The horrors of political correctness
A homosexual foster couple were left free to sexually abuse vulnerable boys in their care because social workers feared being accused of discrimination if they investigated complaints, an inquiry concluded yesterday.
Craig Faunch and Ian Wathey were one of the first homosexual couples in the country to be officially approved as foster parents. They looked after 18 children in only 15 months. With no previous convictions, they came across as respectable men who simply wanted to help boys with a variety of problems. In reality, they were paedophiles, who repeatedly abused the children in their care.
Even when the mother of two of the children reported her suspicions to the council, officials accepted the men’s explanations and did nothing. Instead of banning children from staying with Faunch and Wathey, they sent youngsters with more serious problems to them. Between them, the couple abused four boys aged between eight and 14.
In a scathing report published yesterday, Wakefield Metropolitan District Council was condemned for treating the men as “trophy carers”. The children’s charity Kidscape said those in charge of overseeing the safety of children in the care of Faunch and Wathey had allowed political correctness to override common sense.
The report, following an independent review of the case, said: “One manager described the couple as ‘trophy carers’ which led to ’slack arrangements’ over placement.
“Another said that by virtue of their sexuality they had a ‘badge’ which made things less questionable.
“The sexual orientation of the men was a significant cause of people not ‘thinking the unthinkable’.
“It was clear that a number of staff were afraid of being thought homophobic.
“The fear of being discriminatory led them to fail to discriminate between the appropriate and the abusive.”
If ever there were a damning indictment of the perils of political correctness, there it is.
More, if you can stomach it:
Wathey, 42, was jailed for five years in June last year after being convicted of four counts of sexual activity with a child and one offence of causing a child to watch sexual activity.
Faunch, 33, received a six-year jail sentence after he was found guilty of five charges of engaging in sexual activity with a child and two of taking indecent photographs of a child.
The couple, who lived together in Pontefract, West Yorkshire, were approved as foster carers by the council in August 2003.
Their victims included a 14-year-old boy with Asperger’s syndrome, a form of autism,who had a mental age of seven and was forced by Wathey to watch gay pornography.
Another youngster with a “very troubled background” was only in their care for a few weeks before being abused by Faunch.
But social workers had been aware of “inappropriate” behaviour long before then.
Just eight months after they started as professional foster carers a mother of eight-year-old twins, who couldn’t cope with raising them on her own, voiced concerns about them with social services.
While visiting the twins, the 34-yearold single mother was shown a picture taken by Faunch showing one of the boys going to the lavatory during a visit to Butlin’s holiday camp in Skegness and discovered a similar snap had been taken of the other twin.
A social worker took the photograph and promised a full investigation.
But the court heard that not only did social services staff lose the photo, they decided against contacting police after accepting Faunch’s explanation that he was trying to embarrass the boys into shutting the lavatory door.
Police later discovered that, days after the photos were taken, Faunch recorded an indecent video of the twins taking a shower. They began abusing the boys three months later.
Hat tip: CultureWire.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Marginalized Action Dinosaur » A homosexual foster couple were left free to sexually abuse vulnerable boys in their care because social workers feared being accused of discrimination.
- PC abuse « Bookworm Room
- O Insurgente » Blog Archive » Os malefícios do politicamente correcto
- The City Square
- Political Correctness - Gay Lobby Make Children Pay the Price | Political Vindication
- Weekly roundup « 4Simpsons Blog - Eternity Matters
- Political correctness steals innocence of children « Crush Liberalism
- Political correctness gone awry « The Ramblings of Mathaytace Christou
- Tel-Chai Nation
- 7ab303933e0b452279f9
- Hot Air » Blog Archive » Foster son taken from Christian couple because they object to homosexuality
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Political Correctness
Ed Driscoll
» Charges Filed In Kenneth Gladney Case
The Other McCain
» Alan Colmes, having fun at #1Riehl World View
» Bet: Ratings Fail - Oprah/Obama Christmas SpecialMudville Gazette
» The five-year planNewsBusters.org
» Oprah To Do Primetime Christmas Special With The ObamasNewsBusters.org
» To Kos, Taliban's Real Crime Is Being Un-PC
bipartisancomplainer
I respect where you are coming from – and certainly appreciate your honesty.
Not sure where you live, but here in SF, the gay situation is pretty darn seedy. Adoptions are heavily promoted and probably with the political climate, any abuse here is undoubtedly Heavily covered up. – Unless you are a Catholic Priest.
I do have a gay acquantance. He does what ever he can “admittidly” to looking like a 14 year old boy – his words mind you. Always shaven, skinny, plastic surgery etc. BECASE that is what he said the culture is into. HIS OWN WORDS. They are attracted to men who look like children. Honestly, not making this stuff up.
Nope, straight couple for my kids.
YES.
CONFUSED.
Finding you hiding in my shower, that’s what I am afraid of!
feebiebabe,
Your friend is a twink. Some gay guys are into that. Others are into bears. The existence of bears kind of undermines your hypothesis that gays are obsessed with young looking guys.
And re trying to look young to look appealing…it’s a good thing no straight woman has ever done such a thing. Trying to look young is perverted, right?
Feebiebabe – Thanks and I appreciate your opinions too. Just for the record, I’m not a backer of the homosexual agenda. I’m not even too supportive of gay marriage but more due to the special rights it would create. And I am completely against abusing children and covering it up through political correctness just because the abusers were gay. Oh, and I’m in NYC . . . hunting down Geraldo!
Lovely. butch twink, femme twink, Euro twink,muscle twink. Can’t keep up.
How many women try to look young with the intent on attracting child molestors or men that want a 14 year old girl. Not likely.
Cougers (as I like to call them) are middle aged, divorcee’s that are trying to land a sugar daddy to pamper them. There are plenty of these out on the east bay.
Both types of persons are vapid, self absorbed one however is a little more sordid than the other. The intent in mind for looking younger cannot be compared.
Twink’s (as you call them) and Cougers are NOT the same.
Do you read what you type before pressing “submit comment”? He’s not attracting child molesters. He is attracting people who are attracted to that body type.
I don’t see you getting all freaked out by dudes who are attracted to ladies dressed up in Catholic schoolgirl outfits. Are they child molesters too?
You are not making sense. The equation of homosexuality and pedophilia is absurd.
Confused? …that is exactly the point. The studys deem all males who have sex with males as homosexual. No confusion. It is the only way to reach the intended conclusion.
