Matherick was not, however, willing to accept government restrictions when it comes what he teaches the children and for some strange reason the government decided not to enforce its rules with him. He wanted to be able to teach the foster children that homosexuality is wrong, but that would be contrary to state policy regarding the equality of gays. Instead of preventing him from continuing to foster children, though, the state will allow him to continue.
Earlier this year they were asked to agree to a new Equality policy which would require them to say that homosexual relationships were equal to heterosexual marriages if asked by a child about such relationships.Mr Matherick explained that he and his wife had never discriminated against anybody, but that they would not teach children about the practice of homosexuality because the Bible condemns any kind of sexual practice outside of a marital relationship. ...Mr Matherick said: “I cannot preach the benefits of homosexuality when I believe it is against the word of God.”
However, the couple met on Wednesday with social services leaders and secured an agreement which will allow their personal convictions and conscientious objections to be recognised. The Mathericks now hope to continue to foster children as before.
Andrea Williams of the Lawyers Christian Fellowship commented, “This is a significant step forward for Christian freedoms in that the Council has agreed not to force Mr and Mrs Matherick to act against their Christian beliefs.
Source: Christian Today
If a Christian family believed that interracial or interfaith marriages were invalid and prohibited, would they be permitted to teach that to their children? Would the government continue to sanction, support, and pay for parenting by couples who taught that other races, marriages, and religions were inferior and/or immoral? That's not very plausible, but it appears that the British government is willing to sanction, support, and pay for parenting which teaches that gays and gay relationships are immoral.
What would happen to a child being fostered by the Mathericks who decided at some point that he or she was gay? Would they feel comfortable telling their foster parents even knowing their faith-based homophobia? If they did come out of the closet, would they be greeted with love or bigotry? Such children are ultimately the responsibility of the state and it's unconscionable that the state would allow children to be put in such a position.
The key here, remember, is the involvement of the state. If we were considering the parenting of natural or adopted children, then there would be no question about what the parents were permitted to do — it might be wrong for them to teach bigotry, but they are allowed to. When it comes to foster children, however, the state normally takes great care to ensure that the prospective parents can do the job properly and can be trusted. The state is already involved from beginning to end, so the only question is whether they will apply their rules fairly.
>The key here, remember, is the involvement of the state. If we were considering the parenting of natural or adopted children, then there would be no question about what the parents were permitted to do…
A great deal of adoptions, however, are done through state agencies and programs. I’d say that the state has as much of a right to dictate this to families attempting to adopt as well (through state adoptions). They can, for example, require that the adoptive parents respect the religious background of the child’s birth family. And I’d say this falls on similar ground.
Meanwhile, my initial thought was exactly what you wrote–that this would make a horrid problem if the child turned out to be gay. It would be like allowing X to foster minority race children, while X states that he’s a white supremist and will have to tell the kid that he’s genetically inferior–since that’s what he believes.
Since there’s a huge possibility that at least some of these kids could be young enough to not yet have a clear sense of their sexual preferences…this scenario is entirely possible.
How dare you be so narrow minded and heterophobic.What gives you the right to impose your narrow minded and biggoted opinion on the rest of us? Who establishes that your views are superior anyone else?
HSyack, To answer your question “What gives me (or Tracie, Austin, et al) the right to impose . . .” Two concepts, Compassion and Social Justice. Keoni
..So compassion is forcing a child to live in an orphanage/Group home environment instead of a caring family?…Social Justice…whose version of Justice?
I do agree that placing these children into a presumably well-to-do home, even a bigoted one, is preferable to the alternative. After all, aside from homophobia, we have good reason to suspect that Mr. and Mrs. Matherick will act as responsible guardians in every other sense. However,
“How dare you be so narrow minded and heterophobic.What gives you the right to impose your narrow minded and biggoted opinion on the rest of us? Who establishes that your views are superior anyone else?”
HStack, you’re trying too hard. The liberal view of homosexuality – that it is equal to heterosexuality and bisexuality and that it’s just another form – is a negative proposition. The conservative view of homosexuality is a positive proposition. The two are not on the same plane. Your attempt at irony would only hold if someone were suggesting that homosexuality is actually better or more moral. Which, thankfully, no one is, because that would be as illogical and ethically backward as claiming the reverse for heterosexuality.
To whom are you speaking?
Who has done that?
No one; that’s established by the quality of one’s arguments.
Sometimes, because not every private family is ultimately a positive environment.
Amazing how these leftist perverts think of teaching the truth as “indoctrinating into homophobia”. Too bad they can’t get a good strong dose of reality. http://www.exodus-international.org/
I wonder how the homophobes would react if it was the opposite situation, a gay couple fostering children but not teaching them about heterosexual relationships/marriage, only gay relationships/marriage?
Too much hate in this world put forth as love and tolerance by bigoted theists.
@ truth (11/6/07): I am apalled that you would drop a link to exodus here.
For anyone who is not aware, exodus and other ‘change’ ministries, and ‘reparative therapy’ organizations are human-rights abusers attacking individual and social psychology with a hodge-podge of pseudo-science and tearful success stories.
These are the people who encourage parents to have their child removed from their home forcibly, in handcuffs, in the middle of the night by strangers who will take them away to a treatment program in a foreign country where the laws allow the abusive, psychologically damaging treatments they support.
Reparative therapy is a crock, and a terrible abuse of religion. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_International)
Regarding the rest of this discussion: what an amazing and terrifying turn of events. When I first heard that the foster children were removed from this home I was very pleased. Now of course I’m distressed.
To HStack: A family that teaches bigotry and hate does not meet my definition of ‘a caring family.’
As a moral, law-abiding gay person, I’d be outraged at some of these statements if I weren’t already to used to them. Over a hundred years of psychological study has confirmed that not only is homosexuality immutable after birth, it’s probably at least 70% genetic.
I don’t understand how we are perverts. That’s the part that really gets me. why is it okay to be attracted to men, and okay to be attracted to women, but only based upon which one you are? That is a pure failure of logic to me. Being attracted to women can’t be immoral — plenty of men are. And being a woman can’t be immoral — plenty of women are. Yet somehow the intersection of the two is invalid and perverse? You people need a hobby.
I find these parents to be nothing short of disgusting. Admittedly, plenty of people rear their own kids with hateful and unconscionable prejudices like these, but I’d stop that too if the power were granted me.
I invite all these moronic theists to imagine if their parents, and 90% of the rest of society, had considered homosexuality the only normal form of love and ostracized and hated them for being straight… and you will see what I mean.
There are places in the world where people like me are not only understood, but respected — revered even… Thailand is a good example. These are places where being gay isn’t “wrong” or “abnormal”, it’s simply uncommon. Rare. Something special.
And if you can’t wrap your heads around that, then may I suggest you wrap your car around a tree.
Idiom is having hot flashes. I made my points about homosexuality on another forum. I’ve stated that I’m not religious but I do see something wrong with H&L behaviors & I also see something wrong with sex change maimings-Gender Dysphoria (GID) is worse.
