The aggressive promotion of homosexuality;

I'd love to see the face of his 'people', if anyone dared do something to the equal of that, against Jews.

Crap on a picture of Anne Frank? ha ha ha. Would that be funny then, esp then beamed to a Jewish nation?

http://www.mrctv.org/videos/jon-stewart-desecrates-nativity-scene-make-jab-fox-news

- - - Updated - - -

I don't fear homsexuals.

 

A promoter of child sex?

 

And you obviously cannot properly interpret a dictionary entry.

 

Tatchell could not make it any more clear.

Put it this way. If you had a son of under 11, would you let a man that had made those statements, stay with him, for the weekend?

If you would, then you are putting your son in possible danger, as this man thinks its okay to be a nonce, and have sex with kids.

If you wouldn't, then why not? It is because he has admitted his sick desires, isnt it?

No org would have this man as a champion of them, it is just this movement. He is to social progress what Jimmy Saville was to charity and kids.

If that movement had even a grain of self respect, it would have punted him, a long time ago.

That they did not says everything about their lack of morality, and I cannot see that as anything other than an endorsement of a paedo apologist.

What the police should be doing with a man like that, is tracking his movements, and his internet traffic, because I BET you he has had sex with kids, and probably still does.

- - - Updated - - -

I am asking what it means to you.

You don't want to answer?

Fine.

Ta ta

 

It's as impossible to "promote" homosexuality as it is to promote any other physical characteristic that people have no choice over. Furthermore, the homosexual population is most certainly much larger than %3 of the population because a lot of people live in self-denial and would not want to admit - even to themselves - that they are homosexual.

 

Well that is just speculation on your part, given that you say they will not 'admit' it.

 

Yes, it's speculation on my part. But it's certainly not unfounded speculation considering what psychologists have to say about this, and the fact that the number of people identifying as being gay or having "homosexual feelings" in surveys has steadily increased over the years as homosexuality becomes more accepted in mainstream society.

 

Reality TV, and I raise you the Kardasians and Jersey Shore.

 

Reality tv is a good case in point.

FFS, it has turned into a modern day Victorian Freak show circus.

Really bad taste.

 

But don't parents have the right to raise their children within their own value system regardless of what society thinks is appropriate?

While the normalization of gay men is fine in many ways I find them to be extremely aggressive in your face insisting on acceptance. That is not appropriate conduct. Normalization of gay men requires that the public schools instill acceptance of the gay men. In California the textbooks normalize gay men. So what is a straight parent to do other than to retreat from society? Is this a good thing?

 

I don't have a problem with lgbt equal rights. However, I do have a problem with lgbt people who wish to compel other people to accept and approve of their cork socking and futt bucking. By being so stridently aggressive they produce a reaction from others because they seek to dominate parents with different values. Lbgt activists are very much in the face of these parents and are accessing the public schools in California to reach the children of parents who don't approve.

Let me give you an analogy. I am an atheist. There are different types of atheists. There are gentle atheists who are quiet and are happy with their higher state of consciousness.

There are also aggressive atheists who begrudge the faith of others. They seek to hector, harangue, and get in the faces of believers. They seek to drive faith from society.

Quiet atheists are fine because they don't interfere in any one else's belief system. Strident atheists are bad because they lack the confidence of their own beliefs, and feel they must push religion out of the public realm.

 

What I have a definite problem with are creeps like Tatchell being coveted and held up as an icon, by the so called LGBT movement(sic).

The man is a child sex apologist for goodness sake. Why do they merit any respect, when they refuse to ditch this man?

They don't deserve any.

I broadly agee with your stance here. For all their drama, what you will probably find, as in Canada, that not many will get married. They have said it themselves, that by and large it tends to conflict with the gay lifestyle, which is heavy on promiscuity, and not on monogomy.

 

Good questions.

Firstly, I think while a parent has a right to instill their own value system within their children, they also have a duty to ensure that the children are also properly socialised into the community and that means helping the child understand societal values. Not an easy task but then no-one said parenting was easy.

Loud gay men. Loud men of any type can be boors. It's what they're getting boorish about that matters I suppose. If someone is getting in the face of society about equal rights then it must be because that's the only way that society will pay attention. If the American colonists hadn't got in the face of the British government then independence would have been granted instead of being demanded and wrested from the powerful imperialists. As Frederick Douglass put it, "Find out just what people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them."

Black Americans (sorry if that offends anyone) found out what was necessary to attain equal rights with white Americans. Gays are just following the accepted pattern.

There is absolutely no reason that gay men should not be normalised. I'd be interested to read counter-arguments.

