Article

2004-04-07 Home Front: Culture Wars

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Super Hose 2004-04-07 2:32:49 AM|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Well, well, well. So the "deconstructionists" are at it again!

Like Harvard, it was reported that at the once admirable University of Notre Dame, the psychology department (at the time headed by Dr. Naomi Meara) was pushing for an end to "gender-segregated" bathrooms several years ago. (Sally: "Gee, Bill, I just can't get the hang of these urinals. Can you help me?") It also was reported that, aside from covering up the slew of rapes, child molestations, and wild homosexual parties being accomplished by the seminarians who went to the psych department for "counseling," it was considered the most important thing on the department's to-do list that year.

Supreme idiocy.

"Homophobia," huh? There's no such thing as homo"phobia ." I mean, an actual "phobia" of homosexuals? C'mon. Phobias are serious anxiety disorders. Being repulsed by men who engage in sexual deviance with other men is normal. It's not a "phobia."

Anyway, there's no such thing as a "homosexual" either. There are only guys doing sexual things with other guys , for reasons usually stemming from childhood issues. It's not like they're another "species." Homosexuality is a behavior, not a biological condition. In fact, the psychiatrist who led the charge to have homosexuality removed from the DSM, admitted a couple of years ago that he had done so under pressure from homosexual lobbyists. He now says it is a psychiatric disorder and should be put back in the DSM. As I recall, all of his research, since that date, has proved that homosexuality should be recognized and treated as the disorder it is.

"a panel of sadomasochism experts . . ." Experts? Uh-oh. At least sadomasochism is still listed in the DSM as one of the "diagnosable" sexual perversions, or, in politically correct terminology: it's a "paraphilia," (like pedophilia) but for how long? Like the insanity that led to "de-diagnosis" of homosexuality, it looks like the libs are out to change society once again. We better be on our toes, because this time, it's the kids they're after.

I say--send them all to Falluja. Permanently. They deserve it.

Posted by ex-lib 2004-04-07 4:15:43 AM|| 2004-04-07 4:15:43 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Ex-lib, I think we can both agree that while tolerance in good, silent lectures and a month devoted to communal potties is silly. Besides, how will we know whether to leave the seat up or down?

Posted by Super Hose 2004-04-07 4:23:26 AM|| 2004-04-07 4:23:26 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Satire, right? Scrappleface? Huh?Huh?

Posted by debbie 2004-04-07 6:15:09 AM|| 2004-04-07 6:15:09 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 This be some seriously silly shit.

Posted by Raptor 2004-04-07 7:31:31 AM|| 2004-04-07 7:31:31 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Fallujah burns while Harvard diddles.

Posted by john 2004-04-07 7:40:49 AM|| 2004-04-07 7:40:49 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 I am so utterly disgusted by the academic, socialist circle jerk going on in this country. We have young men and women sacrificing their lives so that Harvard can spend a month celebrating and debating homosexuality and transexual equality. What the f!? And what thanks do they get..."we support the troops when they shoot their officers"...

Posted by mjh 2004-04-07 9:09:13 AM|| 2004-04-07 9:09:13 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 MJH.....

Socialist circle jerk....I love it!! I'm gonna steal it! So many potential uses...........

Posted by debbie 2004-04-07 10:12:03 AM|| 2004-04-07 10:12:03 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 Can you use the opportunity of "speakout" to yell "Jesus H. fucking Christ on a crutch! Can't you people shut the fuck up for five minutes? I'm trying to get a degree here!"

Posted by mojo 2004-04-07 10:36:57 AM|| 2004-04-07 10:36:57 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 Well this certainly says a lot about what really is important to these people. Forget the economy, WOT. Bathrooms are now an important part of the extra curricula....Pathetic....methinks they need more courses to keep busy.

Posted by Bill Nelson 2004-04-07 11:49:32 AM|| 2004-04-07 11:49:32 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 It's 40 grand a year to go to Harvard this year. Wouldn't I be thrilled to be shelling out that kinda money to send my kid there and then have to read this shit?