I’m only posting because Theo raised repair therapy, which I wrote about in another forum. While I’m not a repair therapist & am not an expert, I have to ask Theo to be honest. Theo, you’re against repair therapy to treat homosexuality no matter what the success is to change behavior & or orientation to either straight sex or no sex.
Theo, you already know that if you see nothing wrong with homo&lesbian sexual activities, you’ll hate the idea of repair therapy. Repair therapy for many things, be it smoking, drug use (I know it’ll offend you for me to raise these egs.) has a high failure rate.
The truth is Theo, is that the issues you raise whether it’s efficacy or the causes are sideissues. Yes, it’s the job of the repair therapists to find the 100% cures for homosexuality, drugs, smoking, etc., whatever the causes are for homo&lesbian activities, smoking, etc. But you would be against it, even if they found the cures ? Please discuss it w/o going into sideissues that have been talked about so many times already.
Missionaryway threatened to rape my daughter on the *other* thread, takes his noise for what it’s worth, which is nothing.
missionaryway: Just because you can “cure” someone of something doesn’t mean it’s right. Through extensive psychological abuse, I could “cure” someone of just about anything. It’s just brainwashing. Yes, it could be used to combat bad habits, like drinking or smoking, but it’s not really “curing” anything. All it does is replace behavior with a strong negative neurosis.
“If you can’t be who you are, why be anything at all?”
Katie, I understand what you’re saying about trying to switch places with homosexuality being normal and heterosexuality being “abnormal”. Unfortunately, those moronic theists lack enough imagination to think outside their holy book.
I’m straight. I don’t have a problem with gays or lesbians. I figure they are just people trying to live their lives and shouldn’t be condemned for it. If there is anything creepy about this, its the fact there are people with an obsession about what people are doing in their private lives which isn’t any of their business.
Austin:
“How dare you be so narrow minded and heterophobic.
To whom are you speaking?”
What gives you the right to impose your narrow minded and biggoted opinion on the rest of us?
Who has done that?
This statement, or display of irony/sarcasim is what is used against me when I hold a position opposite of what you posted. Though you were decent and kind in your comments, if you will read thru the rest of the posts, anyone holding a position different than yours is quickly labeled and name called. The article is implicit in it’s judgement that this foster family is wrong in what it is doing…otherwise you would not find it newsworthy. Would you have posted an article that said “Child is not taught Homosexuality is Wrong”??
Who establishes that your views are superior anyone else?
No one; that’s established by the quality of one’s arguments.
This statment is the critical mass that secular humanists and Theist will never be able to get around. A Theist believes that there is an ultimate right and wrong. There are subjects that are debatable.. however, Theists must stand on the ultimate truth as he knows it. The humanist has to take the ultimate position that there is no ultimate truth. Truth is based on who wins an argument, or on what he wants to accept as truth.
So compassion is forcing a child to live in an orphanage/Group home environment instead of a caring family?
Sometimes, because not every private family is ultimately a positive environment.
This is anecdotal argument. We must work in a Generalization environment otherwise the discussion will melt into a name calling event..evidenced above..
I still don’t see anyone addressing the very possible reality that the adopted child might turn out to be gay. Would a minority race child be “better off” in a home of white supremists who teach him that he’s inferior in all ways to whites?
Are white children “better off” in the homes of white supremists who teach them that they’re surperior to all other races–who are inherently inferior?
Is this ultimately a good message for society and something the state should endorse or help to promote by allowing foster families to further such ideas?
Private agencies can do as they please. But I have a hard time thinking that a state agency would allow white supremists to adopt if they were upfront and open about what they were going to indoctrinate this child into. But maybe I’m wrong and supremists are doing the state adoption thing?
Seriously, I don’t know? But it seems the state has more than the individual child to think about. The state has to consider what is best for society–and whether fostering hate and prejudice is what the state wants to be supporting/endorsing.
Sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about — and you didn’t answer my questions.
There is nothing implicit about it. They are as wrong as if they wanted to teach that interracial or interfaith marriages were immoral.
Would you have posted an article that said “Child is not taught Homosexuality is Wrong”??
Only insofar as theists are uninterested in defending their positions through solid arguments backed by evidence and strong logic.
Gotweirdness and Katie. I can’t help it. Aways being serious is difficult for me. Here is a tip that might be useful. I don’t know if it’s true or not, BUT I HEARD that BI is the way to go because it doubles your chances o getting a date! Go ahead. Call me awful. I admit it!
I apologize I am not proficient at the html stuff…
To your first point. My statement was to show that in a matter of moments comments of Homophobic, Moronic Theist would be flying everywhere… Evidenced through out these postings.
2. I stated
What gives you the right to impose your narrow minded and biggoted opinion on the rest of us?
You stated
Who has done that?
You and many other postings show that you are intolerant of this couple expressing their deeply held beliefs. So, you hold that everyone should be tolerant of your beliefs, but do not tolerate the beliefs of the Theists. Very intolerant on you part..isn’t it?
Austin, you are trapped in a quagmire of Moral relativism. Since you hold a position that the only truth that is true is the one that can be argued the best, there is no ultimate truth. Since there is no ultimate truth, how can you condemn what some one else believes?
No one called you moronic; homophobic might fit, though. Time will tell.
You still haven’t answered my questions. They are simple questions, too. I have done you the courtesy of addressing your statements patiently and thoughtfully. If you can’t do me the courtesy of answering a couple of very simple questions, you really have no business posting here anymore.
I challenge you to support your assertion or retract it: show where I have expressed intolerance of them merely expressing their beliefs.
Once again, I challenge you to support or retract your assertion.
By the way, “theist” is not a proper noun and should not be capitalized.
Funny, I don’t remember holding that position. Well, since you know me better than I do you shouldn’t have any trouble demonstrating the truth of your assertion.
This alleged “ultimate truth” isn’t necessary to condemn bigoted, hateful, moronic, or false beliefs.
Joseph, as already noted, if 1 sees nothing wrong with them, then they’ll hate the idea of repair therapy to cure them. I’ve written that sex change maimings are sad tragedies & are synonymous to Drs. whitening a Black person’s skin because they believe that they were born White instead of Black (ethnic dysphoria).
Typical replies is to focus on the causes. They talk about possible genetic causes, as though genes make a behavior right. The current thinking is that H&L activities are a result of biology & learned behavior. With biology, they’re unsure if it’s hormonal or genetic or a combination of both. But having the genes to engage in a behavior does not make it right. Alcoholics have a biological & possibly genes to be drunkards, but we still do what we can to cure it or @least better treat it.
Other typical comments is to focus on Bonobos (aka Dwarf or Gypsy chimpanzee)H&L behavior, as though because H&L behaviors are found among them, it therefore justifies it. Bonobos sometimes pass gas while dining & even throw turds @ eachother. Cannibalism has also been found among certain animals such as crocodiles & rodents, yet most don’t use animal cannibalism to justify human cannibalism in history such as the Ukrainian Famine or the Great Leap Forward in China.
