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
Right Pundits
» Joe Lieberman: Fort Hood Shooter Is ‘Home-Grown Terrorist’
Legal Insurrection
» Bruni de la Motte for Health Care CzarRiehl World View
» Obama: No Military Death Shall Go UnexploitedLegal Insurrection
» In The End: No Public Option, No Abortions, No Pelosi, No ReidThe Other McCain
» Paralysis by analysisThe Powers That Be
» Obama: ‘Don’t Jump to Conclusions’ About Ft. Hood; Immediately Jumps to ConclusionsLegal Insurrection
» NY Times Names Names
Link 1) by purplepeep
“Overwhelming evidence supports the belief that homosexuality is a sexual deviancy often accompanied by disorders that have dire consequences for our culture,” wrote Steve Baldwin in, “Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement,” soon to be published by the Regent University (Americas preeminent “Christian” university) Law Review.
Link 2) by purplepeep
NARTH…National Association For Research and Therapy of Homosexuals.
I don’t need to shoot the messenger..Any fool can see it is already “roadkill”
Uh Michelle a little help here?
You’re still just shooting messengers, db and, worse yet, you’ve offered no reason for the “drive by shootings”.
So what we have here are the scientific studies vs. your anger at the facts. I suspect folks can compare the studies vs. your being upset and figure it out right.
With a reprobate mind, what do we expect from these two sick human men?
Speaking of their crimes and not their sexual orientation I assume? After all you and your friends here are not what they all say you are, are you?
My reason? You are an intolerant religious bigot. Exactly what folks here say we are fighting against in the war on terror. Hows that?
It’s good to be honest about why you could only shoot messengers. Obviously you had no logical or rational basis on which to attack the facts or those who presented the facts. If you had you would have offered them.
So with you lacking any reasons, other than just being upset by the facts, it’s something where folks can quite easily figure what’s impoortant; the facts vs. someone being enraged by the facts. I’m happy with that “contrast and compare”. Thank you.
Sir…It is patently obvious that logic escapes you. Any study done by a group who holds the belief that those they are studying “are deviant” must surely be deemed at best biased in their findings. Facts in these types of “studys” are easily manipulated… see Michael Moore, and skewed to achieve the desired outcome. I would refer you to the aforementioned Lancet/Iraqi Sanctions study. Any “Study” done by group whos belief holds that those they are studying are “inflicted and must be cured” will again come to the conclusion that suits their position. Now you can continue in your pathetic, snide vein of “shooting the messenger” or you can seek a study whereby the people doing the studying have no stake in it’s outcome. Am I going to spend hours reading and disecting this “study” to prove a point? Well if I have to get my crayons out to find a way to make you and your ilk see the point, well sir, I will look for a new place for thoughtful discussion. Either way…You sir look quite foolish and dare I say it again… No I better not.
Note to Mrs Malkin…. Careful here, don’t want Bill O to get on the ole “hate site” rant…lol
The homosexual community wants to bury the facts and create fantasies about themselves. They know that if the facts were really known, they would be in trouble. Every study that condemns homosexuality is consider homophobic and analytically bogus. Yet, the homosexual community cannot produce any evidence that refutes these studies. If you can’t win with facts and analysis, scream loudly and attack the messenger.
Now you’re gone into the business of inventing “messenger quotes”, db. Unless you can cite the they “are deviant” qoote, in case I missed it.
if you want to refute these studies (plural), or others I can offer, you’d have to – otherwise you just have an emotional reaction. That may be valid to you, but it isn’t valid to anyone else. If you’re a liberal, you may likely believe the way to counter fact is with emotions, as that is common belief among liberals.
As a note, science commonly terms anything that deviates from the norm as “deviant”. It’s a factual judgment, not a moral one. With NARTH, a professional organization of psychologists, I doubt you’ll find the term “deviant” offered as a moral judgment, if it’s used at all.
About your pleas for help. I think when a person paints himself into an intellectually indenfensbile corner, he’s kinda on his own to sink or swim.
It seems plausible that gays would be more likely to have sexual issues unrelated to their gayness specifically, including pedophelia, given the stress of that alternate and often unaccepted lifestyle. Unfortunately, unbiases studies are rare in these polically changed/correct times: many funders of studies wish for a desired outcome.
I also believe that a heterosexual couple can best raise children, all else being equal, because they would not cause any gender confusion in the children.
However, I believe a kind and good gay couple or single parent can better parent a child than an abusive heterosexual couple or single parent.
With limited resources, child protection service groups might best use their resources by monitoring gay parents more closely.
greenLibertarian said:
It seems plausible that gays would be more likely to have sexual issues unrelated to their gayness specifically, including pedophelia, given the stress of that alternate and often unaccepted lifestyle.
Another plausible explanation, to my thinking at least, would be the “slippery slope” phenom, GL.
That is, one “alternate” behavior has a way of leading to another, especially if one recognizes no outside moral authority.