What is a “real American” BigAnge? You said it you must know…lol
Prove this.
Rusty, there is no need to get nasty with me. Go take a nap, and come back a nice person.
I do question guys that are REALLY into women dressing up like little girls. IF they are THAT into it, I think it is creepy. Honestly. I’ve known a few and certainly question it.
How young do you think most gay men have had their first sexual experience and of those experiences how many are with older men?
From my personal count (my late uncle and a few friends, co-workers etc.) …all gay men I know, or have known, have had it very young and with an older than legal partner.
Look, this is just my opinion. I live in the land of the silly pants. All reasoning seems to go out the door and what is in the best interest of a child always seems to be secondary to how it is going to make someone else FEEL.
???
That was easy!
Rusty: Show us an actual court case, trial, claim, newspaper article… where someone who was black was convicted, accused (anything) of a similar scenario you just described.
What is meaningful to me in my naive world is the following:
Homosexuals who *rape* children are pedophiles. Homosexuals who *rape* boy children are pedophiles. Homosexuals who *rape* girl children are pedophiles.
The same goes for heterosexuals.
The statistics *prove* nothing about homosexual deviants who *rape* children other than some descriptive accounting of this abomination. There is not an ounce of predictive value in the stats about what homosexuals are inclined to do in violence against children.
It is less about sex and more about rape and violence.
My experience tells me there is a vast difference between fantasy and pre-meditated living to support the commission of a felonious crime.
There isn’t a homosexual man I’ve met in the last 30 years who has not admitted to fantasies of having sex with a teen aged boy. Fantasizing did not make it so that these men would actually do it if the opportunity arose.
I can also say, that over the last 30 years I have not known any of these same homosexual men who even once thought about *raping* a child.
These are two different things. And I believe that one is a crime and one is a way of using the imagination to pleasure oneself. I can condemn the former and ignore the other.
It’s tricky because we all become what we think about.
As for the defenders of homosexuals, methinks they protest too much.
Emphasis mine. That comes from the FBI.
Rusty blorped-
Not as easy as you thought, Oh Oxidized One.
That is the statute. If you are a Caucasian/White/Euro-Non-Hispanic-American, then you are not a member of a protected group as prescribed in the deeper reaches of that legislation.
You don’t know what you are talking about. Please have a seat while the rest of the group here flogs you as is now your just due.
And I don’t know any straight dudes that don’t fantasize about teenage girls. Seen American Beauty lately?
Hey, the first insinuation that I might be gay. I am stunned it took 206 comments to get to this point!
Rusty-
You missed the point again. I brought up the homosexual fantasy to make a point to illustrate a difference between harmless fantasy and pre-meditation to commit a crime.
Your boneheaded rebuttal, as if to say, “but you didn’t account for heterosexual men and their fantasies”.
I didn’t have to. This is about homosexuals who rape.
Pay attention.
And if you can, settle down. I haven’t condemned anybody who is homosexual.
And as for your protest- your guilt is showing; not that you might be a homosexual. Your guilt is that liberal fluffy stuff because you have a majority-in this case, heterosexual- privilege that makes you uncomfortable because the homosexual minority do not.
It is based in your own fear of being envied, of getting the evil eye if you will by those who do not have the same privilege that you do as a heterosexual.
So settle down, my Oxidized Fellow Traveler.
You see what you want to see based on what is raging inside you. There was no insinuation about where you seek sexual gratification and with whom.
There was insinuation about your guilt.
Wanna go toe to toe with that?
I have to go to the hospital and pick up a friend who is suffering through some treatments for a potentially life-ending illness due to “incorrect lifestyle choices” as it is called now in these parts.
I’ll be Bach.
No, the DC code covers everyone, myself included. Here’s the DC Page on it.
You have a lot of nerve to say I’m wrong, dismiss me, mock me…all without any evidence…when you are in fact quite wrong. In DC, I have hate crime protection.
Come out come out where ever you are…lol
They have run and hidden themselves as is typical with…dare I say it?…..LIBERALS…lol
I note that those who have defended homosexuality on this site have offered no proof of anything. When facts are introduced they are explained away by assumption. When the assumptions are then challenged then the great tide of “your homophobic” washes in. Homosexuality and pedophilia are linked far more closely than heterosexuality and pedophilia – and the facts are there.
I’m struggling to understand why the percentage of people who identify themselves as homosexuals is at all relevant to anything, let alone to this particular topic. Yet certain commenters seem incapable of letting go of it. What are we to infer, that because gays make up only 2% of the population, they do not deserve equal rights?
Jews also make up about 2% of the US’s population. Should we deny them some of their basic rights as well?
More to the point, what does this have to do with political correctness run amok?
Last, I have to say this is hands down the most amusing comments thread I’ve seen here yet. Two days strong – keep it up, boys! I can’t believe MM hasn’t pulled the plug on it. We’re approaching “hate site” status, if we haven’t gotten there already.
Rusty-
Your example is what is in question. I guess you missed that. What is the liklihood that your example is going to prove you have protection *after you’re murdered* by a black man.
“Kills and yells”? No sense. What hurts more, the sucking chest wound or the comment about “gentrification”?
What about a black on black crime where one shoots another and yells “Take that N*gga!” If the shooter is tried, is their going to be any attention paid to what the shooter called the target before shooting?
Gimme a break.
It isn’t as cut and dried as you make it.
White targets of bias crime, according to your FBI stat, is more than likely- and this is an easy assumption to make given the power of the homosexual lobby to get “sexual orientation” into the state codes, probably doesn’t list whites as victims of racially motivated crime, but more as victims of anti-homosexual violence or the threat of violence.
Let’s bet a nickel, okay?
What you are to infer is up to you. However, unless you have some factual basis for your inference, your argument can and should be rejected. To say that population statistics have no significant when the Illinois study demonstrates that 34% of foster care molestations are traceable to homosexuals is an amazing attempt to bow before the altar of political correctness.
Simply put, if homosexuals are more apt to molest, then homosexuals should be much more carefully screened and watched. Political correctness kills in many ways – from a refusal to take a hard look at Muslims to a refusal to protect kids against the debasement of homosexuality.
