where appropriate), all this "pre-determined" research you shriek about is actually research published in the APA journal where the findinings and methodology are *open* to peer review and scrutiny by other practioners as per any professional association. Your feeble excuse that all this research is *suspect* sounds more like some-one who just doesn't like the findings of current research and knowledge on sexuality. I sympathise for you. Can i suggest seeking the help of a psychiatrist who should be able to uncover your irrational fears of gays and lesbians and probably a few other neurosis as well.
Right, and "peer review and scrutiny" in this case meaning that Mr. Kevie Fox is consulting with Mr. Brucie Fox who is checking with Suzie Dyke Fox, which group is conferring with a large contingent of like-mined and sympathetic foxes on how best to re-key the hen house. (Cordially, Marie)
Translation: "I have no concept of the process of peer review, but I don't like that my argument is being dusted, so I'll try some more smoke'n'mirrors."
Sparky, you don't understand peer review and the scientific methodology. You see, sparky, people look at your stuff and if they can duplicate it under the same and other conditions the theory is said to be sound, if not, it is crap and they move on. Like cold fusion.
It depends if you limit the term "peer review" to just the process of submission to a Journal and a committee reviews your submission for likely errors, or say all peers (all those in the field) being in the process of verification and replication is peer review.
Well I'm sure that is the case with you bigots, but with those that are a bit more civilized and and have been given social skills, and not raise like a feral pack of wolves, (conservatives would eat their own young at the first sign of a recession) it is the difference between being empathetic to others and caring for other's rights and being a conservative. You are indeed aligned with the right party.
You see the difference is this, they were ones kick out of the APA for not presenting credible evidence and following scientific methodology. Those in that class deserve no listen to by the scientific community, self publishing is as credible and self bolster, it is worthless and carries no weight. When you start out with an agenda it makes for incredible science, this is the likes you are defending.
- I can usually tell the difference between ass-clowns and non-ass-clowns. Maybe I have the super power of noticing lisps, hipwagging, and bad puns. Deviant sexual behaviour and sexual practices do make for a mental illness. Why is pedophilia considered uncurable? I would say pedophiles suffer from a mental illness even though you could never decide if one was a pedophile just by talking to them. Homosexuals do suffer from a mental abnormality at the very least, you simply can't argue with that fact. They crave the sexual contact of the same sex, that is an abnormal and abominable mental condition. Any child showing symptoms of this illness should be treated. Gays have been cured, that is another FACT. Then again, you hate facts.
Bill Taylor, J. Donovan, Rowdy Roddy Peeper ([email]) A. Freeman Myhutma Gandy Rev. Terence Fformby-Smythe James Smith, [email], sosayer, A. Krieghund ([email]) Matilda, Adam, Adam Up, Rich, Billary, Ehrlicher Mann E. Mann [email] L. Mann ***"Glenn" *** Osmirode honto yama A. J. Squarduay, [email], Debayas@cotse, Hamilton T. Brighton Robert Harrison [email] Killing Romulus Tyrone Washington Menlo Park Alonga Poe T.C. Harris Panza Krause Arch Builder William Bison Yasser Arafat <[email]
maf and dog, aa # 1954, EAC Cruise Director and Lounge Pianist, respectively
In alt.radio.talk.dr-laura article Rowdy Roddy Peeper wrote:
Because you are operating at the folk psychology evel and conflating concepts of pedophilia, hebephilia, and child moletation. If you can't separate things out, you can't think critically.
You also seem to be afraid of real research. Data are saying that child moletation isn't the end of life stage for folk, and in fact the recidivism rate is *not* 70? as Mat 'Vote Mormom" Salmon proclaimed.
I would say pedophiles suffer from a mental illness even
- First, what research did I state? Second, what research are you talking about? Is it research that shows that being a pedophile is just a fad. If that is the case, then there's even hope for homosexuals like yourself.
- So would I. Infact, I did say that already. Face it, craving sexual contact from a member of the same sex is abnormal.
