What's the difference....?

[Mrs Backlasher]

I fail to see the difference between a gay married couple portrayed in a movie, and a "pretend" gay married couple portrayed in a movie.

It's just another slant from Hollywood to get their agenda in front of people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sandler, James head to altar in pretend-gay comedy
Thursday February 9 3:27 AM ET

Adam Sandler (http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hc&cf=gen&id=1800018711) and Kevin James are in negotiations to play firefighters who pretend to be a gay couple in an upcoming film comedy "I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry,"


"Wedding Crashers" director David Dobkin (http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hc&cf=gen&id=1800020992) is attached to take the helm of the long-gestating project at Universal Pictures.

The firefighters in "Chuck and Larry" pose as a married gay couple in order to receive domestic partner benefits. Alexander Payne (http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hc&cf=gen&id=1800018915) and James Taylor (http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hc&cf=gen&id=1800080475), the Oscar-winning team behind "Sideways" and "About Schmidt (http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hv&cf=info&id=1807815980)," have written the current draft of the screenplay based on a treatment by Lew Gallo (http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hc&cf=gen&id=1800108626).

The coming together of Sandler and James finally puts the project, which has been at the studio since the late 1990s, on the runway.

A parade of writers has hammered out drafts over the years, and various combinations of actors, such as Will Smith (http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hc&cf=gen&id=1800019959) and Nicolas Cage (http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hc&cf=gen&id=1800018581), Smith and James Gandolfini (http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hc&cf=gen&id=1800018582) and Vince Vaughn (http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hc&cf=gen&id=1800018691) and Owen Wilson (http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hc&cf=gen&id=1800019255) have flirted with the movie.

Sandler is set to start production on the Mike Binder (http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hc&cf=gen&id=1800139150)-directed drama "Reign O'er Me" in the spring and will next be seen star in the comedy "Click," which is due to open June 30.

James is best known for starring in CBS's long-running comedy "The King of Queens." His most recent big-screen appearance was with Will Smith in 2005's "Hitch," where he was cited for scene stealing. He also is doing voice work in "Monster House" and "Barnyard." Reuters/Hollywood Reporter

[Oldeman]

It would be better if it starred Mike Tyson and Evander Holyfield. Now THAT would be a couple, wouldn't it???? lol

[centexfisher]

On thing I have learned from reading your posts, MsBacklasher, is that you are a good person with a good heart, so please understand that there is no disrespect intended here...

Hollywood puts movies out for one reason-to make money. Hollywood's agenda is to make money. These types of movies are made because Hollywood is making money off of them because there are those, for whatever reason, enjoy this type of movie.

I offer no defense of these types of movies, but I defend Hollywood's right to make money by offering the public what the public is willing to pay their hard earned money to go see. If no one went to see these movies, Hollywood would lose money and would cease making them.

It's really that simple.

[Snagged]

Agree with you on this Centex.

[Farmer Jim]

Sorry, but I disagree. No way it is just for money. There are some segments of Hollywood who also make movies to further political and, in some cases, even personal agendas. Sure they would like to make a buck or two off of them, but that is not the only reason movies are made.

Depending on your view, there are both good guys and bad guys making movies for reasons other than money. Mel Gibson was fully prepared to accept considerable loss to make Passion Of Christ. In fact, the Hollywood establishment told him he was going to loose a fortune on it. And what about our good friend Michael Moore. Do you really think his primary motive is making money? Heck, he would make his garbage whether he thought it would ever make a return or not. He has publicly said so.

These two examples are of people willing to completely accept a loss to put a message before the public. There may not be many like that, but do not kid yourselves, there are plenty of others out there in looney-land who are more than willing to accept a break even or a very low return if it means they can convey their political and moral views on the masses.

Anyone who thinks that profit was the only reason Brokeback Mountain was made is kidding themselves. It was a left-wing, PC statement intended to further the "normalization" of homosexuality in the U.S. If it makes a few bucks, they'll be all the happier, but that was not the sole reason for making it. If you do believe it was strictly an economic endeavor, you probably also believe those grammar school text books with the "homos are normal" message are published strictly to improve reading skills.

Folks, there is an agenda at work here and it is to have our society accept homosexuality as being just as normal as having blond hair.

[centexfisher]

I'm curious about something...should we also protest ice skating (largely homosexual male skaters), dancing (largely homosexual male dancers), tennis (largely lesbian females) or golf (largely lesbian females)? How about radio stations that broadcast music by the likes of Elton John? Shall we boycot every station that broadcasts these gay events?

I know...that's pushing the envelope a bit...but not by alot.

I have grown just as intolerant of the ignorant view that homosexuality is a choice as the religious right is intolerant of homosexuality. I have become increasingly intolerant of the view that television and movies should be a distorted mirror to reality rather than a window to reality by suggesting that real topics in the real world not be shown simply because someone finds it distasteful or in conflict with their religious beliefs-just as those folks are intolerant of facts of life being explored in the media. I stand in disbelief of those that think it is better to ignor the realities of life they do not approve and that choose to ignor science in favor of old religious convictions, despite the fact that the Catholic church has even released a statement warning against ignoring science.

Hollywood is in it for the money-period. Film writers and producers most certainly do express their views via film, but the majors will not spends millions to make them if they don't think they can make money on the deal. It is basic business.

There is no evil homosexual plot to turn people gay. There is a move to try to promote understanding of the lifestyle. When understanding becomes an evil thing or attempts to promote understanding becomes viewed as a plot of some kind, there is something seriously wrong.

On the topic of "normal"...what is normal anyway? Norms change throughout time, so "normal" is not a constant. Are you more normal than I am or vice versa? In the conmtext of human nature, one is hard pressed to define normal. What you really mean is that they are not like you and therefore are "abnormal". I find that to be rather vain.

What is evil about homosexuality? Leave the bible out of it and just tell me what is evil. Is a homosexual more likely to steal, rob,rape, and pillage? Do homosexuals have gay meetings with the mission of recruiting people into "gaydom"? The answer is no. Anyone that believes otherwise is unbelievably ignorant and paranoid.

Okay: now the disclaimer: This commentary is not directed at any individual or individuals. It is not meant as a slight to any 2cooler. It is my opinion and an expression of my attitude towards the subject only.

[Badhabit]

Jim, I think that was one of the best, most truthfull reply I've ever read..... They want you to think it's as normal as puttin peanuts in yer coke.... I ain't goin for it, God gave man a rod for two reasons, one is so wewe wouldn't run down his leg "except for Melon", the other is for man to provide fertilizer and maybe some enjoyment for the woman.... The woman has an orfice for three reasons,one is to wewe, one is to give birth, and the other is to provide the man with enjoyment.... I don't thing the lord had any intention for a man to be interested in another mans rod, nor a mans orfice which was created to excrete waste, that should be a one way door with a check valve at the entrance...


J/k melon, I couldn't resist

[FishinChick©]

Good God Darrell.

[WT427]

Jim, I think that was one of the best, most truthfull reply I've ever read..... They want you to think it's as normal as puttin peanuts in yer coke.... I ain't goin for it, God gave man a rod for two reasons, one is so wewe wouldn't run down his leg "except for Melon", the other is for man to provide fertilizer and maybe some enjoyment for the woman.... The woman has an orfice for three reasons,one is to wewe, one is to give birth, and the other is to provide the man with enjoyment.... I don't thing the lord had any intention for a man to be interested in another mans rod, nor a mans orfice which was created to excrete waste, that should be a one way door with a check valve at the entrance...


J/k melon, I couldn't resist
LMAO! :cheers:

I think you just made Jan blush. LOL

[Farmer Jim]

Well, my intent wasn't to trigger Darrell's anatomy lesson :spineyes: , but I do think he understood what I was tryng to say.

[Snagged]

There is no evil homosexual plot to turn people gay. There is a move to try to promote understanding of the lifestyle. When understanding becomes an evil thing or attempts to promote understanding becomes viewed as a plot of some kind, there is something seriously wrong.

.
Centex,
Some so-called "sex education" classes are encouraging very young children to accept/ experiment with deveiant behavior, according to some articles I've read. I'm talking elementry school age kids. To many this is an indication of a program to create more of the same.

The following have been shown as an urban lengend, but after watching our society become sicker I wonder.



The files were marked, “Communist Rules for Revolution”. This line false, snagged.
Corrupt the young: get them away from religion. Get them interested in sex. Make them superficial; destroy their ruggedness.

Get control of all means of publicity. Get peoples’ minds off their government by focusing their attention on athletics, sexy books, plays and other trivialities.

Divide people into hostile groups by constantly harping on controversial matters of no importance.

Destroy the peoples’ faith in their natural leaders by holding the latter up to contempt, ridicule and . (speak against, condemnatory utterances)

Always preach ;true democracy; but seize power as fast and as ruthlessly as possible.

By encouraging government extravagance, destroy its credit; produce fear of inflation, rising prices and general discontent.

Foment strikes in vital industries; encourage civil disorders and foster a lenient and soft attitude on the part of government toward these disorders.

By special argument cause a breakdown of the old moral virtues; honesty, sobriety, continence, faith in the pledged word, ruggedness.

Cause the registration of all firearms on some pretext with a view of confiscation of them and leaving the population helpless.


45 Goals of Communism (http://www.restoringamerica.org/documents/45_goals_of_communism.html)
10 Planks of Communism/Socialism (http://www.restoringamerica.org/documents/10planks.html)

[Badhabit]

Good God Darrell.
Yep, he's good, and I don't feel his creations should be exploited in a way other than intended by design......

[FishinChick©]

no, I didn't blush. I cringed.

LMAO! :cheers:

I think you just made Jan blush. LOL

[DANO]

LMAO @ Badhabit,... I cannot stop LAUGHING But,.... in His own Way He is somewhat CORRECT !!!!! Sheeeeesh !!

[Badhabit]

no, I didn't blush. I cringed.
So delete it, I'll respect your decision sis, the post wasn't ment to make anyone cringe, just give a "down to earth" opinion.... I agree that it's maybe a little graphic, but pretty much true, unless there is more uses for the anatomy that I don't know about, if there is please inform me via pm....lol

[FishinChick©]

I'm just messin with ya bubba. No need for the delete key.

So delete it, I'll respect your decision sis, the post wasn't ment to make anyone cringe, just give a "down to earth" opinion.... I agree that it's maybe a little graphic, but pretty much true, unless there is more uses for the anatomy that I don't know about, if there is please inform me via pm....lol

[DANO]

Badhabit needs some GREEN,..... LMAO !!

[WT427]

I beat ya to it.

[FishinChick©]

Yea, well, I beat ya both to it. Bwahahaha.

I beat ya to it.

[Badhabit]

I'm curious about something...should we also protest ice skating (largely homosexual male skaters), dancing (largely homosexual male dancers), tennis (largely lesbian females) or golf (largely lesbian females)? How about radio stations that broadcast music by the likes of Elton John? Shall we boycot every station that broadcasts these gay events?

I stand in disbelief of those that think it is better to ignor the realities of life they do not approve and that choose to ignor science in favor of old religious convictions, despite the fact that the Catholic church has even released a statement warning against ignoring science.


Sir, were you by chance an alter boy ?????? Just curious.

[DANO]

Lmao, !!!!!!!!!

[Farmer Jim]

Hollywood is in it for the money-period. Film writers and producers most certainly do express their views via film, but the majors will not spends millions to make them if they don't think they can make money on the deal. It is basic business.The ultimate in propaganda is to convince the naive that it is not.



There is no evil homosexual plot to turn people gay. There is a move to try to promote understanding of the lifestyle.They do not want understanding, they want acceptance as normal. That is what is behind the whole gay marriage thing. It isn’t the legal or religious aspects of marriage that they are really after. They think that marriage would be the ultimate stamp of approval by society.

They recruit. A guy I worked with in N.O. was arrested because he was using his position as a scoutmaster to recruit little boys. While he only molested two, it came out at his trial that he was preaching how "normal" it was to all of them. Why do you think the Boy Scouts have taken a strong position against allowing them to be Scout leaders? And don't hand me that Levi Corp. line about BSA being an intolerant, archaic, homophobic organization. It is for one reason only: to protect children.

Have you read about the "coming out" camps for boys who may be questioning their sexuality. The purpose is to assure them that is perfectly ok to be a homosexual and that they should accept and embrace what they are. GEEZ, what kind of a parent would let his kid go to something like that? If the kid is confused, give him a little guidance. Don't push him towards homosexuality. If you think I am making this up, go get a copy of Time for October 10, 2005.

