Toolbox

Those in support of homosexuality are more interested in their hedonistic agenda than in individual freedom

Dear Editor,
I write this letter in response to Vidyaratha Kissoon’s ‘Freud did not think homosexuality a mental disorder’ which was published in the Stabroek News May 23, 2008, and in support of the stance Roger Williams has taken so far on the issue.

I see that the subject of homosexuality is now dominating our national conversation and the participants in this conversation are using all kinds of arguments to support their stance be it for or against homosexuality. The latest of these arguments centered on Freud and whether or not he countenanced homosexuality. I think whether or not Sigmund Freud accepted homosexuality as a normal way of life is not at all important to the argument. One must also be aware of the social consequences of Freudianism, especially in relation to homosexuality, because as revealed by his letter to Mrs N, dated April 9, 1935 his psychoanalysis was aimed at exorcising from the individual any qualms or feelings of guilt. In other words, Freud’s psychoanalysis would have removed from the young man, who was obviously perturbed by his own homosexual behaviour, his conscience. Think of the consequences of a conscienceless society.
Others in support of homosexuality rest their arguments on the basis of individual freedom. Those who hold this view must be instructed, to use a quote from Kant, that “freedom is the ratio essendi of the moral law,” therefore freedom must be balanced by the adherence to the moral law. Also we have so many other issues of violations of individual freedom that beset us in this society that I doubt those that use freedom as the basis for their arguments are any more interested in individual freedom than in pursuing their own hedonistic agenda.

There are those who also argue that homosexuality is not a choice but it is genetic. This is a very frightening argument because it removes the basis upon which we can hold people responsible for their actions especially in light of the conclusions below by Dr Simon LeVay in his study of the hypothalamic differences between the brains of homosexual and heterosexual men.

“It’s important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay centre in the brain.”

As a Rastafarian my view on the Gay issue is akin to that of Roger Williams. I use him as the point of reference because he is the only person apparently (with access to a pen or keyboard) that has a keen understanding of the dire consequences of a society gone gay. He is the only person that is stressing the need to look at the issue from its sociological point of view.

Homosexuality is an aberration, a social pathology, just like suicide, murder, substance abuse and other such social ills. And it would be unscientific to treat it as a normal and natural way of life. And while I will in no way advocate the killing of gays, I would definitely advocate some form of psychotherapy and behaviour control.

In concluding, I would like to draw attention to SASOD’s website (http://www.sasod.-org.gy/?q=node/8) where there are testimonials by teenagers of their experiment with homosexuality; this is a clear indication that ours youths are being targeted.
Yours faithfully,
Ras Ashkar

Comments

About Comments

We reserve the right to edit/delete comments for length, any libel and taste. We moderate all comments so be patient while your message waits to be approved.
Curious about the little images next to each commenter's name ? Go here and sign up using the same email address you used to register for Stabroeknews.com then upload your image and confirm it.
We recognized that the registration process was troublesome to some users. So now in addition to being able to fully register and subscribe with a username and password, you can also comment on the articles by simply entering a name and email address. If you are a frequent commenter, you will want to login so you don’t have to re-type your name and email address everytime you make a comment.

33 Responses to “Those in support of homosexuality are more interested in their hedonistic agenda than in individual freedom”

armie
on May 27th, 2008 8:30 am

This letter was so nicely written until the second to last paragraph… On what grounds is Ras Ashfar equating homosexuality to murder? This paragraph really does a great injustice to the letter and stifles the intellectual worth of the aforementioned points…..

[Reply to this]
Roger Williams
on May 27th, 2008 9:04 am

Here are some quick resources that help us in understanding the sociological implications of gay militancy in Guyana and the Caribbean:

1. Lee Mundy, Editor in Chief of the Regent University Law Review Series ( http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2editorsnote.doc ) …

“So we are left with the unpopular job of setting the record straight. The legal community has a right to know, among other things, that a link exists between homosexuality and the sexual abuse of children, that the American Psychiatric Association was hijacked by homosexual activists, that homosexuality is being marketed to children, that studies claiming that homosexual parenting does not harm children are questionable, that homosexuality is not immutable, and that homosexual advocates are calling for the legalization of pedophilia.”

2. Dr. Steve Baldwin’s law review “Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement” ( http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2Baldwin.doc ; 14 REGENT U.L. REV. 267 2002):

“Unfortunately, the truth is stranger than fiction. Research confirms that homosexuals molest children at a rate vastly higher than heterosexuals, and the mainstream homosexual culture commonly promotes sex with children. (
See W.D. Erickson et al, Behavior Patterns of Child Molesters, 17 ARCHIVES SEXUAL BEHAV. I, 83 [1988] and numerous other references on page 2 of 16 in Dr. Baldwin’s review). Homosexual leaders repeatedly argue for the freedom to engage in consensual sex with children, and blind surveys reveal a shockingly high number of homosexuals admit to sexual contact with minors. Indeed, the homosexual community is driving the worldwide campaign to lower the age of consent”

3. For a closer look at the legal implications in the Guyana context, read the online introductory summary “Supporting ‘Gay Rights’ laws would court legal disaster”, found at http://www.scribd.com/doc/913879/Supporting-Gay-Rights-laws-would-court-legal-disaster-

Regards
Roger Williams

[Reply to this]
armie
on May 27th, 2008 12:30 pm

Here is the correct link to the sasod article referenced in the letter : http://www.sasod.org.gy/?q=node/8

[Reply to this]
gap1
on May 27th, 2008 1:00 pm

First of all, let me state for the records, that I am a woman, a mother, once a wife and now in divorce court, I urge SN to publish my link. I find a lot people need to spend some time learning the issue before posting anywhere.

“Unfortunately, the truth is stranger than fiction. Research confirms that homosexuals molest children at a rate vastly higher than heterosexuals, and the mainstream homosexual culture commonly promotes sex with children. ” is patently fake and wrong. In fact, disgraceful to the person who even repeats it. It is not true however much you quote a source. I would quote child molestation stats from any country to shame you into oblivion but I urge you not to tempt me. I am your worst nightmare, the one who loves fact fact fact fact! I think with the left brain and am influenced by my right, and proudly so!

I urge you,oh god I do! Please click on this link! Click, then read the entire thread–again I do. And no, I don’t want to advertise this site, although if I can, I would, i just want you to see this story from all perspectives–let’s give real people a chance———and to heck with our opinion! Sometimes, it is better to be wrong if right wins out. Try it sometimes guys. You’ll love it!

[Reply to this]
Roger Williams
In reply to the above comment on May 27th, 2008 8:49 pm:
I sense the pain in Gap1’s response, but cannot also deny the fact that she, like Vidyaratha kissoon and Sasod, wants her detractors to dismiss the evidence and depend on emotion, to pretend that a law review open to peer review and the scrutiny of the courts can be easily dismissed.

Dr. Jeffrey Satinover (”Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth”) has offered that, with groups like SASOD, the denial was so intense that self-examination was entirely precluded. Are we witnessing the same thing here?

The Christian community long ago decided to do just what Ras Ashkar did … to read the thinly veiled attempts at recruitment and entrapment aimed at children. Such a policy depends on its “customers” ignorance of the deathstyle it hopes to sell. In the end, then, the best response was to reveal the extent of what is perhaps the greatest hoax in human history … that gay militancy is based on stupendous and self-destructive lies.

So, as we go through these law reviews point by point, the question for Gap1 will be this: “What, exactly, do you disagree with in the David Lee Mundy’s editorial note?” … partly replicated below:

David Lee Mundy’s editor’s note:
( http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2editorsnote.doc )

“We did not aspire to publish these articles. We did not seek them out. They sought us out. They sought us out because their ideas are shocking–too shocking to be printed elsewhere. They are shocking because they speak the truth, a truth that certain groups do not want to be told and will hate us for printing.”