Bill Taylor, J. Donovan, Rowdy Roddy Peeper ([email]) A. Freeman Myhutma Gandy Rev. Terence Fformby-Smythe James Smith, [email], sosayer, A. Krieghund ([email]) Matilda, Adam, Adam Up, Rich, Billary, Ehrlicher Mann E. Mann [email] L. Mann ***"Glenn" *** Osmirode honto yama A. J. Squarduay, [email], Debayas@cotse, Hamilton T. Brighton Robert Harrison [email] Killing Romulus Tyrone Washington Menlo Park Alonga Poe T.C. Harris Panza Krause Arch Builder William Bison Yasser Arafat <[email]
maf and dog, aa # 1954, EAC Cruise Director and Lounge Pianist, respectively
Sparky, pedophilia, ephebophilia as well as bestiality are paraphilia, to say as your lot do, that a man having sex with a boy makes him a homosexual, is like saying if a woman has sex with a male dog she is a heterosexual, or that a man having sex with a male dog make him a homosexual. A paraphilia is not a sexual orientation, it is more or less a fetish.
There are no alter girls for Catholic priests to molest, it is by opportunity.
Yes you must project on others your fantasies, if they fight for human rights they must be nigger lovers or faggots themselves.
If you don't know the research then you have no reason to comment on it.
Uhhhhhh, before Evelyn Hooker's research, anything dealing with homosexuality started from the premise that homosexuality was bad. You've got things exactly backward. Given that Hooker's research and methodology were well-documented and repeated by other psycho- logists in the field, it makes sense that, gee, the odds are in favor of her research being *valid*.
In other words, it *wasn't* an "idiotic melange of claptrap"; it was valid *science*. I realize that shoots holes in your little worldview, but I fully expect you to ignore them and carry on and willfully and dishonestly as before.
Uh, and from what premise did Hooker's research proceed? Oh, a neutral stance? Bullshit! No stance is neutral in this field, neither the ones that came before Hooker or the ones that will come after. Certainly the culture, perceptions change, but that's not an argument for the objective merits of embracing homosexuality, not unless you're prepared to argue that all cultural shifts are by definition positive. That, sir, is what's really going on here, and all the rest is window dressing. (Cordially, Marie)
Evelyn Hooker's research began as her attempt to show that homosexuality was
a mental disorder or pathology. Her research drew her to the eventual
conclusion that it was not. Ask yourself, if you are brave enough, exactly
how did homosexuality become classified as a disorder to begin with?
Research? None that can be found. Serious research on homosexuality
didn't start until the 1950's. Homosexuality had been labeled as a disorder
long before that. Reasons? General ignorance and religion. No more, no
less.
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 18:05:39 GMT, "Light Templar" wrote:
Good but no cigar -- Dr Hooker observed that the medical establishment around her were treating homosexuality as a disease -- she further observed that the few homosexuals known to her seemed to be comfortable and successful in life.
She set out to examine this seeming discrepancy.
The reason for the mental health professionals to consider homosexuality as a maladjustment or "disease" was that the homosexuals they were seeing had all taken themselves into the offices of psychiatrists because they were unhappy, uncomfortable and maladjusted. Judging this sexual orientation on the basis of their observations easily led them to believe it an illness.
She devised a testing protocol of great simplicity and elegance which FIRMLY indicated that homosexuals were not distinguishable from the majority on the basis of projective testing -- they were NOT ill, NOT uncomfortable.
ward
------------------------------------------------
"In our democratic republic the default MUST BE
that the citizen is free to live his life in any
harmless way that he chooses."
Ward Stewart
-------------------------------------------------
Ward, before I go any further with this, why don't you just paste in that "testing protocol" so everyone can see just what you're talking about here - OK? I don't want any confusion on this and want it straight from you. This is all a crock and it doesn't get any worse than this. Paste it up!