Retreating from society is not an answer, it indicates a lack of strength of spirit.

 

Preferably not. I did say "like Tatchell" meaning a stirrer. If he's promoting paedophilia then that's another issue.

 

In the debate over homosexual equal rights there is sometimes an emphasis on sexual practices. No, wait, there's a lot of emphasis on sexual practices. This is possibly to stir up emotions against homosexuals. "Do you know what those people DO to one another?" Yep, pretty much what heterosexuals get up to I'd think, but we don't go around discussing the various sexual practices of men and women when they're getting it on. I don't think they want anyone to approve, just tolerate, their existence and allow equal rights, that's all.

- - - Updated - - -

But they can get married, if they wish, that's the point. If they want to cheat on their spouse then fine, no different to anyone else who finds that they have an itch to scratch.

 

Dr. Charles Socarides' book "Homosexuality: A Freedom Too Far" .

Charles W. Socarides (January 24, 1922 - December 25, 2005) was an American psychiatrist, psychoanalyst, physician, educator, and author. Socarides was born in Brockton, Massachusetts. Socarides focused much of his career on the study of homosexuality, which he believed can be altered.

He helped found the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) in 1992.

He did not consider the underlying desires of homosexuality to be immoral, stating that "Once my patients have achieved an insight into these dynamics - and realized there is no moral fault involved in their longtime and mysterious need - they have moved rather quickly on the road to recovery."

As a 1995 New York Times profile put it, "Socarides offered the closest thing to hope that many gay people had in the 1960s: the prospect of a cure. Rather than brand them as immoral or regard them as criminal, Socarides told gay people that they suffered from an illness whose effects could be reversed.

Homosexuality: A Freedom Too Far

In 1995, Socarides published Homosexuality: A Freedom Too Far. Socarides wrote in the introduction that, "...I have written a book that brings everything together in a familiar, question-and-answer format. In this I had a model, Galileo's Dialogue on the World's Great Systems." Socarides warned his readers that, "...some of my statements may come across as shocking, or crude, or too graphic - even pornographic. I can only say that these words derive from the subject matter itself; they are not meant to titillate, or amuse, or promote prejudice or bias."

In the fourth chapter, "Origins", Socarides discussed the development of homosexuality. He criticized Simon LeVay's scientific research on the hypothalamus on several grounds, including the lack of proof of whether the size of INAH3 was the cause of homosexuality or the reverse, the fact that LeVay could not rule out the possibility that AIDS had affected the size of INAH3, the fact that the study had not been duplicated, and the possibility that INAH3 did not exist. Socarides denounced attempts to change homosexuality through lobotomy and aversion therapy as "quackeries", adding that "Doctors who tried them were only treating symptoms. They didn't get to the root cause."

Socarides also suggested that serial killer and cannibal Jeffrey Dahmer was an extreme example of a common homosexual type, writing "Every homosexual who wants to incorporate the body of his male lover is utilizing the same mental mechanism: incorporation. Most homosexuals are content to do this symbolically. Dahmer was psychotic; he took his homosexual disorder beyond the limits."

In the sixth chapter, "Psychiatry" Socarides wrote that the removal of homosexuality from the American Psychiatric Association's DSM-II was a mistake, and blamed it for the AIDS epidemic.

Socarides compared the American gay community to confused children and the APA to their parents. Socarides criticized Dr. Robert Spitzer, writing that Ronald Bayer's book Homosexuality and American Psychiatry revealed him as, "...someone who crosses far over the line, from science to open advocacy of a political position.

Bayer tells us that Spitzer had never even published a paper on homosexuality." Socarides claimed that the vote for the removal of homosexuality in the APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, which was won by a 65% majority rule, was heavily influenced by a letter sent by the National Gay Task Force to the 18,000 APA members asking them to support its removal


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Socarides

- - - Updated - - -

Well he clearly did, by his own words, as quoted before.

No normal man would say such things.

 

I believe that what happens behind bedroom doors is nobody's business. And I am just as offended by the pushing in movies and song lyrics, and even in commercials which flaunt open sexual behaviors between a man and a woman as I am by those behaviors being flaunted by gay couples. It comes to the same thing. Gay people are not more likely to engage in "cork socking and futt bucking" than heterosexual couples are. In fact, I would say that a lesbian couple is MUCH LESS LIKELY to engage in either of those behaviors. . . none of it should be "flaunted" and pushed in people's faces. .although I don't see any harm in those happening between two consenting adults of ANY sex in the privacy of their bedroom.

