Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I didn't say that the "liberal position" is not so leftist. I said there are a sizable number of liberals that are not quite so extreme. That is, there are very extreme liberals, and more moderate liberals. Same goes for the right. There are a lot of extreme right folks, but there are also many moderate ones. It's just the extremists on either side tend to be the most vocal.
Look here Chimpsky .... what part of extreme left do you believe isn't extreme?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nimchimpsky
Lol. I think the brainiest position would probably be to do away with political factions altogether.
Now we can certainly agree on that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nimchimpsky
Funny how it feels the opposite to me. It must be one of those illusions, like the grass is greener on the other side, except in this case, reversed. My left-wing friends are constantly complaining about how the right gets more done and gets their way more often. The fact you feel the left outdo the right legislatively is news to me. But now that you tell me that I am sure both sides feel the same way about the other side. In reality I'm sure they are getting more or less the same amount, but a smaller step in the direction away from where you stand always feels bigger than a large step in the direction towards where you stand.
I understand that this may appear a little self serving ... but the reality is that I'm actually a political atheist, so I'm really not bound by this one party system claiming to be two parties. And when speaking of Liberal-Conservative debate, I really should preface that by labeling the conservatives as false-conservatives, because we have no conservative representation in Washington DC. What we have are left wing fascists and left wing communists, if truth be told ... which one is worse? Well, flip a coin. Who was worse between Hitler and Stalin? At the end of the day, you have the same results .. totalitarianism with two different masks.
With that said ... almost every legislative agenda and action is left wing. Think Bush was a true conservative? He presided over the largest expansion of the federal government in the history of the Nation, and outspent every US president in history doing it. Obama? He's just picked up where Bush left off, and accelerated the spending. Before Bush ... Clinton. So that makes 18 1/2 years of leftist agenda pushing. And you thought Obama was "change" to the left? The only change we're seeing is the change left in our pockets that isn't worth it's zinc content.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nimchimpsky
No, I don't have any prevalent ones. I think the need for reform is based on the fact that people can't agree on what marriage means. Why not leave it up to religious and cultural institutions? Then people can join organizations that have the same definition of marriage as they do and then the state doesn't have to concern itself with defining marriage.
I think that's an outstanding idea .. trouble is, you just can't have it both ways. You can't push for big government and eliminate it's interference at the same time. I agree that government should stay out of our private lives ... but then you can't go running to government begging it to fix society's ills the way you like it, and demand programs to address every problem, real or perceived.
The choice is, feed from the government teat, or stand on your own two feet ... it's an either or thing. Leftist=Teat Right=Feet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nimchimpsky
I'm trying to stay semi-on-topic here so let's save the gun rights discussion for another day.
Or better yet ... just apply the logic in your own analogy, and a whole lot of rationalization isn't necessary. "Shall not be infringed" shouldn't require decades of debate for English speaking folks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nimchimpsky
How is teaching children that gays exist messing with them? I guess that's what I don't understand. Is teaching children the difference between men and women messing with them? Men and women exist so children learn about them. Gays exist so children learn about them too.
Ah ha! This is where that left wing extremist upbringing has clouded your thinking. So to avoid any further confusion, may I bluntly say that 6 year old children have no business learning, thinking, discussing or contemplating sex ... not heterosexual sex, not homosexual sex, not Billy has two mommies, or Sally has two daddies ... nothing sexual. If they are inquisitive ... it's easy ... you tell them that's an adult topic, and they've got plenty of time later to learn all of those things.
These CHILDREN should be learning the fundamentals of reading and writing and practicing their ABC's .... see spot run ... see jack throw the ball .... followed by finger painting flowers and butterflies ... followed by cookies and milk ... maybe this sounds very quaint to you .... nevertheless to a large number of parents, it sounds just right. And it is most certainly their right to determine at what age such conversations and information is appropriate to discuss with their children ... not some left wing school board, or the government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nimchimpsky
I agree both sides are equally dogmatic, but I don't know that either side has been more successful than the other side legislatively. Both sides have been quite successful in pretty much derailing the other side's goals through legislation. Each side has had more success than the other in a particular area, but I think overall it evens out.