“Somebody had to tell the truth. We take no pleasure in it. We would rather these articles had been published elsewhere. Elsewhere they might have been afforded more credibility. Some well-intentioned people may dismiss these articles because they are associated with a Christian law school. Some ill-intentioned people may maliciously label our law review and the authors as bigots, religious homophobes, or much worse. We are nothing of the sort. And the authors are all intelligent, highly-credentialed professionals. For example, Dr. George Rekers is Professor of Neuropsychiatry and Behavioral Science in the University of South Carolina School of Medicine; Dean Byrd is a clinical professor in the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Utah School of Medicine. And the list goes on.”

“We apologize in advance for the graphic nature of this publication. We say that, not out of some affected prudishness, but because we are genuinely appalled. We are appalled at the virtual sewer of source material that our staff had to wade through in order to verify the authors’ research. We are most appalled, however, to discover that this graphic sexual material is being involuntarily foisted on school children.”

We will go into the greater detail the law review provides as this thread continues …

[Reply to this]
gap1
on May 27th, 2008 1:03 pm

LINK. READ THE ENTIRE THREAD, THEN YOU WON’T FEEL SO SURE OF YOURSELF IF YOU ARE JUDGING OTHERS ACCORDING TO WHAT YOU BELIEVE!

http://www.guyanesereunions.com/guyanaforums/showthread.php?t=266

[Reply to this]
jackiesmith
on May 27th, 2008 4:05 pm

Hate, Hate, Hate and more hate!
There is no proven statistic that predominantly gays molest children; it is propaganda by individuals who wish to scare the population into believing that it is somehow right to discriminate against a person based on biological differences. Put the most vulnerable group in the same sentense with the most misunderstood…and we do what George Bush has done with the War in Iraq. Scare people into committing murder based on a LIE.

Now for that ignorant donkey using the genetic argument! Did you know that some persons are born with both reproductive organs? You’ll send them also to “the fringes”? C’mon…wake up. While some people do choose to be gay, not all gays choose to be gay. Its hormonal, and biological. I never heard of a gay murderer or a gay thief or a gay crimminal for that matter.

If you need to blame someone/some group for the immoral behaviour of the world…its the heterosexuals/straight people we have to worry about, like those on this comments page who are somehow justifying hate. No gay guy isnt coming to rape your daughter or murder innocent children like in Lusignan/Bartica…or go shooting fishermen on accusations.

Stop being hateful. And don’t bring any biblical argument. The bible was used to justify slavery and we all know no God ever sanctioned slavery…

[Reply to this]
Roger Williams
In reply to the above comment on May 27th, 2008 9:37 pm:
The first and the last sentences in this response by JackieSmith illustrates the inevitable issues that opponents to gay militancy will encounter. It is called the ad hominem argument.

But we must remain focused, and provide JackieSmith with the tools she needs to reach a responsible conclusion.

To address the last sentence first, Jackie will find comfort in the knowledge that what the Bible usually addresses in a few sentences is inevitably borne out by years of outstanding academic research. Think about this carefully before you respond …

To address the first sentence of her comment, we should, like the response to Gap1, point her to another section of the Editor’s Note of the “Homosexuality, Truth Be Told” law review series. Where is the “hate” in the following statement?

( http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2editorsnote.doc )

“By failing to tell both sides of the story, law reviews have abdicated their responsibility to the legal community. Law reviews are meant to be dialogues on the law. Freedom of thought and speech suffer, however, when one side of a debate is dismissed for not being politically correct or is suppressed by a powerful lobby. We find the Orwellian implications of this academic taboo quite disturbing. Ultimately, the law and society will be the worse for it.”

JackieSmith can find lots of answers to her questions about “genetics” if she reads the law review “Why NARTH? The American Psychiatric Association’s Destructive and Blind Pursuit of Political Correctness” (14 REGENT U. L. REV. 423 (2002) ( http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2kaufman.doc ). We promise to go through this point by point also.

And now, perhaps, we should also address the detail of the law review “Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement” (
http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2Baldwin.doc )

[Reply to this]
vatvic
on May 27th, 2008 6:10 pm

let’s talk biology, two organs - one for the creation of life and the other for the sole purpose of excretion, how is it normal and healthy for the two to ‘intertwine’ for the useless purpose pleasure?
This act is, I submit , basically carnality at it’s lowest point in mankind’s evolution.
Therefore, as a purely pleasure driven culture why should we be politically correct and pretend it’s not?

[Reply to this]
bgsbny
on May 27th, 2008 7:39 pm

…..jackiesmith,, fuh president ,,wy to go jackie,, seein’ like how yuh living in sam country ,, vote fuh Hillary ,, as every other person on the planet should if they could ,,
the demanding issue at hand is ,, if yuh want 4 mo’ years of l’il bush ,, den vote ,, vote for abel ,,
cos he is goin to lose to cain ,,Hillary on the other hand is who we need to bring the bacon to the table !!!!!!!

[Reply to this]
gap1
on May 28th, 2008 9:25 am

Roger Williams, people read these articles that you seem preoccupied with posting here, many of whom, obviously like you, have their own agenda based on either their religious beliefs or their own closet issues. I always consider the source, so your various articles do not impress me. I prefer to do my own research and arrive at my own conclusion based on sound research, not by ready hack-jobs, half loony quacks.

It is a true and factual statement, and many Catholic priests and Pastor Haggard could attest to that, that many that are driven to condemn homosexuality with venom, on the pulpit and in forums such as these, are themselves self-hating, self-denying homosexuals. I could never understand the venom that goes with gay bashing until Haggard was outed over here in America. He was strongest and one of the most vocal in condemning gays. In fact it was his life mission. I tend to be a bit more understanding than others in wanting to out these hyprocrites!

First of all, if homosexuality was a mental discease that could have been treated, the World Organisation of Psychologists would not have up to recently had to strongly reassert, an action that they did back in 1973, that homosexuality is not a mental disease. This is not to say, that there is ever a shortage of these wacko, whack job, religiously driven quacks, many of whom are closet homosexuals themselves, to make various claims that indeed it can. The truth about that, is that they cannot site one single case, where years afterwards, these “case-studies” are still “cured”, so make me laugh about something else, this one is too serious for my face to crack.

I urge you, instead of reading articles that claim Gays molest children more than heterosexuals, to find yourself the crime stats or sex crime stats and get the true figure there. Do your own research for a change and stop directing us to these people with agendas that anyone could spot a mile up the road. Easy really, check with the police. As an Editor-in-Chief, I view accuracy as an imperative.

I welcome this debate anytime but suffer me your own wisdom and logic. Stop citing others who are not doing very well themselves.

[Reply to this]
Roger Williams
In reply to the above comment on May 29th, 2008 2:24 am:
Dear Gap1,

“Wisdom and logic” means nothing outside of recognizing Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour.

The Christian response to homosexuality, thievery, hooliganism, racism, adultery, promiscuity and other vices is not founded on a methodology or procedure, but the person of Jesus Christ, and a recognition of the Divine Exchange made on the cross at Calvary. It is in Him that Christians achieve their being, and we would be unwise to address many of your issues raised above without making this clear. I could elaborate on this Divine Exchange if you want …

It was therefore unfortunate that you now perpetuate a trend begun years ago when sasod and others challenged Christians to move their arguments against “decriminalizing” homosexuality outside the generous evidence offered by the Bible … in a mistaken belief that outstanding secular research would prove the Bible “wrong”. Unfortunately for them, as you can see from the evidence offered in the law reviews above, the astonishing fact was that the opposite was true. What the Bible usually addresses in a few short sentences with raw imperatives of the “thou shalt not” kind is almost inevitably borne out by outstanding secular research.

Gay militancy, we will find, is propped up on a gargantuan sandcastle of duplicity and activist subterfuge.

So this brings us to you, as “Editor-in-Chief” … and your pathological use of the ad hominem argument (which is properly defined as an attack on the proponent of a position and not the position itself).