And did you know that there are gay oriented organizations on the campuses of middle schools? Do you really think these are showing up at the initiative of 12 and 13 year olds? Hells bells, as 12 or 13 year olds sexuality begins awakening, they have so many confused emotions and feelings that the last thing they need is some one pushing them towards homosexuality.

I don't know how much you have been exposed to homosexuals, but I suspect you haven't really spent much time around them. They Recruit.



What is evil about homosexuality? Leave the bible out of it and just tell me what is evil. .Well, how about public obscenity and pedophilia for starters.

Ever seen a gay parade? If your idea of a parade is what happens on Saint Patricks Day or Thanksgiving or Veterans Day, you are in for quite a shock. I saw part of the Gay Pride Parade in Houston a few years ago. Ever see somebody in a penis suit walking down the street? How about float riders in only a jock strap that they pull down every so often as some sort of perverted salute or greeting to parade viewers they recognize? How about suggestive signs and sexually explicit pictures on the side of floats? Now I don't think any of that is evil in a private club somewhere. And maybe you don't think it is evil on a public street at 2:00 in the afternoon, but I do.

It's not PC, and no one will dare say it out loud, but homosexuals engage in pedophilia at a much higher rate than heterosexuals. How many of the instances of child molestation by Catholic priests have involved little girls and how many have involved little boys? How many times do you read of homosexuals in positions where they have contact with kids engaging in pedophilia as compared to heterosexuals in the same situations. Yes, it also happens with heterosexuals, but not at nearly the same rate as with the homosexuals. Take a drive down Montrose here in Houston some night. Check out the number of 13-16 year old male prostitutes. Then go take a drive down Hillcroft over by Bellaire, and check out the women hookers. The vast majority will be grown women. You'll see a few (very few) that are 16 or 17 and none that are as young as some of those little boys being victimized over on Montrose. And again, I happen to think that is evil.

Of course, all I have to base this on is my own observations and what I see in the newspapers, news magazines and on the electronic media, because no one would dare do a study comparing the rates of pedophilia of homosexuals vs heterosexuals. That would be PC suicide for any academician. But anybody who pays attention to what goes on in the world or pays attention to reported cases of pedophilia knows I am right.

Anyone that believes otherwise is unbelievably ignorant and paranoid.Anyone who cannot see that there is a vigorous agenda by the gay community and their far left liberal allies to have society accept homosexuality as perfectly normal is unbelievably ignorant and naive.

Okay: now the disclaimer: This commentary is not directed at any individual or individuals. It is not meant as a slight to any 2cooler. It is my opinion and an expression of my attitude towards the subject only.Ditto
:cheers:

[Badhabit]

Anyone who cannot see that there is a vigorous agenda by the gay community and their far left liberal allies to have society accept homosexuality as perfectly normal is unbelievably ignorant and naive.




Amen,

and possibly at one time or another have indulged in the practice.... :eek:

[Melon]

BH you got some coming bro! And it ain't gonna be a greenie. LOL

BTW Heard you(BH) was a stand by in that there cowboy movie! Lmao

[Easy]

Just wondering how many of you that believe homosexuality is a choice could choose to be sexually excited by, and fall in love with another man? Anyone?

[Snagged]

Jim,
You forgot one item. Most serial killers have been shown to be homosexuals.

[centexfisher]

Farmer Jim:

FYI: I have a number of good friends that are gay (both male and female) over the years. They are doctors, lawyers, men and women serving in the military, and students. You are dead wrong. They do not recruit and the reason is simple. They know up close and personal that being gay is NOT a choice.

There has NEVER been a correlation between pedophilia and homosexuality. Try actually learning about what science has learned about homosexuality instead of displaying your ignorance on the subject.

As far gay parades, I'll mention two things: One: There is a huge gay parade in Key West every year-well-for years now the strights have gotten involved too because it is so much fun. Two: Ever been to Mari Graw in N.O? Heterosexuals screwing on the balconies and getting naked all over the place. There are perverts in the world-gay and straight.

And, Gay marraige is about a life long gay couple who have been as committed to each other and monogamous as a stright couple getting the same rights under the law as a heterosexual couple.

Discrimination is wrong-whether it be against people of color, women, or gays. To me, it is an exercise in logic: If it is okay to discriminate agaiinst gays, then it must also be okay to discriminated against blacks or against women and so on.

[Pat P]

Jim, I think that was one of the best, most truthfull reply I've ever read..... They want you to think it's as normal as puttin peanuts in yer coke.... I ain't goin for it, God gave man a rod for two reasons, one is so wewe wouldn't run down his leg "except for Melon", the other is for man to provide fertilizer and maybe some enjoyment for the woman.... The woman has an orfice for three reasons,one is to wewe, one is to give birth, and the other is to provide the man with enjoyment.... I don't thing the lord had any intention for a man to be interested in another mans rod, nor a mans orfice which was created to excrete waste, that should be a one way door with a check valve at the entrance...


J/k melon, I couldn't resist
Only Jethro Bodine could have layed that out like that! LMAO!

knot+knot= knot :slimer:

[jc]

Just wondering how many of you that believe homosexuality is a choice could choose to be sexually excited by, and fall in love with another man? Anyone?
or how about this... if you believe homosexuality is a choice... then you'll have no problem when a reformed homosexual man wants to marry your daughter?

jc

[jc]

I fail to see the difference between a gay married couple portrayed in a movie, and a "pretend" gay married couple portrayed in a movie.

It's just another slant from Hollywood to get their agenda in front of people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sandler, James head to altar in pretend-gay comedy
Thursday February 9 3:27 AM ET

Adam Sandler (http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hc&cf=gen&id=1800018711) and Kevin James are in negotiations to play firefighters who pretend to be a gay couple in an upcoming film comedy "I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry,"


"Wedding Crashers" director David Dobkin (http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hc&cf=gen&id=1800020992) is attached to take the helm of the long-gestating project at Universal Pictures.

The firefighters in "Chuck and Larry" pose as a married gay couple in order to receive domestic partner benefits. Alexander Payne (http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hc&cf=gen&id=1800018915) and James Taylor (http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hc&cf=gen&id=1800080475), the Oscar-winning team behind "Sideways" and "About Schmidt (http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hv&cf=info&id=1807815980)," have written the current draft of the screenplay based on a treatment by Lew Gallo (http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hc&cf=gen&id=1800108626).

The coming together of Sandler and James finally puts the project, which has been at the studio since the late 1990s, on the runway.

A parade of writers has hammered out drafts over the years, and various combinations of actors, such as Will Smith (http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hc&cf=gen&id=1800019959) and Nicolas Cage (http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hc&cf=gen&id=1800018581), Smith and James Gandolfini (http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hc&cf=gen&id=1800018582) and Vince Vaughn (http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hc&cf=gen&id=1800018691) and Owen Wilson (http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hc&cf=gen&id=1800019255) have flirted with the movie.

Sandler is set to start production on the Mike Binder (http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hc&cf=gen&id=1800139150)-directed drama "Reign O'er Me" in the spring and will next be seen star in the comedy "Click," which is due to open June 30.

James is best known for starring in CBS's long-running comedy "The King of Queens." His most recent big-screen appearance was with Will Smith in 2005's "Hitch," where he was cited for scene stealing. He also is doing voice work in "Monster House" and "Barnyard." Reuters/Hollywood Reporter


no offense intened, but the youthful popculture will decide what's selling and what is lame, for the most part. The "Adam Sandler crowd" will not buy into the "agenda" arguments... they're only concerned with what's funny...keep up the fight if you must, but be prepared to lose in the long run as society grows more and more tolerant of a wide range of deviance... has anybody stopped to think about what this world will be like when nearly every mid-level manager has had a tatoo, piercing and openly gay volleyball coaches? Like Centex, I have personally known gay and/or bi-folk from a variety of walks... physicians, lawyers, teachers, co-workers and bosses. They are ever bit as productive as the rest of us. Some may have the same problems w/ drugs/alcohol, promiscuity, etc.... but no more than the rest of the straight people I know. And they don't burden the rest of us with chldren they didn't plan on, can't or won't take responsibility for. As for pedophilia, serial murders, etc.... give me a break... you guys are bigger than simply throwing around the hysteria inducing lies that were proven just that, no more than lies, decades ago

and read up on the street boys sometime Jim, there have been plenty of studies on them since they have been around... a lot of them are kids that have simply been abandoned by parents because of their sexuality... yes, a lot of them were kicked out of their home by a father & mother that wouldn't tolerate a homosexual son. I agree that what they are reduced to in the streets is sick. But look at the child sex industry parts of Asia... straight men from around the world support prostitution of little girls in much larger numbers

jc

[Team Ranger Bob]

A choice that largely goes unnoticed in society until it is paired with the choice to also become a gay predator.

Ranger Bob

[Super Dave]

A choice that largely goes unnoticed in society until it is paired with the choice to also become a gay predator.

Ranger Bob
I would add "or gay activist".

[Melon]

I must not be reading this stuff right? To me some of you are promoting the idea of being queer is ok! Sorry but in my books it just ain't right! It's kinda freaky if you ask me. Just my opion and I teach my household the same. Being queer is just plain wrong! Just my 2cents

[centexfisher]

I must not be reading this stuff right? To me some of you are promoting the idea of being queer is ok! Sorry but in my books it just ain't right! It's kinda freaky if you ask me. Just my opion and I teach my household the same. Being queer is just plain wrong! Just my 2centsWel, I have to admit that the idea of two men doing a thing together is just plain weird to me, but being gay is NOT a choice. With all due respect to anyone that believes it is a choice....the belief that homosexuality is a choice is ignorant. I am not going to make any attempt at changing the ignorant's mind, because ignorance comes largely from the "I don't care what anyone says,(fill in the blank)", so those folks certainly won't accept what the behavioral sciences have taught for years no matter how much evidence anyone places in front of them. Just because it is freaky to you or to me does not make it wrong-it only makes it wrong for you or for me.

[WT427]

Who are you to say what's ignorant? Do you hold a PH.D in behavorial sciences or something along those lines? Or have you just read an article in a journal that was authored by an upper east coaster?

[Melon]

Lmao! Not trying to walk on this thread but soon as I posted that above my youngest son trots in the house wearing a pink freaking shirt! LOL I told him to take that shirt off.And then asked are you a fruit? He laughed and said dad it's just a joke and then he turned around show me what it said. Here is what it read......I still insisted he take it off because of what it represents in my books! Like I said maybe I'm just old fashion or something to that nature but being queer just ain't right!LOL

[Farmer Jim]

Centex and jc,
I also have had friends and associates through the years who have been homosexuals. One of my best buddies in H.S. ended up being a one. He has passed now, but if he were still alive, he would still be welcome in my home anytime. He was a class individual who never flaunted his homosexuality nor engaged in any inappropriate behavior. I also worked for one that I considered to be one of the finest managers I ever had the opportunity to work for. Very few even knew of his sexual persuasion because he did not think it was an issue except behind his bedroom door. I have absolutely no problem with individuals like these and probably would have no problem with those who you say you have known as they sound like responsible, productive members of society. However, to take individuals and project their behavior as representative of a group is just as wrong when categorizing homosexuals as it is when making racial assumptions. I do not condemn the black race, most of who are decent productive citizens, because of the behavior of a relatively small number of gutter slime from the N.O. projects. And neither do I deny the agenda driven, promiscuous and with pedophile nature of the overall male homosexual community because of the responsible, moral behavior of some.



You say to try learning what science has learned about a correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia. Trust me I have. I have searched several times for studies on the subject without any success. If you or jc have anything to support you argument that the percentage of pedophile activity is not greater among homosexuals, I would be interested in looking at it. As I said before, all I am going by is what I have observed over the years: the Catholic priest scandal, the presence of male child prostitutes in Montrose, the number of youth leaders and teachers who molest boys vs the number who molest girls, etc. Without any type of scientific study data, your assertion that they do not engage in pedophilia more than heterosexuals carries no more validity than my admittedly unscientific observations. Lest we all have to admit to ignorance and revert to conceding our reliance on observation and personal opinion, I await your references to hard data.

Maybe there are not as many debauched gays in Key West as there are in Houston. I have never seen the Key West parade. I have seen the one in Houston and can assure you that the type of behavior I mentioned was not isolated, but was prevalent throughout the parade. As for Mardi Gras, the behavior you mention is not thematic of Mardi Gras. It occurs only in the French Quarter. The vast majority of Mardi Gras participants do not engage in such behavior and if you go on St. Charles Street, on the other side of Canal, you will find a very different and family oriented parade route. The point I am trying to make is that the disgusting behavior in the Houston Gay Pride Parade was institutionalized in the celebration itself, while the inappropriate behavior at Mardi Gras is isolated and not thematic of the entire celebration. And you are right there are perverts in both the straight and in the homosexual communities. I certainly don't deny that. My point isn't that there are no perverted or promiscuous heterosexuals just that perversion and promiscuity are more prevalent in the homosexual community.