In order for repair therapy to even be considered & I’m not an expert, the client has to want it. If some1 does not want to change, then they won’t seek it or if they don’t believe that they’re being helped by repair therapy, then they’ll discontinue.
Recovered lesbian Charlene Cothran used to use blind faith with regard to lesbianism, but has since changed. OK, religion played a large part in her decision & religion does play a large part with many repair therapists. But religious biases aside, if repair therapists can find cures or better treatments, then it’s for the better. Some of the best hospitals are those run by churches.
H&L groups such as PFLAG & GLSEN don’t want repair therapy as a choice. They’ll rerun the same sideissues that Katie & Theo have raised. It was mentioned on another forum a 2001 study where Dr. Robert Spitzer concluded that in a small # of cases, H&L were able to change their sexual behavior & even orientation to straight though after a long journey.
Yes, the # is small. But perhaps repair therapists have discovered something new over the years to better treat H&L which was previously unknown. Repair therapy in 2001 I would imagine is going to be more advanced than it was in 1971, which is perhaps why Dr. Robert Spitzer reached his conclusion. Dr. Spitzer has said that it’s hubris on the part of psychologists to not offer repair therapy to treat H&L.
As I raised in another forum, what if repair therapists ultimately are successful in finding the 100% cures for homosexuality, GID, sodomy & oral sex? Such discoveries certainly force psychologists to seriously consider things that they may not have earlier.
I realize the comments I’ve written here on a subject which has been overkilled anger people who see nothing wrong with H&L activities. There have been many discussions about this which essentially say the same thing that we’ve heard many times already.
Your question:
I challenge you to support your assertion or retract it: show where I have expressed intolerance of them expressing their beliefs.
Your words from post #18
There is nothing implicit about it. They are as wrong as if they wanted to teach that interracial or interfaith marriages were immoral.
and your last statement:
This alleged “ultimate truth” isn’t necessary to condemn bigoted, hateful, moronic, or false beliefs.
expressing their beliefs. You are intolerant of them being near any foster child when they express their belief….But I guess it is ok if you express your belief to foster children..
Austin, you are so blinded by your own rhetoric and beliefs. I humbly ask you to save this stuff, and one night, when it is quiet and peaceful, re read your postings, and take time to reflect on how much your own anger, hatred, bitterness..is consuming you and making you spew out your anger at me. For every Christian, or parent, or whoever that wronged you, I ask that you forgive them. I know there are a lot of nut cases out there that keep feeding your anger, and I am sorry for that. I wish you His Peace.
The same would be true if someone made unsupported, bigoted statements about Jews to people who see nothing wrong with being Jewish.
Yes, we’ve heard your claims and accusations many, many times now. What we haven’t heard is any effort from you to support those claims and accusations. So, quit posting the same repetitious comments over and over again; if you don’t take your claims seriously enough to support them, don’t bother posting here at all.
Yes, those are my words, but that says nothing about the couple merely expressing their beliefs. They can express their beliefs all they want; they should not, however, receive government approval and sanction for teaching bigotry to children that are ultimately the responsibility of the state.
I’m not so blind as to notice that you pointedly refuse to both support accusations and answer questions. That’s very discourteous and disrespectful, but it ultimately support the case for what’s wrong with religion. Thank you.
I’ll forgive you when you support your accusations and answer the questions.
Not sorry enough to not join them — and it’s not “anger” being fed, just the conclusion that religion, especially Christianity, ultimately does more harm than good to a person. I used to think very well of Christians, even after I stopped being one. That all changed after I started interacting with Christians online. Posts like yours are why my opinion of Christianity is so poor.
If I were to be angry, it would be over Christians who pretend to psychoanalyze me and act like they know when I’m hurt or angry.
Definition from Webster:
bigot : a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
The only evidence of hatred I have seen in this discussion and article has been coming from you. Neither the couple discussed nor myself have said anything hateful to you.
Intolerant is coming from both you and the couple..and me.
So who is the true bigot in this discussion?
There’s another accusation. Are you going to support this one or just move on like with the others?
The person who supports teaching that others are inferior and/or immoral based on irrelevant characteristics like whom they happen to love.
False statement. There is no teaching that you are inferior.
Definition: Immoral not moral; broadly : conflicting with generally or traditionally held moral principles.
I do believe by the definition, your position on this subject fits this definition.
Definition: irrelevant: not relevant : inapplicable
Characteristics of Christianity are relevant to the discussion. The Characteristic of Love is critical. We are called to Love everyone. I hold no hate or animosity toward you. Please understand that because of your site, you draw out the worst in some Christians. I regret that you feel it is all of us.
As for not answering your questions, I feel I did address them. However, this being your site, you should be the one defending your position, not me defending mine. The Judeo Christian ethic has been the standard for the Western World not secular humanism.
And to answer your last question.. IF I called you Qu**r or F*&g*t or P&^v*&t, you know dang good and well you would want me brought up on hate charges!!
missionaryway: As I raised in another forum, what if repair therapists ultimately are successful in finding the 100% cures for homosexuality, GID, sodomy & oral sex? Such discoveries certainly force psychologists to seriously consider things that they may not have earlier.
Again, just because you can brainwash someone into avoiding a behavior, doesn’t mean it’s a “cure”. Yes, some sexual disorders, such as nymphomania, should have treatment options available. However, simply labeling homosexuality, oral sex, and sodomy as sexual disorders is narrow-minded bigotry. I masturbate. A lot. However, it doesn’t affect my life. I don’t get an uncontrollable urge to whip out my cock and churn some butter while in public like a nympho would. The same way most people who enjoy homosexual, oral, and anal sex can do so in a healthy manner just like any other sexual act.
To answer your question, if repair therapists had a 100% success rate “curing” people of such things, would it mean something? Yes, it would. However, all it’d mean is they perfected a technique in psychological abuse to get someone to do what they want. You say that those who receive such treatment do so under their own will? I doubt that. Children have no say, for one. As for adults, after being berated by their friends, family, and community of just how “wrong” their lifestyle is, they’re bound to break down. It’s kind of like Stockholm Syndrome. After so much abuse, they start to actually believe the hate people spew at them, and thus are willing to try any radical procedure to fool them into adhering to whatever standard the people closest to them demand.
You say that your arguments won’t be met with understanding from those who don’t see anything wrong with homosexuality. You’re right about that, at least. The same way those of us who don’t think the white race is superior would disregard the rantings of some racist, no matter how much pseudo-science they toss at us.
Ron, I always thought it would be interesting to be with a couple of bisexual women.
I didn’t say anything about me. The fact that you assume I am gay says something about you.
That’s an easy conclusion to reach when you don’t quote the full definition. It’s also dishonest.
I could do with a lot less of your sort of love.
That’s a poor way to justify your behavior.