1960's Civil Rights movement ... Feminist Movement ... the Homosexual Movement .... Universities are dominated by left wing politics ... the entertainment industry-left wing ... the News Media ... CNN-MSNBC-FOX .. 2 to 1 left wing. The Senate ... the first Black President ...
Are you pulling my leg here or is this just smooth tactical debate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nimchimpsky
That said, this ad seemed like bad advertising. Can you describe more in detail what is going on visually? I heard kissing at two points in the video.
Well, it was more a theme depicting gays in a stereotype manner, using F bombs which dominated the presentation .. I didn't view it with the task of deep visual analysis ... just the abrasiveness I think, and the two children who appeared to be very young, engaging in a peck type kiss ... it was more a matter of poor taste.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nimchimpsky
I'm surprised the video was so poorly done because the person who made that video also made this video:
Well, technically is wasn't poorly done ... it was poorly concieved, and demonstrated poor taste, IMO. Hey, people aren't always who they appear to be ... and I'm sure he didn't think it was in poor taste, so what can one conclude from that? Poor judgment? Or maybe that's exactly who he is.
The second video shows a deep level of compassion ... but guess what ... Ted Bundy was charming and received thousands of fan mail from women while in jail for 30 brutal murders. I'm not comparing the two ... I'm just saying, people can be very deceiving ... do you have any idea how many "charities" are total frauds?
OK. I'm curious. Do you mind giving us an idea of where you went to High School???
My bet is Berkeley, California .... politically connected parents .... an open campus High School .... lots of other places are possibilities ... but Berkeley is my pick ... I'd hedge the bet with Gary, Indiana ... perhaps Oakland. I wanted to say Detroit ... OK ... either Berkeley or Detroit.
I am wondering if nimchimpsky feels she got a well rounded education or if she was gypped out of learning what she needed to learn to go to college. With so many social programs how did you have time to study the hard subjects?
By the way people would believe sex education the schools are teaching now was good if we didn't see the disastrous results of it by teen pregnancies, STDs and all the mess in society now.
You can say society in the past was bad for kids when it came to sex education but most back then would remember only a few students got pregnant each year and those students had absent parents. Kids did not have to worry about abortions and all the rest of the mess the kids have thrown on their shoulders today. If not themselves then with their friends crying about it. No wonder life has become so cheap.
Proof of Americas Values are slowly going down the drain..
I wonder whats next...
What American values do you speak ?
It is okay to kill off almost an entire indigenous population after invading their land?
It is okay for one human to own another, and use them as work animals?
Females are second class citizens?
It is okay to keep separate the races by force?
Only white, male, property owners can vote?
I think a lot of the Bible thumpers would be surprised at some things the Bible says is bad or is okay. But they like to pick and choose to support their bigotry.
Either you aren't reading all of the posts, or you disagree. The data shows that homosexuals account for 1/3 of the child molestations, while only representing a small fraction of the society. The figures are roughly TEN TIMES more likely that a homosexual commits child molestation, compared to a heterosexual.
This was in response to a claim that most acts of molestation of boys is done by heterosexuals ... which is patently absurd nonsense, and why I posted the truth.
The only place you will find absolute nonsense like your claim is from anti-gay propaganda websites - usually religiously-based ones. You can bluster as much as you want, but the facts don't support your claim.
Please post your sources and I'll happily show you in detail how they have misrepresented and lied about actual studies - like some of those below. __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ____
Here is just some of the research published in reputable peer-reviewed Journals:
“..a child’s risk of being molested by his or her relative’s heterosexual partner is 100 times greater than by someone who might be identified as a homosexual." (Carole Jenny et al., Are Children at Risk for Sexual Abuse by Homosexuals?; 94 Pediatrics 41; July 1994)
**************************
“The adult heterosexual male constitutes a greater risk to the underage child than does the adult homosexual male” National Institutes of Health – PubMed (Groth and Birnbaum, “Adult Sexual Orientation and Attraction to Underage Persons.”)