Kinda like the old “herion users start with smoking reefer” line of thinking, but there may be some validity to it. As long as you don’t sound like Sgt. Fridy while expounding on it. heh.
.
I , for one, would think gay parents molesting children is QUITE thinkable. Actually, I would expect it, thus not ever allow it then or ever again.
An innocent child doesn’t have the ability or authority to choose not to be in a gay household, we MUST do it for them.
dartanans_blade,
I was refering to their sexual orientation. It causes a reprobate mind. Then, crimes like the above stated will happen. Secular Humanism has brought us to this point in time where morality is hate speech.
I was not meaning everyone elce is perfect.
Your plausible is also plausible, PP :p
Seriously, I have known many gays, mostly men, and I found most to be good people. They mostly said they were simply attracted to the same sex, that it was not a choice for them. They did not seem at all disposed to slide down the ’slope’. I believe gays or straights that begin to depart from normal acts for their sexuality could slide on down.
Do you not even read your own links before you post them?
Pedophilia more common among ‘gays’
Second paragraph…“Overwhelming evidence supports the belief that homosexuality is a sexual deviancy often accompanied by disorders that have dire consequences for our culture,” wrote Steve Baldwin in, “Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement,” soon to be published by the Regent University (Americas preeminent “Christian” university) Law Review.
He’s got better things to do! :p
You look more like a liberal everyday..citing my drive by shooting while doing the same. Can you not adress my argument? I will ask you a couple of simple questions. Can you answer or no?
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, does their belief reflected in the conclusion of the study.
If that was directed at me, DG, my apologies, just trying to lighten the mood here.
I have not read any of the posted links, because I prefer to decide on gay parent case-by-case, given my contacts with good gays folks.
Tancredo said it last night.
” PC is going to get us all killed”.
.
End of story.
Michael Moore…
1) Does the filmmaker hold animosity toward George Bush
2) Does the filmmaker hate the war
3) Does the filmaker view the US as aggressive
See fahrenheit 911
Yours is a perfectly logical reasoning purplepeep… “The saying goes “If you lie down with dogs, you wake up with fleas.” But nobody, especially the innocent, should be forced to lie down with dogs ( fags, queers, homos, queens, select a word that suits ya peep)as a sacrifice on the Altar Of Political Correctness.”
Let me guess…you were refering to the specific men not homosexuals in general right? …lol
Intolerance can get get people killed too, and not only the ‘bad guys’.
The sad reality is that this PC world we live in has already cost millions of lives. But what I have read here today is as bad as any this news blog rants about daily. Those of you who condemned homosexuality and lost site of the story show just how much you are like those you call terrorist. Their fight for religious dominance (and make no mistake about it, your distain for homosexuals is religious in nature) different only in the tact they take to achieve it. Your distain evident in your words and your defence of the clearly indefensible is truly abhorrent. I will find it hard to continue to post here as I have lost respect for this site and those who post here.
You can’t make this stuff up…Hope the kossaks are awake.
Reprobate mind?
So to you homosexuality is what..deviant, a sin, depraved? As the Bible says? Kinda like the Koran and “kill the infidels where you find them?”
Okay let’s see if I have this right. Because a person’s religios beliefs call homosexuity a sin, that makes us as bad as a muslim terrorist. Funny but I can’t seem to recall one incident where a gay person was beheaded by a Christian or executed simply because he was gay.
Please don’t stop posting here. I find your arguments interesting. Oh never mind, just do what you want. Far be it from me to try and dictate what you should do. That would be jihadist behavior.
I will admit that there is most likely a religious tilt in the condemnation of homosexuality but to equate us to terrorsts is abhorant and unjustifable. As far as I’m concerned, those comments went too far.
Pray for the kids.
Call homosexuality a sin? You think that is what’s being written here? Read a little before posting such a simple minded statement. A sin..give me a break. Can any of you actually read. Jeesh, I said the tact is “DIFFERENT”. Meaning not the same.
Anyway….
James M. Cantor, at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto, there is no scientific evidence linking gay identity and pedophilia. Cantor suggests that the Christian right’s consistent depictions of “homosexuals” as pedophiles—the same stand the Family Research Council is currently taking—relies on “mere sophistry.” To generate these claims, right-wing researchers simply refer to a man who has molested boys as homosexual.
Most men who molest boys are almost exclusively sexually interested in children or teens.
In other words…what do you call a man who likes sex with a man and a woman…Homosexual?
I think the larger risk would be gays striking those who deny them what they feel are their rights, e.g. being parents. Some gay groups are not very tolerant of those who oppress them, and perhaps justifiably so.
Heres my last word on the subject….
PC madness is crazy and costs millions of lives.
All children should have a home and if you are going to piss and moan about the selection process either adopt or shut the hell up!
Morality comes from religion, we should have the right as a nation, founded on religious principal, through democratic process, to decide how we want our government to promote the “welfare” of our citizenry
However to belittle, defame, antagonize, or demean others because of who they are, skin color, religious affiliation or otherwise is morally wrong.