What you “feel” is irrelevant; I asked straightforward questions and you didn’t even attempt to answer them.
No, I wouldn’t. I’d simply regard you as behaving consistently for making accusations based on assumptions that are little more than projections of prejudices and bigotry — just as I regard you as behaving in consistently for trying to support your accusation that I have been demonstrating hatred on the basis of what you suppose I would do in some hypothetical situation.
After reading all the posts it seems to me that the only people in need or “repair” are the bigots and hate-mongers that want to “repair” everyone else.
We are not broken, they are the broken ones who need to be fixed, or “repaired”.
I really wish you needed an IQ to breed, the world would be a much better place.
I masturbate. A lot. However, it doesn’t affect my life………. YET?
Joseph. Do you wear glasses? If you should notice that your eyesight is worsening, you probably should stop before it gets to be critical. Your eyesight is a very valuable sense. As soon as I noticed that my vision was deteriorating I gave it up.
Ron: That’s just a myth, like hairy palms. Men who have sex a lot don’t suffer from vision problems. How is masturbation any different? The only issue I can think of is the constant staring at a computer monitor.
>>False statement. There is no teaching that you are inferior.
>I didn’t say anything about me. The fact that you assume I am gay says something about you.
I read the statement above (>>)–the very top one–in the original post, and I didn’t understand it. I thought, “Did someone say atheists are inferior? Did I miss that?”
Thanks, Austin, for clarifying it.
Just to say, I have no clue about Austin’s sexual preferences–but that is pretty interesting for someone to just assume someone one else, they’ve only ever met online, is gay–when the person has never (so far as I’m aware) expressed their personal preferences in that area.
I have found it rather common for Christians to assume that someone who defends the equality and rights of gays must therefore be gay themselves — it’s as if it’s beyond their comprehension that someone might do this out of commitment to basic principles of liberty and equality. The only motivation that occurs to them is personal benefit, not unlike the popular assumption that atheists don’t believe in their god are motivated by a desire to avoid accountability to their god.
It’s also a bit like assuming that anyone defending the equality and rights of women must themselves be a woman, which sounds absurd until you remember that religious conservatives can denigrate the masculinity of men who support feminism. They can’t pretend that male feminists aren’t male, but they can treat them as less than truly manly.
missionaryway,
What is your obsession with “repair therapy?” If you don’t like homosexual sex, quit having it. Is someone forcing you to have homosexual sex? Report them to the police. No one has the right to force you to do anything with your body that you don’t want to do.
OK, John, I’ll admit that I was once abused by a stranger, but this is unrelated to the topic.
To address Joseph’s points. It’s typical to use the argument that H&L are synonymous to ethnic groups, but I don’t see it that way. H&L are a group based on sexual behavior, not comparable to Blacks. Most Blacks feel insulted being compared to those who engage in kinky sexual behaviors.
But to get to your points about repair therapy. You mentioned that parents force kids to see repair therapists. This is 1/2 true. They can’t be forced into therapy if they don’t want it. Repair therapists have themselves said that of the youths who are forced to see them, only a few go through therapy. The repair therapists can only give them a view & the youths have to decide for themselves if this is what they want. On the other side, some youths see repair therapists because they were told by their previous psychologist that affirmation is the only choice & the youths did not accept their psychologists conclusion.
I believe that adults have a right to forbid their minor kids from engaging in homo&lesbian activities-or any sexual activites for that matter & I don’t base it on any religion. Minors are required to get parental permission before they can participate in sports-high school track team, football, boxing, martial arts, gymnastics,etc. & minors are required to get parental permission before they can get tatoos & earpiercing.
Repair therapy can’t succeed if the person truly doesn’t want it nor cares to change. People who are convicted of DUI are often forced to see those who treat drunks by court order. If some1 truly doesn’t want to change their drunkard habits, then repair therapy won’t work. They’ll repeat the same pattern of getting drunk & DUI. I used to work with those charged with DUI.
As to why adults seek repair therapy. The reasons are varied in addition to what you wrote. Charlene Cothran who is a recovered lesbian has said that her life has been improved after she quit lesbian activities. She also says that both her sexual behavior & orientation has changed to straight. But whatever reasons that adults seek repair therapy, it’s something that they truly have to want.
As noted, orientation is a moot point, because my belief as far as sex is that it’s either straight missionary sex (man’s penis entering woman’s vagina) or celibacy. There is so much about homosexuality which is unknown & it’s easy to become arrogant on a topic which the experts still know so little about. If you’re pro-choice then if you support one’s right to engage in homo&lesbian activities, then you must support their right to quit homo&lesbian activities.
No, the category is defined by sexual preference.
Yes, that’s one of many claims you refuse to support. Simply repeating a claim over and over isn’t discussion, it’s preaching, so unless you intend to add substance to your posts by offering evidence and logical arguments to support your claims, you’re going to have to stop posting here.
From the reading I have done on the subject of sexual orientation, I guess I have to question if the orientation can be changed. So, missionaryway, my question to you would be, would you marry a woman who has been thru repair therapy? There is no way that I could change my sexual orientation, but if I were young and incarcerated in prison, I’m going to be honest and say that it wouldn’t be long before some of the guys might start looking good to me. In other words, I might take sex any way I can get it…Until I get out of prison. So, how would you know if a person who has been thru repair therapy has really changed, or is merely going the other way?
In an attempt to answer/re-answer your questions
How dare you be so narrow minded and heterophobic.
To whom are you speaking?
I was speaking to no one. This was a statement to prove a point that any statement not in line with the opinion of this article would be “shouted down” with name calling.
What gives you the right to impose your narrow minded and biggoted opinion on the rest of us?
Who has done that?
please reference above statement. Part of same
Who establishes that your views are superior anyone else?
No one; that’s established by the quality of one’s arguments.
This is not a question. So, I technically don’t have to respond.
So compassion is forcing a child to live in an orphanage/Group home environment instead of a caring family?
Sometimes, because not every private family is ultimately a positive environment.
another statement. I don’t need to answer.
>From the reading I have done on the subject of sexual orientation, I guess I have to question if the orientation can be changed.
I question whether it needs to be changed.
What I’ve seen is that “unhappy” gay kids are unhappy because other people reject them–not becuase of who they are or what they like. In other words, if my kid likes country music, and I move to NY, and the other kids make fun of him and call him a “hick”–and my kid cries and says he wishes he was more like the other kids so they wouldn’t pick on him…the problem there ISN’T that my kid likes country. I don’t have to cure him of his preference for the Dixie Chicks or Willie Nelson. The problem causing him stress–even if he doesn’t understand it–isn’t his preferences, but how cruelly other people are treating him due to his preferences.
How much worse will my kid feel about himself if I tell him god hates him for liking country–and I am disappointed, as his mom, that he likes it. Now there’s a healthy self-esteem builder.
Since you never gave these answers before, there are no re-answers going on. Why not simply admit that your earlier claim about having addressed these questions was incorrect?
