Homosexual Propaganda Exposed

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

Why do you assume that the nurture/nature argument is over and that gays are all born gay? I make no such assumptions. I don’t know and don’t pretend I do. What I do know is that children are like blank slates - to a large extent their behaviour and characters are formed prior to the age of reason. They emulate what they are taught by adults. Teaching young children about homosexual sex and having ‘two daddies’ must inevitably warp a child’s mind.[/quote]

That is not a provable “scientific” law. There are no scientifically provable conclusions on the origins of sexual orientation, be it nature or nurture. The “blank slate” tabula rasa theory dates back to John Locke, but there is also considerable evidence that genetics play a greater role in shaping personality and behavior than we once thought, whereas a nurturing environment just plays a role in shaping how those genetic factors play out.

There has been limited, yet ongoing psychological research done on identical twins who were separated a birth and reared in different environments, and some of the personality traits and life experiences are stunning similar.

When it comes to sexual orientation, there is no definite answer to this debate. However, speaking on an anecdotal basis, there exists a plethora of gay men and women who will tell you that they have always been attracted to members of the same sex, even before puberty. Does that prove it is genetic? Not at all. However, it does lend credence to the fact that most did NOT make some sort of a conscious choice to be gay or were not otherwise confused by sexual experimentation post-puberty, which then points to the fact that it may be a) genetic, b) psychological and a product of hormonal development post-conception in the womb or c) environmental, influenced by unknown events in the formative years of socialization.

Scientists simply have no firm answer on this. However, there are a lot of kids who have been reared in homes where at least one parent is living with a gay partner (either via a post-heterosexual divorce or adoption by a gay couple), and I am aware of no correlation between the sexuality of the parent and that of the child. Could it possibly have a deleterious impact on some kids? Yes, but then again there is, to my knowledge, also an absence of widespread, longitudinal research on this topic, outside of anecdotal observations, so your opinions are no more less fact than the nature vs. nurture assumptions.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Firstly I was talking about the radical homosexual indoctrination in schools.
[/quote]
What schools are you talking about? [/quote]

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2009/12/fistgate-ii-high-school-students-given-fisting-kits-at-kevin-jennings-glsen-conference/[/quote]

Yeah, few people would call this appropriate. But it happened 14 years ago. So what exactly is the policy problem here? Should I start digging through 14-year-old news to find things to worry about?[/quote]
Actually, it didn’t happen at all. [/quote]

Lol. Whatever you say fella. The recordings were fake and Kevin Jennings apologised for something that never happened.[/quote]

See ^^^^ two can play that game.

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Firstly I was talking about the radical homosexual indoctrination in schools.
[/quote]
What schools are you talking about? [/quote]

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2009/12/fistgate-ii-high-school-students-given-fisting-kits-at-kevin-jennings-glsen-conference/[/quote]

Yeah, few people would call this appropriate. But it happened 14 years ago. So what exactly is the policy problem here? Should I start digging through 14-year-old news to find things to worry about?[/quote]

It wouldn’t matter what went on in schools. You’re determined to accept it.

[quote]JR249 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

Why do you assume that the nurture/nature argument is over and that gays are all born gay? I make no such assumptions. I don’t know and don’t pretend I do. What I do know is that children are like blank slates - to a large extent their behaviour and characters are formed prior to the age of reason. They emulate what they are taught by adults. Teaching young children about homosexual sex and having ‘two daddies’ must inevitably warp a child’s mind.[/quote]

That is not a provable “scientific” law. There are no scientifically provable conclusions on the origins of sexual orientation, be it nature or nurture. The “blank slate” tabula rasa theory dates back to John Locke, but there is also considerable evidence that genetics play a greater role in shaping personality and behavior than we once thought, whereas a nurturing environment just plays a role in shaping how those genetic factors play out.

There has been limited, yet ongoing psychological research done on identical twins who were separated a birth and reared in different environments, and some of the personality traits and life experiences are stunning similar.