To make a statement “I believe homosexuality is a sin” is perfectly ok and anyones right to say.. Just as to say..”religion is a crutch for the weak” is is equally ok. But to say gays (for being gay alone) are “dogs, deviants, Reprobate, homodisgust, immoral (just to name some of the bile being spewed here) or to assume they can be “treated and cured” as part of a religious dogma is ignorant and is exactly what we are fighting against everyday and what we abhor in the other side.
Hate the sin, love the sinner. That is not what terrorists do blade boy. Just because people do not agree with your twisted way of thinking, does not make them wrong.
You write as if there is no right, or wrong. Calm down, I will not cut your head off for believing as you do. Please defend my right to free speech too.
May G-d watch over, and help those children.
Sounds like you are equating us to terrorists to me. You think our tactics are different but our goal is the same as the terrorist, religious dominance. So even though we use different tactics we are in your mind no better than the muslims who want to install sharia law in the USA.
The “clearly indefensible” is clear only to you and people that think like you. You are clearly entitled to believe that and I respect your right but I also have a right to my opinion and we can agree to disagree.
One last thing, the Bible is not like the koran. Nowhere does the Bible say for us to kill the infidels.
Dartagnan’s blade-
I am not aware of any passage in the New Testament Bible which incites followers of Christ to “kill” homosexuals or people who do not believe in Christ’s teachings.
“Kinda like the Koran” might allow one for the sake of argument to insinuate that attitudes prejudicial against practitioners of homosexual acts, based on Christian religious beliefs, are some how homicidal.
But it is patently erroneous to conclude that someone’s personal beliefs which *judge* homosexual *acts* to be outside one’s religious code, and therefore unembraceable (as a Christian), is the same, to any degree, with the Koranic imperative to kill unbelievers.
The “kinda like the Koran” relativism *IS* the slippery slope we are already sliding down (e.g. today’s court ruling on National Security Letters).
A lot of you don’t want to kill homosexuals, you just want to deprive them their rights. It’s better than Iran, but only by a shade.
If you hate gay people, and it’s clear that a lot of the commenters here hate gay people, then there’s no way for anyone to convince you that you’re wrong.
But know this: You are wrong. Men being attracted to other men does not equate to pedophilia. Gay couples are just as capable of love and good parenting as anyone else. There are sickos everywhere, and I’m upset that political correctness put these kids at risk, but to take this story and turn it into a call to ban gay adoptions is an example of extreme stupidity.
This intolerance and bigotry towards homosexuality will ultimately doom the Republican Party.
Please do, as your brain already seems to be at least partially incapacitated as it is. And please, on behalf of all the people here that are religious, do not EVER profess to speak in the name of God. Judging by your views, that is your psychosis speaking; not God.
Yeah, I work within entertainment and arts circles where ya can’t swing a dead cat without hitting someone who’s homosexual. And most of them are as you say, good people, GL.
I really don’t need to know what a person’s wont is sexually – and if they keep it in the bedroom, I don’t know.
Since there has been no scientific information showing a causing biological factor for homosexuality, I tend to think it originates psycholoically. But not in the “consciously chosen” sense, except in rare cases. More like a psychological snowball rolling downhill.
In many cases, especially with female homosexuals, what could be called the “originating psychological cause” would seem obvious. I think almost every female celeb who’s “come out” has detailed a past that involved some kind of abuse, usual sexual. (This is true with every lesbian who’s shared her past with me personally.)
It would seem this might not be the causal link as much with male homosexuality, although the instance of it is still very high. (Or it could be that males are just less likely to talk about such things.)
This story is beyond sickening.
Yes, we are indeed falling apart if we have come so far down the road of political correctness that we will jeopardize the well-being of children rather than offend someone.
Those children were betrayed by ALL the adults involved, their trust gone, their innocence gone, their lives changed forever.
We need to stop this insane political correctness as a whole nation, not one political side or the other. If everyone starts doing something about it first thing tomorrow, maybe we would get lucky enough for it to catch on.
al-Gayda spewing anti-American rhetoric yet again. Give it a rest already.
The problem – by your own confession – dg, is that you haven’t read the studies and thus remain uniformed. It’s certainly your choice to be informed or not, no one can force you to do do.
One of the more interesting studies was done by Dr. Robert Spitzer, the one page summary can be found here. My guess is that you’ve been kept unaware of it also:
Prominent Psychiatrist Announces New Study
Results: “Some Gays CAN Change”
Rusty, you’re ranting again. If you can calm down I’d be interested in your take on what “rights” you’re talking about. Especially since, if anything, those into homosexuality have had more “rights” bestowed on them than people who are not involved in homosexuality.
Good luck defending this speculation.