Posted by tu3031 2004-04-07 1:35:51 PM|| 2004-04-07 1:35:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 "Harvard celebrates âGayprilâ"

Lol! But of course, they did. That's what the academic and silver-spoon crowd does.

Posted by .com 2004-04-07 1:41:28 PM|| 2004-04-07 1:41:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 im not care what they do as long as they leave the gerbil alone.

Posted by muck4doo 2004-04-07 3:29:24 PM|| [http://www.peta.org/factsheet/files/FactsheetDisplay.asp?ID=5] 2004-04-07 3:29:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 CAIR going to have a panel?

Posted by Anonymous2U 2004-04-07 5:24:19 PM|| 2004-04-07 5:24:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 SH: The facist academicians of this country don't think it's silly. Rather, they believe it to be a "moral" duty--potty seats and all. It's about breaking down social norms and redesigning society. Re: tolerance. I generally ascribe to the credo that people are people first, and should be respected regardless of their problems. Any homosexual, lesbian, or transgendered person I've ever met or talked with, is obviously (at least to me) suffering from maladaptive behavior associated with negative environmental stimuli, usually first encountered in childhood. Interestingly, if the original situation and subsequent patterns can be addressed adequately, the behavior and "preferences" vanish. Tolerance needs to be tempered with an accurate understanding of what led up to the behavior--link to article A Developmental View of Homosexuality Blind acceptance "locks" homosexuals etc. into a destructive lifestyle by falsely legitimizing it.

Posted by ex-lib 2004-04-07 5:24:42 PM|| 2004-04-07 5:24:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 Oops, that link is

Sorry 'bout that.

Posted by ex-lib 2004-04-07 7:05:03 PM|| 2004-04-07 7:05:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 Oh, forget it. I must not be doing it right.

If you want to access " A Developmental View of Homosexuality"-- it's at:

http://www.newdirection.ca/a_dev2.htm

Posted by ex-lib 2004-04-07 7:06:52 PM|| 2004-04-07 7:06:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 "discrimination linked to gender-segregated bathrooms."

Tolerance is an important virtue in any modern civilized society. Tolerating the above sort of drivel is intellectual bankruptcy.

Posted by Zenster 2004-04-07 8:06:59 PM|| 2004-04-07 8:06:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 ex-lib,

you equated sexual abuse of children and rape (actions which require the lack of consent) with two men getting it on (the presence of consent) that makes your bias clear and kills your credibility, but anyway onward with your claims.

Destructive lifestyle, pfft, does not fly. I've several gay/les/bi friends, all good people. Got nutty messed up straight friends, but not gay/bi/les. A more empirical rebuttal would be the ancient Greeks, gay activity was encouraged in those days. If the cradle of most western ideas is a "destructive lifestyleâ, as you put it, then it is only destructive to social cowards such as yourself. (yeah a personality attack, but it applies, you cant handle that people are different and seek to deny the reality of it, sad.)

As for it only being developmental, that does not explain why homosexuality is found commonly in nature. So that claim falls apart.

Disagree? GREAT. Put down, right now in very clear terms exactly HOW it is destructive and how these people are harming themselves. And put down exactly how a behavior which can be observed in nature is only a âdevelop behavioral problemâ in humans. I would really love to see a response that isnât just talking down to people you donât approve of.
(and no no no, âbecause god does not like itâ does not count)

(must add, to your credit you got the homophobia part correct)

Posted by Dcreeper 2004-04-07 9:54:06 PM|| 2004-04-07 9:54:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 Mucky - here's your antichrist

Posted by Frank G 2004-04-07 10:11:03 PM|| 2004-04-07 10:11:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 If you are that traumatized by having to decide which bathroom to use, maybe you have some other problem besides feeling like a woman. Or not feeling like a woman, as the case may be.
Somehow I think that gays and lesbians have bigger problems to address. But what do I know?