In alt.radio.talk.dr-laura article Marie A. wrote:
Anyone going through projective testing is likely to get diagnosed as ill. The decision is really the psychiatrist and the views he holds (most were men then). The test itself is pretty much a bogosity of grand proportions.
See James Wood's material on the Rorschach. Even the Exner system is unscientific in basis. About 50 pages of his book on this test is available at Amazon. Even that short bit will be enlightening for you.
On 27 Jul 2003 00:03:05 GMT, John M Price PhD wrote:
That Rorschach has fallen out of favor is NOT even remotely a justification for the raw hatred and vile homophobia of the near-psychotic Marie -- that you see fit to defend her position suggests that you may be in need of an assessment of your own internal demons.
The legal case in Baehr v Lewin, here in Hawaii did NOT propose any change
whatsoever in the law. The Hawaiian marriage statutes specified the
circumstances under which two PERSONS might marry with NO specification
as to gender assortment.
The State office (Lewin) refused to issue the
liscense to three same-gender couples, refused to
obey THE LAW AS WRITTEN.
This is the issue that went to court and the issue on which the state
lost its case, big time. The legislature made an end run around the
supreme court and called a vote on a proposed amendment to the constitution
-- THEY wish to change the law -- NOT the petitioners.
Ward
���`����,��,�`����,��,�`����,��,�`����`����,��,�`����
In alt.radio.talk.dr-laura article Ward Stewart wrote:
The Rorschach is bunk. I don't care who says that, that is the truth of the test. If you are being subjected to a Rorschach, you have to be very careful and I would suggest about three levels of testing by three different folk, none of whom know each other.
Factual data produced by reasonable science, as Wood and others have done on the Rorschach, are free from politics.
As to Hooker's use of the material, I found it a reasonable methodology, indeed very creative. As I had mentioned before, she also corrected the sampling bias in earlier research. ISTR that there is also an Australian study of similar date with similar findings - a very slight neuroticism in the homosexual group, probably explained by the cultural vitriol they had to live with.
As to Marie's conception of psychological testing, it is very immature and uninformed.
On 28 Jul 2003 02:34:18 GMT, John M Price PhD wrote:
And now Johnny looks down his nose at the world. Thank god the big decisions are not made by these men.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "The multicultural project will never fully succeed if 'diversity' is defined as one's own preferred ideologies and political groups."
--Richard E. Redding, "Grappling With Diverse Conceptions of Diversity," American Psychologist, April 2002, p. 301.
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 23:52:23 GMT, David Lampert wrote:
Is name calling all you have? Is *that* the best you can do?
I thought you didn't endorse hate speech. That is all it is.
David, isn't there any room for honest debate and dissent? You seem to think so when it comes to George Bush. Is it just your way or the highway?
Your friend,
The Frog
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "The multicultural project will never fully succeed if 'diversity' is defined as one's own preferred ideologies and political groups."
--Richard E. Redding, "Grappling With Diverse Conceptions of Diversity," American Psychologist, April 2002, p. 301.
On 29 Jul 2003 02:29:14 GMT, John M Price PhD wrote:
You must ber blind when it suits you. Did the epithet "BIGOT" not appear on your screen?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "The multicultural project will never fully succeed if 'diversity' is defined as one's own preferred ideologies and political groups."
--Richard E. Redding, "Grappling With Diverse Conceptions of Diversity," American Psychologist, April 2002, p. 301.
Yes, for you, a slave complaining of their unequal treatment and unequal rights before the law is bigotry. You see those calling for and fighting for equal rights as bigots. Bigots fight to deny equal right of others, not fight for equal rights of others. That is why your lot (you Trent Lott) use the word liberal as you would the word nigger, to demean those who you use the word on, for fighting for equal rights.
On 27 Jul 2003 00:03:05 GMT, John M Price PhD wrote:
One of the real problems with psychology is that it is a very young 'science'. Models that were held up and sold as fact are replaced with newer models rapidly. Psychology was sold to the public as an accurate science in the sixties. It has really funked up our society since we bought into it.