The Dhimmicrats are more likely to collapse under the burden of accommodating homosexual lobby agendas in their tent. But how is that accommodation going to limit the Dhimmicrats, impeding its reach to attract would-be crossover voters in national elections?
The Republicans aren’t carrying that burden. The Dhimmicrats are. I wonder if there is any correlation between this reality and the Dhimmicrats nasty habit of voter fraud (e.g. ACORN).
There is also the inevitable weakening of influence by the homosexual lobby to shame and blame its political adversaries using allegations of bigotry and homophobia.
It is a worn out politic that no longer empowers their rank and file in homosexual communities.
The same has happened to black communities and among American workers: if anything, the unions and the HiJacksonSharptonBey contingents have created dependency. Ultimately, there comes a descent in power and influence.
As long as the homosexual lobby remains committed to a neo-Marxist politik it will go into decline just as the Black Power-Civil Rights lobby did. The neo-Marxist element limits the respective group to build coalitions with the majority groups it needs in order to mainstream itself. Homosexual interests intersecting with heterosexual interests are not going to be so as long as the homosexual lobby couches itself in the language and theory of Marxist doctrine (“oppression” “privilege” “power dynamics” etc.).
The neoMarxist language and theory is the germ in the debate that will keep homosexuality a wedge issue and preserve the power of the lobbying elite. It has happened with each and every political minority in America since the Second World War.
This is the nature of how gainful political dialogue (transcending religious rhetoric in political settings) fails between heterosexuals and the proponents of the homosexual lobby- it is the intrusion of neo-Marxism on the integrity of a capitalist democratic republic.
Multiculturalism is the neo-Marxian trojan horse. The homosexual lobby is the primary beneficiary of this intrusion, the same way that the Peace Lobby is a beneficiary of “multiculturalist parlance” about warfare.
As more and more Americans begin to reject the neo-Marxian poison they will also reject the homosexual lobby. That is not the same as “hating homosexuals”.
It is rejecting the neo-Marxian politik.
Yup – pandering to militants who claim to represent 3% or less of the population is a fatal strategy. But even the Democrats know it and that’s why their top tier Presidential candidates hem and haw, giving non-answers whenever they are asked about same-sex marriage.
Spin away peep…..You are everything the far left claims. Bill O would label you a hater. Can’t answer the questions I put forth? You read them then hid. So that puts you in the liar camp as well…Mine is not emotion but plain common sence..You are either a redneck moron or a religious bigot…either way you lose…lol
…or a real American. We gave your inch, you took your mile, so now just crawl back under that rock.
Yeah, gays are living the high life. What with their inability to marry or adopt in some states. What with their inability to even be granted civil unions. Meaning that homosexuals often can’t be covered by their spouse’s insurance or make important decisions about their spouse’s health. And whoo boy if that spouse doesn’t have a will…then the husband/wife gets nothing. And let’s not forget they’re not even allowed to defend their own country by joining the armed forced. There are, believe it or not, some patriotic gay Americans. I consider them heroes. It must be very hard to want to defend a country that won’t defend you as a person.
As for my comment about this intolerance dooming the Republican Party….well, I don’t know how it is in Red States. I’ve spent all of my time in DC, MD, and MA. But every Republican I know that’s my age, even the extreme ones, have no problem with homosexuality. They’ll fight to their eyes bleed over abortion, Iraq, affirmative action, taxes, etc. But they know enough gays and lesbians to know that homosexuality is non-threatening. If the GOP insists on using their platform to discriminate, it will come back to haunt them.
Claims of “real amercians” were heard when the fires were lit in Salem, screams of “real americans” were heard in the hospital tents of Stonewall Jackson regiment, “real Americans” threw hanging ropes over the branches in mississippi, and now “real americans” defend bigotry as something to be proud of.
Hey BigAnge, don’t smear this great country and those who fought and continue to fight for freedom and liberty with you ignorant, intolerant, vile hatred. Accept who you really are and be done with it.
It is interesting that the pro-gay arguments lack factual evidence. There is condemnation of people who decry homosexuality as sinful, immoral or deviant, but there is no real attempt to counter an argument with fact. The reason is straightforward – that facts completely undermine the homosexual agenda.
And, yes, there is a distinct linkage between homosexuality and pedophilia. Homosexuals are, by and large, obsessed with youth. A homosexual is at least 5 times more apt to molest a same sex child in their care than the general population.
Are there good an loving homosexuals? Sure, but they are not the average. A few anecdotes does not make for general conclusions about the goodness of homosexuals. Once again, the rise of homosexual acceptance is an indicator of the moral and civil decline of a society.
It’s impossible to counter your opinion on homosexuality with fact. Since it’s your (hateful) opinion.
And, yes, there is a distinct linkage between homosexuality and pedophilia. Homosexuals are, by and large, obsessed with youth. A homosexual is at least 5 times more apt to molest a same sex child in their care than the general population.
Um, I messed up the quote box. publiuswarmac9999 is the one who is making stuff up about the gay obsession with youth, not me. I’m the one offering the nickel.