I think you are simply wrong about the recent obsession with homosexual marriage. If the concerns were only legal matters and commitment, there would be no reason for it to be such a high profile issue in the homosexual agenda. All health insurance plans that I know of now allow for "domestic partners" under family coverage, a person can designate whoever they wish as beneficiary on life insurance, wills permit the passing on of property to whoever one wishes, powers of attorney allow one to designate who has decision making authority in a health crisis, and law enforcement views domestic violence between homosexual partners the same as it does with a married couple. The legal issue argument is just a smokescreen. My legal basis for such matters is a contract of marriage. Other forms of contract are available to homosexuals to accomplish the same things. Marriage is a social issue with the gay community. It is the holy grail in their agenda to have society place the stamp of approval and normalcy on their lifestyle.

I do not believe in discrimination against any group of people. I do not discriminate against racial, ethnic, religious, sexual economic groups. I do however, reserve the right to discriminate against individuals of any and all groups based on their behavior. If it is an exercise in logic for you, it shouldn't be any more of an irrational process to say that there is a disproportional amount of pedophilia and promiscuousness in the gay community than it is to say that there is a disproportional number of illegal aliens in the Hispanic community. Both are simply observations that one can see if they just open their eyes, and neither should categorize an individual simply because he happens to a member of that group.

[Farmer Jim]

Is homosexuality a choice? Probably so in some cases, and probably not in some cases. I suspect that those who engage in homosexuality fall along a spectrum that that ranges from freely chosen to born that way, with some skewing towards the born that way. Very little in human behavior fits into neatly shaped boxes, and clear lines with pronounced distinctions on either side are rare. The assertions that homosexuality never involves choice show every bit as much of a lack of open mindedness as the assertion that it is always a choice. And, just because someone is born a certain way doesn't make it right. There are studies showing that some serial killers were "born that way".

[FishinChick©]

Jim,

With all due respect, girls are molested in far greater numbers than boys by men. It's just not as shocking or sensational for the media to report. Flip through the predator pages on the DPS site. Ask any sex crimes officer.

FC

Centex and jc,
I also have had friends and associates through the years who have been homosexuals. One of my best buddies in H.S. ended up being a one. He has passed now, but if he were still alive, he would still be welcome in my home anytime. He was a class individual who never flaunted his homosexuality nor engaged in any inappropriate behavior. I also worked for one that I considered to be one of the finest managers I ever had the opportunity to work for. Very few even knew of his sexual persuasion because he did not think it was an issue except behind his bedroom door. I have absolutely no problem with individuals like these and probably would have no problem with those who you say you have known as they sound like responsible, productive members of society. However, to take individuals and project their behavior as representative of a group is just as wrong when categorizing homosexuals as it is when making racial assumptions. I do not condemn the black race, most of who are decent productive citizens, because of the behavior of a relatively small number of gutter slime from the N.O. projects. And neither do I deny the agenda driven, promiscuous and with pedophile nature of the overall male homosexual community because of the responsible, moral behavior of some.



You say to try learning what science has learned about a correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia. Trust me I have. I have searched several times for studies on the subject without any success. If you or jc have anything to support you argument that the percentage of pedophile activity is not greater among homosexuals, I would be interested in looking at it. As I said before, all I am going by is what I have observed over the years: the Catholic priest scandal, the presence of male child prostitutes in Montrose, the number of youth leaders and teachers who molest boys vs the number who molest girls, etc. Without any type of scientific study data, your assertion that they do not engage in pedophilia more than heterosexuals carries no more validity than my admittedly unscientific observations. Lest we all have to admit to ignorance and revert to conceding our reliance on observation and personal opinion, I await your references to hard data.

Maybe there are not as many debauched gays in Key West as there are in Houston. I have never seen the Key West parade. I have seen the one in Houston and can assure you that the type of behavior I mentioned was not isolated, but was prevalent throughout the parade. As for Mardi Gras, the behavior you mention is not thematic of Mardi Gras. It occurs only in the French Quarter. The vast majority of Mardi Gras participants do not engage in such behavior and if you go on St. Charles Street, on the other side of Canal, you will find a very different and family oriented parade route. The point I am trying to make is that the disgusting behavior in the Houston Gay Pride Parade was institutionalized in the celebration itself, while the inappropriate behavior at Mardi Gras is isolated and not thematic of the entire celebration. And you are right there are perverts in both the straight and in the homosexual communities. I certainly don't deny that. My point isn't that there are no perverted or promiscuous heterosexuals just that perversion and promiscuity are more prevalent in the homosexual community.

I think you are simply wrong about the recent obsession with homosexual marriage. If the concerns were only legal matters and commitment, there would be no reason for it to be such a high profile issue in the homosexual agenda. All health insurance plans that I know of now allow for "domestic partners" under family coverage, a person can designate whoever they wish as beneficiary on life insurance, wills permit the passing on of property to whoever one wishes, powers of attorney allow one to designate who has decision making authority in a health crisis, and law enforcement views domestic violence between homosexual partners the same as it does with a married couple. The legal issue argument is just a smokescreen. My legal basis for such matters is a contract of marriage. Other forms of contract are available to homosexuals to accomplish the same things. Marriage is a social issue with the gay community. It is the holy grail in their agenda to have society place the stamp of approval and normalcy on their lifestyle.

I do not believe in discrimination against any group of people. I do not discriminate against racial, ethnic, religious, sexual economic groups. I do however, reserve the right to discriminate against individuals of any and all groups based on their behavior. If it is an exercise in logic for you, it shouldn't be any more of an irrational process to say that there is a disproportional amount of pedophilia and promiscuousness in the gay community than it is to say that there is a disproportional number of illegal aliens in the Hispanic community. Both are simply observations that one can see if they just open their eyes, and neither should categorize an individual simply because he happens to a member of that group.

[Farmer Jim]

Jim,

With all due respect, girls are molested in far greater numbers than boys by men. It's just not as shocking or sensational for the media to report. Flip through the predator pages on the DPS site. Ask any sex crimes officer.

FCJan, I am most certainly aware of that.

My point was not about the victims of abuse, it was about the perpetrators as percentages of the populations of homosexual vs heterosexual males. If 95% of the male population (roughly 140 million) is heterosexual and 5% of them abused a child (girls by definition), that would be 6.7 million little girls abused. However, if 50% of the 5% percent of the male population that was homosexual abused a child the number of victims would be only 3.5 million little boys. That would be ten times the percentage of pedophiles, but only half as many victims. (I know that gays claim that the population includes closer to 10% homosexuals, but I am just trying to make a point with the difference between absolute and relative numbers. And while I don't want to argue it here, I don't buy the higher percentage anyway.)

I am certainly not trying to say that pedophilia is less of a problem for litle girls than it is for little boys. I know that in terms of the percentage of molestation victims, little girls are victimized at a far higher rate. As you know, Jan, I raised three daughters and such things were always very real and a matter of very serious concern to me. Do not interpret my concerns over the disproportional number of pedophiles in the male homosexual community as a lack of concern for pedophilia among heterosexuals. In terms of victims, it is a much larger problem for little girls and usually involves more violence than homosexual pedophilia against little boys.

[FishinChick©]

Jim,

I must have misread or just missed your original point. There has to be some accurate, unbiased research out there that we can look at. I know there are many claims to valid research all the way from the religious right to the advocate. Neither one of those is worth looking at in my opinion, due to the attached agendas. I just don't know where to find the real stuff - like FBI analysis of actual crime numbers, etc. I think I will assign myself to see what I can find.

Jan

[GUNnROD]

Centex I will agree with you that for many it is not a choice.

But you must understand that someone being homosexual isn't what most people like myself objects too. It is the in your face flaunting of their deviant lifestyle and the push to normalize their behavior.

But back to choice or not. Many people are born with different syndromes. For instance downs syndrome. Have you ever noticed that many people with downs syndrome have similar physical characteristics. If you pay attention you will also see that many homosexuals have similar physical characteristics. Just like you say, and I agree that homosexuals are born that way.

How about people that are criminals and murders or mentally ill. You could find many doctors and lawyers that would argue some percentage of these people can't help themselves. So in essence they are born that way. Just like you say, and I agree that homosexuals are born that way.

But here's the kicker. Just because they are born that way doesn't mean we have to tolerate the in our face deviant behavior. If you want to classify it as a disease or syndrome. Then we need to get them help. If you want to say it is criminal then we should lock them up.

But if they want to act like normal adults in society. I could care less what they do in the privacy of their own home.

[FishinChick©]

Funny you should mention that. Here's one that always blows my mind. If you look through the family tree of folks drawn to either crime or law enforcement, you will often find folks on both sides of the fence. There is a fine line, I suppose. Some end up on one side of the law and the rest end up on the other.


How about people that are criminals and murders or mentally ill.

[GUNnROD]

Funny you should mention that. Here's one that always blows my mind. If you look through the family tree of folks drawn to either crime or law enforcement, you will often find folks on both sides of the fence. There is a fine line, I suppose. Some end up on one side of the law and the rest end up on the other.

Both crime and crime fighting are adrenalin filled lifestyles. One is respectable the other pays better. Sometimes :)

Hijack over.

[centexfisher]

Who are you to say what's ignorant? Do you hold a PH.D in behavorial sciences or something along those lines? Or have you just read an article in a journal that was authored by an upper east coaster?Without flaunting my full credentails, I have substantial education in psychology including in Human Sexuality. The assumption that homosexuality is a choice is plain ignorant-period. Be novel-set your petty views aside and actually read up on the subject. Go to the library and read a human sexuality text book. If you find anything to suggest that homosexuality is NOT a choice, then talk to me.

[centexfisher]

Centex I will agree with you that for many it is not a choice.

But you must understand that someone being homosexual isn't what most people like myself objects too. It is the in your face flaunting of their deviant lifestyle and the push to normalize their behavior.

But back to choice or not. Many people are born with different syndromes. For instance downs syndrome. Have you ever noticed that many people with downs syndrome have similar physical characteristics. If you pay attention you will also see that many homosexuals have similar physical characteristics. Just like you say, and I agree that homosexuals are born that way.

How about people that are criminals and murders or mentally ill. You could find many doctors and lawyers that would argue some percentage of these people can't help themselves. So in essence they are born that way. Just like you say, and I agree that homosexuals are born that way.

But here's the kicker. Just because they are born that way doesn't mean we have to tolerate the in our face deviant behavior. If you want to classify it as a disease or syndrome. Then we need to get them help. If you want to say it is criminal then we should lock them up.

But if they want to act like normal adults in society. I could care less what they do in the privacy of their own home.The in your face behavior you are talking about is called "flaming". The "flames" are the gay men that you can recognize are gay from a mile away. Even the gays don't like flames. I take issue with the idea that shows depicting the gay lifestyle be judged as whatever the hell it is some judge it. If you don't want to watch Will and Grace, change the channel for God's sake! We have remotes now-you don't even have to walk to the television. If you don't want to watch something like Broken Back or whatever that movie is called, don't go (I won't). But don't be so egotistical as to believe that your views are so right that no one should be able to see the movie.

[Snagged]

JC & Centex,
You both appear to have a problem understanding that people do accept that some are homosexuals, but that does not mean they should condone the behavior.

[boomgoon]

Centex, Again I think that the FCC should cull out even the Will and Grace shows. If they want to show that, make it on pay tv.

[WT427]

Without flaunting my full credentails, I have substantial education in psychology including in Human Sexuality. The assumption that homosexuality is a choice is plain ignorant-period. Be novel-set your petty views aside and actually read up on the subject. Go to the library and read a human sexuality text book. If you find anything to suggest that homosexuality is NOT a choice, then talk to me.Nowhere in this thread have I told any of you what I thought. All I did was question why you think that anyone that thinks homosexuality is a choice is ignorant. I still havent seen you offer any proof to prove otherwise.

[GUNnROD]

The in your face behavior you are talking about is called "flaming". The "flames" are the gay men that you can recognize are gay from a mile away. Even the gays don't like flames. I take issue with the idea that shows depicting the gay lifestyle be judged as whatever the hell it is some judge it. If you don't want to watch Will and Grace, change the channel for God's sake! We have remotes now-you don't even have to walk to the television. If you don't want to watch something like Broken Back or whatever that movie is called, don't go (I won't). But don't be so egotistical as to believe that your views are so right that no one should be able to see the movie.