Bottom line, most of it's a crock.
With treatment, a third get better, a third stay the same, a third get worse. Without treatment, same thing.
Much of the public is dissillusioned by psychology and the resulting psychobabble. Please don't use it as a foundation for your arguments. It is a foundation of shifting sand.
The Frog
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "The multicultural project will never fully succeed if 'diversity' is defined as one's own preferred ideologies and political groups."
--Richard E. Redding, "Grappling With Diverse Conceptions of Diversity," American Psychologist, April 2002, p. 301.
Geez froggers, so your doctor still employs bleeding, leeches, and empalthac lobotomies? Oh wait! Most areas of science contains models that were held up and sold as fact which are routinely replaced with newer models. Imagine that!
On 27 Jul 2003 15:48:15 GMT, John M Price PhD wrote:
All, I'm saying, John, is it isn't doing your arguments all that much of a favor by bragging about your Ph.D in that field.
Good luch to you.
Your friend,
The Frog
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "The multicultural project will never fully succeed if 'diversity' is defined as one's own preferred ideologies and political groups."
--Richard E. Redding, "Grappling With Diverse Conceptions of Diversity," American Psychologist, April 2002, p. 301.
"More Research" Will Not Provide More Answers "What is needed is not more research," NARTH's Joseph Nicolosi countered in response to reports describing the symposium. "What psychology really needs for its advancement is not another study, but a more accurate worldview. That worldview must take into account our creator's design, which inevitably involves gender complementarity."
Hum, kind of like that cure for homosexuality your lot feel is so necessary, and needs more research. Seem psychology is a crock right up until it is part of your agenda, like everything else that is even slightly against your sexual pedophobic agenda. To use children as a weapon of mass destruction against homosexuals, to use boys just like a pedophile for your own self gratification, and sexual agenda due to your self loathing of homophobia.
Why must your lot use children, and harm intersexual children, as well as homosexual children?
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 17:30:00 GMT, David Lampert wrote:
Daveid, in reality, most of it is truly a crock. We single out this study or that study to defend our views, but there is always another study that contradicts it.
What does that tell you??
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "The multicultural project will never fully succeed if 'diversity' is defined as one's own preferred ideologies and political groups."
--Richard E. Redding, "Grappling With Diverse Conceptions of Diversity," American Psychologist, April 2002, p. 301.
In alt.radio.talk.dr-laura article The Frog wrote:
What does it tell yuo?
It tells me that meta analysis is here to stay as a quantitative, rather than a qualitative review of the literature is more telling of the findings of the area of research.
I don't see how the American psychological society feels it can have a qualitative analysis where they are as if in a country like old Victorian Austria where the boys were tied up if they were caught masturbating and little girls had their clitoris burned off with a white hot iron if they were caught masturbating. Then under these circumstances they found children exposed to sex (as their parents having sex and the walked in) are prone to hysterical blindness or other symptoms, and then concluded the species is thus, where as if they had gone to old Samoa they would have had to change their whole way of thinking. In other words you cannot say the species human is thus, unless you can find a society that in no way is causing the symptoms in the first place.
That you are gullible and don't know science, just because a self publishing organization (as NARTH) tries to contradict a real scientific study, it only has merit to ignorant conservatives like you, not to real scientists. Hint: Congress is not a scientific body.
Funny how when a so called scientific paper comes out that is worded so that your lot love what it says, there are many multiple post by your lot as if to say, see, we were right, homosexuality "is" only a choice. And the question then is, so when do hermaphrodite choose that extra sexual organ?
Every scientific experiment springs from a hyppothesis. (I suspect you'll immediately call this bias.) The science comes from ensuring that you a) have a viable, unbiased scientific procedure to follow, b) you follow that methodology, and c) accurately report your data and results. Hooker did all of this, with the conclusion that homo- sexuality does not have a pathology.