Isn’t equality about enforcing the law equally, irregardless of sexual orientation etc?
It seems to me some take equality to mean “some people are special”
Wow, must have hit a nerve….and who is calling who vile? If I recall the Brownshirts used the very same smear tactics against their perceived adversaries to push their radical agenda as you seem to be using. Interesting.
publiuswarmac9999 said he needs fact…but where are his and others facts? Is it a “fact” that all molesters of boys are homosexual? Show me the facts…I see name calling, I see peep hiding “under his desk” and refusing to answer simple questions about the “proposed facts”, I see holier than thou bigots and their flag wrapping, but facts? The only fact in this thread you have no facts only dishonest innuendo and accusation.
Incorrect, Rusty. Those into the homosexuality can get married in any state, the same as those who are into chains, whips, shoes, blonde hair, legs, whatever.
“Civil unions” is a vague, meaningless term, Rusty. But it matters not anyway,
since no one is “granted civil unions”.
On wills, insurance and such – I’ll be happy to hook anyone up with an insurance salesperson and they can buy as much insurance as they like. It’ll make the salespersons day and I won’t even askfor a cut of the premium action.
As for wills – if a person doesn’t know how to make out a will or to just give gifts, the person is probably beyond help.
Frankly, if someone wants to get his/her life legally entangled with another it’s just no problem. If you were to give me your relevant vital info and your consent, I could easily arrange so that you’re putting caps on my great-great-great-great grandkids teeth for centuries to come. I’d start with having you sign what’s called “Power Of Attorney”. Very simple and costs next to nothing.
That’s what’s called “anecdotal evidence” at best, Rusty. All that can be extracted from it is that you hang out with people who support the demands of militant homosexuals. Kinda like me saying everybody I know likes cats. That may be true, but it says nothing about cats, much less indicate a public groundswell re:cats. Just says I tend to hang with catlovers – nothing more, nothin less.
Did you hit a nerve you “real American?”
You bet…What does that mean exactly …real american.
Now lets see if an answer is forthcoming..bets anyone?
Here’s a fact for you, Blade. Your spiritual allies make this very easy. Maybe you should consider joining them:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,44067,00.html
Please note that “teenage boy” and “homosexual” are used throughout the article; nowhere is pedophilia even mentioned, because there obviously is no point in being redundant.
Come out from under your desk peep..lol
Come out from under your desk ange..lol
Indeed, BigAnge. But then you have to remember that many people tend to fly into such a rage when confronted by facts.
I understand that the scientific studies infuriate d_b. Hopefully he will take the time to calm down and become informed, not flying off the handle when the facts and reality do not jive with his personal perceptions.
The thing reasonable people become outraged about are instances such as reported here where children are placed in very at-risk and unhealthy situations because it would be un-PC to to spare them instead. So tragic.
Pedophiles aren’t interested in teenagers. They’re much too old. They’re looking for pre-pubescent children. So maybe you shouldn’t be such a bigot about this, Ange.
And, Peep. I don’t know what’s wrong with you. First you say, quite dishonestly, that homosexuals have more rights than heterosexuals. Then, after I point out how stupid that is, you what? You point out gays can marry, just not to the person they love. They can’t even get civil unions where their relationship is legally acknowledged by their home state. You expect a homosexual couple to pay double the insurance when no one asks the same of a heterosexual couple. And as for not having a will…well, sometimes people die unexpectedly. And when that happens, the spouse gets frozen out because their relationship didn’t exist in the eyes of the state.
You don’t address the gays in the armed forces issue, which is probably for the best. Chances are you’d resort to the “gay men will rape or sexually harass straight men” argument that comes with not a shred of evidence. If you can equate homosexuality with pedophilia without any evidence, why not homosexuality and rape, right?
Yes, you’ve pained quite the Utopia for gays. Oh, I wish I were gay so I could get all of these extra rights. Those lucky gays. How lucky would I be if I weren’t allowed to marry my girlfriend, adopt children who desprately need a loving family, join the army, have my girlfriend covered by my health insurance or have her receive my belongings if I die in an accident tomorrow. How lucky would I be?
The name calling continues yet again with nothing to back it up. Why is it that the worst haters are always the ones accusing the masses of hate?
Having an aversion to deviant sexual behavior is not bigotry; it is simply common sense.
Um, no. Hating gay people is bigotry, plain and simple. It’s not name calling, it’s 100% accurate.
If I were to say “black people shouldn’t be allowed to adopt because they’re more inclined towards criminality” then I would be rightfully accused of bigotry. It’s a crazy, hurtful, mean-spirited, and wrong thing to believe.
So I am rightfully accusing you of bigotry. Anyone who honestly sees homosexuals as a threat to children or their marriage is a hateful fool. Perhaps if you were more exposed to homosexuality you wouldn’t be so quick to demonize it. I’m proud to have grown up with my gay relatives and gay friends. Their kind presence in my life has prevented my brain from atrophying to the point where I think homoexuals are perverts who don’t deserve the same rights as other Americans.