Homosexuality is a mental disorder. This is true despite the fact that the homosexual lobby managed to pressure the psychiatric community into suddenly proclaiming it “normal” some years back…
Re: the Illinois study that is repeatedly cited here – I did a little research [thanks, google!]. The author, one Paul Cameron, was booted from the APA in 1983 for ethics violations. Here’s his wiki page. The study cited here was published in Psychological Reports, a journal which “charges authors a publication fee and does not necessarily reject an article on the basis of a negative peer review”. So much for unbiased science.
But let’s pretend for a minute that his “research” is unbiased. How many of the 34% were commited by men who identify as homosexuals, and how many were commited by men who identify as heterosexual? Is that distinction even made?
Blade and Rusty, your minions strike again:
http://weblog.signonsandiego.com/news/breaking/2007/09/sd_diocese_settles_sexual_abus.html
Nah, no correlation. None whatsoever.
What a sad and pathetic joke….
Wait, we’ve been talking about Catholics this whole time?
Well folks as we all can see a couple of our “peers” here have thrown out accusations, slander, bias and, I for one, believe ignorant commentary about homosexuals and many others have silently agreed with their adolescent behavior. Perhaps mom and dad did not do a sufficient job in educating the kiddies. Either way, I am sure, well hope, the powers that be have been away and have not allowed this jaundiced commentary to continue for sport or entertainment. I am sure the lefties would have a field day with it.
Wait, we’ve been talking about Catholics this whole time?
Actually I thing “they” have been. Have you ever seen a more depraved group of people. With the young choirboys if you can believe it.
What is that old thing? WWJD…lol
One can only imagine!
Good for the goose and all that right?
Still under your desk Ange? Maybe Bill O can get you out. LMAO. Heres a question maybe you can answer..well since you brought it up and all.
What is a “real American”
Hey “peeeeeeeeeeps” still under the desk? Same goes, maybe Bill O can get you to come out as well. Since you put up the links on your “studies” could you take a minute to answer these simple questions?
1) Do the people doing the study hold beliefs about homosexuality?
2) Is it your obinion that those people doing the study believe homosexuality is wrong
3) If yes, is their belief reflected the conclusion of the study.
Again. Homosexuality is a mental disorder. Period. Full stop…
JWS said:
Again. Homosexuality is a mental disorder. Period. Full stop…
So in your mind “negros are inferior to whites?”
dartagnans_blade said:
JWS said:
Again. Homosexuality is a mental disorder. Period. Full stop…
So in your mind “negros are inferior to whites?”
I’m in the field. You’re obviously having a good time here. Please go on. Describe how you came to your conclusion…
dartagnan has made no fact based argument and by his admission a reasoned argument. No argument is reasonable without facts but any argument can be reasoned based on assumption – and reasoned arguments based on assumption can be reasonably dismissed as propaganda.
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html
This is another sign of our future in this new world of politically correct social nanny state…good luck all.
This is repulsive to see what this great country has come to under 60 yrs of democratic rule.
“I’m in the field. You’re obviously having a good time here. Please go on. Describe how you came to your conclusion…”
Well a reasonable person could only infer that such an ignorant statement could only be the tip of the bigoted iceberg. Or, just as homosexuality is a precursor to pedophilia, bigotry would logically be a precursor to racism. Seems perfectly logical to all here…except me and a couple of others of course.
Welcome rightisright, your friends are here and have been waiting for you.
Well, Rusty, I think you’re gonna have a tough time getting Americans to go with redifining marriage to equal anything-goes hedonism. Certainly whenever Americans have voted they always overwhelmingly reject such redefintion.
That’s why even the top Democrat presidential candidates reject redefining marriage to a meaningless “anything goes”.
Also, you’ve painted yourself into the same corner as the other lad here inasmuch as when presented with mountains of scientific data showing the clear, undeniable common linkage between the homosexual lifestyle and pedophilia, all you can do is “shoot the messenger”. This is, without exception, always a tacit confession that facts are not on the “shooters” side.
Too bad people who are not in the privleged class are not protected from “terrorists”.
As to your Matt Shepard allusion, you do realize the motive was found to be just robbery, no Orwellian thought-hate crimes involved. Then militant homosexual groups saw a chance to play the victim card and rake in a lotta money by turnig the robbery victim into Matt $hepard (ka-ching!), cause celeb, and demanded that the Orwell-route be taken instead.
You also probably don’t know that Shepard had HIV-AIDs. Given his wont to
seek anonymous gay group sex (as he was that night) isn’t it ironic that he had probably sentenced a great many more homosexuals to die than has any actual “gaybasher”?
The men responsible for his death should be executed, but not for the reason the militant demand, that those who engage in homosexual acts are of a higher class than everyone else, but because murder is evil. But before nominating Shepard for sainthood, it’s wise to keep in mind his habit of cruising for dangerous, group sex.
But directly relating to the news topic here, in looking at the factually demonstrated strong inclination to pedophila by those into homosexuality (more esp. male homosexuals) just one example of a gay couple raping and murdering a child addresses the relevant questions much better.
It’s likely another item you’re not aware of – Why is that? Time maazine answered with:
“Could it be because we in the media elite were unwilling to publicize crimes committed by homosexuals because it didn’t suit our agenda?”
By way of getting you up to speed -Rusty, meet Jesse Dirkhising.
More irony, due the insane thought & hate crime laws; while the gays who tortured, rape and killed him are specially protected, no such special priviledge was or has been afforded the “lower class” victim.
publiuswarmac9999, I have made plenty of argument here but you seem unable to grasp the depth of them. I am sorry you are incapable of deciphering the logic. I would refer you to the beginnings of this debate. Perhaps you can do better.
purplepeeps posted 2 links early in the discussion. His conclusion was that
“the facts indicate “Child molestation and pedophilia occur far more commonly among homosexuals than among heterosexuals on a per capita basis”
he went on
….“While no more than 2% of male adults are homosexual, some studies indicate that approximately 35% of pedophiles are homosexual”
I then made my points to wit he went to the “I am so much smarter than you” snide BS and then dove under his desk like a good liberal (did I say liberal?)
So I will challenge you to instead of running off at the mouth with “snide BS” look at his links, do a tiny bit of research and answer the following honestly….Otherwise ….well you know
1) Do the people doing the study hold beliefs about homosexuality?
2) Is it your opinion that those people doing the study believe homosexuality is wrong.
3) If yes, is their belief reflected in the conclusion of the study. and one added….
4)did you agree with fahrenheit 911 and sicko as well.