Have you not been arguing that society *MUST* reject homosexuality as Something Bad?
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 01:24:10 GMT, David Lampert wrote:
He suggests that irrationality is distributed on a "bell curve." and that, for this reason, can be found in not more than half the subjects being considered.
His claim is unfounded and (dare i say) irrational?
The matter may be better viewed by example -- were only half the Iraqi "irrational" when Hussein was in power and supported by the generality of the citizens? How about Germany, seized of a national psychosis in the thirties and forties, were only half of them irrational?
Then, since the matter is nailed down on a bell curve, HALF the citizens must be irrational ALL the time.
ward
--------------------------------------------------- "A black man voting for the Republicans, makes about as much sense as a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders."
You know if you lot did not have your lies you would have nothing at all. If you did not have the lie of a mythical god, the lie of a sin of homosexuality in the bible, or the lie that marriage is one between a man and a woman based on the lies you have conjured up that are in the bible, you would have nothing at all. Nothing to bolster your bigotry, nothing to force your simian hypermacho control over others, nor a way to feel superior to others. Face it, if your lot did not have the bible you would have nothing at all.
Sad your lots little tiny brains cannot tell the difference between two heterosexuals having sex the sole purpose of giving the seed in a sexual ritual to Molech and homosexuality. One is Idolatry a moral sin, as well as a treasonous act, and the other is just sex. Which the bible says nothing what so ever about in context. You can get the bible to say anything out of context.
Then care to explain theses verse then, if marriage is only between a man and a woman:
Gen 4: 19 And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.
Gen 11: 29 And Abram and Nahor took them wives: the name of Abram's wife was Sarai; and the name of Nahor's wife, Milcah, the daughter of Haran, the father of Milcah, and the father of Iscah. 30 But Sarai was barren; she had no child.
Gen 16: 3 And Sarai Abram's wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife. 4 And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived: and when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her eyes.
Gen 25: 1 Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah.
And again your lot show their contextual subterfuge, of cutting a post where ever you like, then answering whatever you like.
Are you really going to claim that the old Testament does not condemn homosexual sex acts.
Marriage has nothing to do with the bible. Marriage is a social construct made by humans to denote the family union of a father, mother, and children. Marriage has always been considered by numerous cultures as being between a man and a woman.
Ya know, I don't think Christianity has anything to do with these bozos David. There are heaps of Christians out there who really do try to live by the example Jesus set. Fact is, just as many Democrats are Christian as there are Republicans. It's just that this group of fanatical right wingers distorts the real message that Jesus put forth. Don't play into their hands by playing the anti-Christian card. They would love to have you believe that they represent Christianity but when it comes down to it, they'll never support their Palestinian Christian brothers and sisters. Why? Because most of these freaks are phonies.
Mat 6: 6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 02:35:53 GMT, "JC Martin" wrote:
You are probably right -- HOWEVER -- I hear very few "Christian" voices denouncing the greed and grandiosity of Pat Robertson, the sanctimonious hypocrisy of Jerry Falwell -- no doubt there are such sources -- pitifully they are reticent and, by reason of that reticence, VERY difficult to defend.
Indeed, from where I stand the "enemy" christians out number and out rant the decent ones.
Even as we speak, Rome in its eternal wisdom, is processing the fascist Pious XII for sainthood. This despite his utter failure to defend the Jews of HIS OWN PARISH who were packed into cattle-cars in Rome and taken away to be slaughtered -- HIS OWN PARISH!
Well, even if there were just three Christians who denounced Falwell and Roberston, that would be three more than all the democrats who denounced one Bubba Clinton for lying under oath to a judicial body of the United States Government, for raping a woman and assaulting several others, for being impeached by the United States Congress and passing on missle technology to the Chinese. That was not only "difficult to defend," but rather more like impossible to defend, but you mounumental leftist frauds managed that rather quite nicely we noticed. Work on that before you register mock horror about men like Falwell and Roberston, men whose shoelaces this evil son-of-a-bitch is not fit to lace up. (Marie)
I don't believe that ever happened. I never saw any compelling evidence that it had. He wasn't even charged.