When it comes to sexual orientation, there is no definite answer to this debate. However, speaking on an anecdotal basis, there exists a plethora of gay men and women who will tell you that they have always been attracted to members of the same sex, even before puberty. Does that prove it is genetic? Not at all. However, it does lend credence to the fact that most did NOT make some sort of a conscious choice to be gay or were not otherwise confused by sexual experimentation post-puberty, which then points to the fact that it may be a) genetic, b) psychological and a product of hormonal development post-conception in the womb or c) environmental, influenced by unknown events in the formative years of socialization.

Scientists simply have no firm answer on this. However, there are a lot of kids who have been reared in homes where at least one parent is living with a gay partner (either via a post-heterosexual divorce or adoption by a gay couple), and I am aware of no correlation between the sexuality of the parent and that of the child. Could it possibly have a deleterious impact on some kids? Yes, but then again there is, to my knowledge, also an absence of widespread, longitudinal research on this topic, outside of anecdotal observations, so your opinions are no more less fact than the nature vs. nurture assumptions.
[/quote]

I said I don’t know the answer to the nurture/nature argument. However I strongly suspect that environment plays some part. Anyway if we don’t know then how can we experiment with children? Leave them to figure out their own sexuality as they mature.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

I said I don’t know the answer to the nurture/nature argument. However I strongly suspect that environment plays some part. Anyway if we don’t know then how can we experiment with children? Leave them to figure out their own sexuality as they mature.
[/quote]

I know, but I was responding largely to their “characters are formed prior to the age of reason” argument, as even this is largely unknown scientifically. I do agree that environment plays a role, but I’m not sure anymore how large of a part it plays in relationship to genetics. When I was going through college the prevailing thought in psychology and sociology research was that it was mostly a nurturing influence, but now research in the last decade or so has lent a lot of credence to genetics, so who knows? It’s likely both, but I suspect are personality and behaviors are shaped by genetics to a degree that we never thought possible a decade or two ago. I find this fascinating, but I do teach sociology.

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Firstly I was talking about the radical homosexual indoctrination in schools.
[/quote]
What schools are you talking about? [/quote]

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2009/12/fistgate-ii-high-school-students-given-fisting-kits-at-kevin-jennings-glsen-conference/[/quote]

Yeah, few people would call this appropriate. But it happened 14 years ago. So what exactly is the policy problem here? Should I start digging through 14-year-old news to find things to worry about?[/quote]
Actually, it didn’t happen at all. [/quote]

Lol. Whatever you say fella. The recordings were fake and Kevin Jennings apologised for something that never happened.[/quote]

See ^^^^ two can play that game.
[/quote]

That article admits the fistgate scandal. It merely contends that Jennings didn’t know about it prior to the event. My point still stands. Children were given ‘fisting kits’ and taught how to use them. Are you supportive of that?

Which can you find more examples of “fisting” kits or catholic sex abuse cases SM?

Surely we can agree if we are going to pick and choose which is more dangerous for our children?

Why are you talking about one thing over and over when we can produce evidence of so much more here?

I’ll assume you are against religion because of the abuse on children by Catholic Priests?

I mean one example vs. thousands.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
That article admits the fistgate scandal. It merely contends that Jennings didn’t know about it prior to the event. My point still stands. Children were given ‘fisting kits’ and taught how to use them. Are you supportive of that?
[/quote]

You’d have to be a mouth breathing moron to think this wasn’t an isolated case.

Or a Mass Resistance.org reader.

No one is fucking supportive of that nor is it a regular occurrence anywhere.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

  1. What does a cucumber and a condom have to do with homosexuality specifically?

[/quote]

When a prepubescent boy is given instructions on ‘fisting’, a ‘fisting kit’ and taught how to put condoms on a cucumber with his mouth I would say that has a whole lot to do with homosexuality. But that’s just me.

[/quote]

Again, that is a single link to a single write-up of a single incident that happened 14 years ago. I thought this was an actual problem here, not a story about a bunch of stupid shit that somebody said a decade and a half ago to a handful of high school students.