Posted by Desert Blondie 2004-04-07 10:21:54 PM|| 2004-04-07 10:21:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 Dcreeper: you said that I "equated sexual abuse of children and rape (actions which require the lack of consent) with two men getting it on (the presence of consent). " Before I take time to respond your questions and accusations, reread my post more carefully. I didn't say that.

It will take more than a quick blurb to respond to the commonly-held fallacious points you have raised, and I would like to make sure you are serious about dialogue. It will take some time to dig up the relevant research and examples, and I don't want to put the time in. You understand. In the past I have found that people who automatically slam me with attacks such as yours are either defending something they don't really understand, or are defending a particular friend or relative or co-worker or a partner or themselves, against a perceived, yet non-existent, threat to their self-worth, and are generally not speaking from a rational basis. Perhaps you could investigate the research yourself (go to the link , read it, then read the research findings listed at the end), so we could have an ability to communicate more effectively. The link I'm directing you to summarizes research and theoretical findings, and is written by ex-homosexuals for homosexuals still caught in the web of a (yes) destructive lifestyle.

If you truly care about the person or people that you are defending, care about them as people, but don't lock them into a mistake (that is, a lifestyle they may want to leave later) through misguided ideas of friendship and acceptance.

Posted by ex-lib 2004-04-08 12:45:09 AM|| 2004-04-08 12:45:09 AM|| Front Page Top

#22 agreed, you did not say it, you implied it.
went to your link, won't lie and say I read the entire thing, is long. scanned it and grabbed the meat of it. Essentially it's a propos ion that has zero proof, none. no research. all examples given are much like examples one gets in an ethic's debate, purely theoretical.
(yes yes it does talk about established theories on development, buh it fails to link it convincingly to being _the_ cause of being gay)

the author's name was not given so I could not look the person up to get a better sense of the credibility of the person, the organization that funded the document however was listed, New Direction for Life Ministries, a Christian org which seeks to turn gays into non-gays. Cant exactly call the group impartial.

not sure if you are calling my challenges irrational or not, gunna assume not.

root cause of gay-hood:

I am not making the claim that these folks who thought they were gay then changed their mind are actually gay and are simply lying to themselves, they could simply have gotten themselves confused and thought they were gay for a while, 's not beyond reason.

(from THAT perspective I can see how the belief of it being self destructive can come about as for them it is not a truly satisfactory relationship.)

I do however make the claim that you are wrong in saying that being gay is behavioral,(thus you are stating that it is only behavioral)

The linked page, after clicking around, I did manage to find some research it cites, http://www.newdirection.ca/a_biol.htm, cites two bits, a study on twins, a genetic study on gay people.

The twins one, eh I am uncomfy with the method used, in their search for twins they put out an advertisement to recruit people for the study, am assuming itâs not necessary to explain how that can horribly skew the results of a statistical study. I canât really consider it a scientific study and am gunna ignore it.

The genetic one is little better, the source is far too small and as noted on the website the study did not even have a control group, the results are interesting but they cant be considering conclusive or even useful in a debate, ( I say this despite the fact that itâs results support my argument)

So from that, considering the websiteâs active interest in proving that it is definitely behavioral and have worked towards finding/doing research that supports their goal Iâm going to assume that this is about as good as the research gets on the subject matter of being gay is behavioral. So from that assumption I make the conclusion that there is no evidence that being gay is behavioral. However the opposite is also true, there is no evidence that being gay isnât behavioral

Without new evidence/respectable studies Iâm not sure how an argument towards pro-behavior could be approached,

I did not see any articles on the website which laid out how being gay is unhealthy/destructive so Iâm hoping you could elaborate on that. I would also like to know how a trait that you claim is exclusively a learned behavior is found so commonly among non-human and more directly instinct driven critters

Posted by Dcreeper 2004-04-08 2:31:40 AM|| 2004-04-08 2:31:40 AM|| Front Page Top

#23 Hmmm, this is a truly live social controversy . . . Just to add fuel to the discussion, hereâs another interesting article: Homosexual Causation: Nature or Nurture? This article, like the one cited by ex lib, is from an organization of âex-homosexuals.â It also cites research -- but has the âgold standardâ research study been conducted? I doubt it because, politically, most researchers would not be able to get the funding for such a study, and would not dare to take the risk. One researcher who might is Dr. Elizabeth Moberly who received her Ph.D. in psychology from Oxford University for her study of homosexuality. But, as I understand, her research has been such a threat to the homosexual community that she is constantly hounded and gets death threats.