Where did you get that from, Rusty? From what I understand, pedophiles very typically have an age range preference which includes the teens. Unless you’re saying someone over 12 is not a child, that’s puzzling.
Actually I wanted you to expound on the part about “marrying who you love”. More on that in a sec: for right here it’s just a fact many people can’t “marry who they love” and that no one gets “civil unions’.
I passed on the military aspect because that’s for the men and women who serve to decide. They say “No way”, that settles it for me. Just as the children should not be forced into such situations, neither should service people be burdened with any more problems than they already have.
Now, gettin back to marriage, in applying the massive unthinkin relativism, is where you err.
I’ll link to the whole article – and it’s a very good one – but here’s a quote that succinctly illustrates the problem of redefining marriage:
– This argument presented by pro-gays is now creating a Pandora’s Box of legal and ethical challenges. If we take “the next step” by saying “yes” to homosexual marriage it will be nearly impossible to say “no” to the myriad “alternative” relationships promoted by homosexual leaders – collectively known as “polyamory”: i.e. multi-partner “marital” arrangements, including group marriages, and child-rearing by multiple homosexual households as a single “family.” –
Pioneering step or Pandora’s box?
I know I’d like special consideration for such things as being bumped to the top in hiring and be covered by a myriad of thought-crime laws designed to protect me as a special class. Not willing to go gay for all the special privileges, though.
Thought crime laws!? Glad you brought it up!
Hate crimes are meant to terrorize a certain set of individuals. If someone is murdered or assaulted or raped just for being gay, that crime is a threat to all the other gay people in that area. Same goes for religious and ethnic crimes too. If someone paints a swastika on a Jewish home, that is a message of terror to all other Jews in the area.
Hate crimes aren’t thought crimes. They are terrorism. Terrorism doesn’t just victimize the young man who is tied down to a fence post and left for dead. It victimizes any one who could have the same thing happen just because of who they are.
Probably an even better and more to the point, snippet from the cited article, Rusty:
“In a prophetic twist, Germany, which legalized gay marriage in 2001, is now grappling with the same vexing legal problems we previously described. You see, German citizens Patrick and Susan Stuebing are brother and sister, are lovers with four children, and they want to overturn Germany’s laws against incest. The problem? They just might win, since their arguments are virtually identical with the successful homosexual arguments used in Germany and Vermont to adopt gay unions. The couple’s supporters claim that the law is “out of date and breaches the couple’s civil rights,” and that they “are not harming anyone. It is discrimination.” The couple’s statements are eerily familiar: “We’ve done nothing wrong. We are like normal lovers. We want to have a family. We would like society to recognize us, as any other normal couple.” Is the sky falling? You be the judge.
How can we say yes to gay marriage (and polyamory), but no to this couple?
The hallmark of a responsible citizen is to worry – not about ourselves, but about the culture to be inherited by our children – our posterity.”
What say you, Rusty – where does it stop and why? Or doesn’t it stop?
I won’t lower myself to this type of immature namecalling; I will simply state that a person who has the opposite view is very, very naive.
Perhaps if you were more exposed to homosexuality you wouldn’t be so quick to demonize it.
Rusty:
I have one name for you: Mary Stachowicz.
Stachowicz, a Catholic, was murdered by a homosexual man who claimed Stachowicz “abused” him regarding his sexuality.
This man’s lawyer has gone so far as to argue that Stachowicz DESERVED to be stabbed repeatedly and so forcefully the blade of the hunting knife used was BENT, and then stuffed between the floors of the funeral home/apartment where the man lived.
And this is not being charged as a hate crime, even though evidence shows Stachowicz merely had conversations with the man regarding his behavior.
Is this crime – and the lawyer’s defense – not meant to intimidate religious people? If so, why isn’t it a hate crime?
And hate crimes ARE thought crimes – unless every crime charged as a hate crime has clear and explicit evidence that the criminal said out loud and was heard by witnesses that he/she “hated” the victim, on what other basis are the crimes charged if not what the prosecutors think the criminal was saying?
I believe hate crime legislation to be a violation of equal protection under the law – because it’s applied to some and not others who are guilty of crimes.
The problem I have with polygamy and most cases of incest is those relationships are more likely to be abusive. Marital incest is already legal here in some states between first cousins.
That being said, if some dude wants to have three wives and he treats them all with love and compassion, I have no real problem with it. You know why? Because it doesn’t affect me in the slightest. Live and let live as long as no one is being hurt.
Hate crimes do apply equally. If I’m roaming around Southeast DC and a black guy kills and yells “no gentrification” or “whites out of DC”…guess what! That’s a hate crime! I, a white Protestant dude, am protected by hate crime legislation.