By the way, 14 is not prepubescent, and high school kids are’t blank slates. But that isn’t the point. The point is you are talking about the downfall of western civilization while linking to old news about “here’s a thing that happened once.” “Once” being 14 years ago. Surely you see why I use the term “alarmist.” It’s ridiculous.

[quote][quote]
3. Most importantly, are you telling me that if you had grown up under the conditions I described, you think you still wouldn’t be gay right now?

[/quote]

No I wouldn’t. However if some of the chinless wonders I went to school with had been brought up under the conditions I described I wouldn’t be surprised to see them in panty hose and high heels.[/quote]

Well, maybe they were gay then. Either way, “I wouldn’t be surprised,” in reference to people you didn’t know that well–not relative to how you know yourself, anyway–is not exactly a concrete argument, is it?

What is concrete is this: Of the one person on the planet Earth with whose inner thoughts, proclivities, and private nature you are actually familiar --this being you yourself–you say that an atmosphere of tolerance toward gays would not have made you gay as a child. That is far more telling, in my view, than what you wouldn’t be surprised to discover might have happened if maybe the people you sorta knew

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Firstly I was talking about the radical homosexual indoctrination in schools.
[/quote]
What schools are you talking about? [/quote]

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2009/12/fistgate-ii-high-school-students-given-fisting-kits-at-kevin-jennings-glsen-conference/[/quote]

Yeah, few people would call this appropriate. But it happened 14 years ago. So what exactly is the policy problem here? Should I start digging through 14-year-old news to find things to worry about?[/quote]

It wouldn’t matter what went on in schools. You’re determined to accept it.[/quote]

No, I don’t accept the kind of thing you’ve just linked to.

Then again, I don’t pretend its some kind of precursor to the end of time, either, being as it is old, small news about single event.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Firstly I was talking about the radical homosexual indoctrination in schools.
[/quote]
What schools are you talking about? [/quote]

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2009/12/fistgate-ii-high-school-students-given-fisting-kits-at-kevin-jennings-glsen-conference/[/quote]

Yeah, few people would call this appropriate. But it happened 14 years ago. So what exactly is the policy problem here? Should I start digging through 14-year-old news to find things to worry about?[/quote]
Actually, it didn’t happen at all. [/quote]

Lol. Whatever you say fella. The recordings were fake and Kevin Jennings apologised for something that never happened.[/quote]

See ^^^^ two can play that game.
[/quote]

That article admits the fistgate scandal. It merely contends that Jennings didn’t know about it prior to the event. My point still stands. Children were given ‘fisting kits’ and taught how to use them. Are you supportive of that?
[/quote]
The fact you put fisting kits in quotes tells me that they really weren’t fisting kits.

From the article:
REALITY: Planned Parenthood distributed safe sex kits including "instructions for how to make a ‘dental dam.’ " Conservative bloggers have followed Hoft’s lead in claiming that “fisting kits” – often placed in quotes – were distributed at the 2001 GLSEN/Boston conference. But those bloggers have presented no evidence that the kits distributed by Planned Parenthood of Massachusetts were actually intended for fisting. Indeed, while the conservative newspaper Massachusetts News - cited by Hoft – reported in 2001 that the kits were “intended for ‘fisting’ or oral sex,” the paper described the kit’s contents as “a single plastic glove, a package of K-Y lubricant and instructions on how to make a ‘dental dam’ out of the material,” and offered no support for their claim that the kits were “intended for ‘fisting.’” FoxNews.com has reported that Hoft “alleged that Jennings and GLSEN were involved in Planned Parenthood’s purported distribution of ‘fisting kits,’” but that the kit “was actually for making a ‘dental dam’ – designed to prevent STD transmission during oral sex.”

[quote]H factor wrote:
Which can you find more examples of “fisting” kits or catholic sex abuse cases SM?

[/quote]

Fantastic point. It highlights with great irony the problem–which, by the way, should be highly obvious–of trumpeting the end of civilization while linking to isolated and bizarre stories that are a decade and a half old.