Trust me, Will & Grace won't be seen in my home. And I will never view BareBack Mount'in. :rotfl:

[FishinChick©]

just don't watch if it offends you

Trust me, Will & Grace won't be seen in my home. And I will never view BareBack Mount'in. :rotfl:

[centexfisher]

Nowhere in this thread have I told any of you what I thought. All I did was question why you think that anyone that thinks homosexuality is a choice is ignorant. I still havent seen you offer any proof to prove otherwise.What I am telling you is fact. It is up to you to show me some science that disproves it. You can stick the "you show me the proof" baloney. You show me what I have said that isn't true. Put up or shut up, but don't ask me to do the homework for you. I have already done mine.

[boomgoon]

What about the chance that my kids run across it? Thats why I say that it should be pay tv.



just don't watch if it offends you

[centexfisher]

JC & Centex,
You both appear to have a problem understanding that people do accept that some are homosexuals, but that does not mean they should condone the behavior.I have never suggested that anyone should have to condone the behavior. I have said that to believe that since you find a show offensive that no one else should be able to watch it either is offensive. In essence, you are condoning censorship based on prejudice and/or religious beliefs.

[WT427]

Your the one that has taken the stance, not I.

I still havent told you what I thought. Furthermore, tone down the confrontational bs. It's not needed around here.

[centexfisher]

What about the chance that my kids run across it? Thats why I say that it should be pay tv.Do you think for a moment that your kids won't run accross a real life homosexual? Do you think for a moment that if a kid sees Will and Grace that they will turn gay? Get real.

[FishinChick©]

What about the chance that my kids run across it? Thats why I say that it should be pay tv.
parental controls bg. they come with your cable tv

[centexfisher]

Your the one that has taken the stance, not I.

I still havent told you what I thought. Furthermore, tone down the confrontational bs. It's not needed around here.This is the jungle. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. I have taken my share of heat-this time I am turning on the heat because I am sick and tired of reading ignorant, uninformed opinions about homosexuality. BTW: Ignorant does NOT suggest stupidity-just ignorance on the subject at hand.

[GUNnROD]

I have never suggested that anyone should have to condone the behavior. I have said that to believe that since you find a show offensive that no one else should be able to watch it either is offensive. In essence, you are condoning censorship based on prejudice and/or religious beliefs.

The problem that people have with shows of this nature, is that it is depicted as normal behavior. If there were an onslaught of movies depicting murder as acceptable everyday behavior. Just imagine the outrage.

[FishinChick©]

Come on Wes. You started that.

Your the one that has taken the stance, not I.

I still havent told you what I thought. Furthermore, tone down the confrontational bs. It's not needed around here.

[boomgoon]

There you go and there is my proof. There exist a forum for all to enjoy that type of behavior called cable tv. But that is not good enough for the agenda. It must be in your face free tv. My kids will run across people that promote drug use as well, and they will be prepared by me, not the tv!

[centexfisher]

parental controls bg. they come with your cable tvI agree! Besides, television is only bad if it used as a babysitter and not used as a catilyst for father, mother/son daughter discussion.

[boomgoon]

Reread my post, I don't object to this stuff on cable tv, just regular tv.



parental controls bg. they come with your cable tv

[centexfisher]

There you go and there is my proof. There exist a forum for all to enjoy that type of behavior called cable tv. But that is not good enough for the agenda. It must be in your face free tv. My kids will run across people that promote drug use as well, and they will be prepared by me, not the tv!Oh, BoomBoom! You are so much better than this! Drugs are all over t.v.-as is violence of all sorts. If you can prepare your kids for drugs, why can't you prepare them for the reality of gays-which they WILL meet?

[centexfisher]

Reread my post, I don't object to this stuff on cable tv, just regular tv.Change the channel. Use the V chip.

[boomgoon]

I am not for those either Centex. I wish that the old Andy Griffith days were back on free tv. Just my oponion, and I guess that we can agree to disagree on this one. L8TR, Jeff

[FishinChick©]

even "reg" tv comes over the cable these days and all of it can be managed with the cable box. that's what I was getting at.

Reread my post, I don't object to this stuff on cable tv, just regular tv.

[WT427]

My stance is this, I believe the majority of homosexuals are born that way. I offer no proof other than my opinions. I can't understand why anyone would choose to be gay and live their lives being persecuted everyday. With that said, I believe there is a minority of the gay population that is sexual deviants and choose their sexuality at any moment. How else can you explain bi-sexuals.

[centexfisher]

I am not for those either Centex. I wish that the old Andy Griffith days were back on free tv. Just my oponion, and I guess that we can agree to disagree on this one. L8TR, JeffThe Andy Griffith show, Father Knows best, etc...great shows...but, they acted as a distorted mirror to reality rather than a window to reality. I prefer that t.v. be a window to reality. As always, Boom-I enjoy our debates.

[centexfisher]

My stance is this, I believe the majority of homosexuals are born that way. I offer no proof other than my opinions. I can't understand why anyone would choose to be gay and live their lives being persecuted everyday. With that said, I believe there is a minority of the gay population that is sexual deviants and choose their sexuality at any moment. How else can you explain bi-sexuals.All homosexuals are born that way. You summed iot it well-why would anyone choose to be persecuted that way? As for sexual deviants-of course that's true-just as it is true of heterosexuals. Unfortuinataely, that's part of a bell curve-a small percentage of the population is sexually deviant. I won't even try to go into bi-sexuality other than to suggest that it is suggestive of sexuality confusion in some cases.

[boomgoon]

FC, My boys (9 and 12) don't have access to a television due to the smut coming over the airways. There is one in my wife's room (sometimes she lets me in there) that we will watch programs together that we think the boys will benifit from. We don't shelter them by any means, but we do pick the time and place that we discuss the things that they need to know to survive the jungle. Sorry if I came off wrong, I just wish that they could have access to the television as we did as kids.

[centexfisher]

FC, My boys (9 and 12) don't have access to a television due to the smut coming over the airways. There is one in my wife's room (sometimes she lets me in there) that we will watch programs together that we think the boys will benifit from. We don't shelter them by any means, but we do pick the time and place that we discuss the things that they need to know to survive the jungle. Sorry if I came off wrong, I just wish that they could have access to the television as we did as kids.I sympathize with that one, but I always had someone watching t.v. with me. I had someone discuss with me things like the JFK assasination, the race riots, the MLK assassination and so on. T.V. as a baby sitter is a bad idea, but that does not suggest that tv is bad-only that the way we use it is questionable.

[FishinChick©]

Buddy I hear ya. Those days are gone I'm afraid. My kids watch cartoon network, animal planet, discovery, and national geographic. Not because that's all I let them watch. They watch them because that's what they like. They NEVER watch network tv (again by choice) unless it happens to be on when they are in the room. I think they tune it out the same way I tune out cartoon network. LOL.



FC, My boys (9 and 12) don't have access to a television due to the smut coming over the airways. There is one in my wife's room (sometimes she lets me in there) that we will watch programs together that we think the boys will benifit from. We don't shelter them by any means, but we do pick the time and place that we discuss the things that they need to know to survive the jungle. Sorry if I came off wrong, I just wish that they could have access to the television as we did as kids.

[PeteD]

Is homosexuality a choice? There is plenty of scientific evidence that for many, if not most, one's sexuality is determined prenatally, although the manifestations of the sexuality can be influenced by culture. For the past century, behavioral scientists have been debating nature-nurture origins of behavior. This is almost always a dead-end debate. Most behavior has roots in both areas. However, some are more genetic or biological than cultural – and that applies to homosexuality. In general – and I emphasize in general – homosexuality appears to be rooted in very early development – as the fetus develops. This is not to say that there are some homosexual individuals that do choose this route from cultural issues. This may be particularly true for women.
One needs to separate homosexual behavior from homosexuality. Having sex with a member of the same sex is homosexual behavior, but is not homosexuality. Homsexuality implies sexual and romantic attraction and the desire to have a close (including sexual) relationship with a same-sex partner. It appears that much of the discussion in this thread is directed at heterosexuals' repugnancy toward homosexual behavior – but shouldn't there be some celebration of a wonderful, loving, caring relationship between two people, straight or gay? Frankly, if I am not sharing a bed with someone, I couldn't care less what they do in their own beds. Of course, like most people on this forum, I would object to anyone trying to coerce me into a sexuality other than my own.
Although it has not been explicitly expressed, the views on this forum thread appear to be around male homosexuality (or homophobia), and little has been said about female homosexuality. Males tend to tolerate (even enjoy) lesbian sex, but find male homosexual behavior abhorrent.
For persons who are not born with a heterosexual orientation, life can be extremely frustrating and emotionally damaging, both to the individual and to the individual's partners. Living a lie and trying hard to live in a heterosexual marriage that is unsatisfying does great emotional harm to the individual, the marriage partner, and any children involved.
The morality issue will probably never be resolved in a forum like this; when it comes to sexual behavior we all have our different morality, which I believe we should respect. Although it hasn't been discussed on this thread, even heterosexual partners engage in sexual behavior that other heterosexual partners would find repugnant and immoral.
Strong feelings arise when one group with deep moral convictions attempts to impose their views on another group with equally deep convictions. For example, one group would not like another group to be able to watch "Will and Grace", or would like them to at lease have to pay for it. Why should the second group have to pay? Why not make the first group pay? Well, the first group doesn't want to be exposed to the material; the second group doesn't want the restrictions placed on them. It's very difficult to reconcile these two views in a free society.
There is little, if any evidence to suggest that heterosexuals are more pedophilic that heterosexuals. It is probably a male thing (this is my opinion here). Most child abusers are males – female child abusers are rare (in spite of what the current media is suggesting). One can't use the pedophile priests to suggest otherwise. People who are placed in situations where they can't express their preferred sexually behavior will behave in other sexual ways. For example, homosexual behavior (male and female) increases in prison situations even among those who never practice homosexual behavior outside prisons.
OK, I've jumped into this. I wasn't going to do it, but I did. I know this is "The Jungle", but I hope that we can civilize it a little!

[centexfisher]

The first of several informational links (http://health.discovery.com/centers/sex/sexpedia/mandj_02.html).

[centexfisher]

Here is the 2nd link (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_fixe.htm)

[centexfisher]

Excellent post, PeteD. Informed and logical!

[centexfisher]

And here is one more link (http://www.gaysouthafrica.org.za/homosexuality/studies.asp).

[centexfisher]

I could post volumes of links to Masters and Johnson and the Kinsey reports as well as others, but this should get my point across. To deny that homosexuality is not a choice is to ignore decades of research.

[RodBreaker]

Forgive me if this has been covered in a later post but I only got through the first five pages before I realized that no one commented on this:


...The woman has an orfice for three reasons,one is to wewe, one is to give birth, and the other is to provide the man with enjoyment....


Maybe FishingChick cringed about the anatomy aspects of this sentence. If you had a stinging sensation in the eye one night it wasn't from wewe! :spineyes:

[centexfisher]

Forgive me if this has been covered in a later post but I only got through the first five pages before I realized that no one commented on this:



Maybe FishingChick cringed about the anatomy aspects of this sentence. If you had a stinging sensation in the eye one night it wasn't from wewe! :spineyes:LOL!

[Farmer Jim]

What I am telling you is fact. It is up to you to show me some science that disproves it. You can stick the "you show me the proof" baloney. You show me what I have said that isn't true. Put up or shut up, but don't ask me to do the homework for you. I have already done mine.
Well, i can't show you anything in writing, but I do believe that if you think homosexual behavior is never a matter of choice, you should discuss it with Pat P or any other person who has worked the prison system. I don't doubt for a minute that there are those born that way, but your insistance that there are no other paths to homosexuality is showing about the same amount of mental flexibility as the as an ayrian nation members beliefs about black people.

And besides, I have never was really cared why someone was a homosexual. My only concerns have centered on the behaviors of a very disproportional number of them. As long as they don't wear penis costumes on public streets, don't mess with kids, and don't flaunt their homosexuality in other peoples' faces, I am happy to view them as just fellow humans and could care less whether they became homosexual by nature of their genetics or if they were converted by aliens during an abduction.

[centexfisher]

Well, i can't show you anything in writing, but I do believe that if you think homosexual behavior is never a matter of choice, you should discuss it with Pat P or any other person who has worked the prison system.

