you’re hung up on the ‘gay’ issue and your incessant talk of ’sex change mutilations’. Take off your blinders.

It’s funny to see you speak here on this blog – yet on Towleroad you sound like a third world alien who never even bothered to learn broken English. Why don’t you share some of your idiotic comments for all here to see. Your rants on Matthew Shephard or that woman who sh*ts and p*sses in front of her children. You are a very damaged person and to actually hear you cast sexual judgement on everyone else is scary (and slightly laughable).

For anyone who would cares to read a different opinion of SNOWISFUN or FUNINSNOW:

http://www.towleroad.com/2012/...../#comments

http://www.americantraditions......esting.htm

Adams goes on to attack the work of Dr. Gregory Herek in Herek’s article “Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation”. Adams goes on to credit Timothy J. Dailey of the Family Research Council and also credits Paul Cameron of the Family Research Institute. What I find most amazing about Adams’ article is that he completely fails to even mention what the studies that Herek cites in his article. For example, Adams copies what Herek said about the study that Dr. A. Nicholas Groth said, Adams writes:

“All that Herek could come up with on this was:

However, no details are provided about how this information was ascertained, making it difficult to interpret. Nor did the authors report the number of homosexual versus bisexual offenders, a distinction that the Groth and Birnbaum study (described above) indicates is relevant.”

But Adams completely refuses to mention what it is that Groth’s study indicated. Anyone can notice how Adams even doesn’t even mention what it was Groth discovered or that Adams even bothers to mention Dr. Groth’s whole name. Kind of ironic when Adams is trying to prove his case to leave out information like that.

Anyone who is familiar with the work of Dr. A. Nicholas Groth knows that Groth discovered there are two types of child molesters: Fixated and Regressed.

Herek explains in his article what Dr. Groth means, which is also what Adams leaves out:

“Typologies of offenders have often included a distinction between those with an enduring primary preference for children as sexual partners and those who have established age-appropriate relationships but become sexually involved with children under unusual circumstances of extreme stress. Perpetrators in the first category – those with a more or less exclusive interest in children – have been labeled fixated. Fixation means “a temporary or permanent arrestment of psychological maturation resulting from unresolved formative issues which persist and underlie the organization of subsequent phases of development” (Groth & Birnbaum, 1978, p. 176). Many clinicians view fixated offenders as being “stuck” at an early stage of psychological development.

By contrast, other molesters are described as regressed. Regression is “a temporary or permanent appearance of primitive behavior after more mature forms of expression had been attained, regardless of whether the immature behavior was actually manifested earlier in the individual’s development” (Groth & Birnbaum, 1978, p. 177). Regressed offenders have developed an adult sexual orientation but under certain conditions (such as extreme stress) they return to an earlier, less mature psychological state and engage in sexual contact with children.”

What Adams also leaves out is that Timothy J. Dailey has been knows to distort the work of Dr. Groth as well as another famous research whose work has been distorted by Dailey and the rest of the Family Research Council named Dr. Gene Abel:

http://www.internationalorder......ponse.html

Adams goes on to say about Paul Cameron: “Herek knows that some of the greatest researchers on the relations between homosexuals and youth are Dr. Paul Cameron and Family Research Institute.”

Really? as Dr. Herek pointed out about Cameron: “Cameron’s credibility was also questioned outside of academia. In his written opinion in Baker v. Wade (1985), Judge Buchmeyer of the U.S. District Court of Dallas referred to “Cameron’s sworn statement that ‘homosexuals abuse children at a proportionately greater incident than do heterosexuals,’” and concluded that “Dr. Paul Cameron…has himself made misrepresentations to this Court” and that “There has been no fraud or misrepresentations except by Dr. Cameron.”

Meaning that Cameron was found to be a big liar in court by a judge for misinterpreting the research of other scientific researchers, which is why Cameron has been kicked out of many serious professional psychological organizations.