- You ignore the credentials of the persons who wrote the law reviews as cited partially in my first response, and now call them “ready hack-jobs, half loony quacks, these wacko, whack job, religiously driven quacks”.
- You do not cite a single, repeat single, alternative and authoritative corroboration of your particular perspective.
- You do not cite the specific instance of the World Organization of Psychologists “reasserting strongly” that homosexuality is not a mental disease. You should share that announcement, and the medical/scientific basis upon which it was adopted. Thereafter, please compare that treatment with Dr. Joseph Nicolosi’s online article “The Removal of Homosexuality from the Psychiatric Manual” ( http://www.catholicsocialscientists.org/Symposium2–Nicolosi–mss.htm ), and the law review “Gay Orthodoxy and Academic Heresy” ( http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2Clevenger.doc ).
- Your reference to Catholic Priests and Haggard should best elicit comments from these persons themselves, but surely what must also count is the extreme efforts at soul-searching, repentance, reorganization, and restoration in the Catholic church today. If I am not mistaken, in both of your cases the parties admitted to what were essentially criminal acts.
- Which brings us to Dr. Jeffrey Satinover. The Congressional Record of May 1996 writes that Satinover’s “Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth” is perhaps … the best book on homosexuality written in our lifetime! One comment in the book that should concern you is this: “Homosexuality is but one of the many forms of ‘soul sickness’ that that are innate to our fallen natures!”

Soul sickness? Fallen natures? Is it possible that we are in fact talking about a treatable mental and emotional “disorder”? Is there a spiritual influence to homosexuality? Perhaps the answers are to be found at the site http://www.hiswayout.com. Dr. Nicolosi laments the fact that persons seeking psychiatric attention are simply rejected. Guyana’s own Human Services Ministry advocates that homosexuality, pornography and prostitution are “too complex” for the Ministry to address in forthcoming legislation. This would be laughable, were it not true.

The above would obviously be painful for you, but we must persist, and keep hammering home the truth.

That the treatment, for every conceivable disorder in the range of human experience, is found in Jesus Christ!

He is faithful, and will do it!

[Reply to this]
bvbocan
on May 29th, 2008 2:42 am

Roger Williams is a bigot. May I suggest that he dedicate his energies to improving the plight of the African Guyanese. It would seem a more purposeful cause.

[Reply to this]
gap1
on May 29th, 2008 10:40 am

Roger Williams, Ah you speak again! How nice, and you keep on speaking about Homosexuals as though they were “things” not people who, thank god, the world already decided, are part of the vastness of humanity. Why, were it not for some of these men who could outwoman many of us woman in the creative arts, in designs, high-fashion, movies, interior designs, dancing, the fine arts, ah! Were it not for their flair and style, which could never quite be replicated by any woman or man, where would my Gucci bag be? My God, I can’t imagine life without a well designed dress or a Broadway play–God bless homosexuals! Don’t change them for the world! Nice people with just the right amount of both sexes, mixed just the right way to bring la nouvelle génération to every creation they lay their hands on.

Your agenda is clear, even though we humans are having such a wonderful time, the entire social contruct of our lovely world is wrong and we are wrong unless we conform to YOUR religious beliefs. But we don’t want to!

I am not a Christian, nor am I interested in the religion the slave master of our ancestors handed to us for all the wrong reasons. So spare me the self righteous diatribe. No one has to adhere to your religious beliefs and what you think the world should be as a result of it.

Narth and organistions such as those far right christian wackos, and yes, again I wrote, wackos, which you are so kind to keep citing and I will continue to be so kind to keep insisting that they are well known in America for their insane christian depravity with rabid, insane christian agendas, should try to come to grips with that–you know, that there are people out here who do not respect them, both them and their motley crew they have as “doctors” doing “studies” they keep claiming to be successful, impressing no one but themselves, and you of course, let me hasten to add! They seem to have impressed you alright!

The American Psychological Association (APA), in Washington,DC, is the largest scientific and professional organization representing psychology in the United States and is the world’s largest association of psychologists. APA’s membership includes more than 142,000 researchers, educators, clinicians, consultants and students. Through its divisions in 49 subfields of psychology and affiliations with 58 state and Canadian provincial associations, APA works to advance psychology as a science, as a profession and as a means of promoting human welfare.

They declared that Homosexuality is not a mental discease. Who am I going to believe you and your motley crew conducting “studies” over at Narth or the APA?

As to your trying to change the world to your christian beliefs. Since when is Christianity the African religion? Why is it that Black people are the only people who worship a God that does not look like them? Try to figure out that one and then maybe you could begin to come to grips with what your real mission should be in life.

You keep mentioning people having their own agendas in the Homosexual debate? What is your agenda, pray tell, and why are you so uptight with denying what the WHO, the APA and many organisations comprising the world body of evidence, well researched and published? They say it is not a mental disease. Try to deal with it. And tell your “doctors’ at Narth and other suspect organistions not to take it too hard that people don’t really respect their ’studies” because their conclusions can never be proven so they camp out on the internet building websites after websites that few but the rabid visit and respect…Mmmn, I wonder why?

[Reply to this]
Roger Williams
In reply to the above comment on May 29th, 2008 11:59 pm:
Dear Gap1,

While I am again struck by your avoidance of detail and refusal to cite specific authority, I sense your distress as the awesome implications of what the APA has done becomes clear. Again, we are committed to providing the resources that will enable you to make a responsible decision.

Is it possible that “the largest scientific and professional organization representing psychology in the United States and … the world’s largest association of psychologists” has no rational scientific basis upon which to base its removal of homosexuality from the list of psychiatric disorders?

Truly, this would be a lie of gargantuan (demonic?) proportions, especially if it literally affects the lives of millions.

So, you should write the APA and request their scientific rationale for the removal, and then please share it with us.

In the meantime, I should recommend two resources that offer, literally on single pages, extraordinarily concise introductory explanations as to the scientific error that the APA has made in the name of political correctness:

1. “The Removal of Homosexuality from the Psychiatric Manual” by Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, found at http://www.catholicsocialscientists.org/Symposium2–Nicolosi–mss.htm (here he also addresses the phenomenon of reverse discrimination, since persons who are seeking help from the mental health profession are being refused, simply because the APA’s position has left them short of options).

2. “The A.P.A. Normalization of Homosexuality, and the Research Study of Irving Bieber”, found at http://www.narth.com/docs/normalization.html . This article concludes with the with the following astonishing speculation which illustrates what happens when science is replaced by “human rights” arguments:

“Dr. Bieber pointed out that there were several other conditions in the DSM-II that did not fulfill the “distress and social disability” criteria: voyeurism, fetishism, sexual sadism, and masochism. A.P.A.’s Dr. Spitzer replied that these conditions should perhaps also be removed from the DSM-II — and that if the sadists and fetishists were to organize as did the gay activists, they, too, might find their conditions normalized.”

Finally, truth is stranger than fiction. Roger Magnuson, a lawyer, has written a very compact book “Are Gay Rights Right? Making Sense of the Controversy” (Multhnomah Press). In it he describes with astonishing detail the fact that the APA meetings of 1973 were actually invaded, yes invaded, and scientists subjected to physical intimidation by gay militant activists. Could this be possible? Did terror tactics, not science, “settle” the issue in 1973? Read Roger Magnuson’s book and let’s discuss the implications.

So, Gap1, remember Proverbs 23:23 as you embark on this journey of study … I sense that you have big decisions to make. I know that our God Jehovah considers you worthy …

[Reply to this]
tonks
on May 29th, 2008 3:02 pm

Dear R.W:

Have you checked out your beloved NARTH? You mean, the NARTH that said Africans were better off as slaves than living in their own country? And since quotes are so important to you: “Africa at the time of slavery was still primarily a jungle… Life there was savage … and those brought to America, and other countries, were in many ways better off.” Dr. Gerald Schoenewolf, NARTH.

The same doctor firmly belives that Women’s rights, Civil Rights and Gay Rights movements are unholy.

You say that gay people sexually molest children?
A trusted affilate of NARTH, Christopher Austin, who gave several presentations there, was sentenced to ten years in prison for sexually molesting a gay he was trying to “reform”.

So please, Mr. Williams, if you are trying to convince ME or any other sane person that homosexuality is wrong, use reliable sources, not the hateful NARTH.