Should the Mary Stachowicz case be treated as a hate crime? Maybe. I only have a very passing familiarity with the case. Clearly a case for prosecuting it as a hate crime can be made.
Why must you continue to compare homosexuals with African Americans in all of your posts? It is wholly irrelevant. A more appropriate comparison to homosexual activity is to that of a crack addict, who’s compulsions cause him or her to act in a way that is inappropriate and self destructive, and a danger to his or her self and society at large. Would you call people that fight for tougher drug laws bigoted as well?
Come out come out whereever you are. LMAO…This has become one of the “far right hate sites ” Bill O has mentioned.
Answer the questions peep, ange…come on you can do it.
!!!!????
I make the comparison because both homosexuals are currently fighting for their civil rights much like the black commuity was doing throughout the 20th Century.
Calling homosexuality inappropriate and self-destructive is crazy talk. All unprotected sex is self-destructive. That goes for the gays and the straights. Are heterosexual Africans self-destructive for having the highest AIDS rates in the world?
And inappropriate? To whom? You? I don’t think you’re a good judge of that. What’s inappropriate about two men holding hands? Or, Heck, what’s inappropriate about a man in drag? As long as no one is being outwardly agressive (another thing that both straights and gays can be quite bad at), then it’s appropriate to me.
Does any one remember a Dateline or 60 minutes type news show that lauded these two perverts? I seem to remember this story a few years back. The gay couple only took special needs kids…
It was a bonafide lovefest in an hour special. Give me a damn break. These guys should be drawn, hung and quartered.
Study finds disproportionate abuse by ‘gays’
WorldNet Daily ^ | March 2, 2005
Lots of made-up inaccuracies on here regarding homosexuals both negative and positive. They’re not just like black people and they’re not just like crack addicts. They don’t all have reprobrate minds and they won’t all make great parents. The truth is they are just like any group of people – some good ones and some bad ones. They’ve been around since the beginning of time; are honored in some cultures, rejected in others; some have committed atrocites and some have been invaluable members of society that have made lasting contributions to the world.
We need to get away from trying to define a whole group of people with simplistic ideas that never ring true and decide what things we would like to see in the future and what things we would not. Currently we bash them in one breath for being immoral, hanging out in gym saunas or tapping feet in men’s rooms but then in the other breath we cry out because some want to make a commitment, or attend church, or build families. Personally I’ll take the latter over the former any day of the week.
Re #170:
Um, try finding something not printed on a conservative website from a biased source.
That’s pretty much the definition if biased.
No sense letting facts get in the way of your irrational rant; just keep ignoring everything you disagree with.
#172
Don’t care when it comes to kids. Call me what you will. NO, I don;t think all gay people are bad. I happen to know one or two out here in SF.
I just don’t think that the fox should be watching over the hen house. (Michael Jackson, anyone, anyone…?)
I also believe many of the foster kids these days have gone through A LOT. My sister worked as a social worker for an “orphanage ” for wards of the State. I’ve seen and heard a lot of crap that would make your stomache turn.
These kids need stability. They don’t need to be used as little ponds in some PC battle and hailed as little trophies to some equal opportunity movement among gays. They need a MOm and a Dad… Political correctness does not and will never apply in cases where children’s well being is at risk.
Period.
The Illinois study mentioned by freebiebabe is but one study showing just how bad homosexuality is – in this case in the foster care industry in the USA. 34% of the molestations in the Illinois foster system care are by homosexuals, yet homosexuals only account for 2% of the general population. This is obviously a huge problem which indicates that Illinois social services did not do its job because of the fear of being labeled homophobic as was the case with kidscape.
There are a lot of attempts to excuse homosexual behavior in these postings and that is no surprise. I suggest that anyone who wants to get at the facts do the necessary research – as I have done. (And, by the way, I am not going to do your homework for you if you really want to get at the truth rather of the homosexual disorder.)
Not sure how someone could even pretend to have an accurate figure on this.
Bottom line, if god forbid something bad happend to you, as a parent and no one else was there to care for your children. Would you want your children to go to a straight couple or a gay couple?
Knowing the potential risks involved…. what would you chose? Rusty?
Here is some basic data on homosexuality. If homosexuals are willing to lie about the percentage of the population they represent, why would they restrain themselves when it comes to other issues to make themselves look good to the general population? The only rational way of looking at homosexuality starts with established facts – and it is the facts that destroy just about every myth of homosexuality being some benign situation for the human race.
——————————————
While homosexuals claim they make up 10% of the population, the reality is closer to 1-2%.
A NEWLY RELEASED REPORT from the Centers for Disease Control’s National Center for Health Statistics reveals that only 2.3% of the population considers themselves homosexual. The statistics come from a 2002 National Survey of Family Growth and are based on 12,571 interviews with men and women ages 15-44 years of age.