It is not because gay couples have for centuries have to LIE to be accepted by society (i.e., my husband school principal aunt, who had a 60 year gay relationship with her college roommate, a teacher herself, who finally came out at the age of 85. . .and only to their family. . whom obviously had known for over 30 years, and were just "closing their eyes!"), I can't imagine being deeply in love with a person and wanting so much to commit to that relationship and show my pride in that shared love, and having to stand by that "old friend" lie, and not being able to touch my love one's hand at the dinner table!

Call me weird, but with all the hatred and all the false, hypocritical outrage about so many things in our society, with all the "marriages" between heterosexual people who go wrong, two, three, five times, and are STILL glorified. . .I would think that we couldn't afford to reject even the potential of a true, deep, committed love between two people of any sex!

By the way, I believe that some "belief systems" DO NEED to be "disturbed" and questioned! If they were not, Black people would still be considered only a fraction of a person, and the earth would still be considered flat!

 

Still has a much much much track record for enduring the test of time that 99% of homosexual relationships.

Think back 20yrs. I bet there are far more hetro couples still together now, then homo couples.

 

Jack, the point is that heterosexual couples can formalise their relationship, in some places (including my own country) that is not permitted. No good reason, just "we don't like it".

 

And should that surprise ANYONE?

How many heterosexual marriages would resist the test of time if those marriage were "stigmatized" by society? How many couples would feel it so much harder to stay together without the unconditional support of their family and friends, without the "special advantages" given to married couples?

How would heterosexual couples answer to the pressure of society to determine that they are "sick" or "weird" or "sinful" for living together and sleeping in the same bed?
OBVIOUSLY gay couples have a more difficult time staying together for decades. . . .but then so do stars in Hollywood, and bi-racial couples, and couples who are too wealthy, or too poor. . .

And why wouldn't gay couples have the same right to succeed AND TO FAIL as we do?

 

Yes. It is called marriage. It has always been between people of two differnt genders, it is as simple as that, and it has been so for a v good reason indeed. You want to argue with all of history, and all of time, and sell me some idea of enlightenment, by throwing all of that away?

There are plenty things I do not have a 'right' to do, but I am fine with that, I understand why that is, and would respect that custom.

If homosexuals wish to live together, and put a ring on their finger, create their own concept, fine, do that.

- - - Updated - - -

No it shouldn't.

Because homosexuals are far more promiscous, therefore, marriage does not tend to lend itself to their lifestyle.

 

Read my post again. . .and ask yourself WHY homosexuals might be CONSIDERED more promiscuous. . .and why people like Kardashian or Evangelical pastors who are married. . .but are caught having sexual relationships outside their marriage with a woman are NOT considered "promiscuous!"

By the way. . .whatever gay people choose to do in term of being "promiscuous" should have LESS of an impact on you, if you are truly heterosexual, than what HETEROSEXUAL promiscuous people do!

At least, a gay person will probably not make a pass at you or . . .at your spouse!

 

I actually don't think many of the homosexual characters in the media are about promoting homosexuality but about sing it's "difference". Art and fiction as so often about something that is different or out of the ordinary and many mainstream films and TV shows use a stereotypical homosexual rather than the reality of a normal person who happens to be gay. If anything, that's counter productive to any promotion or normalisation of homosexuality.

As a corollary, I've no doubt the number of law enforcement officers depicted in the media is grossly out of proportion with their actual numbers but that doesn't mean it's promoting the police (quite the opposite sometimes).

How many of those were positive and how many were negative? I very much doubt there would be as much "promotion" of homosexuality if there wasn't, historically and currently, so much negativity towards it. Your numbers are indeed out of proportion with the number of homosexuals but it's in proportion with the number of people choosing to talk about it. Don't blame the homosexuals, blame the people talking about it (after all, your posting the thread will have pushed up the figures but has nothing to do with promoting homosexuality).

Why not? How often are the terms "sighted", "hearing" or "able bodied" used? Does that mean people who aren't disabled in some way are in a "cultural vacuum"?

 

Why? Because they are, that is why. No one forces them to live their life that way. No one is saying no homosexuals cannot possibly be monogamous, no one is saying being hetrosexual assures you of being so, but the fact remains that homosexuals are more promiscous, and, as evidenced before, in the end, everything tends to revolve around, and come down to, their sexuality.

They define themselves entirely by it, in a way that hetrosexuals do not do.

 

Don't lump all liberals together. There are many left leaning libertarians who want marriage taken completely out of government hands and the legal institution of marriage abolished. It would be nice of the "Small Government" Republicans would actually live up to the name and join us, but sadly, most of them are Libertarian in name only and have no problem with Big Government, as long as it does not mess with corporate profits.