[Reply to this]
Roger Williams
In reply to the above comment on May 30th, 2008 1:13 am:
Tonks,

I will be brief here …

Dr. Gerald Schoenewolf, and NARTH, have apologized for the article that Gerald wrote in 2006. They also insist that the comments were misconstrued, and lots of persons agree with that perspective. Any reader of this thread can do a Google/Yahoo search and form their own opinions.

However, the main issue is this: surely by now you can see that you are instinctively using the ad hominem argument in your commentary. You have chosen to attack the person rather than his substantive argument … all in the name of political correctness.

Was your comment made to discredit Dr. Schoenewolf’s position against homosexuality? Then you should perhaps address the detail and/or deficiencies of his submissions on that specific issue. We must remain focused.

Finally, if what you say is true, then Mr. Allen committed a criminal act. That’s why the law exists.

The astonishing paradox in your argument/position becomes clear, however, when we consider the following statement in a law review:

“Unfortunately, the truth is stranger than fiction. Research confirms that homosexuals molest children at a rate vastly higher than heterosexuals, and the mainstream homosexual culture commonly promotes sex with children. Homosexual leaders repeatedly argue for the freedom to engage in consensual sex with children, and blind surveys reveal a shockingly high number of homosexuals admit to sexual contact with minors. Indeed, the homosexual community is driving the worldwide campaign to lower the legal age of consent.”
Source: (”Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement”; http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2Baldwin.doc

If the above is true, to how many years in jail must we sentence pro-gay molesters? Any less than that afforded Mr. Allen?

[Reply to this]
gap1
on May 30th, 2008 8:52 am

Tonga, nice work! Very accurate indeed!

There is no research, save for the ones that the Wacko Christian Rights and their “doctors” have “conducted’. Homsexuals do not molest children at a rate greater than Heterosexuals, however much it may be repeated during this debate as though it were gospel truth.

Again, no one needs to await the wacko Christian rights over here in the USA with their equally Wacko agendas to confirm that statement either as true or false. All we need to do is to get the sex crime stats from the police of any country and we can all leave Roger Williams with his motley collections of far right chistian organisations with their populations of closet homosexuals who keep defecting by the droves back to being homosexuals after they have written numerous books telling people that homosexuality could be cured.

Anyone relying on them and not the authentic and established APA is as mentally challenged as they were.

If anyone believes Dr. Gerald Schoenewolf’s lies that people “miscontrued” his comments, I have the Brooklyn Bridge to sell them.

Tonga, you are correct in bringing to the debate Dr. Schoenewolf’s comments and Christopher Austin’s molestation of a gay he was trying to “reform”. This goes back to my point that many of these people are themselves closet homosexuals who are unable to “cure” even themselves. These are the people on whom Roger Williams rely for his argument that gays could be “reformed’. It is germaine to any thread that we should consider the source.

Anyone can write a book and these days anyone can “conduct studies,” or write an article or two and put it on the internet, or form oganisations called regent.edu, if they are later proved to be incorrect or if research unearth things that they have said or written that questions their sanity, then by all means, acquaint us of the “work” of these wackos on whom many rely as if their were “the authority”.

[Reply to this]
gap1
on May 30th, 2008 9:20 am

Roger Williams, you keep throwing me these “doctors” from NARTH and the Christian right and their “studies” and I will keep insisting that they are all part of the christian right agenda and they are mean and cruel people and misguided. I do not have to write to the APA, their research and work are respected worldwide and well known, while the “doctors” that you keep quoting are the laughing stock of the community except for the ones who pay them to conduct these “studies”.

“Finally, truth is stranger than fiction. Roger Magnuson, a lawyer, has written a very compact book “Are Gay Rights Right? Making Sense of the Controversy” (Multhnomah Press). In it he describes with astonishing detail the fact that the APA meetings of 1973 were actually invaded, yes invaded, and scientists subjected to physical intimidation by gay militant activists. Could this be possible? Did terror tactics, not science, “settle” the issue in 1973? Read Roger Magnuson’s book and let’s discuss the implications.”

Oh my God, the APA was invaded by gay militants declaring in 1973 that homosexuality is not a mental illness! Oh my god, those “gay militants” were not scientists of the 140,000. strong APA who were part of the study itself and invited to participate at the meeting!

Believe me, Roger William, only you and the insane Roger Magnunson can see something wrong with that picture. The way poor, delusional Roger writes it, you would think that those scientists came in brandishing guns and beating up their fellow scientists.

But it’s good to know that you can lighten things up with a joke now and then. Don’t worry, it was funny. I am laughing. You actually read his book! That’s the funniest of all!

[Reply to this]
Roger Williams
on May 31st, 2008 11:06 am

CONSEQUENCE OF ‘GAY RIGHTS’ ORDINANCES: PART 1

So now we need to depart from what Jeffrey Satinover calls “a denial that completely precludes self-examination”. The Bible calls it a “strong delusion”.

Either way, the scales of sin places scales over our eyes that takes nothing less than the urging of the Holy Spirit to remove.

What are the consequences of “gay rights” laws?

Most of the proposed gay rights ordinances technically provide legal protection for more than just homosexuals. They typically provide protection to anyone, regardless of sexual preferences. A literal-minded judge would find that such laws give protection to a large number of sex criminals.

Take, for example, the first of six possible protected behaviours under a gay rights ordinance …

* A convicted child molester, homosexual or heterosexual, could sue a day-care center that refuses to hire him, claiming discrimination on the basis of his “sexual orientation”; such an ordinance would thus protect behaviour declared criinal under state law.

We will continue with this list, but it is apposite to again quote Beiber:

“Dr. Bieber pointed out that there were several other conditions in the DSM-II that did not fulfill the “distress and social disability” criteria: voyeurism, fetishism, sexual sadism, and masochism. A.P.A.’s Dr. Spitzer replied that these conditions should perhaps also be removed from the DSM-II — and that if the sadists and fetishists were to organize as did the gay activists, they, too, might find their conditions normalized.”

[Reply to this]
gap1
on June 1st, 2008 9:32 am

Roger Williams wrote: “Most of the proposed gay rights ordinances technically provide legal protection for more than just homosexuals. They typically provide protection to anyone, regardless of sexual preferences. A literal-minded judge would find that such laws give protection to a large number of sex criminals.

Take, for example, the first of six possible protected behaviours under a gay rights ordinance …

and Williams wrote, “A convicted child molester, homosexual or heterosexual, could sue a day-care center that refuses to hire him, claiming discrimination on the basis of his “sexual orientation”; such an ordinance would thus protect behaviour declared criminal under state law.”

Roger Williams, Where? In which world? Unless they manage detection by stealth and deception, and it does happen sometimes, most convicted child molesters in the US are not allowed to go to the park if children are playing there, near playgrounds, daycare, etc. If the laws in Guyana allows sex offenders to go anywhere near children, then I suggest you spend some time, lobbying members of Parlaiment to change that law.

It should be unlawful to discriminate against anyone on the basis of race, sexual orientation, gender, etc etc etc, but let’s not mix apples and oranges here. Blacks and gays and women and other minorities do not molest children, child molesters who happen to be some of these people do, and the law was only created to protect the innocent, not the guilty so don’t let’s get too imaginative here with our “facts”.

Again, I state, there is no sex crime stats that you would find on the face of the earth, in any country, that indicates any truth that homosexuals molest kids at a rate higher than heterosexuals however much you may say it. It is simply not true.

Williams, you keep quoting me the Bible so let me bring some historic perspective and a universal view to this debate….

It is not by chance that in some parts of the world, they speak, Chinese, another part hindi or urdu, another part Israeli, another English…..we are meant to share these different cultures and be better humans with a better understanding of the vastness of humanity.

Africans were called savages by Europeans, their religion referred to as vodooism and this is what the slave masters firmly believed when they brought Africans as slaves out of Africa and then handed them the bible and said to them, “Never mind your vodoo(your religion)this is mine, and this is what you would have to believe in from now on.”

During enslavement, there was no choice, no freedom of course, and then there was the threat of being tortured or even killed, the threat to loved ones, so slaves sadly began to lose their own culture, language, their various religious beliefs handed to them right there in Africa by God, just as He handed a different path to him in different parts of the world. I am certain that He had sound reasons why He made all these cultures different. We may venture many educated guesses his reasons for doing that, but that is an entirely new debate.