.I'll refer you to PeteD's quote: "People who are placed in situations where they can't express their preferred sexually behavior will behave in other sexual ways. For example, homosexual behavior (male and female) increases in prison situations even among those who never practice homosexual behavior outside prisons". Please refer to pete's post regarding the difference between homosexual behavior and homosexuality.

[Farmer Jim]

I'll refer you to PeteD's quote: "People who are placed in situations where they can't express their preferred sexually behavior will behave in other sexual ways. For example, homosexual behavior (male and female) increases in prison situations even among those who never practice homosexual behavior outside prisons". Please refer to pete's post regarding the difference between homosexual behavior and homosexuality.It is only behavior that I care about. You are not reading what I write (or I'm not writing clearly). I could care less if someone is homosexual as long as they behave in a responsible, civilized manner. I will not accept a deviant heterosexual messing with kids or walking down the street in an obscene costume, and I likewise won't accept that in homosexuals either. Being PC just doesn't matter that much to me.

And I have never argued against your born/not made position other than to say it is too absolute for someone as obviously intelligent as you.

I have, and do, contend that there is a higher percentage of pedophilia and promiscuity among homosexuals as compared to heterosexuals. I also contend that homosexuals and their ultra liberal allies have an agenda of creating a society where their public behavior is viewed as being completely normal and acceptable. Sorry, I just won't go quietly into that good night. You say that the responsible gays dislike "flames" as much as the straight community does. Well, if that is so, let them help in driving them back into the closet instead of tolerating their hijacking of the Gay Pride Parade with their obscenity and vulgarity. I really suspect that the heterosexual community would deal appropriately with anyone who exposed their genitals duting the St Patricks day Parade.

And no one has offered anything so far as rebuttal to my position regarding a disproportional percentage of pedophilia and promiscuity among homosexuals. Lots of comments that such a belief is ignorant and that the instances I have cited should be ignored (without any reasons why), but far less to support your position than the admitedly simple observations I have offered to support mine.

And are you serious, PeteP, that the level of homosexual pedophilia among priests as compared to heterosexual pedophilia should simply be ignored in this argument? Why? Because it contradicts political correctness? Please explain your comment that "One can't use the pedophile priests to suggest otherwise." What kind of conclusions should we draw then? Maybe that the litle boys involved were devious little temptors who engaged in the seduction of these perverts?

[centexfisher]

I have, and do, contend that there is a higher percentage of pedophilia and promiscuity among homosexuals as compared to hererosexuals.

And no one has offered anything so far as rebuttal to my position that the there is a disproportional percentage of pedophilia and promiscuity among homosexuals. Lots of comments that such a belief is ignorant and that the instances I have cited should be ignored (without any reasons why), but far less to support your position than the admitedly simple observations I have offered to support mine.

I have stated clearly, at least I thought it was clear, that there is no relation between pedophilia and homosexuality. They are two distinct topics. More promiscusity in homosexuals? You MUST be kidding? I'll have to look up the stats, but the rate of heterosexual married people that have illicit affairs is high. The number of strip clubs is high. Sex among teens is high. The number of heterosexual teens that have had multiple sex partners is high.

I am offering what I have learned through education in the field. The problem with simple observations is that they are limited to our limited experiences and to our perspectives and to what we are able to observe. For this reason, I lean on decades of research.

[FishinChick©]

I think that is referred to as "gay for the stay" Jim. How much truth is there to that? Alot probably. Like you, I prefer not to get a whole heck of a lot more info on that.

:)


Well, i can't show you anything in writing, but I do believe that if you think homosexual behavior is never a matter of choice, you should discuss it with Pat P or any other person who has worked the prison system. I don't doubt for a minute that there are those born that way, but your insistance that there are no other paths to homosexuality is showing about the same amount of mental flexibility as the as an ayrian nation members beliefs about black people.

And besides, I have never was really cared why someone was a homosexual. My only concerns have centered on the behaviors of a very disproportional number of them. As long as they don't wear penis costumes on public streets, don't mess with kids, and don't flaunt their homosexuality in other peoples' faces, I am happy to view them as just fellow humans and could care less whether they became homosexual by nature of their genetics or if they were converted by aliens during an abduction.

[centexfisher]

Well.. we have come a long way from censoring tv shows based on depiction of homosexuality, haven't we? You can ignore decades of research, but the research still stands regardless. The bottom line is there are many realities of life depicted on film-murder, rape, assault, battery, heterosexual and homosexual sex, war, theft, burglary and so on. If one takes the position that depictions of homosexuality is designed to make homosexuality normal, then one must, logically, take the position that depictions of murder, rape, etc. are designed for the same purpose. It just doesn't hold water.

If you are convinced that homosexuality is a choice and deviant behavior, then no amount of research will change your mind. Hold to your beliefs if you want-however unfounded in science.

But don't force your beliefs on me through censorship.

[predator22]

I just go by this.

Debating it to me is irrelevant. Watch want you want.... but I avoid it when possible, and I have my child avoid it.


(1st Corinthians 6:9 (New International Version)
9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders.10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.)


But go ahead and watch it, and support it, and say that it has no affect because science and research says it has no affect.

You go with science and research, and I will stick with my convictions and beleifs.

In the end if you were right then nothing lost we just turn to dust.

[Farmer Jim]

I have stated clearly, at least I thought it was clear, that there is no relation between pedophilia and homosexuality.
You have offered it up quite clearly. In fact, just as clearly as I have offered my position. Offering it clearly doesn't prove anything though. At least I have offered the observations on which I base my thoughts. You haven't offered anything other than to keep repeating that you are stating your position clearly.

More promiscusity in homosexuals? You MUST be kidding? I'll have to look up the stats, but the rate of heterosexual married people that have illicit affairs is high. The number of strip clubs is high. Sex among teens is high. The number of heterosexual teens that have had multiple sex partners is high.
I would agree with you on the rate of promiscuity among heterosexual teens is probably higher than among homosexual teens. Beyond that, I still disagree. Of course married heterosexuals have affairs and there are even instance promiscuity. I still contend that it is far more common among homosexuals. In fact, if I am remembering correctly, that was cited by health officials as one of the reasons why AIDS took off so rapidly among the homosexuals in this country. They were appealing to the homosexual community to not only practice safe sex, but also to modify their patern of multiple sex partners. There may have been some changes since then, but if there were, I suspect the changes were birthed from fear rather than from any desire to behave within more acceptable parameters.


I am offering what I have learned through education in the field. The problem with simple observations is that they are limited to our limited experiences and to our perspectives and to what we are able to observe. For this reason, I lean on decades of research.
Then for heavens sake, cite some. I don't claim any evidentiary data behind my arguments, just those simple observations you mention. And you haven't even challenged those except to say that you keep clearly stating your disagreement. Like I said before, I have looked for anything authoritative on this and I can't find it. You know, sinple observation isn't always invalid. Absent any scientific studies on the impact of those geotubes on Galveston's beaches, one is left with the simple observation that looking at them leads to the conclusion that the sand beneath them is washing away.

[PeteD]

And are you serious, PeteP, that the level of homosexual pedophilia among priests as compared to heterosexual pedophilia should simply be ignored in this argument? Why? Because it contradicts political correctness? Please explain your comment that "One can't use the pedophile priests to suggest otherwise." What kind of conclusions should we draw then? Maybe that the litle boys involved were devious little temptors who engaged in the seduction of these perverts?
Absolutely no way I would suggest that the blame lies with the "little boys inolved". The point I was making was that persons in situations in which they can't express their preferred sexuality will engage in alternative sexual behavior. Priests are in a situation where they are supposed to be celibate, which is a pretty unusual situation for someone to be in. We don't know if these priestly pedophiles are heterosexual or homosexual. They engage in sex with those that are most vulnerable and who are less likely to expose them. I followed this up with a somewhat similar situation -- prisoners.

[Farmer Jim]

I only remember one post suggesting censorship and I think he really was just looking for what he viewed as responsibility and not actually censorship. I really shouldn't try to say what he meant though.

As for your examples that murder, rape, assault, battery, etc are shown in films and on TV. There is a big difference. These behaviors are presented as wrong and generally in the context that society rejects these behaviors and that there are ultimately negative consequences for engaging in them. I cannot really remember any movie or TV show trying to present a message that these behaviors were normal or acceptable. Of course murderers and wife beaters haven't suceeded in convincing the left wing purveyors of political correctness to take them under their wing either.

[predator22]

Good post Farmer Jim. Greenie for you.

[Bevo34]

The main problem with Centex's original post centers around the statement"leave the Bible out of this".


If we do that then whats the point!

"As for me and my house we will serve the lord."

[Farmer Jim]

Absolutely no way I would suggest that the blame lies with the "little boys inolved". The point I was making was that persons in situations in which they can't express their preferred sexuality will engage in alternative sexual behavior. Priests are in a situation where they are supposed to be celibate, which is a pretty unusual situation for someone to be in. We don't know if these priestly pedophiles are heterosexual or homosexual. They engage in sex with those that are most vulnerable and who are less likely to expose them. I followed this up with a somewhat similar situation -- prisoners.OK, I can buy your position that repressed sexuality can lead to deviant behavior. But, if that was the the only explanation, why was there not an equal, or even greater, number of instances involving pedophilia with little girls? There was some, but most of the instances involved homosexual behavior with little boys. I am heterosexual and find the idea of sexual contact with another male repulsive. Surely priests are no different. I would expect any deviant behavior by heterosexuals to be be expressed heterosexually as long as there was an option. Your prison scenario really doesn't seem to me to apply as there are no females in prison.

There are more heterosexual priests than there are homosexual ones. If the only explanation was celibacy, there should have been a lot more instances involving little girls. Is it possible that homosexuals have more difficulty controlling their sexual impulses? Or is it possible that homosexuals (even priests) care less about whether or not they control their sexual impulses? Or is it possible that for some reason heterosexual priests chose homosexual relations with boys rather than choosing little girls? Maybe a thought process along the lines of "since I'm already going to engage in a perversion, lets make it a double perversion"? I am serious in those questions and do not mean them to sound rhetorical or sarcastic.

I actually felt a lot less animosity towards the homosexual community before the scandal in the Catholic Church and that was the trigger that got me to thinking about how much more common pedophilia appeared to be among homosexuals than it was among heterosexuals. Things I have read and observed since then though have certainly reinforced that idea. There are all sorts of things that will lead to that conclusion. There are historical references to the fact that the ancient Greeks, who accepted homosexuality as normal, preferred young boys. There are more news reports of male homosexuals in youth leader positions abusing little boys than there are of heterosexual leaders abusing little girls. I have personally observed a far larger number of very young (12-14 years old) male prostitutes than female prostitutes of the same age. And on and on.

If I have somehow missed something in these observations and references, I will certainly reconsider my position. But, so far all I keep getting as responses is repeated statements that I am wrong (and ignorant!!) with even less substantiation than I have offered.

[Farmer Jim]

The main problem with Centex's original post centers around the statement"leave the Bible out of this".


If we do that then whats the point!

"As for me and my house we will serve the lord."Actually, I agree with Centex on that. The point is the impact on society and whether we are dealing with a purely entetainment endeavor or with a media that is agenda driven by the gay community and its far left allies. At least I think that was where we started :spineyes: .

[centexfisher]

Since you don't seem to be able to do your own google search, here is a link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia) regarding pedophilia. Note the last paragraph. Here is another link (http://samvak.tripod.com/pedophilia.html). Note the first paragraph.

BTW: I don't offer this up to change the mind of those that say "I don't care what anybody says, this is what I think". Those people will hold on to their beliefs, pooh-poohing science and research in favor of their own beliefs. It is for those that are genuinely interested in learning about the subject that may never make a post here.

The problem with basing our opinions on our own observations is that our observations, by their very nature, are limited-we can only observe things within the limited scope of our experiences.

The problem with bringing religion into the discourse, other than the point someone else has already made, is that it inevitably causes someone to feel that their religion is being attacked and fails to take into account what the Catholic church has finally advised to take into account-that not all things in the bible are literal, that historical context has to be considered and the population to which Jesus spoke and that science should not be ignored in favor of religious beliefs. To bring religion into the question only serves to change the subject from homosexuality to religion. Clearly, if it is your firm religious conviction that homosexuality is a sin or whatever, no amount of data or discussion will change your mind. If your belief is based on your religious beliefs-fine-but if it is based on your observations or the buying into myths, then rebuttal is appropriate.

Oh-and Farmer Jim: Please be sure to note that I also explained that ignorance is not the same as stupidity. Everyone on this Earth is ignorant about something. The view that homosexuality is a choice and that pedophilia is related to homosexuality expresses ignorance on the subject. If one really wanted to discover whether or not the science is real or I just made it up, they are free to do a google search and educate themselves, but since some folks love to scream for proof, I provided several links throughout this thread.