Posted by ex-lib 2004-04-08 10:08:28 AM|| 2004-04-08 10:08:28 AM|| Front Page Top

#24 link looks interesting, buh I've stuff I need to get done, so wont be able to look at it for a few hours

Posted by Dcreeper 2004-04-08 12:55:41 PM|| 2004-04-08 12:55:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 Dcreeper:

I didnât state, or imply, the equating of homosexuality with the acts of rape and pedophilia. What I did say was that the NDU psychology department--along with the gender-blurring bathroom idea--was covering up the high instances of rapes and child molestations, as well as some very wild homosexual parties, taking place among the seminarians: all part and parcel of their deconstructionist aims. That was the point.

Next, the organization I cited, and the one cited in #23, do not seek to change people. They are resource organizations for homosexuals looking for a way out. Most of the people involved in those organizations are men and women who have reclaimed their natural sexuality. If you have questions, why not talk to them--I believe you could request to talk with former homosexuals, lesbians, bis, and transsexuals regarding your arguments and questions. And if you do contact them, Iâd talk to several people in order to get a broad-based perspective. (Maybe Iâm wrong, but the religious point of view is not their main thing, as far as I have determined. Anyway, I wouldnât judge them too quickly on that.)

If your schedule doesnât allow you to read my link in its entirety--which is merely a cursory treatment--then I doubt youâd have time to do the rather extensive and involved amount of investigative research needed to answer your points and questions adequately or conclusively. If you do begin looking into it, please note that for the past 30 years legitimate research on the subject has been squelched, as the societal deconstructionists (the politically correct crowd) continue with their goal of dismantling society in order to build one they want. Therefore, research studies are somewhat scarce, but theyâre still out there.

In the counseling clinics run by Dr. Elizabeth Moberly and her team, an interesting thing came to light. As the counselors there began building supportive (as in deeply caring), non-sexual, relationships with homosexual clients who came in for counseling about other issues, the clients, of their own accord, began to want to drop out of the homosexual lifestyle and adopt their original state of heterosexuality. Curiosity over this occurrence led Moberly into further research, which she talks about in her book--which debunks the idea of âcuringâ homosexuality in ways that had been previously accepted in the professional field of counseling psychology. Iâd give her ideas more of a chance. I think youâd find her point of view very intelligent, even if you didnât agree with her. She came to speak at my university once, and at least half the place was packed with several hundred angry homosexuals and lesbians with signs and placards. As she began to speak, the whole crowd of them stopped jeering and quieted down. They soon became hushed, and intent on listening to what she had to say. They put their signs down. Some exited quietly and respectfully, as her lecture went on. They had come for a fight, but didn't find what they were expecting.

Unlike psychologists such as Moberly, I strongly assert that the PC academic deconstructionists are misusing the homosexual community for their own benefit--they are manipulating society through the problems of worthwhile individuals. And they know it.

The Harvard and NDU examples are just drops in the bucket compared to whatâs going on in the deconstructionistâs efforts to change society. For example, the PC crowd are the ones who are responsible for creating the gay militant movement--the movement which actively seeks to delegitimize and destroy heterosexual society (their stated goal). Another example--at many of the top universities, acceptance of pedophilia as a legitimate sexuality is a requirement for a student to be a resident advisor in the dorms. Thankfully, a lot of research has been done on pedophilia as it relates to child abuse--but that doesnât stop them. I checked out a book published by Yale University Press a few years ago that focused on changing the sexuality of children through working in child care centers--basically âcoachingâ the children toward their supposed âunrealizedâ sexuality, so that the next generation would be more accepting of adult-child sexual relationships.