The argument continues with BigAnge whos main thesis concludes…”Or because I am a real American” in reference to my insinuating that peep was either a redneck moron or a religious bigot for his failing to advance his previous posts, “or as I copied from Bill O..hiding under his desk…he still has yet to defend his posts..lol..perhaps he is still seeking an unbiased study condemning homos.”
And being an uncle (father for 6 years) of two young men, one in Baghdad as we speak and another about to start his 2nd tour as an engineer hunting IEDs I was a big irritated by the “real American” comment considering we are discussing a religious ideology here ultimately…(which I do not condemn)you can perhaps see the irony? But to my consternation ange dove under the desk as well when queried as to what a “real American” is. So you see publiuswarmac9999 it has been pretty hard to have this “fact based discussion” with people who sling mud then dive under their desks…..perhaps you can do better?
That UC Davis page is nothing more than a bad attack job, bear. That is, from the very start it clearly denounces persons and facts, stating it’s agenda to serve as an “anti” to the facts. Interesting opinion from UC Davas at best – but just not factual, much less anything rsembling science.
Anytime somebody pops up solely to serve as the “anti” everything after that is irrelevant when you’re speaking of science. But since UC Davis’ “anti” attack against overwhelming tide of facts is political, they’re certainly welcome to that.
Stealing bear1909’s thunder
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html
Now this is fact purplepeep
You amaze me peep…what an idiot..sorry Michelle…Kinda shooting the messenger aren’t we…rotflmao Jesus ya can’t make it up.
ALLLLLLLLLLRIGHTY THEN…
Nope, lad. They have a position paper-opinion page. That’s very different from a study. (If you’re interested in facts, that is.) A scientific study doesn’t start with rants about Anita Bryant and the Boy Scouts.
Any California school’s faculty is welcome to have whatever political opinion, I don’t hold it against them. It’s just opinion and thus has no bearing on the facts. So, no skin offa my nose, lad, sorry.
dude….your first link was a news item not a study. One need read the “deviant” quote and immediately dismiss it. Your second link starts with “attacks” on the APA and Nambla.
Jesus…have you ever one an argument?
ALLLLrighty then.
You’re correct insofar as it a news story reporting the results of the scientist’s study finding that “86 percent of pedophiles described themselves as homosexual or bisexual.” News frequently reports on science, sorry if that upsets.
Incorrect, lad. In fact, it beigns with praise for th APA:
“the American Psychological Association and (even more strongly) the American Psychiatric Association have issued statements clarifying that they reject the normalization of pedophilia. We applaud them for making such a strong public statement.”
I doubt that many people are upset that anyone would refuse to embrace NAMBLA or the homosexual demand to normalize pedophilia. Certainly those who are pushing the militant homosexual demands are more than welcome to embrace both causes if they find them appealing. (If you really think that’s a wise camp to be in.)
I gave up on this thread a while ago because it’s hopeless to debate with people who have no interest on educating themselves and of learning anything about homosexuality.
Yet, here I am.
To the people accusing me of “shooting the messanger” by ignoring a clearly biased study: Fine. You lose the right to ever complain about the “MSM” again. If the messanger is clearly biased, that should be taken into account, no?
To this:
Hilariously incorrect. From our good friend Wikipedia:
And although I’m clearly on his side in this thread, I had been loathe to side with Dartagans Blade…that was until I read this:
That, sir, was brilliant. Kudos.
Sorry, Rusty but your feelings about something do not make it so.
Not quite, you’re confused about the differences between a study, a blog and news editorializing. But in this “internet-only age” not knowing the differences is epidemic.
By way of quickly explaining the diff;
Blogs and media editorializing are by nature just opinion.
A study , on the other hand, reports the scientific facts, e.g. when over 80 percent of pedophiles say they are homosexuals or bisexuals, that’s just the way it is. We can have opinions and editorialize on that fact, but our personal take and emotions don’t impact the facts one whit.
You illustrate the problem in not knowing how to make such delineations here:
Yes – the “encyclopedua that anyone can write”. Had you checked news stories from the time, you would find the wikipedia writer very conviently left out what I already told you.
Even CNN reported it:
Police have said robbery was the primary motive for the attack. But gay rights groups and others assailed the beating and called on Wyoming legislators to adopt laws to deter crimes against homosexuals.
As I said, it’s tragic that children aren’t afforded the special protection provided their predators.
Is it just me, but has MM finally found the one topic that has more blog entries than islamofacism?
If there is any justice in this country, the photos of these two pediophiles would be hung up in every prison so once these (sarc on) “two loving and peaceful indivduals” (sarc off) arrive they can recieve the same type of “love” by the prisoners that these nambla rejects did to these poor kids.
LOL, Slinger. But you have to consider too that some of us threw our 2 cents in more than just once.
There are certain topics that are the staple of light night talk radio hosts to toss out if the calls are slow in coming – abortion, gun control, homosexuality, legalized drugs, etc.
(Not that MM is doing that here or would ever need to do it!)
Peeps- #238
“a bad attack job”? i disagree.
at the very least the review of the research is clarifying in nature.
did you read it?
perhaps the most powerful statement is a reference the author makes to science- that science cannot prove a negative.
now, in the context of this argument between you and the rusty blades, this is an important distinction that I will leave up to you as a reasonable individual, that you might choose to use it in reaching your own conclusions about the other study referred to earlier.
i posted the link because it refers to a multitude of studies and provides a rational commentary (not comparing it to other studies rationality or merit)on some of the other research conducted to date.
it provides a basis for widening the discussion and move it out of the sophomorics and gotchas which have prevailed so far.
On September 7th, 2007 at 11:54 pm, dartagnans_blade said:
Well a reasonable person could only infer that such an ignorant statement could only be the tip of the bigoted iceberg. Or, just as homosexuality is a precursor to pedophilia, bigotry would logically be a precursor to racism. Seems perfectly logical to all here…except me and a couple of others of course.
Cute. But way off course. There is absolutely nothing logical about the way you come to your silly conclusion. First: I made no connection between homosexuality and pedophilia; Second: my statement was not ignorant at all-the fact is that homosexuality was classified a mental disorder until the psychiatric community caved to the preasure of the homosexual lobby. Third: your attempt to classify my statement as hateful (your use of the word bigotry) assumes I view homosexuals as worthy of prosecution and would make them outcasts, etc. I hold no such position. You were lauded as being “brilliant” by another loser on this site. I wouldn’t take that too seriously. And please don’t reproduce…
Agree? Or Disagree?