It’s clear that O.R. Adams Jr. can not only be best described as a “nutjob” but also a complete IDIOT!!!! This man cleary lives in a fantasy land for believing that people like Paul Cameron and Timothy J. Dailey should be taken seriously for their “research”!

It should also be pointed out that O.R. Adams Jr. believes that homosexuals shouldn’t be allowed to serve in the military, he states in his own words in another article of his titled “Homosexuals are Destructive to Our Military Forces”:

http://www.americantraditions......litary.htm

Adams writes: “Homosexuals should not be allowed in our military forces at all”

Adams also writes: “Long experience has shown that homosexuals are quite destructive and disruptive to our military forces.”

Oh, Adams also cites Paul Cameron again in this article to try to prove his statements, he writes: “Dr. Cameron, in The Gay Nineties, gives us one more good example of this homosexual phenomenon of lack of logic and understanding.”

It’s amazing how stupid people like O.R. Adams Jr. can be to try to fool people with their misinformation by siting groups known to provide junk science and misinterpreting the work of ther scientific researchers just for their hatred to support their political agenda.

I’ve been hostile to you since I first encountered you. Your smearing Harvey Milk and Matthew Sheperd was simply the last straw.

Now go away.

With Matthew Wayne Shepard, so much has been said about his Oct. 1998 killing but what gets less coverage is that 2 months before he was killed Matthew Wayne Shepard committed misdemeanor assault&battery on Cody bartender who reacted by decking him. The next day, MW Shepard made a story to the Cody police of being a homosexual gang rape victim. The hospital did medical tests which came back negative. MW Shepard’s excuse was that he was drunk, suffered from PTSD & that once the medical tests came back negative he ‘dropped’ the charge when it’s the police who decide whether to prosecute or drop the charge, not the victim.

Witnesses have said that MW Shepard used drugs (possibly Ecstasy) such as Meth as his killers were Meth sellers. MW Shepard also feared he had AIDS as he would be tested for it. But Aron, put aside MW SHepard’s killing, do you see anything wrong with MW Shepard making a homosexual gang rape accusation which could’ve sent innocents to prison? Maybe MW Shepard believed his story-he had PTSD & only he knows his intent. But MW Shepard chose to worsen himself by being a drunkard & using drugs. If you can reply, then please share because all you did was become hostile after I gave facts about Harvey B. Milk & now MW Shepard which you don’t seem to disagree with but are made because it was said.

Do the world a favor and lock the doors to your house. From the outside.

Mayor Moscone used to be a public defender. Yes, people accused of a crime deserve the best defense innocent or guilty, but Mayor Moscone defended child molesters he knew were guilty. Harvey Milk by admission of gay activists in 1964 committed homosexual statutory on a teenage boy (the boy committed suicide in 1980) but was never prosecuted for it. It’s possible the boy took part in gay activities in adulthood due to homosexual statutory rape & committed suicide perhaps in reaction to this. Harvey Bernard Milk treated people who differed with him arrogantly. Harvey Bernard Milk should’ve been convicted & jailed for felony homosexual statutory rape lost his right to vote. What Daniel James (DJ) White did by killing Harvey Bernard Milk was doing what the California legal system didn’t do to HB Milk 14 years earlier . If homosexual groups want to honor HB Milk, then that’s 1 thing but forcing California public schools to honor him is bad esp. when the fact about Harvey Bernard Milk being a homosexual statutory rapist gets minor coverage. If you have thoughts, then please give your view on Harvey Bernard Milk because both he & Matthew Wayne Shepard were bad people for reasons unrelated to their killings but will limit this post to Harvey Milk.

Since you ask about Irishmen, as I said, the 2 best egs. I can think of are Bill O’Reilly & musician Don Henley who are bad Catholics. The latter was a drug junky & if I’m not mistaken he shares the views of Elton John (toilet John as I think of him). Bill O’Reilly though many think of him as right wing has admitted that he is a Libertarian & Libertarians are apologists for gay/lesbian activities so Bill O’Reilly is a bad Catholic. It’s more complex but those are eg.