The destructive lifestyle question: Homosexual relationships are typically characterized as VERY short-lived, stormy, and unsatisfying--now there is research on that. (The longer-lasting homosexual relationships become more and more non-sexual as time moves on. Interesting--perhaps legitimate love needs are being better met in those relationships, and the focus changes? ) Secondly, many in the gay community go ape-shit when someone wants out. There are acts of arson, vandalism, and death threats against homosexuals that donât want to be involved any longer. Next, if medical doctors could report the facts (without losing their licenses), there are some very serious physical/medical problems associated with the penis, the anus, and the colon, that can develop when a manâs genitals are inserted into the intestinal tract through the anus (of either sex, but of course, this is the prevalence among homosexuals--duh). Even with condoms it is still a problem, because condoms have a higher than 30% failure rate, and the instance of multiple partners raises the risks, as does the fact that unprotected sexual contact is generally preferred. Which brings me to another point regarding destructive lifestyles. Houston, Texas is one of the many places in the world that hosts huge parties for gay men. Hundreds usually attend. One of the activities they sponsored one year worked like Russian roulette. Six men get together in a group. One of them has AIDS. Everyone has group anal sex, unprotected, and then they say who it was. I hope this is a sufficient beginning defense of my point for you to ponder.

This subject is not the occupying force of study in my life, so I would just encourage you not to buy into the status quo until you know more--which looks like thatâs where youâre parking it. But one last thing--It is widely known that homosexuals are focusing their attention on younger and younger males. Thatâs especially where the lines of right and wrong begin to blur in that movement. They argue that itâs just our backward society that âstigmatizesâ young boys who want sexual contact with men. (The Harvard crowd wouldnât bat an eye.)

My post has run way long enough, but your argument regarding the animal kingdom (nature) somehow proves the veracity of homosexuality is not true, and neither is your reference to history and homosexuality. But Iâll leave that to someone else to answer.

Posted by ex-lib 2004-04-08 2:04:19 PM|| 2004-04-08 2:04:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 Heh that was a long response :)

OK, only you know you, so if ye say ye didnât mean it that way, you didnât mean it that way; guess Iâm just a little more touchy on the issue when reading rantburg, tends to be pretty old school (thus anti-gay) around here, sorry

http://www.pbs.org/empires/thegreeks/background/19a_p1.html

Homosexuality was big in the Greek society, so yer wrong there ;p thatâs just an easy-to get pbs link, if ye donât like it Iâm sure I could dig up a few history professors.

As for the animal kingdom thing, itâs noted and documented, where do you find the authority/evidence/etc to say ânot uhâ ?

I read the second article you posted, because it held more authority and was more interesting, some comments

âThe fallacy here lies in the equation of sexual orientation with being. Whatever Freud and Foucault and most advertisers may think, the desire for sex is neither central nor necessary to anyone's being. [50] It should not control the person. My truck has a four-wheel drive; however, I should not expect to avoid a citation by explaining to the highway patrol that my vehicle was exploring the freeway embankment because I was being driven by my drive! Similarly, when I use the term orientation I mean only what a person desires, not what a person has a right to do, much less what a person is compelled to do as an expression of his or her being. â

The author took a strange jump here, sex and the desire for sex is a major human motivation.. any claim to opposite is just silly, itâs been long recognized as an important aspect general well being. I didnât check the authorâs age, buh Iâm gunna guess that the author is old and past the heavy sex-drive years. That was really the only section I had a beef with, minor detail anyway

Destructive lifestyle! Ye touched on it! I have to commend you for that, youâre the first person to actually give me reasons as to why being gay is a bad thing.

I read over your reasons a few times and, to be honest, some of it feels like a double standard.

âThe destructive lifestyle question: Homosexual relationships are typically characterized as VERY short-lived, stormy, and unsatisfying--now there is research on that.â

and male-female ones arenât? when was the last time you dated? Shall I regale you with tales of my roomates and my own nightly activities?