It’s not plausible that you made an accusation without actually having anyone in particular in mind.
Yet that didn’t actually happen.
So, on copmment #41 you finally get around to answering the questions I asked in back in my first comment to you, #6. I guess that’s progress. How many comments will we have to wait before you answer the other questions — an in particular the challenges for you to support your accusations?
I answered your questions. The proof is in the posts. You can revisit them at your leisure. Now, answer my main statement.
“We will never come to an agreement because you believe truth is established by who has the best argument. I believe ultimate truth is established by God as it is given thru Scripture inspiried by the Holy Spirit.” Since you stated truth is established by who has the best argument, Then any time you lose an argument, truth changes.” What is your response to that?
By the way, take your time. As a “Breeder” I have to take my child to Youth Group and then take the Church bus to pick up other children to provide them with a chance to have eternal life.
Then you should be able to point to the posts where you have supported your accusations.
Simple: I never said that truth is established by who has the best argument. You’re just putting words into my mouth in order to more easily criticize me; it’s ineffectual and dishonest.
It doesn’t take any time at all to point out your failure to accurately represent my own words; you, however, will need time to figure out where you supported your accusations.
Tracie. I question whether it needs to be changed…………
I agree, but, the point I was trying to make with my post is that heterosexual behavior does not a heterosexual make. Just want to be sure I was understood. Supposedly, Ted Haggard is now a heterosexual. If you believe that, Then I have some oceanfront property I will sell you.
I forgot to say that the oceanfront property is in Arizona.
Tracie
Me again. I have a confession to make. Previously, I was gay, but I went thru repair therapy, and now, I am straight! Will you marry me??
missionaryway: As noted, orientation is a moot point, because my belief as far as sex is that it’s either straight missionary sex (man’s penis entering woman’s vagina) or celibacy.
And you’re free to have that. No one is forcing you to do otherwise. However, as far as others are concerned, your beliefs don’t mean a damn thing. So what if people like doing it doggy style? Reverse cowgirl? 69? Or everything illustrated in the Kama Sutra?
Homosexuality isn’t a disorder. Masturbation isn’t a disorder. Any sexual act other than boring missionary position isn’t a disorder. If you honestly think they need to be “cured” then you have some serious issues.
Ok, So, please explain your answer :
I asked earlier:
Who establishes that your views are superior anyone else?
You stated
No one; that’s established by the quality of one’s arguments.
So, In my simple little mind, since I asked who established whose views are superior, and you stated that is established by the quality of one’s argument… How am I wrong to restate your position and show the consequence
:
“Since you stated truth is established by who has the best argument, Then any time you lose an argument, truth changes.”
To rephrase:
So, if I have a better quality argument, I have the truth.
That seems the logical conclusion of your statement.
“After reading all the posts it seems to me that the only people in need or “repair” are the bigots and hate-mongers that want to “repair” everyone else.”
Idiom, as I stated before, it is really creepy that there are people who are obsessed with what other people do in their private lives.
You are wrong because you adopt an absolutist, black/white perspective; you assume that the only way a “view” can be “superior” is if it is true and all others are not. There are in fact many ways in which one view can be superior to another: there is more evidence supporting it, there are stronger arguments supporting it, it’s more consistent with what we already know, it provides more useful results, etc. Curiously, all of this might be establsihed through higher quality arguments on behalf of that view.
Not necessarily. It’s possible for a position defended through stronger arguments to ultimately prove to be false. It’s possible for a position that is more justified to ultimately be false. It’s possible to hold a position on the basis of poor arguments but ultimately be correct.
>So, if I have a better quality argument, I have the truth.
It’s also possible for there to be a better/best argument and no truth involved. I see this daily at my work. We are constantly putting out our ideas about which processes to use for our projects. Some processes ultimately will not be used. But the ones that are used aren’t representative of “truth” simply because they achieve most of the goals in the best way. Some of the ones we choose may perform _worse_ at some goals–but do better at others that we simply are forced to prioritize. We can’t always have it all.
So, the best argument (in this case, for a process) sometimes simply establishes the best possible model based on a predefined set of goals and priorities. That has nothing whatsoever to do with truth.
Many scientific theories, are, in fact, the best argument. But they will need to be revised when new information presents itself. Likewise, the best process model at my job may need revision (and frequently DOES) when new priorities are set or new requirements need to be met. For example, we might launch a new online product–which would require that files be provided in a different way at the end of print production. Then the process would require a change–and we’d all meet to “argue” about the best way to achieve this new goal while still meeting all the rest as best we can.
Anyway, that’s the logic breakdown for HStack–the final conclusion where he equates “superior view” as being “truth”–they’re not the same thing at all.
A superior view is simply one that meets as many of the requirements put on it by reality as possible in the most effective/efficient way.
“Truth” (as it is generally used) relates to established fact and has no meaning outside of consensus, objectively verifiable, falsifiable reality.
“It is cloudy outside” would be a truth claim. It’s not subject to better/best arguments. There are either clouds in the sky or there are not. It is subject to verification–but not arugment.
“Gay people are flawed” is an opinion. It _is_ subject to better/best arguments because it relies on premises, goals, and predefined requirements. Those can be argued.
-th
***
Hi:
Ron, I already answered your ? that it’s about changing sexual behavior regardless of orientation change. Since you mention prisoners, as some1 who once worked with convicted criminals & corrections officers, while some prisoners do engage in H&L activities (often times forced) & while prisons can be violent which involve stabbings & prisoners sometimes throwing s@#t @ the guards, most men & women in prison experience libido loss & among men, there is even a loss of testosterone. Prison ages you very quickly.
I don’t know about Ted Haggard. But if his behavior did change to straight only, then yes, it’s a success behaviorally, even if orientation didn’t change.
Yes Joseph, homo&lesbian sexual activity was removed from the DSM in the U.S. in 1973. But H&L still have higher rates of suicides, drug use & depression. Transexuals have higher rates over triggered by regrets over being surgically maimed-maimings which are abominations in & of themselves.
But there are some things which have been written by people like Tracie which are 1/2 true. Tracie reruns that attitudes against homo&lesbian activities is the reason why H&L have higher incidence of suicides, depression, etc.
Dr. Neil Whitehead did a study which showed that even in nations tolerant of homo&lesbian sexual behaviors such as Holland, the suicide & drug use rates didn’t differ that much from that in the U.S. The impact of societal attitudes is far less than the hype given by Tracie, et. al. Lesbians have higher incidence of obesity & tobacco use.
Let me raise a hypothetical. What if they discovered a vaccine or pill which innocoluates a baby from becoming an H&L or a medicine which prevents a person from becoming a transexual-similar to a vaccine against measles? I have no doubt that many parents would vaccinate their babies. I also have no doubt that many H&L would take the pill or vaccine to go straight, if such a pill were ever found.
missionaryway: “Yes Joseph, homo&lesbian sexual activity was removed from the DSM in the U.S. in 1973. But H&L still have higher rates of suicides, drug use & depression. Transexuals have higher rates over triggered by regrets over being surgically maimed-maimings which are abominations in & of themselves.”