1. There is an absence of credible scientific evidence to suggest that one’s heterosexual or homosexual or bisexual orientation is a predictor of one’s propensity to rape children or rape teens of either sex.
2. There is evidence to suggest that social welfare agencies have erroneously placed children and teens in foster homes where these children and teens were subjected to sexual abuse at the hands of foster parents who a) had a history of sexual predation; or, b) had a profile which suggested they possessed the will to perpetrate acts of sexual abuse against teens or children if given the opportunity.
3) There is evidence to suggest that heterosexual and homosexual foster parents have committed sexual abuse against children and teens.
4) There is evidence to suggest social welfare agencies have made inappropriate placements of children and teens where sexual abuse has occurred due to said agencies failure to correctly evaluate the profiles and backgrounds of specific individuals accepted into the system as foster parents.
Personal opinion:
There are mentally ill individuals who are homosexual.
But it is a stretch by any measure to say that homosexuality is a mental disorder.
This is my personal opinion based on my experience with some of the most brilliant minds in the vast number of fields my professional career has involved- who were each one homosexual.
I have also known some of the most puerile, childish, and self-absorbed men and women in those same fields of endeavor who were homosexual.
The common denominator in all of these lives is that they each struggled to remain true to who they were- some succeeded and lived; others, could not and destroyed themselves with an array of the usual tools human beings use to destroy themselves.
The two blokes referred to in the article MM posted have succeeded in destroying themselves and others.
The question now is will they be killed by others who lost all control over themselves and ended up in the same plaground as those two perps.
No matter how one seeks emotional, familial, sexual sanctuary, one thing is certain- everything one does in the pursuit of said comforts and supports is paid forward and ultimately accounted for.
Any behavior which substitutes violent sexual obsessions for love will, in the end, reap the whirlwind for its host. The truth of one’s inside life *always* reveals itself.
There was a case here in the South SFO Bay Area where a man had perped HUNDREDS of sexual abuse and assaults over decades, in secret of course, but was discovered. It cannot stay hidden.
The institutions of a free society must, in the end, provide some fair measure of legitimate access to the participatory avenues of said society for all who would, in good faith, seek to contribute the best of who they are to the forward moving endeavors of that society.
Free and open. How do we do that given what human beings are capable of in terms of our abilities to manipulate, deceive, mislead, and lose control of ourselves when it comes to the pursuit of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
I don’t have answers. I am not willing to throw away my Roman Catholic values, the values instilled by my spiritual training outside the Roman Catholic Church, or the civic virtues instilled by years of public and private service and concede such deliberations to Government and courts which demonstrate little understanding of The US Constitution while fiddling according to the opportunistic usage of “constitutional law”.
Nor will I concede to any lobbied interest to define for me what my values and disposition to their protected group should be based on the power they seek.
I am grateful for this forum.
Two men “fall in love” and in the process thereof, in order to enjoy themselves sexually, use bodyparts in ways and places they were not intended for-they cannot reproduce. There is nothing remotely “normal” about this. Should they be beaten, murdered, locked up? Not in my opinion. Outside of this abnormality, can they be brilliant? Of course-to suggest otherwise would be ignorant and bigoted. I’m always amazed by those who feel that pointing out that something isn’t normal is the same as hating it and wanting to destroy it, or those who think having a mental disorder means being completely unable to function on any level…
Out of nowhere comes the bisexual…oh wait I brought it up earlier, from Peeps. Seems he is feeling the heat. Your new reasoning is correct….homosexuals and bi-sexuals make up the largest group of pedophiles. So according to you frist, (wrong)and many others here, deceptions…a man who rapes 50 girls and 2 boys is dubbed homosexual and put into the same pile as the man who would never think to touch a girl. How else could the intended conclusion be reached.
Rusty…thanks and “loathe”?..is it something I said…lol and by the way..the superior attitude of Peep cannot be broken. He knows as well as I that if the researchers begin the process with a slant the research must be questionable at best. He simply refuses to address this argument choosing to instead “attack the messenger” That is why his rhetoric has morphed to include Bi-sexuals. Check his earlier posts and you will find no mention of them. I think we have shown we easily have won the day.
Bear1909…well said on all accounts. Your hypothesis is correct. It is the perfect liberal rebuttal as well. We are not robots, programmed to be, but humans with prolific imperfections. Hence..how could we possibly sit around the campfire and sing kumbyah?
JWS…I felt your comment adolescent and insulting, therefore I had to make the point that many who have posted here feel, if not exactly, the same way you do. If you read their earlier posts their conclusions about homosexuality and pedophilia are stated as I said. That is why I made the remark.
JWS are you a religious man?
woman…sorry?
DartagnanBlade: #253
“He knows as well as I that if the researchers begin the process with a slant the research must be questionable at best.
All research is questionable.
All research begins with a slant based on a) researcher(s) “school” of thought; b) the choice researcher(s) make re what to investigate and what not to investigate, how to investigate and how not to investigate; c) nomenclature to use and nomenclature to invent…there are hundreds more.
Also, there is not a researcher alive who does not possess a value system that is as complex as the next person’s. There is not a researcher alive who is not vulnerable to the Heisenberg Principle. There is not a researcher alive who is not vulnerable to unconscious needs and beliefs that influence how they function.
There is not a researcher alive who is not vulnerable to either controlling too much for said vulnerabilities or too little for them.
What one can say about research is that it is imperfect and eminently QUESTIONABLE.
The value of research is truly to produce new questions that move intellectual understanding of the unknown further ahead.
No more. And no less.
PS: Which hypothesis are you saying is correct? Hypotheses are not correct- they are either testable or not testable. The findings bear out whether they are useful or not useful, true or false.
Correct might refer to some multiple choice test question where one is asked to select the correct hypothesis for testing; or, given the research question is the hypothesis correctly formulated given other choices of formulation.
So, to what are you referring?
And- how does a hypothesis become a politicized rebuttal?
Hypotheses, if valid, are neutral propositional statements. Liberal is not neutral.
So, please clarify your statements. You make many but clarify little.
Dartagnan- #255
How is that questions relevant to what you have judged to be adolescent and insulting?