(The longer-lasting homosexual relationships become more and more non-sexual as time moves on. Interesting--perhaps legitimate love needs are being better met in those relationships, and the focus changes? )
and male-female ones donât do the same? The old flame burns out eventually, Iâd bring up my parents, buh thinking about them in those terms is icky :-p

the other stuff while bad, did not say âbeing gay is badâ just that âthis community and that community of folks are fân nuts man!â not arguing with you there.

One point you used I do like though,

âNext, if medical doctors could report the facts (without losing their licenses), there are some very serious physical/medical problems associated with the penis, the anus, and the colon, that can develop when a manâs genitals are inserted into the intestinal tract through the anus (of either sex, but of course, this is the prevalence among homosexuals--duh). Even with condoms it is still a problem, because condoms have a higher than 30% failure rateâ

so basically, anal sex is x% more dangerous than your typical vaginal intercourse. Not going to get an argument from me, I know it is more risky, if it is really a serious medical issue, we should be out campaigning against anal sex or for anal condoms but not against being gay, preferring man on man hardly requires a boner up the butt. (Iâm sure you know a good blow job is better than the olâ velvet glove)

even if I were to step into a fantasy world where gay men can only have sex with penis-to-butt action and gay men were the only ones who ever did it that way, even there I could not see it as a reason to consider being gay bad. Reason is everything we do is a risk in one way or another, going to campaign against driving? Or airplanes? Or jumping out of airplanes? What about against sushi ? Or those fake-sugar packets that can give you cancer. Or electric shavers and blow dryers because they create a weak magnetic field that will screw with the iron in the cells of your brain ultimately causing genetic damage to your brain. These risks are all around us, we all risk ourselves every moment, most of it in the interest of living the life we want to live. So I canât help but see claims of it being a destructive lifestyle as being little more than an attempt at trying to prevent people from living how they want to live, it begs the question âwhen destructive means 'risk' what isnât a destructive lifestyle?â

Posted by Dcreeper 2004-04-08 3:01:56 PM|| 2004-04-08 3:01:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 GENDER SEGREGATED BATHROOMS - man+ woman+bathroom=sex scandals, rape, higher costs (to make stalls, more, how do you say, "private," and "secure," i.e.. better LOCKS, etc.), "indecent exposure", sex it's self, just plan weird, gross, sick, etc.

And if your counting on human decency for that one GOOD LUCK! ( As exemplified by Communism.)

Well that was a lovely article.........I'll be leaving to go shoot my self now ...so g-bye ..................don't you just love people with PTSD ( post traumatic sex...I mean stress disorder) getting together to exploit and spread their nice, lovely, charming, ....FREAKING MENTAL DISORDERS!

p.s. i don't think i've ever heard of a group of people who more need to air, and or assert, (these usually go together) their "sexual identity." if they had one they wouldn't be doing this.

Posted by FED UP 2004-04-08 9:53:12 PM|| 2004-04-08 9:53:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 Dcreeper,

You have not addressed any of the more important subjects I was bringing up. You've said nothing about deconstructionism, for example, which was the original subject of my post.

Some final thoughts:

Greek society disintegrated. Same with Rome. Sexual promiscuity, perversion, and homosexuality played a major role.

I haven't read cingold's posted article, so I can't really comment, except that I would agree (taking from what you excerpted) that orientation is associated with desire rather than identity. I think the author is also separating essence of being from desire (or identity from desire), which I also would agree with. In other words, the person should direct the desire, not the other way around.

The characterization of the type of trouble evident in homosexual relationships, in the psychological literature, is that it is specific to them, for a number of reasons. You can find articles on PsychLit if you're so inclined.

You seem to have an issue with "badness," however you conceptualize that, which was not the subject of my posts.

Another destructive thing about the gay lifestyle, in addition to all the things I've already mentioned, is that those entrenched become completely obsessed with their sexuality and with sexual experiences--similar to an addiction. Addictions are destructive.

No one can prevent you, Dcreeper, from "living how you want to live," so that's a dead issue. We're discussing grown-up things here.