Again, the reason why those people are so bummed is because PEOPLE TREAT THEM BADLY! If self-righteous ******** didn’t condemn them for living a different lifestyle, then they wouldn’t suffer from depression…
“Let me raise a hypothetical. What if they discovered a vaccine or pill which innocoluates a baby from becoming an H&L or a medicine which prevents a person from becoming a transexual-similar to a vaccine against measles? I have no doubt that many parents would vaccinate their babies. I also have no doubt that many H&L would take the pill or vaccine to go straight, if such a pill were ever found.”
Well, such a thing wouldn’t ever exist. Behaviors aren’t a disease, so you can’t vaccinate someone against it.
Sadly, you’re tight that, even if such a magic pill existed, many parents would indeed force it upon their kids. Bigotry and intolerance over such things is still widespread. The same way many parents would force “anti-atheist” medication on their children, if such a thing existed too.
And, again, on your last point, some gays would probably take the pill, to stop bigoted ******** like you from discriminating them for simply being different. I have no doubt that if some magic pill that turned black people white existed in pre 1960’s America, many would take it to avoid being treated like sub-humans.
Take this pseudo-science ******** the **** out of here, you bigot. No one cares what your narrow-minded views on homosexuality is. I hope one day one of your children comes out of the closet, and they tell you to go to hell for harboring hatred and ignorance for their way of life.
All I can find is a Dr. Neil Whitehead who is a PhD, but I don’t see what his degree is in–so I can’t tell if his input is relevant on a professional level. Also I can’t find the peer-reviewed journal articles I imagine he must have published–in order for his research to be considered valid? Can you provide a link to his research paper in a reputable peer-reviewed psychology journal? All I could find were two laymen’s books on sale that he appears to have written with his wife(?).
I did find some things deleted at Wikipedia with some interesting notes by the editor:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Genetic_basis_for_homosexuality
“I have some strong reservations about the inclusion of Neil and Briar Whitehead’s reference on NPOV grounds. While Neil Whitehead is a microbiologist, he is not a geneticist, and the veracity of his relevant research expertise was challenged at a New Zealand Justice Select Committee submission hearing on civil unions. Moreover, he repeatedly cites Paul Cameron in his research bibliographies. Moreover, his “My Genes Made Me Do It” was not issued by a mainstream publishing house, but the conservative Christian and conspiratorial Huntington House, in Lafayette, Louisiana, instead of a mainstream university academic imprint.”
The reference to Paul Cameron might be because of this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Cameron
“The American Psychological Association (APA) expelled Cameron on December 2, 1983 for allegedly refusing to cooperate with their investigation of a complaint filed by psychologists at the University of Nebraska, which is a violation of the Preamble of the Ethical Principles of Psychologists.”
Is Dr. Whitehead a psychologist or a geneticist? I found a site that claims he’s a microbiologist–but I wouldn’t use that to call his input irrelevant, since I could actually seem to confirm exactly what his PhD is in? Also, can you link to the peer-reviewed psychology journal that published his work on this topic? I’m having difficulty finding anything but pop culture books sold at Xian sites that he appears to have written with his wife(?)?
I did find a Neil L. Whitehead who appears to be a prolific Anthropologist–but that wasn’t him.
I will say–it could just be the Xian sites selling his talks and books are simply so numerous that his real research offerings are buried under them in the search engine. Just to be clear–I’m not claiming he hasn’t published relevant research that has survived publication in a peer-reviewed journal–only that I’m having trouble finding it.
I did a search at the American Journal of Psychology’s archive for “whitehead”–but didn’t get any matches. PubMed yielded matches for “whitehead”–but I don’t seen Neil initially–however, there were over 5,000 hits, so I might need to dig deeper.
I didn’t want to bug you about a link without first trying to see if I could reasonably find one on my own. Thanks for whatever help you can offer.
Tracie, what a well thought out and articulate answer. I appreciate the time and energy you put into it. I disagree with your definition of Truth. I pasted below the definition from Webster and highlighted where I feel you are missing the meaning of Truth.(That is IF I can make HTML work for me)The example you gave compared Processes to truth. I dont thing it is a perfect comparison.
Truth defined
Etymology:
Middle English trewthe, from Old English trēowth fidelity; akin to Old English trēowe faithful — more at true
Date:
before 12th century
1 aarchaic : fidelity, constancy b: sincerity in action, character, and utterance2 a (1): the state of being the case : fact (2): the body of real things, events, and facts : actuality (3)often capitalized : a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality b: a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true c: the body of true statements and propositions3 a: the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality bchiefly British : true 2 c: fidelity to an original or to a standard
Since I would not( or as Austin will say I am not capable) follow Austin’s circular argument (sounding much like Hillary’s opinion during the debate on Illegal immigrant driver’s license) I will put forth my position.
Here it goes: I work from a Christian world view. I believe God speaks to us through the Bible, written over a period of 1000’s of years by many different men. It is without any contradictions. Before anyone goes wild on me, I can do a pretty good job supporting my position. However, that is not my goal here. My goal here is to say that I do believe in Truth. I believe God ordained right and wrong. Most of which is embodied in the origins of Western Democracies. Now, I want to state one main truth, and please read the whole thing before I am “blasted” away.
As I have a gay brother, I have tried every way to find an answer that would justify homosexuality. I can not find it in my Christian world view. Whether in Hebrew, Greek or English translations, God considers Homosexuality to be a sin. I can not change that. Homosexuals are not inferior. Homosexuals are not condemned to Hell. Homosexuals should be afforded the same protection under the law that anyone else has.
This is where we part ways… Homosexuality is a sin, just as drunkenness, lust, murder, stealing, gossip, etc… It is no bigger a sin than any other. I sinned today in more ways than I can imagine (or wish to mention). The difference is that as a Christian I am called to repent.. to turn away from my sin. That does not mean I’m perfect.. never. It means I am forgiven.
Why the monologue? I just feel that as long as people work in a world with changing truths, eventually anything and everything will be acceptable.
Feel free to actually demonstrate that my explanation was a “circular argument.” And, no, I don’t think you’ll be able to because you just failed to understand the difference between an explanation and an argument.
Austin, The Bible tells us to avoid “Stupid” Arguments. I am not implying you are stupid, the meaning of the scripture is that there are people who are just wanting argue for arguements sake. I was hoping for a free exchange of ideas, and a hope that you would at least gain an understanding from which I was coming from. But as evidenced in your last response, your goal is to demean and belittle. I have tried my best to put forth cogent points in which to engage in discussion. Alas, only those who have watched this go on know that your condescension wins you no converts. Good night.
Regarding my post, you said: “The example you gave compared Processes to truth. I dont thing it is a perfect comparison.”