[boomgoon]

I only remember one post suggesting censorship and I think he really was just looking for what he viewed as responsibility and not actually censorship. I really shouldn't try to say what he meant though.

As for your examples that murder, rape, assault, battery, etc are shown in films and on TV. There is a big difference. These behaviors are presented as wrong and generally in the context that society rejects these behaviors and that there are ultimately negative consequences for engaging in them. I cannot really remember any movie or TV show trying to present a message that these behaviors were normal or acceptable. Of course murderers and wife beaters haven't suceeded in convincing the left wing purveyors of political correctness to take them under their wing either.
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Farmer Jim again.

[PeteD]

OK, I can buy your position that repressed sexuality can lead to deviant behavior. But, if that was the the only explanation, why was there not an equal, or even greater, number of instances involving pedophilia with little girls? There was some, but most of the instances involved homosexual behavior with little boys. I am heterosexual and find the idea of sexual contact with another male repulsive. Surely priests are no different. I would expect any deviant behavior by heterosexuals to be be expressed heterosexually as long as there was an option. Your prison scenario really doesn't seem to me to apply as there are no females in prison.
Priests don't typically get involved with little girls because they don't have the same access to them. A lot of these molestations occur with altar boys -- the Catholic Church doesn't allow altar girls. There are also reports of their being involved with parishoners, housekeepers, and others, but the point is they are most likely to get involved with those who are vulnerable, available, and are less likely to report the molestation.

[centexangler]

I only remember one post suggesting censorship and I think he really was just looking for what he viewed as responsibility and not actually censorship. I really shouldn't try to say what he meant though.

As for your examples that murder, rape, assault, battery, etc are shown in films and on TV. There is a big difference. These behaviors are presented as wrong and generally in the context that society rejects these behaviors and that there are ultimately negative consequences for engaging in them. I cannot really remember any movie or TV show trying to present a message that these behaviors were normal or acceptable. Of course murderers and wife beaters haven't suceeded in convincing the left wing purveyors of political correctness to take them under their wing either.The question, as I understand it, is: Does the depiction of the existence of and the lifestyle of homsexuality promote homosexual behavior? This same question can and has been applied, for instance, to violence on T.V. LBJ commissioned a congressional study on just that and the results were released in 1969. Although Congress failed to draw a conclusion, there was ample testimony from psychologists demonstrating that the portrayal of graphic violence, where the results of the violence is shown, suppresses violent tendencies, with the exception of those with certain mental illness'. If I were to appply a logical thought processs, I would reason that the same would apply to the graphic portrayal of homosexuality. Case in point: how many of us have expressed the repugnance we feel when we see homosexual activity?

If the issue is that the problem with these depictions of the homosexual lifestyle is that they are attempting to promote tolerance (i.e. acceptance), all I can say (with intense sarcasm) is: What a conspiracy-trying to promote such deviant behavior as tolerance!

[Snagged]

The question, as I understand it, is: Does the depiction of the existence of and the lifestyle of homsexuality promote homosexual behavior? This same question can and has been applied, for instance, to violence on T.V. LBJ commissioned a congressional study on just that and the results were released in 1969. Although Congress failed to draw a conclusion, there was ample testimony from psychologists demonstrating that the portrayal of graphic violence, where the results of the violence is shown, suppresses violent tendencies, with the exception of those with certain mental illness'. If I were to appply a logical thought processs, I would reason that the same would apply to the graphic portrayal of homosexuality. Case in point: how many of us have expressed the repugnance we feel when we see homosexual activity?

If the issue is that the problem with these depictions of the homosexual lifestyle is that they are attempting to promote tolerance (i.e. acceptance), all I can say (with intense sarcasm) is: What a conspiracy-trying to promote such deviant behavior as tolerance!
Hmmm,
Centex your very wrong above. One paragraph snipped below. Follow the link for more.
http://www.cybercollege.com/violence.htm

>Researchers followed 329 subjects over 15 years. They found that those who as children were exposed to violent TV shows were much more likely to later be convicted of crime. Researchers said that, "Media violence can affect any child from any family," regardless of social class or parenting.<

By your acceptence of homosexual behavior as a source of entertainment you are condoning that behavior.
Possibly you and others fail to understand that childrens minds are easily influenced, when the same type of "influence" is applied to adults it is commonly called propaganda and is commonly used to create false views on reality.
BTW: here are many more links to the above subject. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=violence+on+tv

Jim,
I owe you at least a case of :brew: now for your ability and willingness to clearly state facts and observations.

For the rest of you who are complaining about the content on tv, get rid of that stupid box and spend time doing things with your kids.

[centexangler]

Snagged: The study I quoted expressly used graphic portrayals of the results of violence. When the violence is shown without showing the graphic results, the opposite tends to occur. Likewise, accurate portrayals of gays (kissing,etc) would cause a repulsive reaction-just as it does for many of us. Plus, kids do not become gay from watching a show. Children of homsexual parents are predominately heterosexual. Why? Because homosexuality is not a choice. Tolerating the depiction of the REALITY of gays is not condoning the behavior-it is accepting the reality and being tolerant of their sexual orientation. As I have written before, when tolerance and acceptance becomes a wrong, we have a problem. I will gladly join in a plot to promote tolerance and understanding! There are far more evil things than that, don't you think?

As for your last sentence: Well stated! The biggest negative influence of our children in today's society is lack of quality time with our children.

[Gilbert]

Snagged: The study I quoted expressly used graphic portrayals of the results of violence. When the violence is shown without showing the graphic results, the opposite tends to occur. Likewise, accurate portrayals of gays (kissing,etc) would cause a repulsive reaction-just as it does for many of us. Plus, kids do not become gay from watching a show. Children of homsexual parents are predominately heterosexual. Why? Because homosexuality is not a choice. Tolerating the depiction of the REALITY of gays is not condoning the behavior-it is accepting the reality and being tolerant of their sexual orientation. As I have written before, when tolerance and acceptance becomes a wrong, we have a problem. I will gladly join in a plot to promote tolerance and understanding! There are far more evil things than that, don't you think?

As for your last sentence: Well stated! The biggest negative influence of our children in today's society is lack of quality time with our children.
That is the best thing you have said in this whole thread. But homosexuality is still a choice. :tongue: Don't take science over truth. Alot of influence comes through TV. Just watch some of the people on TV and go to the local mall and you see kids trying to be like what they saw on TV. Teach your kid what is right and don't let him follow the hype. I got 2 of my own and if the TV is on, we are all watching it.

[Farmer Jim]

Centex,

You are a real enigma. At times you post logical, well thought out (sometimes even well researched) positions on things. I may not always agree with you but your posts are normally information to be taken seriously. Then you come along with the posts you have made on this thread. For two days you have insisted that you be taken seriously because your position is based on some unstated "scientific" sources, and because you have "clearly stated" that position.

Then when repeatedly asked to reference these "scientific" sources, you accuse me of wanting you to do research for me, despite the fact that I had posted that I had searched for authoritative information. Then you post two really lame web sites.

I was going to abandon this thread until I looked at the links you posted. Now I feel obligated to respond to your assertion of having "scientific" basis for your position. It is becoming increasing obvious that you have less basis for your position than I have for mine, but are set in it and apparently believe that repeating it often enough will somehow make it more credible.

The first link you provided was to Wikipedia. Do you know what Wikipedia is? It is a web site that purports to be an encyclopedia, but allows its information (articles) to be written or edited by anyone. The home page states:

"Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit."

Are you serious that you consider that to be a "scientific source"? And even if it did have some substance that may have given it even a modicum of credibility, the reference you gave hardly supports you position and neither does anything else in that article on pedophilia. The following is the paragraph you referenced.

"Some of these groups, particularily those advocating adult-child sex, have been met with strong condemnation by various individuals and organizations. Phill Kline, Kansas Attorney General characterized adult-child sex advocates' view of the law as "twisted" in an interview with KCTV5 and the movement's scientific claims have been the subject of much skepticism."

What on earth has that got to do with the percentage of pedophiles among homosexual males as compared to heterosexual males? And there is nothing relating to that in the rest of the article either. But even if there was, I would hardly consider your source as "scientific".

Your other link was to an article by Dr Shmuel Vankin. Did you bother to check Vankins credentials before before accepting him as a scientific source on either homosexuality or pedophilia? Had you done so, you would have found that his PhD is in Philosophy of Physics and that he also claims to be a graduate of "numerous courses in Finance Theory and International Trading". I’m sure that educational background gives him great stature among legitimate social scientists. As for his relevant experience, he has engaged in activities that range from entrepreneural endevors to a variety of Finance related jobs. He currently lists his occupation as Senior Business Correspondent for UPI.

The following is the paragraph you referenced.

"Pedophiles are attracted to prepubescent children and act on their sexual fantasies. It is a startling fact that the etiology of this paraphilia is unknown. Pedophiles comes from all walks of life and have no common socio-economic background. Contrary to media-propagated myths, most of them had not been sexually abused in childhood and the vast majority of pedophiles are also drawn to adults of the opposite sex (are heterosexuals)."

Nothing in that paragraph is footnoted to a reference source, and neither is anything else in his article. In other words, what we are reading is simply Vankin’s opinion. But, given his education and background, surely everyone should accept this as "scientific" evidence.

As I said earlier, I have searched for something authoritative on this subject, but have been unsuccessful. You should have been equally as diligent in adhereing to the word authoritative in your search. Despite your claims that I was lazy and wanted you to do my research, I found numerous sources on the subject. I could have posted any number of sites to support my position as there are easily twenty times as many that support my position as there are that oppose it. However, it was my feelings that all of the sources that I found had something that made questionable their use as "scientific". Some obviously had an agenda, others were just documents that didn’t even identify an author (sort of like your first link), others consisted of bold and dramatic statements without any data basis behind them (sort of like your second link), and others appeared fairly legitimate, but had footnotes or references to sources that I could not locate. In short, one would be stretching to call them authoritative scientific references.

However, since you have provided such sources for the viewers of this thread as "science", I feel justified in posting some links to sources that, while I do not claim them to be scientific, are at least authored by people with better credentials than Vankin, and that use references to data that may have scientific validity if one were to take the time to locate it.

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS02E3 (http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS02E3)

http://us2000.org/cfmc/Pedophilia.pdf (http://us2000.org/cfmc/Pedophilia.pdf)

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/DaileyHomosexualAbuse.htm (http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/DaileyHomosexualAbuse.htm)

http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/one.php (http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/one.php)

http://www.afamichigan.org/2005/06/07/homosexual-pedophiles-are-vastly-overrepresented-in-child-sex-abuse-cases/ (http://www.afamichigan.org/2005/06/07/homosexual-pedophiles-are-vastly-overrepresented-in-child-sex-abuse-cases/)

[centexfisher]

I just did a quick google search. I guess I could dig up my psychology text and reference the text, chapter and page, but I haven't the time. I find the logic applied in these articles questionable at best and not related to any scientific study or data-just statistic manipulation.

I appreciate your post though. It shows you have a genuine interest in the subject. However, Kinsey's and Masters and Johnson's research has long been regarded as some of the most pioneering research in the field of Human Sexuality. I tend to lean towards acceptance of these respected researchers over assumptions made on statistical analysis.

If I referenced that particular paragragh, it was in error. I referenced (or at least meant to) paragraphs stating what scientific research has surmised-that most pedophiles are heterosexual.

I apologize that I cannot always offer web links. My education is from advanced courses in psychology. I remember what I learned and I remember that the information I was given was very well sourced, but the textbooks, films, and other materials are not the things I remember. I remember the concepts.

I tried to offer a few links (I offered about 4 or 5, I believe) referencing the studies that have been done since the 1950's (I believe that time frame is correct).

I'll do a litle more serious homework and offer up the research, rather than people that are just referencing the research.

[centexfisher]

Okay-posting endless links seems to border on the absurd to me, but here are some links with a variety of perspectives on the subject that offer some references and so forth.

http://health.discovery.com/centers/sex/sexpedia/mandj_02.html
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/eresources/exhibitions/sw25/case4.html

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_exod2.htm

http://mentalhelp.net/psyhelp/chap10/chap10z.htm

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1175/is_2_32/ai_53985474

[Easy]

I am all for gay marriage if both chicks are really hot.