According to this survey, only 2.3% of the males surveyed considered themselves to be homosexuals; 1.8% considered themselves to be bisexuals. Among men ages 18-44, 92% said they were attracted “only to females” and 3.9% “mostly” to females. Among women, 86% said they were attracted only to males, and 10% “mostly” to men
I would want my children to go to good people. And if the choice was good gay parents vs. bad straight parents, I’d choose the gay ones. And vice versa. And since statistics can just as easily be coerced to show that more sex crimes against children are done by straight people, I’m not sure where you are deriving your potential risk theory.
I honest-to-God wouldn’t care either way.
I put as much faith in sex surveys as I do political polls. There’s simply no way to get a “straight” answer on these topics for a variety of reasons.
I wonder if Senator Craig was asked if he was gay on a survey if he would answer honestly???
OK, say they are both GOOD. A good gay couple and a good straight couple?
Which would you prefer if you had to pick? What would be in the BEST interest of the children. Growing up, socially interacting with others.
What about other parents. Would they be more likely to allow their child to attend a sleep over at a gay parents house or straight parents. Birthdays.
Say what you will…I would never stand in the way of equal rights for gays (even marriage – I don;t care what you do as an adult)….But, that doesn’t include children. Sorry.
Did BigAnge actually say “ignoring”..still waiting for that defination of “real American” there Ange. What are you afraid of?
If one sex survey is insufficient, how about all of the following. Of course, nothing is sufficient if you just want to ignore the available facts and make up whatever fantasy suits you politically correct agenda.
————————————-
USA Today, in its April 15, 1993 issue published the following statistics from a Planned Parenthood/Alan Guttmacher Institute study:
Only 2.3% of males ages 20 to 39 said they had experienced a same-sex relationship in the past decade. Only 1.1% said they were exclusively gay.
A 1989 U.S. survey indicated that no more than 6% of adults had any kind of same-sex experience. Less than 1% said they were exclusively gay.
A 1992 French study found that only 1.4% of men and 0.4% of women said they had any same-sex contact in the past five years.
In 1991, the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) provided data indicating that of the 6% who have ever experienced same-sex relations, the number of currently active homosexuals (at that time) was .06-0.7%. The source for this is: T.W. Smith, Planning Perspectives 23, May/June 1991).
The Wall Street Journal shed more light on the 10% of the population being homosexual in its March 31, 1993 issue:
A survey conducted by the Minnesota Adolescent Health Survey (1986-86) of public school students indicated that only 0.6% of boys and 0.2% of girls identified themselves “mostly or 100% homosexual”-which is less than one percent!
In Canada, a 1988 survey of first-year college students under 25 indicated that 98% were heterosexual; 1% bisexual; and 1% homosexual. (Source: King, et al. Canada, Youth and AIDS Study, Kingston, Ontario: Queen’s University.)
By the way, homosexual advocacy groups have confirmed in legal briefs on sodomy that the 2% figure is correct.
To: publiuswarmac9999
Good research.
PS. And its FEEbiebabe. No R. The later spelling tends to have bad implications.
No, more sex surveys will be just as flawed as the first one. People simply aren’t honest when asked point-blank about their sex life, especially when it comes to something that has so much baggage as homosexuality. And we all know I could do a few searches and come up with just as many statistics showing the opposite of what the surveys you’ve selected show. Statistics are malleable that way which is why I don’t put much stock in them. I pick that tried and true method of making my judgements of people only after I’ve had a chance to get to know them. And that’s not out of political correctness but because that’s what my own parents taught me.
As far as your other question regarding choosing a set of parents, if they were both good, then I wouldn’t care. I certainly don’t think straight people have a monopoly on social interraction nor on growing up. And no, I wouldn’t get any more scared sending a child for a sleepover or a birthday at a gay parents house then a straight parents house. I’d follow my usual rule which is to know the parents first.
You people still insist all men who molest boys are “homosexual” It is the only way to reach your intented conclusion. Why do you refuse to allow for another posibility? That a significant number of men who molest boys would just as easily molest girls as well. The studies you cite do not, repeat, do not, have a basis in fact. The bias of the those doing the “research” holds that a male is molesting a boy, therefore he must be a homosexual. Under that presumption a man who has sex with both men and women must also be homosexual and Bi-sexual is non existant. Did the “study” release data as to whether any of these men had ever had relations with women? No, did the “study” ask the men if they were indeed homosexual, No. Again the “study” assumes the men are homosexual” as a way to advance the position already held by the “researchers”. Pseudo-science at best. And considering the extreme bias, to deny it is a lie, of those doing the study, how could anyone who thinks logically and not “emotionally or spiritually” come to agree with tainted conclusions?
Sorry, second question was not yours but feebiebabe’s, but regardless, that’s my answer.
Your joking, right?
I think even more importantly, these surveys don’t address that pedophilia is wholly separate from being straight/gay. Being attracted to non-sexual, defenseless children doesn’t have much to do with gender.
Joking…not at all.
Heres a question…do you believe all men who have sex with men are homosexual? And if so what is a man who has sex with both men and women?