Perhaps we could double up and save on overhead administrative costs: one department of the U.S. government with 2 tasks: 1. Finding and punishing sodomites and 2. Laicizing priests

Save your breath. Your talking to a guy who linked a site that is AGAINST suicide prevention programs for gay youth.

THEY FUCKING FOUGHT AGAINST ANTI-BULLYING LEGISLATION.

They would rather a teen be dead than gay.

[quote]H factor wrote:
Save your breath. Your talking to a guy who linked a site that is AGAINST suicide prevention programs for gay youth.

THEY FUCKING FOUGHT AGAINST ANTI-BULLYING LEGISLATION.

They would rather a teen be dead than gay. [/quote]
Come on. They are only thinking of the children!!!

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

From the article:
REALITY: Planned Parenthood distributed safe sex kits including "instructions for how to make a ‘dental dam.’ " Conservative bloggers have followed Hoft’s lead in claiming that “fisting kits” – often placed in quotes – were distributed at the 2001 GLSEN/Boston conference. But those bloggers have presented no evidence that the kits distributed by Planned Parenthood of Massachusetts were actually intended for fisting. Indeed, while the conservative newspaper Massachusetts News - cited by Hoft – reported in 2001 that the kits were “intended for ‘fisting’ or oral sex,” the paper described the kit’s contents as “a single plastic glove, a package of K-Y lubricant and instructions on how to make a ‘dental dam’ out of the material,” and offered no support for their claim that the kits were “intended for ‘fisting.’” FoxNews.com has reported that Hoft “alleged that Jennings and GLSEN were involved in Planned Parenthood’s purported distribution of ‘fisting kits,’” but that the kit “was actually for making a ‘dental dam’ – designed to prevent STD transmission during oral sex.”[/quote]

This ^ is as good an argument as any I’ve ever come across for the necessity of reading real news rather than circle jerk echo-bubble rags.

Look at the picture here:

Despite the fact that the author of the piece is spouting the usual head-up-ass nonsense, you can clearly see a scrawl of text:
“How to make a dental dam from a latex glove.”

So, whether the topic of “fisting” came up or not in the conversation, the kit was about safe oral sex–a vital topic, given the expected rise in rates of oral cancer as a result of increased HPV.

[quote]H factor wrote:

You’d have to be a mouth breathing moron to think this wasn’t an isolated case.

[/quote]

Uh huh…

http://www.massresistance.org/docs/issues/black_book/black_book_inside.html

Massresistance.org is not journalism. Why do supposedly intelligent and educated people fall for these types of “news” sources?

[quote]H factor wrote:
Which can you find more examples of “fisting” kits or catholic sex abuse cases SM?

[/quote]

You mean sex abuse of children by gays in the Catholic Church? Not sure how that helps your argument…

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

You’d have to be a mouth breathing moron to think this wasn’t an isolated case.

[/quote]

Uh huh…

http://www.massresistance.org/docs/issues/black_book/black_book_inside.html[/quote]

A decade ago, “hundreds” of kids received an inappropriate pamphlet.

Per H Factor’s point, how many kids were violently raped by the ordained tha year?

Should we make a tally and punish the entire respective communities accordingly? Or should we stop thinking in decades-old anecdotes about the weird fringes of groups that comprise millions of decent and right-thinking people–because we’re all intelligent here, and we all understand how flimsy a sweeping moral/public policy argument is when it’s backed up by half-true links to decades-old anecdotes.

[quote]H factor wrote:
Save your breath. Your talking to a guy who linked a site that is AGAINST suicide prevention programs for gay youth.

THEY FUCKING FOUGHT AGAINST ANTI-BULLYING LEGISLATION.

They would rather a teen be dead than gay. [/quote]

GLSEN aren’t qualified to deal with suicidal youth. If a kid is suicidal he should be sent to a qualified psychologist or psychiatrist. Not sent to a radical homosexual activist.