My grandfather who is East Indain, always said, you take a culture away from someone, you take the man away from himself–and that is a terrible thing to do to anyone. It’s losing one’s identity!

The slave masters must have been very clever people, because they must have known, that if you mess collectively with the slaves belief system, take whatever it was that they believed in, forbid individuality, forbid them to practice their religion, that there was no better way to do it but by religion aka fear of God–but not fear of God as the Africans worshipped him, but fear of God as the slave master worshipped him. It was the biggest Taboo of all–to question God, and the slave masters knew that having thus changed the slaves’ culture, the slave wouldn’t dare turn back and retrace his steps, not after time had passed and the brainwash was complete.

In fact it was worse than brainwash, it was messing with the very core of the African as God meant him to be.

The African, when free to retrace his culture and retake what it is he believed in before they captured him and brought him out of Africa, never did because he feared the wrath of the slave-master’s God and it was just as the slave master had planned that it would be–so welcome now to God being worshipped, not in the image and likeness of the African man or woman, but in the image and likeness of the Europeans. The social impact, historically and present day, that that has had on the African Psyche is an entirely different debate.

To maintain that collective fear and never return to his own core belief-system throughout the centuries after he was freed, Africans would have had to believe of himself what the slave masters believed of him then, that he was savage, that his belief was vodoo (evil) and that he needed to be “civilized” so to return to his own religion would have been “unholy” “uncivilized” and without God’s approval–all of that, and people who insist today in calling themselves “Africans”, never really seem disposed towards becoming really African again. They just pretend now while still holding firm to the religion that was handed to them by the slave masters.

But it is not only upon the slaves that religion was used to wield a very cruel weapon, it was during the christian crusade where history will show that there was never a time on the face of this earth that so many died during a war. And it is not only christians who have used religion as a basis to tell others how they should live or that they’re own belief system is “unholy” or “unworthy’ or “not normal” it was the muslims murdering people and calling it jihad, the hindus even among themselves as they battle for higher caste, etc.

Hitler slaughtered six million Jews and the slave masters had to be demons from hell themselves to have treated another human being like an animal and really believed that they were while they never missed a Sunday in church, Milosevic’s recent genocidal war against the muslim, now Darfur, then Rwanda and I could go on into infiniti.

You and the wacko Christian Right over here, those who sang George W Bush’s praise when he invaded Iraq because they are convinced that it was a christian crusade against muslims, are again using your religious beliefs to justify to me that there is something not “normal” or “unholy” about gays, that they could be “changed” bended and moulded to your religious beliefs, similar to how the slave masters moulded the slaves according to their beliefs. Why should anyone even listen to any of you people!

In discriminating against gays, in trying to “reform” them, you are using the same tools that the slave-masters used against the slaves. Forgive me if I see the irony everytime you wave the bible in my face. Given all that has happened in history, that cannot be a very sane thing for any “African” to do.

[Reply to this]
Roger Williams
In reply to the above comment on June 1st, 2008 2:19 pm:
The good thing about these exchanges, Gap1, is that as more and more people read them, they will understand more and more about the inadequacies of the gay-militant argument.

So, again, a tonnage of words and no supporting evidence from academia or the medical/legal system. Let’s summarize your position thus far:

1. You refuse to write the APA to ask for the scientific evidence behind the removal of homosexuality from the Diagnostic Manual. What are you afraid of?
2. You ignore the evidence in three law reviews cited thus far, and do not cite any corroborating evidence of your own. Surely you must know that this infers that you are uninformed (albeit passionately) on the issue.
3. By now you should note that the only thing that seems to keep you going is pride. Surely you should concede that the aim here is not to put you down, but to show that gay militancy, and the “science” that informs your position, is is propped up on a gargantuan sandcastle of duplicity and activist subterfuge.

Now, you ask: “Where? In which world?

So it’s our painful task yet again to furnish the summary of evidence of scantly nine years ago, as the APA attempted to provide the legal community with the tools to “normalize” pedophilia. Note two things: (1) This time members of Congress were involved in the denunciation; (2) It was NARTH that participated fully in the lobby to help the APA change its position.

EVIDENCE 1:
“APA Pedophilia Report Condemned”; 12th May 1999
http://www.cnsnews.com/InDepth/archive/199905/IND19990512g.html

The article, “A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples,” by Bruce Rind, Philip Tromovitch and Robert Bauserman, unleashed a firestorm for asserting, among other things, that there is scant evidence that little boys suffer from having been sodomized by adult males.” ….

“The report also will have consequences for the legal system. A prosecutor of sex cases said the APA’s failure to retract or condemn the report will be used by lawyers, who already are allowed to put blame on the victims, depicting young girls as seducers and teenagers as nymphs, to defend pedophiles.

“The report says if you don’t know it has happened, it’s ok,” said Bob Flores, a senior counsel with the National Law Center for Children and Families.

The legal situation in prosecuting sex offenders has deteriorated to the point where prosecutors have to ask themselves who the judge is in a given case and whether a trial would only result in more trauma and suffering for the child, Flores said.”

EVIDENCE 2:
“APA pedophilia on the march”
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=16148

“After the American Psychiatric Association removed pedophilia as sexual perversion in its 1994 Diagnostic and Statistical Manual IV, it was only a matter of time until The American Psychological Association would ease us further toward legalizing child sexual abuse. Illinois State Representative Bob Biggins introduced House Resolution 325 damning the APA Rind study that found “sexual relationships between adults and willing children” might be “positive.”"

EVIDENCE 3:
“Brace yourself for the public promotion of pedophilia”
http://members.iquest.net/~macihms/Education/apapadeo.html

EVIDENCE 4:

“From Playboy to Pedophilia: How Adult Sexual Liberation leads to Children’s sexual Exploitation”.
http://www.witherspoonfellowship.org/index.cfm?get=item&b=7&item=WT02G1#

“Cultural conservatives, having observed with horror the precipitous decline in public decency over the last generation, must ask with an even greater dread: What comes next? Mary Eberstadt, writing in The Weekly Standard, provides an unsettling answer in her two articles, “Pedophilia Chic” and “Pedophilia Chic Reconsidered”: “The social consensus against the sexual exploitation of children and adolescents . . . is apparently eroding,” she notes, documenting her claim with a disturbing survey of recent literature, science, and social commentary arguing for, or insinuating the normality of, adult sexual contact with teenagers and even prepubescent children.”

Now we return to “CONSEQUENCES OF GAY RIGHTS ORDINANCES”

[Reply to this]
gap1
on June 2nd, 2008 2:02 pm

For others reading this thread I would like to thank you for giving me this chance. I can’t tell you how grateful I am for your time. Let me chat with you awhile.

Last year my friend, Ted, wanted to design his home and he asked me to recommend a designer. I recommended my gay friend who owns an interior designing business and then I tagged along for the experience.

As Ted showed Frankie (my gay friend) around the house, Frankie kept asking him what he wanted - more about his space (his home) - and my friend didn’t seem to quite know how to answer that question, so he rattled off mundane things like comfort and relaxtion etc. Frankie didn’t seem to like how Ted was doing with his question, so he decided that he was going to find out for himself, and so he stood where he thought the center of the house was, he closed his eyes and “meditated” for a few moments.

Ted seemed uncomfortable so I motioned to him to give Frankie some privacy. Frankie proceeded to do this in every room and then he arrived downstairs and announced to both of us that he would bring the design the following week. Ted asked him if he didn’t want to know the colors he liked and Frankie prompty responded by rattling off four of Ted’s favorite colors. Ted was left staring at him in astonishment. I quickly glanced around Ted’s home for signs of those four colors in any overpowering way and for the life of me I couldn’t see them! Ted couldn’t see them either!

I looked on some weekends as Frankie stood for the next two weeks, fussing when things go wrong, giving the workmen instructions, threatening, haggling over the phone for prices to furniture and fittings, begging sometimes, using his feminine charm sometimes and mostly getting things done exactly as he wanted it.