There is risk involved in many endeavors in life, of course, but you either ignored or missed the point I was making in my example. You also did not comment the broader directions and implications of the homosexual movement.

This is my last response, because I'm getting bored with the subject matter.

I will end by telling you, frankly, that I'm afraid you have become an unwitting dupe of the liberal left, and are content with rationalizing their agenda to fit your own preconceptions, beliefs, and personal commitments and drives. Your perspectives and stance seems to be in defense of hedonism as a personal philosopy, "religion," and approach to life--which is unfortunate because such an approach thwarts self-actualization, diminishes character, and derails meaningful relationships. If you're not heading that way, my apologies.

Oh yeah--one more thing. Stay away from sushi--it's loaded with parasites.

Enjoyed talking with you.

Posted by ex-lib 2004-04-09 12:22:47 AM|| 2004-04-09 12:22:47 AM|| Front Page Top

#29 aight, discussion ended, buh I have difficulty seeing you as anything other than a bigot

Posted by Dcreeper 2004-04-09 12:47:33 PM|| 2004-04-09 12:47:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 meh, to anyone else who comes across this thread, don give insta-credit to the stuff he most recently spewed, ex-lib does not seem to have the habit of researching his own claims.

I only bothered to look up his claim on Greek society falling apart due to hedonism, buh like everything else he has claimed.. it's just more bigot bunk.
http://www.ancientgreece.com/history/history.htm
there is the history of ancient Greece. Like most ancient civilizations, it fell to the force of arms
(more specifically it fell because Alexander the great forgot to define an heir, his nation fell apart into a bunch of bickering mini kings until the Romans came out on top, you could consider the _young_ roman empire a Greek one because of the massive influence of Greek culture back then, but even then you still can not make the claim that sex destroyed their people, corruption was the downfall of Rome, they did not have effective methods of rooting it out and in the end their power-seeking politicians made one deal too many with the barbarians (yes yes among other corruption related things, keeping it short here))

the rest I leave up to the able reader

Posted by Dcreeper 2004-04-09 1:20:36 PM|| 2004-04-09 1:20:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 I was curious how long this thread would run . . . I must say Iâm a bit disappointed in Dcreeperâs âlast word,â and don't care for it, because it strikes me as not thoughtful. Social research is notoriously hard to conduct, because of the ethical issues implicated in randomly assigning âsubjectsâ to various (potentially harmful) conditions. Nonetheless, it is typically conducted in at least a survey or observational fashion, and is useful in informing discussions on social topics. Social research is all the more difficult to conduct when the topic is taboo, or the academic community militantly protects its sacred cows. The cites noted by ex lib (this link and this link), are at least serious attempts to understand the issue and have a reasoned approach to dealing with the matter. I canât agree with Dcreeper that this is a bigoted approach -- the websites seem pretty nonjudgmental and compassionate, and appear to be run by ex-homosexuals (maybe they know what they're talking about?). Perhaps FED UP is right
i don't think i've ever heard of a group of people who more need to air, and or assert, (these usually go together) their "sexual identity." if they had one they wouldn't be doing this.
I will agree with Dcreeper on one thing, not to give âinsta-credit to the stuffâ posted, but I would take the position with any of the stuff posted by anyone. Go to the links and research the matter. The links posted by ex lib are quite informative.

Posted by cingold 2004-04-09 7:40:53 PM|| 2004-04-09 7:40:53 PM|| Front Page Top

19:40 cingold
13:20 Dcreeper
12:47 Dcreeper
00:22 ex-lib
21:53 FED UP
15:01 Dcreeper
14:04 ex-lib
12:55 Dcreeper
10:08 ex-lib
07:09 Shipman
02:31 Dcreeper
01:53 .com
01:30 Super Hose
01:18 Super Hose
01:11 Mark Espinola
00:50 Zenster
00:45 ex-lib
00:37 Anonymous2U
00:11 ZoGg
23:59 GK
23:50 Phil Fraering
23:44 RWV
23:18 Not Mike Moore
23:15 Super Hose