[PeteD]

The search for solid evidence on the internet regarding the issues of "Is homosexuality a choice" or "are homosexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to molest children" will probably be fruitless. I searched, and found nothing I would cite as good scientific research findings (pro or con). Most of these are statements by organizations or individuals with either questionable credentials or non-scientifc agendas. A lot of the science is in journals, which are usually not published on the 'net; I wish I had time to do a search in this area, but I really don't have the hours it would take to do so in order to give either you folks a list of references.

In my opinion, the best summary of research on homosexuality is at the website of the American Psychological Association, an organization that, in part, is devoted to ensuring peer-reviewed behavioral research with the highest standards possible. Mind you, there is no such thing as the perfect research study, especially in the area of behavioral sciences. So, there will always be some "wiggle room" for both sides of these issues, which are extremely difficult to study. The APA also makes a point of not advising others on policy or political issues, only what the science shows, so I believe it is more neutral than many of those internet sites.

Here is the link and a couple of excerpts of the opinions of the APA:

http://www.apa.org/topics/sbehaviorsub1.html#whatcauses

"Is Sexual Orientation a Choice?

No, human beings can not choose to be either gay or straight. Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed. "

… "Another myth about homosexuality is the mistaken belief that gay men have more of a tendency than heterosexual men to sexually molest children. There is no evidence to suggest that homosexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to molest children. "

Farmer Jim, if I may add one comment: we probably agree on more than we disagree. I don't think either of us wants anyone trying to change the sexual orientation of another, and we both find it disgraceful the displays of public sexuality you have mentioned, especially when our children have no choice but to be exposed to it. In spite of my trepidation about stepping into this debate, I really am enjoying your thinking, opinions, and comments.

[Snagged]

Centex,
You again appear to be twisting things in relation to how children and some so-called adults react to "entertainment." Once acceptence of deviant behavior of one type is done others soon follow. Once it become "entertainment" it will occur more often.
Case in point since that first **** in Gone with the wind the amount of vulgar language has increased in "entertainment" to the point that I and many others do not feel comfortable or entertained.
Further indications of "entertainment" being thought of as real can be found from most cops working traffic accidents. After some popular movies featuring insane driving, people attempt to duplicate those acts often harming themselves and others. Ask the cops about that. They emulate what they see.
Your arguments indicating that you accept and condone homosexual behavior as a form of entertainment go beyond tolerence.

[centexfisher]

Well, I am particularly glad you joined the discussion, Pete. You are clearly informed on the subject. As much as I hate to ask a question that may seem, outwardly, to counter my beliefs and understanding of the research, I'm going to ask anyway...

On conversion therapy...I know that Masters and Johnson reported on their own conversion therapy endeavors, although somewhat limited in scope (about 369 patients as I recall). They reported a significant conversion rate (around 63% as I recall). However, I have been unable to find anything pertaining to later views they may have taken or longer term results. What is the current thought on their studies based on follow up or the lack thereof?

[Snagged]

Pete,
Are there any studies that indicate if exposier to homosexual behavior does/does not create an acceptence of bi-sexualism in the young?

[PeteD]

This is from the same APA link I posted:

"What About So-Called "Conversion Therapies"?


Some therapists who undertake so-called conversion therapy report that they have been able to change their clients' sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. Close scrutiny of these reports however show several factors that cast doubt on their claims. For example, many of the claims come from organizations with an ideological perspective which condemns homosexuality. Furthermore, their claims are poorly documented. For example, treatment outcome is not followed and reported overtime as would be the standard to test the validity of any mental health intervention. The American Psychological Association is concerned about such therapies and their potential harm to patients. In 1997, the Association's Council of Representatives passed a resolution reaffirming psychology's opposition to homophobia in treatment and spelling out a client's right to unbiased treatment and self-determination. Any person who enters into therapy to deal with issues of sexual orientation has a right to expect that such therapy would take place in a professionally neutral environment absent of any social bias. "

As pioneering as M&J's research was, we now know there were problems and limitations with it. Not to take anything away from them, but we have learned a lot since then.

[centexfisher]

Centex,
You again appear to be twisting things in relation to how children and some so-called adults react to "entertainment." Once acceptence of deviant behavior of one type is done others soon follow. Once it become "entertainment" it will occur more often.
Case in point since that first **** in Gone with the wind the amount of vulgar language has increased in "entertainment" to the point that I and many others do not feel comfortable or entertained.
Further indications of "entertainment" being thought of as real can be found from most cops working traffic accidents. After some popular movies featuring insane driving, people attempt to duplicate those acts often harming themselves and others. Ask the cops about that. They emulate what they see.
Your arguments indicating that you accept and condone homosexual behavior as a form of entertainment go beyond tolerence.The principle difference is that people are not "turned gay". They realize that they are gay.

Another point is that movies are more a reflection of reality than they are a shaping force of reality. As I have written before, I certainly have no interest in watching homosexual activity in movies or on television, but I don't believe that I should be the judge of what someone else chooses to watch. Bottom line: If a movie about gay cowboys is a flop and they lose money, they won't make many (if any) more movies with a similar theme. If it makes money, they will make more like it. The point being: if they make money then there is a demand for these types of movies and it is not for me to suggest that they should not be shown-especially in light of the obvious fact that enough people are interested in this type of theme that I have no right to assume the right of banning a movie. Boycott the movie-fine. Stand outside of movie theatres without disturbing the patrons-fine. Suggest a Hollywood plot to subvert our youth-absurd.

[centexfisher]

This is from the same APA link I posted:

"What About So-Called "Conversion Therapies"?


Some therapists who undertake so-called conversion therapy report that they have been able to change their clients' sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. Close scrutiny of these reports however show several factors that cast doubt on their claims. For example, many of the claims come from organizations with an ideological perspective which condemns homosexuality. Furthermore, their claims are poorly documented. For example, treatment outcome is not followed and reported overtime as would be the standard to test the validity of any mental health intervention. The American Psychological Association is concerned about such therapies and their potential harm to patients. In 1997, the Association's Council of Representatives passed a resolution reaffirming psychology's opposition to homophobia in treatment and spelling out a client's right to unbiased treatment and self-determination. Any person who enters into therapy to deal with issues of sexual orientation has a right to expect that such therapy would take place in a professionally neutral environment absent of any social bias. "

As pioneering as M&J's research was, we now know there were problems and limitations with it. Not to take anything away from them, but we have learned a lot since then.Yea..I know that...but what were the problems and limitations, and how do we know that the identified problems and limitations are real and not percieived? I know that it has been stated that most of the so-called converts were bi-sexual and that many still had sexual attraction to the same sex-but I'm not sure how we know that.

[PeteD]

Pete,
Are there any studies that indicate if exposier to homosexual behavior does/does not create an acceptence of bi-sexualism in the young?
Again, from the APA site:

"Can Lesbians, Gay Men, and Bisexuals Be Good Parents?
Yes. Studies comparing groups of children raised by homosexual and by heterosexual parents find no developmental differences between the two groups of children in four critical areas: their intelligence, psychological adjustment, social adjustment, and popularity with friends. It is also important to realize that a parent's sexual orientation does not dictate his or her children's."

In other words, exposure to sexual images/behavior will not dictate the orientation of your child. Of course, children will often play out what they view, e.g., on TV or in movies, so I they may experiment with what they see. I think this is why children need good parental guidance when it comes to what they view in the media.

However, I'm not sure this really answers YOUR question, which has to do with ACCEPTANCE of bisexuality if they are exposed to homosexual behavior. If the material is presented in a favorable or unfavorable light, or if their parents instruct them favorably or unfavorably, then thier kids will likely follow suit in their acceptance/unaceeptance. But it doesn't mean they will become homo- or bi-sexual because of the exposure.

[Snagged]

Centex,
I noticed you avoided my main point.
> "Once acceptence of deviant behavior of one type is done others soon follow. Once it become "entertainment" it will occur more often."<

[PeteD]

Yea..I know that...but what were the problems and limitations, and how do we know that the identified problems and limitations are real and not percieived? I know that it has been stated that most of the so-called converts were bi-sexual and that many still had sexual attraction to the same sex-but I'm not sure how we know that.
Centexfisher, it's been a very long time since I read their work, and studied the particular criticisms of it. I do remember they had problems with the follow-up studies. It's easy to get people to change in therapy, especially if the outcome is short-term; but longer-term follow-up has been the problem with a lot of thereapeutic outcome studies. I wish I could tell you more, but I don't want to mouth off with things I am not confident with. If I get a chance, I will look into this for you, but right now, my spare time is spent focusing on getting my fishing program back into gear!

[centexfisher]

Centexfisher, it's been a very long time since I read their work, and studied the particular criticisms of it. I do remember they had problems with the follow-up studies. It's easy to get people to change in therapy, especially if the outcome is short-term; but longer-term follow-up has been the problem with a lot of thereapeutic outcome studies. I wish I could tell you more, but I don't want to mouth off with things I am not confident with. If I get a chance, I will look into this for you, but right now, my spare time is spent focusing on getting my fishing program back into gear! Oh, heck yeah-no contest! Fishing is definitely a higher priority. Like you, I remember the concepts of what I learned but can't quote the resources, Once I am satisfied the information is valid, I no longer bother with cluttering my mind with those details. It is more important to remember and understand the concepts.

[PeteD]

If my memory serves me right, M & J published their work on homosexuality in the late 1970's. Too long for me to remember details. These days, I just want to remember where I caught the last fish and what bait I used.

[jc]

screw it... I just lost an hour's worth of research a little while ago and the absolute best I could come up was the APA's letter to legislature in the BSA circus a few years ago. http://www.apa.org/ppo/issues/pbscoutsen.html

"One harmful justification used for discriminating against gay men working with children is the erroneous belief that they pose a particular danger to children. However, all available research data and clinical experience indicate that gay men are no more likely than heterosexual men to sexually abuse children. In addition, psychological research on child-rearing skills of gay and lesbian parents has consistently found that they are as good parents as their heterosexual counterparts and that their children do not differ appreciably from children raised by heterosexuals."

this thread is way long, but Jim... I drew attention to the pedophile factor because it is one of the first things people "throw out there" in the villification of gay men... mainly because it gets the job done, not because there is any truth to support it. The APA has access to all the legitimate social research out there... from my googling, its a real safe bet to say there have been lots of people that have tried to prove the link, and some have even done so... but only thru faulty research techniques

you also mentioned several gay persons you have known and respected. Why are you judging the group as a whole on the behavior of the visible radicals instead of the people you have obviously known and trusted?

the original question was what is the difference in pretend gay married couple and a real gay married couple in a movie... I say a big difference... straight guy pretending to be gay is an old trick and not very threatening.... jack tripper ring a bell? I guess 3's Company was produced back when the "agenda" was still a covert operation. Just a warm-up to the idea that gay is normal

I'd suggest looking at google for historical surveys on attitudes towards gays in society... this battle was lost/won a long time ago. The future holds more openness for gay folk, more gay adoptions, marriage, pink shirts and square toed shoes. I don't really have a dog in this fight, I just call it like I see it.

jc

[centexfisher]

Centex,
I noticed you avoided my main point.
> "Once acceptence of deviant behavior of one type is done others soon follow. Once it become "entertainment" it will occur more often."<No I didn't. My first sentence in response to you was something along the lines of being gay is not a choice-it is a realization. Homosexuality is no more prevalent than it was 2,000 years ago-it's just that in our culture and in that of many other cultures, gays had to stay "in the closet". Just because it is more easily seen or noticed doesn't mean it is more prevalent. It means that we have begun to learn a little about tolerance and acceptance.

[centexfisher]

If my memory serves me right, M & J published their work on homosexuality in the late 1970's. Too long for me to remember details. These days, I just want to remember where I caught the last fish and what bait I used.hech yea! Let's go fishin'! Do you have a trip planned?

[centexfisher]

BTW: My hat is off to all of you! This makes 122 posts on this thread, and although some of us have gotten aggressive, there has not been even a hint of a personal attack. This is a sensitive subject, so that says alot about all of you! (I know I have been the most aggressive probably, but it is passion about the subject, not an attack on anyone-as I qualified several times). You all are class acts in my book-now just be reasonable and see it my way! :)

[jc]

Hmmm,
Centex your very wrong above. One paragraph snipped below. Follow the link for more.
http://www.cybercollege.com/violence.htm

>Researchers followed 329 subjects over 15 years. They found that those who as children were exposed to violent TV shows were much more likely to later be convicted of crime. Researchers said that, "Media violence can affect any child from any family," regardless of social class or parenting.<

By your acceptence of homosexual behavior as a source of entertainment you are condoning that behavior.
Possibly you and others fail to understand that childrens minds are easily influenced, when the same type of "influence" is applied to adults it is commonly called propaganda and is commonly used to create false views on reality.
BTW: here are many more links to the above subject. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=violence+on+tv

Jim,
I owe you at least a case of :brew: now for your ability and willingness to clearly state facts and observations.