Finally it was time for the curtains, and Frankie and I went shopping. Frankie selected some gorgeous curtains and place cushions to match. He kept insisting for flowers in the decor and we argued over that because I didn’t know Ted to be a ‘flower” sort of guy. I was told that I was wrong and that I was failing to “feel the house Ted’s spirit along with it,” and so I gave up!

It became time for Ted to move back in, and having been the one who recommended Frankie, I got a bit nervous. I have known Ted for a while now, and he is meticulously neat and detailed. He had previously decorated his previous home twice in one year, because he didn’t like how it was decorated the first time, and finally he decided it was the house he didn’t like and so he bought a new one and moved. This is the man Frankie had to please and I was relieved that he seemed confident that he could do it.

Ted walked in and I saw his face light up. And as he walked from room to room, with Frankie now giving him a tour of his own home, the grin on his face grew wider and wider, and finally he walked over and gave me a great big hug and a loud smack. Apparently I had delivered for him.

Now this was the funny part of all. Ted asked Frankie how he knew exactly what he wanted and where he wanted it and Frankie replied that he was certain only about one thing as he decorated, that Ted needed a woman’s touch in some parts of his home, and in others he plain wanted a guy’s feel. That is all he brought to his home. Ted wanted to have his cake and eat it as well and Frankie was able to succeed where two other woman failed before. The reason Ted came to me to find him a designer, I had previously advised him that he should dump the previous two women designers that he has used and just get a gay guy. I was convinced that the gay guy would have best been able to please Ted.

Most of us who know gay men, could see visible signs of the feminine side in them, their flair, their style, the way they talk, walk, most times physical proof that there is woman there as well. We do not need rabid haters to tell us otherwise, we have eyes, we can use them for ourselves. I have a gay friend who, apart from his body part, has nothing on him that looks remotely a man’s. In fact he looks better in jeans than I do, and that is some achievment because I think I do pretty well in them myself!

When we girls are chatting or doing girlie things like our nails and our eyebrows etc, there are women and there are gays in that room, and there is no spirit in that room that any of us women could feel of a man in there, because there are none in there! And we should know, we could spot or sense a guy a mile up the road!

This world needs, and was enriched by gays. They execute the fine arts like fine wine! Their flair, their touch, it works for the world and their works have been masterpieces and classics and great movies because they are who they are and we should not try to change them for the world!

There is a breakdown in public decency yes, but gays are not responsible for it, it is the thousands of heterosexual men who defile young maidens, one after the other, leaving in their wake, a broken path of a collection of “child mothers” or “baby-mamas” instead of one happy wife and children who saw their mothers being respected by their fathers.

What also breaks down public decency are mothers who do not teach their daughters the value of self-love and self worth so that when these heterosexual predators come knocking, she and her daughter could sic the dog on him.

The social impact on society that these fatherless children and defiled young maidens bring to it, is yet to be measured, but if ever a study were to be done, it would have to start with these heterosexual males, not gays. What their fatherless children grow up to do, or not do to society is their fault, not the fault of a single gay man or a lesbian woman. And the cycle of young maidens being defiled by these heterosexual males, is yet to be broken so these men continue to be the parasitic predators that harm society.

We don’t even need the resources, human and otherwise of the prestigous and well respected organisations such as the APA.

In fact, let’s conduct our own “study” right now!

Go out there and ask these men, you know who they are, if they are married or has ever been married, ask them how many children they have and how many “baby-mothers” they have. You might even get two or three as an answer!

When you are finished with that, turn your attention to the prison population and the crime stats. Interview the prisoners in jail, find out how many of them grew up in single-parent homes and who they killed, rape or maimed to get where they are, count those people in the stats as well and pin that too on the social impact of the “baby-fathers”

I propose to you people, society would be much better off if we direct our energies towards finding a “cure” for these heterosexual males. They are the ones who need to be “reformed” because today, they are the biggest threat, not only to public decency, but public safety as well.

[Reply to this]
Roger Williams
In reply to the above comment on June 2nd, 2008 10:17 pm:
I sense that Gap1 is beginning to see the point, but her curious avoidance of confronting the duplicity of the APA in promoting the sexual abuse of children is disturbing.

While she (thankfully) no longer refers to her detractors as “wackos”, her decision to avoid the evidence in the articles above in favour of this latest emotional appeal must mean that she is willing to ignore the APA’s active support of pedophilia.

This is irresponsible.

Then, the intense denial now forces her to now advocate that “We don’t even need the resources, human and otherwise of the prestigous and well respected organisations such as the APA.” This is curious, and disingenuous, inversion of strategy … traceable, perhaps to a futile attempt to have us lose focus.

The bewildering paradox here is that she thereafter appeals to us to “turn our attention to the prison population and the crime stats” … in the mistaken and intuitive belief that they will support her cause. Here are some “crime stats” facts in the law review “Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement” ( http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2Baldwin.doc ) that will shock the reader:

1. “Unfortunately, the truth is stranger than fiction. Research confirms that homosexuals molest children at a rate vastly higher than heterosexuals, and the mainstream homosexual culture commonly promotes sex with children. Homosexual leaders repeatedly argue for the freedom to engage in consensual sex with children, and blind surveys reveal a shockingly high number of homosexuals admit to sexual contact with minors. Indeed, the homosexual community is driving the worldwide campaign to lower the legal age of consent.”

2. “It came as no surprise that the California Department of Social Services found “on numerous occasions beginning at least as early as 1994, adults affiliated with GLASS, including staff members, members of the GLASS board of directors and volunteers, sexually abused or molested children who were placed with GLASS.” The Department of Social Services found that DeCrescenzo, aware of the allegations of molestation, determined staff conduct not to be inappropriate. Apparently, DeCrescenzo believes molestation is part of the “coming out” process that she glorifies in her writings.”

3. “Homosexuals are targeting not just youth group homes, but all groups that work with youth. When a California family sued the Scouts in 1993 for exposing their son to a Scout leader who molested him, the Scouts were ordered to turn over 25,000 pages of documents to the plaintiff. This unprecedented glimpse into the world of Scout pedophiles revealed that thousands of boys had been molested by Scout leaders and other volunteers between 1971 and 1991 resulting in the expulsion of over 1,800 Scout volunteers for pedophile activity. The documents show that some Scout leaders molested over forty boys before getting caught, and that many, once caught, simply moved to a different Scout troop and continued abusing boys.”

4. “Using twisted logic, pro-gay academics argue in various social science journals that the molestation of boys is not a gay lifestyle issue and that such men are not really homosexuals. It is simply amazing that gay propagandists and sexology “experts” are successfully bamboozling the public and the media into believing that a man’s exclusive focus on young males should not be defined as homosexuality! But if an exclusive attraction of a male to other males of any age is not homosexuality, what is?”

5. “Moreover, most pedophiles consider themselves to be gay. In a 1988 study published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, 86% of pedophiles described themselves as homosexual or bisexual. Child prostitution expert Dr. Jennifer James reports that the number of boy prostitutes who identify themselves as homosexuals has risen from 10% to 60% in the last fifteen years.”

And it goes on and on … and Gap1 ignores it all … and has the additional effrontery to promote an insipid argument that “artistic flair” is copyrighted by the gay militant community.

The above five excerpts, and the tonnage of additional material in this law review and Roger Magnuson’s “Are Gay Rights Right? Making Sense of the Controversy” are eloquent evidence that, while commendably lowering the tone of her vitriol, Gap1 is still engaged in the perpetuation of an outrageous hoax.

Joseph Nicolosi says it best when he offers in the online article “The Removal of Homosexuality from the Psychiatric Manual” ( http://www.catholicsocialscientists.org/Symposium2–Nicolosi–mss.htm ) :

“Militant gay advocates working in a small but forceful network have caused apathy and confusion within our society. They insist that acceptance of the homosexual as a person cannot occur without endorsement of the homosexual condition. Intellectual circles too–who are self-conscious about sounding intolerant–proclaim homosexuality as normal, yet it is still not so for the average person for whom it “just doesn’t seem right.”