I wasn’t _comparing_ processes to truth. I was _contrasting_ them.
You not only missed my point entirely–you seem to think I said the exact opposite of what I said.
I wasn’t saying processes are truth. I was saying that they _aren’t_ truth. I was saying that your statement that Austin said/meant “truth” when what he _actually_ said was “superior view” was where your logic failed.
I was showing how a better quality argument can be applied to create a superior view, without it having anything whatsoever to do with truth.
Your assertion that a “superior view” = “truth” is not logically valid.
My very first line read: “It’s also possible for there to be a better/best argument and no truth involved.” I don’t know how much more clear I could have been that I was not stating process is truth.
You asked Austin:
” Who establishes that your views are superior anyone else?”
That IS NOT the same as asking what makes your views _truth_?
Austin answered rightly:
“No one; that’s established by the quality of one’s arguments.”
Austin did NOT say that truth is established by the quality of one’s arguments. He said that the better the quality of the argument, the more superior the view.
You summarized it as: ” So, if I have a better quality argument, I have the truth.”
And I was explaining that a good quality argument establishes “superior views” according to Austin–which YOU then made synonymous with truth. You put words in Austin’s mouth and missed what he actually said.
In the definitions you provided for “truth”–I don’t see “superior view”–so, again, I’m stating that this is where your logic fails.
You state: “I have tried every way to find an answer that would justify homosexuality’
I find it interesting that you need to find justification for it. I don’t see it as something harmful, therefore, I would need to find justification for condemning it–and not the other way around.
This leads me to see your view as biased. In other words, you accept your interpretation that the Bible says homosexuality is a sin–and that the book is flawless and from god. My problem is that condemning harmless actions seems to be a flaw.
You yourself say they should be treated equally under the law. So, I assume you don’t see gay people as threats to society that should be locked away or put to death. That being said–your view of gay people seems to be that you don’t see a real problem with it. The only problem appears to be that you believe the Bible says it’s wrong. But you don’t seem to question “what’s so bad about it? Why is my god homophobic?” Even though you don’t seem to think it worthy of being labeled criminal.
Leviticus 20:13 explains how much of a sin god thinks it is: “If a man has sex with a man in same way as with a woman, they have committed an abomination. They are certainly to be put to death.”
God sees this as a capital crime–and had people put to death for it. This is not a minor issue in your Bible. Since you see the book is flawless, I assume you agree that killing gay people was fine for Jews to do and god was right to have them executed?
I’m out of town for several days without the capacity to contact the Internet. Odds are I’ll be off this strand by the time I return. Just fyi. I don’t mean to bail, but I can’t imagine I’ll be looking for this discussion when I get back to the city. Thanks!
One final comment: I have heard _many_ Xians–especially younger ones–make as good, if not better, arguments to support that the Bible does not condemn homosexual relationships. If you truly haven’t found any “justification” for homosexuality, I recommend you try the Christian teen forum here at about.com. You’ll be hammered by creative kids telling you that your interpretation of scripture is skewed and that being gay if just fine. Even the verse I quoted–they have apologetics for why it doesn’t apply to gay relationships. One young person actually argued that women were not considered equal partners–and that the verse actually meant that if a man has sex with another man–and does so in such a way as to not treat him equally (like a woman)–that’s a sin.
I haven’t met a Xian yet who couldn’t find what they want to find in that book. But I keep looking. If you want justifications–Xians are out there offering them. I attended a gay Lutheran union ceremony performed by an ordained Lutheran minister. And I know a gay practicing Catholic. There are many Christians who support gays and who do not believe their Bibles condemn gay relationships.
Personally I don’t care what Xians think their Bibles say. I find it odd they can’t figure out what they think is right or wrong on their own. But that’s anyone’s right to get their values from a third party if they like. There are certainly no end of messengers from god to choose from if you want one to tell you what to do. That’s just my take.
Given your consistent refusal to answer questions and your numerous accusations which, despite repeated requests, you refuse to support… I really don’t believe you. Perhaps you believe it, but that only suggests that you really don’t know that a “free exchange of ideas” is. Here’s an idea: “free exchange” doesn’t mean you get to make accusations and misrepresent others without being challenged or criticized for it.
It’s a bit arrogant to assume that I don’t have an idea of where you are coming from.
You feel demeaned and belittled when it’s pointed out that you failed to understand the difference between an explanation and an argument? I’m sorry, but what I said is simply a fact. If you feel demeaned and belittled when it’s pointed out that you made a serious error, then the problem is yours.
Unsupported accusations, unanswered questions, and misrepresentation are not “cogent points” under any definition of the term.
I’m not trying to convert you. Please, don’t assume that your motives are shared by anyone else here.
Missionary wrote: “Dr. Neil Whitehead did a study which showed that even in nations tolerant of homo&lesbian sexual behaviors such as Holland, the suicide & drug use rates didn’t differ that much from that in the U.S.”
This just made me think of another stat I recalled:
http://womenshealth.about.com/cs/depression/a/depressionwomen.htm
“More than 17 million Americans experience depression every year. The majority of them are women. In fact, women experience depression twice as often as men and they often experience it earlier, longer, and more severely. Higher rates of depression in women may be linked to biological and social differences.”
Certainly depression is linked to suicide. Should women with depression be treated with sex change operations? If depression occurs twice as much in females—does that mean that there’s something wrong with being female?
There likely is chemistry contributing/causing depression. And it wouldn’t surprise me at all if hormones were found (if they haven’t already been found) to contribute to depression in women. This would not mean that being female causes depression. It would mean that the same biological factors that contribute to creating a female organism also contribute to depression. This would be a correlation. But that’s very different than causation. “Being female” doesn’t “cause” depression—even if it turns out that the same factors that make someone female can also make someone depressed.
Because I can’t post something with multiple links (it gets rejected), I’m posting a link in a further post…
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skepticism/blfaq_fall_correlation.htm
>There are a number of different ways in which correlation and causation can become confused. One is called the “Neglect of Common Cause.” Also sometimes called “Joint Effect,” this occurs when someone assumes that one event caused another when, in fact, they are both really effects of some third event. This third event is the “common cause” of the other two. For example:
>1. Every time I eat chocolate, it gives me acne.
>The speaker above observes a strong correlation between eating chocolate and suffering from acne, drawing the conclusion that the former causes the latter. What is ignored, however, is the possibility that both are caused by something else – perhaps this person suffers from anxiety and stress. The stress causes him to eat chocolate, but at the same time causes acne to break out. This will lead to the two occurring very close in time, even though one isn’t actually causing the other.
>Many times a fallacy like the one in the statement above occurs in assertions based upon statistical evidence, for example:
> 2. Recent studies have proven that watching too much violence on television leads to people being violent in real life.