**************************
"Homosexuality and homosexual pedophilia are not synonymous. In fact, it may be that these two orientations are mutually exclusive, the reason being that the homosexual male is sexually attracted to masculine qualities whereas the heterosexual male is sexually attracted to feminine characteristics, and the sexually immature child’s qualities are more feminine than masculine. . . . The child offender who is attracted to and engaged in adult sexual relationships is heterosexual. It appears, therefore, that the adult heterosexual male constitutes a greater sexual risk to underage children than does the adult homosexual male." A. Nicholas Groth, William F. Hobson, and Thomas S. Gary, “The Child Molester: Clinical Observations,” in Social Work and Child Sexual Abuse, eds. Jon R. Conte and David A. Shore (New York: Haworth Press, 1982), p.136.
**************************
"Amongst the heterosexuals, the commonest remarks concerning attractive features of the victims, were that the young boys did not have any body hair and that their bodies were soft and smooth." Marshal, W.L.; Barbaree, H.E.; Butt, Jennifer. “Sexual offenders against male children: Sexual preferences.”
**************************
“The belief that homosexuals are particularly attracted to children is completely unsupported by our data.” National Institutes of Health – PubMed (Groth and Birnbaum, “Adult Sexual Orientation and Attraction to Underage Persons.”)
“A gay man is no more likely than a straight man to perpetrate sexual activity with children.” Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality -(Stevenson, “Public Policy, Homosexuality and the Sexual Coercion of Children.”)
**************************
“Homosexual males who preferred physically mature partners responded no more to male children than heterosexual males who preferred physically mature partners responded to female children” Journal of Sex Research -Freund, Kurt; Watson, Robin J.; Rienzo, Douglas. “Heterosexuality, homosexuality, and the erotic age preference.” Journal of Sex Research 26, no. 1 (1989): 107-117
**************************
“The research to date all points to there being no significant relationship between a homosexual lifestyle and child molestation. There appears to be practically no reportage of sexual molestation of girls by lesbian adults, and the adult male who sexually molests young boys is not likely to be homosexual." Groth, A. N., & Gary, T. S. (1982). Heterosexuality, homosexuality, and pedophilia: Sexual offenses against children and adult sexual orientation.
**************************
The Abel and Harlow Child Molestation Prevention Study of over 4000 child molestors in the US also show that 97% of child molestors were religious and over 70% were married with children: Child Molestation Research & Prevention Institute
**************************
And here is a general article showing how some conservative religious anti-gay groups misrepresent and distort studies like those above to vilify homosexuals. Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation
Oh good lord. This "debate" again. Most pedophiles have no adult sexual orientation at all. They're not attracted to men or women. They're attracted to children - and usually to both sexes (there's really not much difference between a prepubescent boy and a prepubescent girl).
For whatever reason, most pedophiles are men. Who a pedophile molests is essentially always determined by access and the likelihood that the pedophile won't get caught. It's perceived (and it seems to be true) that it's easier to shut up a little girl about abuse more easily that it is to shut up a little boy. Hence, most cases of child molestation are a male adults molesting a female relative.
Pedophiles who target non-family members almost always target children of the same sex. They don't do this because they are homosexuals - they're not - but because they can gain access to children of the same sex (as a man, if I applied to lead a Boy Scout troop, nobody would find that suspicious. If I applied to lead a Girl Scout troop, I'd be scrutinized pretty damn hard). Many serial child molesters molest both boys and girls.
It doesn't make sense to say that heterosexuals account for 2/3 of child molesters or that homosexuals are 10 times more likely to molest that heterosexuals. It doesn't makes sense to talk about child molesters in terms of "homosexuals" or "heterosexuals" or "bisexuals."
When talking of child sexual offenders, most people seem to think of "fixated" pedophiles - those who are solely focused on children and have no adult sexual attractions to either gender. These fixated pedophiles usually have a lot of victims but are rarer than "regressed" pedophiles or child molestors.
"Regressed" pedophiles (child molestors) may only have one or two victims - usually children known to them (think incest) - but are more common that fixated pedophiles.