I normally don’t argue with anyone whose answer to those he disagrees with is to label them bigoted, and then bask in their “brilliance”…
“He knows as well as I that if the researchers begin the process with a slant the research must be questionable at best.”
You don’t understand, let me get my crayons..
Clarity…I hate homosexual activity and I am going to study the effects of homosexual activity on society.
Conclusion…Homosexuals are deviant and must be denied all priveleges afforded “normal” people
I started with slant…I end with “questionable” conclusions.
Heres one for you….I am going to study fire and pain. I put my hand into the fire it hurts. Conclusion fire hurts. Questionable?
antecedent, apriority, assignment, assumption, attribution, axiom, basis, belief, conclusion, condition, conjecture, data, deduction, demonstration, derivation, explanation, foundation, ground, guess, inference, interpretation, layout, lemma, philosophy, plan, position, postulate, premise, presupposition, principle, proposal, proposition, rationale, reason, scheme, speculation, starting point, suggestion, supposition, surmise, system, tentative law, term, theorem, thesis
If any word fits…you lose. You made 4 Hypothetical statements…I agree
Anything else I can help you with teach?
“Two men “fall in love” and in the process thereof, in order to enjoy themselves sexually, use bodyparts in ways and places they were not intended for-they cannot reproduce. There is nothing remotely “normal” about this”
Do you base this hypothesis on fact (other than the reproduce part which is correct for now) or on religious ideology?
It isn’t rocket science Teach…lol
Ever hear of Oral sex…intended for?
Dartagnan- You’re losing your mind obviously. The “crayons” comment is getting a little stale by the way.
Here is the fly in your own ointment:
You have assigned “hate” to the researcher. You cannot verify that under any logical circumstance.
You can verify the sexual orientation of the researcher in question.
Hate? Your waste level is rising by the minute on that one.
You are missing the larger point again, too. All research has a slant. What I mean by this was explained in detail suitable for any middle schooler to comprehend. You missed out it seems. That is why credible research is reviewed by peers to minimize how any such variables, conditions and circumstances affect it.
Here is something adolescent from you too:
First, if you are going to be stupid, then you have to resign yourself to being tough as well. But that is beside the point.
If you had said: “I am going to investigate whether one’s sexual orientation has any predictive value in determining the propensity of foster parents to sexually abuse children under their supervision.” And you created a hypothesis to test that, but only investigated the details of cases where homosexuals did in fact sexually violate the children under their supervision, finding that yes in fact you could predict based on the sexual orientation of the foster parents in the study.
Slant. Flawed methodology. Flawed research. Oh, and questionable too on a number of levels.
Your fire example doesn’t help your argument as much as your snarc has you believing to the contrary.
You said: “Heres one for you….I am going to study fire and pain. I put my hand into the fire it hurts. Conclusion fire hurts. Questionable?”
Based on the empirical evidence, fire does hurt. The simple experiment of placing ones hand in the fire leads to a logical- if not pre-ordained knowledge of fire- conclusion.
Questionable result: no. Monkey puts hand in fire. Monkey gets burned. Monkey’s had hurts.
Utility of research: limited. Millenial experience from around the planet has verified common knowledge that fire causes pain when applied to flesh.
Questionable: yes. How much pain? How much fire? What is the standard for pain? What accounts for the difference in pain threshold? And on and on.
Questionable result does not neccesarily mean “not true”.
So go back to your crayon box and try illustrating your diatribes with a little more dignity.
How useful was the first study cited in this discussion? Not very with regards to understanding the complexities of pedophilia, hebephilia, sexual orientation and sexual assault of kids in foster care.
But there was much value in that research because it presents many facts about how research has clouded our understanding of a social phenomenon we need to understand in order to inform the laws upon which we will base social participation in the future.
So your sophomoric and almost retarded way of miscategorizing that study is not useful nor does it explain how research bias, from the blatant to the subtle, can actually keep us from understanding ourselves and our societal arrangements with any semblance of wisdom.
Now for your word list. If any of the words don’t fit, do you lose? For example: conjecture.
In the lame fire example: is it conjecture to assert the fire hurts conclusion? An imbecile even knows fire hurts based on sticking the hand into the flame. There is no guesswork involved, which is the nature of conjecture.
The norm is heterosexual usage of body parts for pleasure and procreating.
It doesn’t give someone grounds to stigmatize what is not their business to begin with.
Homosexuality isn’t normal compared to the norm established by sheer numbers of the world’s population.
Should homosexuality be reviled and socially stigmatized and ostracized based on its numerical and psychological standing compared to said norm?
That is a leap I won’t take.
My religious “ideology” (The teachings of Jesus Christ) clearly state: “Judge not, lest ye be judged.” And “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”
Pretty simple. And I can vote, according to Caesar, my conscience on what I deem best for my country, myself and my descendants.
The homosexual lobby cannot touch that. They can try to legislate morality. But they cannot enforce theirs on my body and spirit. Ever.
My time here is finished. Great thread.
It is the same on every board; the gay privilege movement is identical in their methods as the truthers and the Paul for President lunatics. In each case, a negligible percentage of the population persistently posts, or votes, or does whatever it can to give the illusion of significance, in both philosophy and pure numbers. It is very similar to the way Fidel Castro (comparison deliberate) duped Herbert Matthews of the New York Times in 1957 by creating the illusion that his revolutionary force was much bigger than it really was. In this case, however instead of moving troops from place to place and feigning that they were different troops, the gay privilege movement apparently puts out some sort of APB to find the nearest computer and inflate the numbers of “concerned individuals” on that topic. They must have some sort of announcement at the bathhouses or something, because they truly come out of the woodwork once the topic of their behavior hits a blogsite or message board. The worst part of it is on places like Yahoo Answers, they report “abuse” on every post that does not lockstep to their lifestyle, and Yahoo’s PC jackboots delete them, thus leaving only once side of the argument for the public to see.
I’ve seen these announcements. But they don’t post them in bathhouses. They’re actually posted in the men’s room at the RNC Headquarters.
I hope this is my last time as well….First of all I did not know I was in a room full of analytical(disecting) scientists. And as far as I have been able to asertain, It isn’t.
Hate…I am the researcher, I can assign whatever I wish….again.. I hate homosexuals…etc.
Missing the point…Not at all but the irony is amusing. You have been disecting every word I have said like a dog seeking the last scrap from an old buried bone. Could you not “understand” the argument or just “missing the point?”