For the average person you are now appealing to, Gap1, it just doesn’t seem right!

[Reply to this]
tonks
on June 2nd, 2008 7:55 pm

Roger Williams,

You say that gay people are more likely to molest children. Oh really? As gap1 said, Gay men are just like women. Like women, they have “maternal instincts”.

In fact: “A child’s risk of being molested by his or her relatives’ heterosexual partner is over one hundred times greater than by someone who might be identifiable as being homosexual.” Child Welfare Information Gateway

In this study, only 2 out of 269 child molesters were found to be gay or lesbian.
Oops! I allowed myself to be foolish enough to actually believe this information might make it’s way into you hard-head. My mistake.

But who is more evil, the gay person walking down the steet minding his own business or the wacko that pulls him into an alleyway and murders him because of who he loves?

And who is more evil, the gay person giving his lover roses with a masterfully written poem or the man spending his time criticizing a group of people and trying to call them a number of insulting names?How would you feel if someone walked up to you and said:

“Hey you, you have a red shirt on. This means that you must rape children and be mentally insane. But hey! I’ll help you. Here’s a blue shirt, and I *will* make you love blue, whether or not you want to, because I like blue and I’m better than you.
Oh, by the way, if you still hate blue, you can go home and cry and commit suicide
because *I* told you something was wrong with you with no evidence to prove it. I don’t care.”

Newsflash: That’s how hateful and ridiculous you sound to everyone.

But of course, you don’t care as long as you feel better about yourself.

I refuse to believe that loving someone, wanting to marry them and wanting to grow old together is evil and can ever be evil, no matter what gender they are.

An old couple walking down the road hand-in-hand will be just as adorable, whether it’s a man and a woman or a man and a man.

Oh, and to respond to your quote: “The good thing about these exchanges, Gap1, is that as more and more people read them, they will understand more and more about the inadequacies of the gay-militant argument.”

Well, another newsflash to you: A few of my friends came over the day before yesterday. I showed them your posts and they laughed.

You actually convinced my best friend, who was unsure about gay marriage, that gays should have equal rights!

BRAVO!

[Reply to this]
Roger Williams
In reply to the above comment on June 3rd, 2008 10:55 am:
We need to focus, Tonks, and concentrate on the evidence. Your friend would have chosen to do what he/she did IN SPITE OF the evidence. The Bible calls this “being given over to a strong delusion”.

So, now, back to the reality of the evidence …

Source: “Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement” ( http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2Baldwin.doc )

1. “See W.D. Erickson et al., Behavior Patterns of Child Molesters, 17 ARCHIVES SEXUAL BEHAV. 1, 83 (1988); see also K. JAY ET AL., THE GAY REPORT: LESBIANS AND GAYS SPEAK OUT ABOUT SEXUAL EXPERIENCES AND LIFESTYLES 275 (1979); Eugene Abel et al., Self-Reported Sex Crimes of Nonincarcerated Pedophiliacs, 2 J. INTERPERSONAL VIOLENCE 3, 5 (1987) (“Child molestation, by comparison, was a relatively infrequent crime, occurring from an average of 23.2 times by a pedophile (nonincest) with female targets to an average of 281.7 times by a pedophile (nonincest) whose targets were males.”); R. Blanchard et al., Fraternal Order and Sexual Orientation in Pedophiles, 29 ARCHIVES SEXUAL BEHAV. 464 (2000); K. Freund & R.I. Watson, The Proportions of Heterosexual and Homosexual Pedophiles Among Sex Offenders Against Children: An Exploratory Study, 18 J. SEX & MARITAL THERAPY 34, 34-43 (1992).”

2. “It is difficult to convey the dark side of the homosexual culture without appearing harsh. However, it is time to acknowledge that homosexual behavior threatens the foundation of Western civilization ─ the nuclear family. An unmistakable manifestation of the attack on the family unit is the homosexual community’s efforts to target children both for their own sexual pleasure and to enlarge the homosexual movement. The homosexual community and its allies in the media scoff at this argument. They insist it is merely a tactic to demonize the homosexual movement.”

3. “Family Research Institute founder and psychologist Paul Cameron, reviewing more than nineteen different academic reports and peer reviewed studies in a 1985 Psychological Reports article, found that homosexuals account for between 25% and 40% of all child molestation. Sex researchers Freund, Heasman, Racansky, and Glancy, for example, in an 1984 Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy article, put the number at 36%. Erickson, Walbek, Sely, in a 1988 Archives of Sexual Behavior article, places it at 86% when the children being molested are male.”

“However, it should be noted that homosexuals account for only 2% of the population which statistically means that a child molester is ten to twenty times more likely to be homosexual than heterosexual. In other words, heterosexual molestations proportionally are a fraction compared to homosexual molestations. More recent studies confirm this statistic. In 2000, the Archives of Sexual Behavior published an article by seven sex researchers concluding that ‘‘around 25-40% of men attracted to children prefer boys. Thus the rate of homosexual attraction is 6-20 times higher among pedophiles.”

[Reply to this]
Roger Williams
on June 2nd, 2008 11:53 pm

CONSEQUENCE OF ‘GAY RIGHTS’ ORDINANCES: PART 2

Most of the proposed gay rights ordinances technically provide legal protection for more than just homosexuals. They typically provide protection to anyone, regardless of sexual preferences. A literal-minded judge would find that such laws give protection to a large number of sex criminals. Take, for example, the possible protected behaviours under a gay rights ordinance …

* A convicted child molester, homosexual or heterosexual, could sue a day-care center that refuses to hire him, claiming discrimination on the basis of his “sexual orientation”; such an ordinance would thus protect behaviour declared criinal under state law.

* A motel owner could be sued if he refused to rent a room to an unmarried couple. This would be discrimination in the use of “public accommodations”. This would also be discrimination on the basis of “sexual orientation”, in this case their sexual preference for unmarried people or for people married to someone else. Such an ordinance would contradict state public policy by protecting behaviour declared criminal under state law.

* An insurance company could be sued for refusing to extend health insurance benefits to the sodomy partner of a homosexual or to the wives of a polygamist. The insurance company would be discriminating on the basis of “sexual orientation” by refusing to extend coverage to “spouses” because of their sexual preferences. Since both sodomy and polygamy are prohibited under … state law, such an ordinance would protect behaviour already declared criminal.

* A landlord who refuses to rent or sell a facility to a person running a house of prostitution could be sued for refusing to rent or sell housing based on the person’s “sexual orientation”. Yet prostitution is a crime under (state) law.

* A bank that refuses to loan money to moviemaker who enjoys making and selling child pornography would be discriminating against the moviemaker on the basis of his “sexual orientation”. Yet the making and selling of child pornography is a crime under most state law.

* Law enforcement officials who arrest the customers of prostitutes, pornography stores, or child sex rings could be sued under the ordinance for “obstruction of practices unlawful under this chapter (of the law)” if it is viewed that the police are discriminating against people who patronize certain “public accommodations” based on their specific “sexual orientation”. Prostitution, the sale of pornography, and sex with children are all crimes under state statutes. Such an ordinance could protect behaviour declared criminal under state law.

Those who think such results unlikely need only review the surprising interpretations courts give broadly worded laws.”

(Source: “Are Gay Rights Right? Making Sense of the Controversy” By Roger Magnuson; Multhnoma Press, Portland Oregon 97266; 1990; Pages 98-100)

[Reply to this]
gap1
on June 3rd, 2008 1:03 pm

In the subway, here in America, you know, you are sitting there at daybreak, still tired, trying to sneak in another hour of sleep before the train gets to your stop, and then a wacko pops up like a jack in the box and yells, “Homosexuals could be reformed, they are evil! They do not deserve God’s grace! A yadda yadda, bark bark, sneer sneer, growl, growl, bitch, bitch, yakity yak, hate spewing from every pore, venom spitting from the lips, eyes blazing, foaming from the mouth, and then they go on, “The bible says…..”

You get the picture….. Roger Williams quotes these wackos all the time.