These men have adult sexual attractions; are far more likely to be heterosexual than homosexual; are often married with children and are "opportunistic". If they molested boys (and/or girls), when asked, men like this usually say they molested boys because they were soft and hairless like females.
Absolutely 100% false. The overwhelming majority of child molesters are who have an adult orientation are straight. I'm sure Jaymax will be around shortly to link the statistics disproving your absolutely false information.
Paul Cameron is the one who spread the myth that most gays are child molestors. It's a 100% lie.
The evangelical, disreputable, deregistered ex-psychologist, anti-gay crackpot Paul Cameron, is indeed the source of a lot of the myths and lies about homosexuality and gay people used by conservative/religious anti-gay groups. He founded the organization called The Family Research Institute which has been classed as a "hate group" by the Southern Poverty Law Centre.
He has long been known for misrepresenting (aka lying about) real studies and basically making crap up to support his crusade against gay people. This is so easy to prove if one just looks at the original studies, yet many of the anti-gay groups still base their "facts" about homosexuality on Paul Cameron. The scientific community basically ignore him as a joke.
I guess these anti-gay groups know that if they "pretty up" their propaganda articles on their websites to make them look like "real official and scholarly articles, so they must be true" with lot's of citations and footnotes, their gullible "audience" won't usually be bothered to actually check the citations and original sources. Why would they if the articles support their prejudice and "look real"?
I guess these groups must think if they repeat these myths and lies often enough and all over the internet, that enough people will think they are true. These tactics have been quite successful apparently, because we often hear the myths and distortions repeated.
Most of the Bible is mistranslated from the original Hebrew and original Greek to begin with. Even the word translated as "homosexuality"--arsenokoitai--in many of the "homosexuality-related" verses is a matter of debate. That's why I am trying to point out to people that follow these verses that they are not really following God's word, rather, they are using the Bible as a cop out for having what is actually a belief that is totally within their personal power to change without fear of consequences such as Hell.
Hi Nim, the Greek word "arsenokoites" was only used twice in the NT by Paul. (1 Cor 6-8 and 1 Tim 1). It doesn't make any sense to translate it as "homosexuals".
Biblical scholars are not really sure what the word actually means because it was not commonly used. It was never used in secular writings to mean "homosexual". Some scholars think that Paul coined the word.
The first person to "redefine" the word arsenokoites as "homosexuals" in an English translarion, was in 1946 in the ESV version of the Bible.
Here is the word used as a verb in the Sibylline Oracle:
(Never accept in your hand a gift which derives from unjust deeds.)
Do not steal seeds. Whoever takes for himself is accursed (to generations of generations, to the scattering of life.
Do not arsenokoitein, do not betray information, do not murder.) Give one who has labored his wage. Do not oppress a poor man. Take heed of your speech. Keep a secret matter in your heart. (Make provision for orphans and widows and those in need.)
Do not be willing to act unjustly, and therefore do not give leave to one who is acting unjustly.
A similar case exists in the second-century Acts of John. "John" is condemning the rich men of Ephesus:
Then you are saying heterosexuals can have homosexual sex even when they are strictly heteros and do not have an attraction to the same sex? This happens in prison all the time so sex is fluid. Then gays say they are only attracted to the same sex and straights should not be bothered with it at all.
Most people know sex is a matter of choice. IMO no one is born with one attraction or the other. We learn most of it.
You are confusing sexual orientation and sexual behavior. Sexual behavior can be fluid and a choice, but sexual orientation - not a choice.
Rape for example is a sexual behavior but Rape has more to do with power and control than attraction. Some men rape 80 year old grannies and 1 year old babies.
Most men who rape other men are heterosexual, not homosexual. They are not generally "attracted" sexually or emotionally to other men. They just get off on the power, domination and humiliation of another man (or a woman.)
The phrase "homosexual rape," for instance, which is often used by uninformed persons to designate male-male rape, camouflages the fact that the majority of the rapists are not generally homosexual (Donaldson, 1990).
The National Center for Victims of Crime - Library/Document Viewer (http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?dbName=DocumentViewer&DocumentID=32361 - broken link)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