You said “All research is questionable”…did you not? I disagree, no matter your “snarc”. The research “though adolescent” proves the point. All research is not “questionable” regardless of how desperate you are to make it so. No other point was being made here (I think you know this..lol)
“Questionable: yes. How much pain? How much fire? What is the standard for pain? What accounts for the difference in pain threshold? And on and on”
No sorry, unless you seek to find the conclusion you desire, the research remains the same…Question..does the fire hurt? is the only answer we are seeking…therefore not All research is questionable”
“So your sophomoric and almost retarded way of miscategorizing that study is not useful nor does it explain how research bias”
Actually had you bothered to read the opening posts here you would have seen that this bias was the only conclusion I made.
To the word list…It was you who assigned a single narrow defination to the term not me. As we all know there are many ways to say many things. Because you chose to show everyone just how smart you are with your elementary school theatrics does not change the outcome. Using “hypothesis” to describe.. position, proposal, premise, ect… and assigning right or wrong to the said “hypothesis” is perfectly reasonable, the right or wrong being opinion of course.
So Teach, you started this “narrow minded” schoolyard attack to prove what? As I read your posts I find you and I agree almost to a tee…whats the message you are sending? That only you are smart enough to take the lib down a peg..lol
Let me lay it out for ya….I am Dennis Miller. SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Wow, the hate spews from the bad guys yet again. Try veiling the hypocracy a little thicker; it may assist in you putting forth your point, as bizarre as it may be. Anybody that engages in that sort of pro-gay, anti-social behavior is called an “ex-Republican”…try focusing your biased rage on Barney Frank and his ilk, where it is more appropriate.
To be honest, I thought I was being kind by not noting playgrounds and rest stops to my list of gay gathering hot spots, but it stands to reason that a member of al-Gayda would take this to a lower level. Thank you for proving my point.
Hmmm…you left this out teach…”Ever hear of Oral sex…intended for?”
So would you say oral sex, anal, or sex for the pure fun and pleasure should be condemned as well?
Norm…again missing the point I see. Is the argument made for the sake of the norm? Of course not..do I say that definitively…absolutely. So there must be another avenue to travel to find the starting point…could it be religion?
My guess is yes, after all a staple of the right is the US was founded on religious principal…can’t have it both ways.
So a natural progression would be to assertain the “slant” of the statement..hence the “are you religious” Going from there to here….
What if homosexuality is the natural progression of evolution…it it not “normal” After all evolution is a normal phenomenon. Would you so redily dismiss (find your own word teach) it as “not normal?”
Sorry, exactly what point have I proven, other than you have no sense of humor whatsoever?
While one may choose to be openly gay, one cannot choose whether or not to be attracted to members of the same sex. The standard conservative position on this matter appears to be that people whith same-sex attraction should just pretend otherwise, at least publicly. In the past year alone we’ve seen a remarkable number of high-profile examples of what happens when people do that.
So… we have 2 options here: 1) acknowledge that gay people not only exist, but should have a right to do so freely, or 2) continue to pretend they don’t, and then sit back and watch as families and lives are destroyed when people get caught doing really bad, self-destructive things. Personally, I prefer the former. If that makes me a hypocrite, hey – sign me up.
The third option was to coldly turn a blind eye on the AIDS crisis and let that entire population self-destruct, which they would have without government intervention, but kind, caring, compassionate people like me thought it proper to dedicate billions of dollars in research to make sure that they didn’t suffer from their own irresponsible actions. That is what good people do, even in the face of the terrible insults lobbed here and on other boards.
Judging by the vile hate that has been spewed by the gay privilege movement on this board toward people they quite literally owe their lives to, I fear our good deeds are nothing more than the old saying “no good deed goes unpunished”.
If you want to delude yourself into thinking you’re doing people a favor by discriminating against them, there’s not much I can do to stop that. But as a public health practicioner, I can assure you there are a number of methods already in practice that prevent the spread of HIV. While your gracious humanitarian efforts may be appreciated in certain circles, they are by no means necessary. But please, keep up the good work!
Read, nurse. Got it. Say no more, “bear”….
Huggybear:
“already in practice that prevent the spread of HIV.”
How’s that again?
How does it stack up against this finding about HIV/AIDS worldwide?
“These advances continue to slow the progression from HIV to AIDS. AIDS deaths and new AIDS cases have declined in some parts of the world and have risen in others. In parts of the world where HIV medications are readily available, people are living longer and healthier with HIV. However, since medicines are allowing AIDS patients to live longer, AIDS prevalence (the number of people living with AIDS) continues to rise. One source reports a 12% increase in AIDS prevalence since 1995. In addition, a decrease in new AIDS cases means an increase in HIV prevalence (number of people living with HIV), in other words, people infected with HIV are living longer before acquiring AIDS defining illnesses. This increase in HIV prevalence means a growing burden on our prevention and treatment services, and diminshing resources to take care of the growing HIV population.”
Source: The Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS “2006 Report on the Global AIDS Epidemic”; 2006.
What meaningful point are you making about HIV/AIDS “prevention”?
That the spread isn’t as bad as it could be because of prevention measures?
Or that there would be more than 40,000 new cases of HIV annually? as there is now?
How does that synch with what Big Ange was saying about research?
EXACTLY 1999! These programs that teach prevention did not come out of nowhere. Every taxpayer paid for the origination and implementation of these programs, and this was while we were funding research in delaying the onset of AIDS once HIV was contracted. Clearly some peoples’ memories are too short to remember gays dropping like flies during the height of the AIDS crisis, and there being daily passionate pleas for help from the very people that caused it. But, at the risk of being redundant, good people overlooked the fact that it was their own behavior that caused their suffering and joined in asking for something to be done about it. And this was at the expense of heart disease as well as cancer research, both of which suffered when funding was reallocated during the late 1980’s and early 90’s. It’s kind of ironic that in 2007 people are castigated for putting a cigarette in their mouths and are overwhelmingly blamed for causing their own cancer, yet back then and even now gays that routinely put certain infected organs in each other’s orafaces is and was considered a “lifestyle choice”. The hypocracy by the gay privilege movement is sickening, no pun intended.
Is being homosexual something you’re born with, or is it a lifestyle choice?