> Although it may indeed be true that viewing acts of violence can make a person more susceptible to committing violence, the above statement ignores crucial factors which might have a causal influence on both. For example, both increasing violence on television and increasing violence in society might be caused by changing economic circumstances or something else entirely. Thus, the above cannot be regarded as a sound position until other such possible common causes have been ruled out first (which, incidentally, may have indeed been done as part of the study, but this would have to be made explicit for the statement to be valid).
So, even if there were a correlation between homosexuality and, say, suicide, causation is not established by presenting correlation.
Hi Tracie:
Dr. Neil & his wife Briar Whitehead do have a website of their own. They are New Zealanders & if you do a google search, you can find it. Dr. Neil Whitehead has worked & lived in New Zealand, India, Japan, France, Afghanistan & the U.S.
You implied that it’s just Christians & religious people who are against H&L activities, when 1 can be an atheist & still oppose H&L activities. You can be an atheist & be against sex change maimings.
Incidentally, Dr. Neil Whitehead has also commented on the harms of sex change maimings. Yes, he is a Christian, but there’s nothing wrong with having religious views.
Dr. Neil Whitehead studies on identical twins & sexuality was talked about in a speech in Hiroshima University Japan. In his speech, he raised that among identical twins-they hit puberty, menarche, menopause @ almost the same rates-these things are genetic. He discussed 1st age of Opposite Sex Attraction (OSA) & same sex attraction (SSA)Among homos&lesbians, the rates of concordance are around 30 to 35%. While it does not rule out inborn causes, the link isn’t that strong. But as noted, the inborn causes are a moot point. This will be offensive to some, but there could be a genetic reason why men rape women, yet we still do what we can to prevent this behavior, even if they’re born that way.
Also Martina Navratilova-she needs to make up her mind re. animal rights. In the past, Martina Navratilova opposed Oregon State University doing experiments on gay sheep to see if they can make them straight. OK, animal behavior is a silly guide to people. Yet, Martina Navratilova has not protested (not that I know of) sex change maimings. Sex change maimings were 1st done on animals & they test the hormones on animals. If Martina Navratilova truly cares about animals, then she must decry sex change maimings, which are a wastage of science. They must cure gender dysphoria or GID, not maim the patient.
Tracie:
On another topic, I want to discuss rape trials. They’re not always as simple as yes-no cases. Can no have other meanings?
Sometimes no can mean no to 1 sex act but not another. Hers’a real life eg. A man is about to have sex with a woman. Before he bangs her, he puts his fingers in her vagina. She tells him no don’t do that because it triggers yeast infections. He then takes his fingers out, apologizes & then has sex with her & she doesn’t say no to him banging her. In this act, she even tells him how big he is & how he is satisfying her. This is not rape, because in this case, no means don’t put the fingers in the vagina, however she didn’t say no to having sex with her.
It’s synonymous to if she grabbed his nuts & he tells her don’t grab my nuts because it hurts the groin. Yes, it’s possible for a woman to rape a man.
The bottom line is that rape cases have to be judged based on the facts of each case & that they aren’t always as simple as yes no cases & in some cases, no can mean no to 1 act but not another. Consent is for juries to decide.
What a sick pervert…. So you ARE into rape, I knew as much when you threatened my daughter.
Just how many times have you been accused of rape? Convicted much?
Sick, sick, sick…..
Missionary Mary’s last post was removed and all further posts of hers will be removed as well. You should just let it go, Idiom – your last post wasn’t quite over the line, given what MM said earlier, but it’s close. MM did go way over the line and that’s why she’s no longer welcome here.
No worries Austin, I assume you mean missionaryway? Or is Missionary Mary another name for them too?
You’re right, Idiom, sorry – I see that name and can’t seem to help reading it as “Missionary Mary.”
He wanted to be able to teach the foster children that homosexuality is wrong
That swooshing sound is your credibility being flushed down the toilet.
He didn’t state that he wanted to able to teach that homosexuality is wrong. From what I’ve read he didn’t want to even address the topic with the preteen child he was caring for.
If you have to resort to lies to make a point, then maybe you’re not making a valid point, eh?
The agreement in question would have required him to treat homosexual relationships — and thus homosexuality — as equal to heterosexuality. He didn’t want to be forced to do so; if the topic came up, he wanted to be able to teach that homosexuality was wrong. So the statement of mine which you quoted is, of necessity, correct.
That swooshing sound you heard may have been basic logic passing by.
The Christian minister continued: “They were saying that we had to be prepared to talk about sexuality with 11-year-olds, which I don’t think is appropriate anyway,
Obviously he wasn’t going to discuss sexuality with the preteen. IF you, as a self-styled journalist, had done your damn homework, you would still have credibility right now.
The couple said that while they would neither condemn nor condone homosexuality
Very sad when people have to go to legitimate news sources to find the truth.
There is nothing sad about getting truth from legitimate news sources; your comment couldn’t be more bizarre. What is sad, though, is when people ignore what’s right in front of them. From the original article: “Earlier this year they were asked to agree to a new Equality policy which would require them to say that homosexual relationships were equal to heterosexual marriages if asked by a child about such relationships.” So, if asked, they didn’t want to have to say that such relationships were equal. Since their religion condemns such relationships, they certainly aren’t going to say “no comment.”
There is nothing sad about getting truth from legitimate news sources; your comment couldn’t be more bizarre.
Again with the obtuseness. Do I need to speak to you as if to a child?
See, daddy is sad because he has to double check all of Uncle Austin’s facts, because so many of them turn out to be untrue. It would be nice if daddy could read what Austin writes without having to fact check. After all, journalists should do the fact checking before opening their mouths.
Clearer?
So, if asked, they didn’t want to have to say that such relationships were equal. Since their religion condemns such relationships, they certainly aren’t going to say “no comment.”
But the fact he, he did say he wasn’t going to discuss it. So you are assuming, and not only assuming, he could very well be assuming wrong. I have nothing against homosexuals, have two in the family. But if my 11 year old asks, I’m not going to discuss it with him. I think most parents are not eager to discuss sexuality – hetero or gay – with their kids. Yet you have no problem stereotyping the guy. Not only stereotyping, but then publishing as fact your unsupported statements.
You stated “he wanted to be able to teach the foster children that homosexuality is wrong”. Nowhere does he state that. He wanted to be able to not address the issue.
Big difference there.
If you had any integrity you would offer a correction and be over with it.
Yes, if you want to prove that you don’t have a problem with arrogance and rudeness despite all your protestations to the contrary.
I interpret him as saying that he has no desire to bring it up on his own, and that may be reasonable. The agreement, though, requires that he address it if the child brings it up. It’s possible that this interpretation is wrong, but I see no reason to think it isn’t correct — and certainly not enough to justify your over-the-top abusive attitude and statements on nearly every post you comment on. I don’t think that more than two civil words towards anyone have come from your keyboard in all the comments you’ve written, yet you have the temerity to complain about others. I’m afraid it will have to stop if you would like to continue writing here. If, however, personal abuse is the best you are capable of when confronting people you disagree with, then I recommend you stick to your own blog.