He didn't do that. As a matter of fact, we now know that the FBI agents who invesigated Clinton's fundraising and the theft of nuclear weapons secrets from Los Alamos were spying for the PRC. Their controller was Katrina Leung, who was a major Republican fundraiser in addition to being a Chinese spy. Indeed, one has to wonder if both the investigation of Clinton and Wen Ho Lee were actually Chinese spy operations since the agents in charge of each were chinese spies. We really need an independent invstigation of this. What do you think?
Come out to California or visit New York. You'll hear plenty of Christians who think Robertson is a phony.
The vast majority of Christians are moderate to left-leaning. Most however practice true Christianity---that is, they don't come out to pray or judge in public.
The Catholic Church is corrupt, and I believe well over 50% of Catholics believe that to be the case--not that the Catholic Church is a right-wing organization though.
Then tell (so called) Dr Laura to stop the name calling of homosexuals as a sin in the bible, where there is not a single word, in context, in the bible on homosexuality, only the fertility sexual rights to the fertility gods as Baal, Molech, and Venus.
The rituals performed in Ugaritic worship involved a great deal of alcohol and sexual promiscuity. Worship at Ugarit was essentially a drunken orgy in which priests and worshippers indulged in excessive drinking and excessive sexuality. This because the worshippers were attempting to convince Baal to send rain on their crops. Since rain and semen were seen in the ancient world as the same thing (as both produced fruit), it simply makes sense that participants in fertility religion behaved this way.
- So you're saying "no sexual activity while a child is in the same house as you?" How do all these married couples keep having kids then?? If any couple has chilren less than 3 years apart, odds are that they concieved while the 1st child was in the same house...what a bunch of degenerates.
- In the words of Lenny... man, you really are slow. You said having sex with children in the house makes one a degenerate. How do married couples have more than one child then? Are you suggesting most parents tie their 3 year-olds to a leash in the backyard while they have sex? Parents have sex with their kids in the house on a weekly basis. The fact that you don't see the relevance is funny though, thnaks for that. LOL
"Rowdy Roddy Peeper" wrote in message news:[email]...
news:...
Laura?
perverse
with
not
questionable to
Retard, read the friggan thread. Even a moron like you must know that the context of my statement was sex with someone other than your spouse. Do you agree that cheating on your spouse, particularly with your children in your house, consitutes degenerative behavior?
Bill Taylor, J. Donovan, Rowdy Roddy Peeper ([email]) A. Freeman Myhutma Gandy Rev. Terence Fformby-Smythe James Smith, [email], sosayer, A. Krieghund ([email]) Matilda, Adam, Adam Up, Rich, Billary, Ehrlicher Mann E. Mann [email] L. Mann ***"Glenn" *** Osmirode honto yama A. J. Squarduay, [email], Debayas@cotse, Hamilton T. Brighton Robert Harrison [email] Killing Romulus Tyrone Washington Menlo Park Alonga Poe T.C. Harris Panza Krause Arch Builder William Bison Yasser Arafat <[email]
Uh, how about Bubba and Chirac sending in Nato troops and planes into Yugoslavia under cover of the lie that there was genocide taking place there. Maybe we can start there. (Cordially, Marie)
Why is it then that conservatives seem to be absolutely devoid of any moral character? Lying has become a standard for the Rebpublican party and it appears that the entire impetus of that party is to run the United States into the ground so that we will become easy pickings to be taken over by some foreign power at some indeterminate time in the future. Conservatism is not designed to build up - it is only designed to weaken and destroy and encourage people to believe that failure is inevitable.
Conservatives want the US to be "taken over by some foreign power"??? Uh huh. And just what mental institution is allowing a patient like yourself computer access?? Your post is a prime example of why American liberals are written off by the majority of the population as "hysterical kooks".