[Reply to this]
gap1
on June 3rd, 2008 1:15 pm

“August 1996
WASHINGTON — Psychoanalytic theory holds that homophobia — the fear, anxiety, anger, discomfort and aversion that some ostensibly heterosexual people hold for gay individuals — is the result of repressed homosexual urges that the person is either unaware of or denies. A study appearing in the August 1996 issue of the Journal of Abnormal Psychology, published by the American Psychological Association (APA), provides new empirical evidence that is consistent with that theory.

Researchers at the University of Georgia conducted an experiment involving 35 homophobic men and 29 nonhomophobic men as measured by the Index of Homophobia scale. All the participants selected for the study described themselves as exclusively heterosexual both in terms of sexual arousal and experience.

Each participant was exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual and lesbian videotapes (but not necessarily in that order). Their degree of sexual arousal was measured by penile plethysmography, which precisely measures and records male tumescence.

Men in both groups were aroused by about the same degree by the video depicting heterosexual sexual behavior and by the video showing two women engaged in sexual behavior. The only significant difference in degree of arousal between the two groups occurred when they viewed the video depicting male homosexual sex: ‘The homophobic men showed a significant increase in penile circumference to the male homosexual video, but the control [nonhomophobic] men did not.’

Broken down further, the measurements showed that while 66% of the nonhomophobic group showed no significant tumescence while watching the male homosexual video, only 20% of the homophobic men showed little or no evidence of arousal. Similarly, while 24% of the nonhomophobic men showed definite tumescence while watching the homosexual video, 54% of the homophobic men did.

When asked to give their own subjective assessment of the degree to which they were aroused by watching each of the three videos, men in both groups gave answers that tracked fairly closely with the results of the objective physiological measurement, with one exception: the homophobic men significantly underestimated their degree of arousal by the male homosexual video.

Do these findings mean, then, that homophobia in men is a reaction to repressed homosexual urges, as psychoanalysis theorizes? While their findings are consistent with that theory, the authors note that there is another, competing theoretical explanation: anxiety. According to this theory, viewing the male homosexual videotape may have caused negative emotions (such as anxiety) in the homophobic men, but not in the nonhomophobic men. As the authors note, ‘anxiety has been shown to enhance arousal and erection,’ and so it is also possible that ‘a response to homosexual stimuli [in these men] is a function of the threat condition rather than sexual arousal per se. These competing notions can and should be evaluated by future research.’

Article: ‘Is Homophobia Associated With Homosexual Arousal?’ by Henry E. Adams, Ph.D., Lester W. Wright, Jr., Ph.D. and Bethany A. Lohr, University of Georgia, in Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Vol. 105, No. 3, pp 440-445.

(Full text available from the APA Public Affairs Office.)

The American Psychological Association (APA), in Washington,DC, is the largest scientific and professional organization representing psychology in the United States and is the world’s largest association of psychologists. APA’s membership includes more than 142,000 researchers, educators, clinicians, consultants and students. Through its divisions in 49 subfields of psychology and affiliations with 58 state and Canadian provincial associations, APA works to advance psychology as a science, as a profession and as a means of promoting human welfare. ”

Gap1, I believe my work here is done!

[Reply to this]
Roger Williams
In reply to the above comment on June 3rd, 2008 10:51 pm:
A “phobia” is properly defined as an irrational fear.

What’s irrational about the following?

Kate Leishman reports that in 1988, though representing less than 5% of the U.S. population, homosexuals were responsible for 50% of the nation’s cases of syphilis and a “phenomenal incidence of venereal disease”. (Source: Kate Leishman, “AIDS and Syplillis”, The Atlantic Monthly. January 1988, 20, 21; E. Rowe, “Homosexual Politics”, CLA, 1984, , 17; P. Buchanan and J. Muir, “Gay Times and Diseases,” The American Spectator, August 1984, 15-18; L. Corey and A. Holmes, “Sexual Transmission of Hepatitis A in Homosexual Men”, New England Journal Of Medicine 302 1980 435-8; Gerald Mandell et al., eds., Principles and Practice of Infectious Diseases, 3rd ed., New York, John Wiley 1990, 2280-84; J. Kassler, “Gay Men’s Health”, New York, Harper & Row, 1983, 38;)

Gap1’s is therefore a callous and cruel approach, since it indicates a willingness to sacrifice lives in protecting two activities (sodomy / homosexuality) that are medically dangerous, morally repugnant, spiritually destructive, disease ridden, whose population form a major risk factor in tandem with the bisexual crossover to the heterosexual population.

Drug-resistant forms of gonorrhea are rising, and then there came MRSA 20 years later in 2008 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22665539/ …

This is precisely why gay militancy has always focused on influencing / seizing the health and judicial / legislative sectors.

Finally it is cruel and callous because Gap1 offers nowhere reparative treatment for persons who want to withdraw from the disease, apathy, depression, suicidal tendency and death of homosexuality. Philip Lee’s ministry offers some solutions in that direction (http://www.hiswayout.com )

[Reply to this]
tonks
on June 3rd, 2008 7:00 pm

Now let’s leave Roger Williams to talk to himself - I’m sure, judging by his personality, that he’s had plenty of practice.

[Reply to this]
Roger Williams
In reply to the above comment on June 4th, 2008 12:22 am:
Tonks, I sense that you are torn. Remember that God loves you, and that His truth is far better than the obvious lie that the enemy hopes to foist upon unsuspecting millions. So, for you, a word of advice, and encouragement …

“In today’s relentless barrage of words, images, slogans, and ideas that assault us from all sides, many of us have become dependent on sound bites – short, simple, predigested, emotion-laden, one-stop conclusions. We have neither the time nor the ability to sort through the primary information for ourselves in order to arrive at our own considered conclusions. As a result, the deep complexity of the scientific research into homosexuality is easy for people to misinterpret and easier still to misuse.”

“To disentangle this confusion and form solid principles by which to reach responsible conclusions requires effort. But readers who persist and grasp the basic truths about the science of human behavior will gain an invaluable insight into the debate …”

(Jeffrey Satinover, M.D., “Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth”, circa 1996; page 27)

Buy the truth, Tonks … and don’t sell it for the world … Jesus is faithful, and will do it.

[Reply to this]
Roger Williams
on June 5th, 2008 9:34 am

END NOTES:

Source: “Gay Orthodoxy and Academic Heresy”, by Ty Clevenger
( http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2Clevenger.doc )

“Those who discount the effect of systemic bias and political correctness in academia, such as Professor Mary Coombs of the University of Miami Law School, are willfully ignorant, if not dishonest. Coombs argues, somewhat like my former colleagues, that only pro-gay articles are published in academic journals because the other side is so bereft of substance. While that notion may suit her own intellectual vanity, it overlooks mounting evidence to the contrary.

At a recent meeting of the American Psychological Association (APA), for example, former APA President Robert Perloff denounced the organization as “too politically correct” and beholden to special interests. He noted that the organization had tried to prevent research into “conversion therapy” (therapy to change one’s sexual orientation) and had tried to label it “unethical” a priori, even when the patient wants conversion therapy. The APA blocked presentations from researchers on whether sexual orientation can be changed through counseling and therapy, yet it published controversial research suggesting that sex between children and adults may not be harmful and then styled itself a defender of academic freedom (prompting both houses of Congress to take the unusual step of passing a unanimous resolution of condemnation).

Meanwhile, the American Psychiatric Association [not to be confused with APA, which is American Psychological Association] offered luridly titled presentations on counseling aspiring transsexuals.

This creates a rather bizarre contrast.

On the one hand, “mainstream” academic/professional organizations publish research suggesting adult-child sex may not be harmful, and they endorse supportive therapy for individuals who wish to surgically alter themselves (some would say physically mutilate themselves) from one sex to the other. Yet, they denounce as unethical any healthcare professionals who offer therapy to homosexuals who wish to become heterosexuals. In other words, it is ethical to counsel a man to have his penis removed so he can have sex as a heterosexual woman, but it’s unethical to counsel a man to have sex as a heterosexual man even if he wants to have sex as a typical man.”

[Reply to this]