Precisely. Now that the proverbial cat is out of the bag, there really isn’t much more we can do, short of a cure – which ain’t gonna happen – than reduce the rate of transmission. This has already been well documented right here in San Francisco:
“While there was a ten percent decrease in total estimated new [HIV] cases, this seemingly modest decrease is actually a much greater prevention success than it appears. From 2001 to 2006, the estimated number of gay men living in San Francisco increased from 46,800 to 58,343. The increase was likely due to real growth in the gay community and, potentially, in part the result of an underestimation of the population size in 2001.
When the effect of the increase in the population size of [men having sex with men] is taken into account, new infections have decreased by an estimated 33 percent.”
See? Thanks to Ange’s tireless crusade, the rate of new HIV infections here has actually decreased! Go on, Ange – pat yerself on the back. You know you want to!
As for the rest of the world – Africa in particular – HIV transmission is largely due to heterosexual sex, poor medical hygeine, and sadly, mother-to-child transmission. So we’re going to have to come up with a different approach than discriminating or searching for a cure for homosexuality to save them. The clock’s ticking, Ange – better get to work!
First, who is the “we”?
And how will any approach sustain itself with a declining population capable of supporting the tax-based initiatives which currently pay the bill for keeping infected HIV/AIDS victims alive?
What forward thinking types of initiatives are being discussed outside of the current circles of allegating “professionals” who make people like Ange look as if they are “discriminating” against homosexuals, or want to change them if they call for taking personal responsibility for their “lifestyle choices”?
“We” is me and Ange. I work in public health and research. Ange works in public health and discrimination.
Look, what started out for me as a comical exchange ideas has devolved into a tiresome, protracted, comical exchange of ideas. Not only that, it’s remarkably off topic [political correctness gone awry - remember that? About 200 posts ago? Man, those were the days.] If you want to carry on, by all means, go for it. However I’m respectfully bowing out. Whatever points you make from here on out will be pure gold, I’m sure.
Good night and good luck!
Thank you for comparing yourself to uneducated, destitute third-world people who not by their own fault simply don’t know better; had someone else done so I am sure the “bigot bomb” would have come out yet again. By your comparison you clearly see how uncivilized your behavior is. At least we now are making progress.
Please just say “nurse”, the PC synonyms have become tiresome.
On September 8th, 2007 at 6:45 pm, bear1909 said:
It’s a no win situation, as you have pointed out. Homosexuality IS a mental disorder. They are not evil, but the fact is they participate in activities that are in no way normal and are self-destructive-both individually (HIV), and collectively (they cannot reproduce). Like many that behave abnormally, they scream out for society”s attention and acceptance (how on earth would anyone know or even guess what another’s “sexual orientation” is? They wouldn’t-so you tell them, right? Or you behave in ridiculously flamboyant ways. I don’t think too many heterosexuals run around “revealing” their sexual preferences…). When that doesn’t come, they scream louder “homophobes!!”. The question is always: is this genetic-they can’t help it? If so, nature’s gone on a walk, just as she does occasionally in other ways (schizophrenia…). Or, is this a “lifestyle choice”? They answer that question differently, depending on the needs of the moment. Regardless, only a tiny minority are homosexual. You guys do not deserve to be assaulted, but take a stand: if it’s genetic (unchangable and randomly assigned by nature), you do not get to claim you made some choice. If you sampled around and “chose” to behave this way, then YOU chose it, and need to live with all the consequences…
Funny how the “public” employee is all fun and games while there is a dole to pay for their middle class lifestyle and good times, cash that comes from private sector PROFITS.
How long will the sense of humor last when the money runs out or the Nation makes a hard right turn into forced fiscal stringency?
The flip “I am for the good and you are for the bad” kind of attitude among Moon Loons is all well and good when their bacon is being provided by private sector no-nothings like me.
See you when your stream dries up. We’ll see how much you discriminate when your gravy train goes south.
It won’t be long.
It does not matter what the sexuality of a researcher is if the facts are used within an analytical framework that attempts to be unbiased (and, frankly, any good researcher will make every attempt to eliminate a variety of bias problems because they know that their study will almost certainly be subject to peer review particularly when the subject involves a hot button issue like homosexuality).
Take for example the Illinois study on homosexual molestation. All that anyone has to do is look at the molestation reports and then take the next logical and analytical step which is to determine the sexual orientation of the molesters. This can be done by interview with the molesters themselves, the individuals who were molested, and the neighbors.
This is really pretty straightforward and well recognized practice in sociological studies. The real problem occurs when a peer has a politically correct agenda and attempts to discredit the messenger in a manner similar to that employed by dartagnan.
Ange……
“By your comparison you clearly see how uncivilized your behavior is.”
Unprotected sex?
What forward thinking types of initiatives are being discussed outside of the current circles of allegating “professionals” who make people like Ange look as if they are “discriminating” against homosexuals, or want to change them if they call for taking personal responsibility for their “lifestyle choices”?
Wow is that what she (the real american) is doing?
Ange….Is is possible for 2 gay men, who have a monogamous life with each other, to develop HIV? If no, do you have any problem at all with them beyond your disapproval of gay marriage, or adoption?
http://www.rense.com/general68/gayex.htm
kind, caring, compassionate people like me thought it proper to dedicate billions of dollars in research to make sure that they didn’t suffer from their own irresponsible actions. That is what good people do, even in the face of the terrible insults lobbed here and on other boards.
Judging by the vile hate that has been spewed by the gay privilege movement on this board toward people they quite literally owe their lives to, I fear our good deeds are nothing more than the old saying “no good deed goes unpunished”.
Al Gayda?
Yes you are a bigot.. wait…kind, caring, compassionate
To gay men, monogamy means something considerably different that it does to straight men. I always love it when some gay supporter talks about monogamy because I know that it is another false hood or attempt to mislead. Monogamy to a gay man means living with the same guy but being free to explore whatever sexual opportunity comes along. In this sense, gay men are more like swinger couples than straight non-swinger couples. Again, there have been studies of the gay lifestyle that bear out this comment.
The American Politically Correct crowd are the biggest HYPOCRITES, RACISTS, SEXISTS,HATE MONGERS & BIGOTS in the world.
If homosexuals are so dang proud of being homosexuals why do they wrongly ruin a good English word gay?
There is absolutely NOTHING GAY about a homosexual.
I feel calling homosexuals gay promotes the perversion called homosexuality.
Homosexuals are FORCING us to accept their perversion and lieing about being born homosexual. Homosexuality is a LEARNED perversion.