For the rest of you who are complaining about the content on tv, get rid of that stupid box and spend time doing things with your kids.

amen to your last sentence

jerry... this is from YOUR link and it relates to violence witnessed on tv

...children typically witness 32,000 murders and 40,000 attempted murders by the time they reach the age of 18.

article shows the research that links watching violence as a child and violent behavior as adults, which I won't argue or disagree with

but I will ask... can you really use violence on tv (look at the numbers above) as an analogy in this argument? Come on now, a kid would have to watch Brokeback and every other movie/tv show that deals with homosexuality thousands of times over to get the same amount of exposure. And I don't know about you, but if my kid watched BB a couple dozen times I'd pretty much start accepting the fact that I won't be having grandkids...

jc

[PeteD]

hech yea! Let's go fishin'! Do you have a trip planned?
I don't have a trip planned for a specific date. I have a buddy who wants to go as soon as both he and I can get un-busy from work at the same time.

My boat of 15 yr went to the salvage yard a few months ago and most of my fishing buddies were, shall we say, up in years and have gone to the great pond in the sky, so my pool of fellow fishermen has dwindled.

So...I'd be very happy to get together with anyone who would like to go. I'd be happy to cover the cost of the boat gas, oil, bait, etc.

[centexfisher]

amen to your last sentence

jerry... this is from YOUR link and it relates to violence witnessed on tv

...children typically witness 32,000 murders and 40,000 attempted murders by the time they reach the age of 18.

article shows the research that links watching violence as a child and violent behavior as adults, which I won't argue or disagree with

but I will ask... can you really use violence on tv (look at the numbers above) as an analogy in this argument? Come on now, a kid would have to watch Brokeback and every other movie/tv show that deals with homosexuality thousands of times over to get the same amount of exposure. And I don't know about you, but if my kid watched BB a couple dozen times I'd pretty much start accepting the fact that I won't be having grandkids...

jcGood point,JC. Also, what were the stats? What were the crimes? And, most importantly, how was the violence they watched depicted? Did they see the result of the violence graphically or just the violence? These are critical points.

[centexfisher]

I understand. Let's go fishing soon. I'll e-mail you as soon as I can plan a trip. BTW: we'll split the costs.

[Snagged]

amen to your last sentence

jerry... this is from YOUR link and it relates to violence witnessed on tv

...children typically witness 32,000 murders and 40,000 attempted murders by the time they reach the age of 18.

article shows the research that links watching violence as a child and violent behavior as adults, which I won't argue or disagree with

but I will ask... can you really use violence on tv (look at the numbers above) as an analogy in this argument? Come on now, a kid would have to watch Brokeback and every other movie/tv show that deals with homosexuality thousands of times over to get the same amount of exposure. And I don't know about you, but if my kid watched BB a couple dozen times I'd pretty much start accepting the fact that I won't be having grandkids...

jc
jc,
Trying different things in relation to sex is much easier than killing people. So in answer to your question, Yes.

[predator22]

Wow I tried to get theological. I should have just referred everyone to Darrell's post at the beginning of the thread.

That is what I was trying to say. Darrell well put my friend....and a great laugh too!

[centexfisher]

jc,
Trying different things in relation to sex is much easier than killing people. So in answer to your question, Yes.Okay snagged...there is an absolutely HUGE difference between exploring one's sexuality and having a homosexual encounter during the process and becoming homosexual, so if your issue is that BB might cause your kids to try a homosexual act...well...maybe...but, the bigger question is: would they experiment with it even without things like BB? The answer, based on research (again, I don't remember the specific source). is very possibly. Did kids explore thier sexuality including in this manner BEFORE discussions of or depictions of homesexuality were acceptable? Again, the answer is yes.

[centexfisher]

A little levity on the subject...

[PeteD]

Centex,

Now that was really funny! lolol! Thanks for putting some levity into this discussion!

[Farmer Jim]

Well, I’m just going to make a couple of comments on some of this evening’s posts and then I’m outta here.

As pioneering as M&J's research was, we now know there were problems and limitations with it. Not to take anything away from them, but we have learned a lot since then.Hmmmmm. I wonder what will be said in 25 years about some of those sources you are quoting now?

Homosexuality is no more prevalent than it was 2,000 years ago.Now that is an interesting comment. I am sure you have seen the data from 2000 years ago that you base that statement on. Actually, from what I have read, you are probably wrong, but only because it is less prevalent today, not more. Several ancient cultures tolerated and even encouraged homosexuality. Of course several ancient cultures also tolerated and even encouraged burning witches. BTW, It is well accepted historically that young boys were the preferred partners by the men in these cultures who engaged in homosexual activity..

Why are you judging the group as a whole on the behavior of the visible radicals instead of the people you have obviously known and trusted?Because it is my observation that the radicals and those pushing the gay agenda are the more prevalent. The respectable and discreet are the exception and, like I said, just as I will not condemn a whole racial group because of the misbehavior of a few, neither will I absolve a whole sexual group because of the good behavior of a few.

Centex, I agree on ending the "dueling internet links".:smile: I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. I think we could keep posting for another 20 pages and we would both be in the same place as when we started this discussion. We agree on a lot of other things, so I guess I'll just move on and let some one else come sweep my crumbs on this one. It was a good discussion and like I said before, even if we disagree on this one, I still respect your opinions on many other threads.


OH, and I need to edit a PS onto this for PeteD. The Catholic Church has used alter girls for plenty long enough (at least 20+ years) that it would have shown up in the molestations if your theory on that was correct.

[Snagged]

Okay snagged...there is an absolutely HUGE difference between exploring one's sexuality and having a homosexual encounter during the process and becoming homosexual, so if your issue is that BB might cause your kids to try a homosexual act...well...maybe...but, the bigger question is: would they experiment with it even without things like BB? The answer, based on research (again, I don't remember the specific source). is very possibly. Did kids explore thier sexuality including in this manner BEFORE discussions of or depictions of homesexuality were acceptable? Again, the answer is yes.

In previous times in this country homosexuality was NOT acceptable, now it appears that it is. How much will this simple aspect effect childrens minds.
Remember killing is still not generally acceptable.

[jc]

Well, I’m just going to make a couple of comments on some of this evening’s posts and then I’m outta here.

Because it is my observation that the radicals and those pushing the gay agenda are the more prevalent. The respectable and discreet are the exception and, like I said, just as I will not condemn a whole racial group because of the misbehavior of a few, neither will I absolve a whole sexual group because of the good behavior of a few.


I respect your approach. You just have your numbers backwards. Activist gays have argued 10% of us are gay. Its simply not true. Lets give them 1%. Total Resident Pop. (July 2005 est.)1: 296,496,649 ... do the math... nearly 3 million..... let's give them 1/2 of that for fun and leave them 1.5 million members... how many San Franciscos is that?

I really think if we started adding up all the "normal queers" that are either a cousin, co-worker, coach, bank teller, etc... we would find that the freakish paraders are a very small minority and that the more ordinary homosexuals are doomed to semi-hidden low profile gay lives because to be totally open with their lifestyle makes them guilty by association... to the freakish paraders, who almost everybody dislikes.

jc

[PeteD]

OH, and I need to edit a PS onto this for PeteD. The Catholic Church has used alter girls for plenty long enough (at least 20+ years) that it would have shown up in the molestations if your theory on that was correct.
Farmer Jim is correct, altar girls are now being used (although I don't know about the 20-year figure) -- my information on this was quite dated, and I will stand correctd on that point. However the traditional Catholic church is still not in favor of this, and the number of altar boys still far outweighs the number of altar girls. Also, there are numerous reports of priests molesting girls.

The thrust of my statement still stands (except for "the Catholic Church doesn't allow altar girls", which btw is still partially true):

"Priests don't typically get involved with little girls because they don't have the same access to them. A lot of these molestations occur with altar boys -- the Catholic Church doesn't allow altar girls. There are also reports of their being involved with parishoners, housekeepers, and others, but the point is they are most likely to get involved with those who are vulnerable, available, and are less likely to report the molestation."

Note that my original assertion above did include molestation of girls (e.g., "parishoners, housekeepers, and others").

In addition, I would like to repeat that citing homosexual priests (and we don't know if all the molestors were homosexual!), is using a very unusual and narrow sample to make the argument. The fair comparison should be between a random sample of community homosexuals with a random sample of community heterosexuals.

[gatorbait]

I cant even to begin to read all this, I made it as far as Badhabits post and after I got my jaw up off the floor I decided to quit. I surely cant see calling someone ignorant because they think Homosexuality is a choice, there is only one person who knows the answer to that. But Im not gonna cave into the notion that its ok and socially acceptable. What someone does in thier privacy of thier own home I could care less about but when I am forced to be witness to it in public with my children present I object. Try explaining to a 6 yr old why two men are holding hands and are locked up at the lips. Or two women for that matter. I will not accept it and if that makes me ignorant to anyone here then mark it as done. Im ignorant then. But I figure if God had intended for men to be with men our tail end would have come with a door with hinges. Just my ignorant opinion though.

Z

[Red3Fish]

I have been gone a few days, and just now caught up on this looonng thread.

These are personal observations and I have no great books to quote stats from. I have known 3 gay kids born to totally straight parents. I have watched them grow up from children to adults over a period of 40 years. All showed signs of being gay at a young age like 5 to 10 yrs old. ALL caused great grief to themselves, their straight siblings, parents, grandparents, and virtually everyone that knew them. They all lead tortured lives. All considered suicide in their teens, due to their not being accepted. One succeeded later in life.

Most are really pitiful, tortured people. Some adjust, some dont. That they had a choice in the matter, is rediculous to me. There have been gays in every society throughout history. Even American Indians had gay men before the white man arrived.

The "flamers" are some of their pitiful attemts to cope. Some "flamers" are just easily influenced "groupies" trying to attract attention.

I dont enjoy seeing them, or any of their agendas or movies, or parades, BUT, I just dont think they can influence a normal straight person to "go gay". It would be a really stupid choice for that person or they would soon find out it was.

IMHO, most of the gay agenda is their attempt to be accepted into society without being treated like they all had a third eye on their forehead.

Yes, they are in the minority. Yes, they are different than 90% of us. No they are not accepted. Yes they would like to be accepted in society like they didn't have the plague and were a danger to every child and straight person on the street. No, I dont think it will change in the near future.

I know relegion is left out of this, but is it the sins of the fathers and grandfathers being visited upon them? By my limited, but 100% accurate observation, God created them that way. I dunno.

Oh, well, maybe I am getting older and more tolerant, but I dont see them as the piariah they seem to be to some here.

Later
R3F

[centexangler]

I'm done with this one, folks. After 138 posts, both sides have presented just about as much evidence for their respective positions as we're gonna get-after a while, it becomes a circle game. I suspect that an inquiring mind has plenty of material to look over and has plenty of arguments from both sides to help a quest for understanding-not only of the topic itself, but of social beliefs towards homosexuals.

It's been a great thread.

[boomgoon]

I think this is a new jungle record!!

[PeteD]

On conversion therapy...I know that Masters and Johnson reported on their own conversion therapy endeavors, although somewhat limited in scope (about 369 patients as I recall). They reported a significant conversion rate (around 63% as I recall). However, I have been unable to find anything pertaining to later views they may have taken or longer term results. What is the current thought on their studies based on follow up or the lack thereof?
My response to you about M&J’s conversion therapy was not accurate. There actually was a five-year follow-up (I knew I shouldn’t have trusted my memory on this!). Although M&J reported a success rate of 50-60%, the study was seriously flawed. Here are a few of the problems: (a) “conversion” meant behavior, not orientation; (b) the participants involved in the study had to have had an opposite-sex partner (many were already married!); (c) M&J used a scale to determine orientation, and only 5 of the 67 subjects reported being “exclusively homosexual” (so it could be argued that 62 of them were “bisexual”); and (d) their criterion for “success”? – basically, if a participant said so. Masters and Johnson typically published in books and not in peer-reviewed journals, a process which would have caught these flaws/limitations.

... sorry for you who thought the thread was over, but I wanted to correct this for the record.

Now, how about some FISHING!

[centexfisher]

Thanks Pete! Fishing sounds good to me!

[GUNnROD]

No there's no agenda.......

http://2coolfishing.com/ttmbforum/showthread.php?t=52078
http://2coolfishing.com/ttmbforum/showthread.php?t=52080