What’s your definition of a ‘good Irish Catholic’ as opposed to a ‘bad Irish Catholic?’ And I couldn’t care less about Paddy. I’m glad he’s gone, but I don’t watch MSNBC anyway.

I don’t know Tony Perkins other than he is with FRC as again I don’t have Cable TV. But since Tony Perkins view are the same as that of Patrick J. Buchanan, he is right. Anyhow, my guess is that Aron like the SPLC is happy with the news about MSNBC firing Patrick J. Buchanan & is hoping for the same to happen to Mr. Tony Perkins.

But yes, it does pretty much follows directly in a line – maybe if you got your nose out of everyone else’s business and quit trying to repress women you’d realize that

No, you can’t. This is the stupidest thing I heard on this site that doesn’t come from Jason Smith or “More of the Same.”

Agreed that it’s getting repetitive, and sorry about the username confusion. To me, your unwillingness to even consider that your point of view might be wrong, or that the lived experiences of a group of people might be worth knowing before casting judgement on them is simply impossible to understand.

So far as I can tell, you simply “feel” that same-sex sexual behaviour is wrong, and have sought out writers and groups whose statements support that belief. That seems to fit the dictionary definition of prejudice, but I’m unable to find anything in your posts here that offers any other origin for your views on homosexuality.

As with your views on gender, your views on the causes of suicide attempts, homelessness, and drug use among LGBT people are, I think, clouded by your refusal to seek out information on the topics. It’s that willful ignorance that is losing people like Perkins their media spotlight.

In the face of overwhelming evidence that the earth revolves around the sun, simply shouting over and over again that the sun goes around the earth eventually fails to sway those on the fence. So too with views on sexuality that find more basis in common sense tradition than in reality, and especially views which attempt to blame the victims of bigotry for the damage that bigotry causes.

I honestly am interested in where your views come from and how you’ve arrived at them, hence my continued responses to your comments and my attempt to keep the dialogue going. From what I can tell from your most recent pair of posts though, that interest in understanding people you disagree with may be an alien one to you.

Perhaps that’s why you still haven’t responded to my request for the studies that inform your anti-gay views.

We discussed sex changes on another blog & honestly, it doesn’t matter to me what a transexual says. There are to repeat people who think they’re dogs & if science knew how to surgically change a man to make him a fake dog, some Drs. would do this. With sex changes, it doesn’t take an expert to know that years of hormone shots will break down the body. Yes,transexuals think they’re helped by sex changes & most consent to it, but again-those surgeries are science wastes & should not be given for again, the same reasons that a Dr. should change skin color. I see something wrong with sex changes & just because science knows how to do it, it’s still bad. My reason for seeing something wrong with sex changes has to do with me seeing it as something immoral which a transexual won’t understand.

Have you ever talked to anyone who either identifies as transgendered/transsexual or who has undergone sexual reassignment surgery?

You seem to be even less informed about that topic than about homosexuality and bisexuality.

You’re obviously communicating back and forth with at least one gay male (myself), politely enough even if neither of us are likely to sway the other, but the way that you go on about doctors performing mutilations makes it sound like you envision sexual reassignment surgery as some sci-fi horror movie procedure, where confused and naive men and women are lured by sadistic doctors into horrible procedures that destroy their lives.

It’d be interesting to know if you’d ever considered actually asking one of the thousands of people who’ve had those surgeries why they did it, and what it has meant for their lives. For me, the most distasteful aspect of your posts here is that you appear to lack even the slightest interest in getting to know the perspectives of those most affected by the policies and ideas you promote.

I am familiar with your opinions, and I’m almost insulted that you don’t remember our previous back and forth on an earlier story on this blog. Since you don’t seem to remember me, I’ll reiterate that I disagree with you on basically everything to do with LGBT issues except that rape and sexual harassment are bad.

In reference to your above comment, I didn’t actually ask you anything. My point was that your viewpoint (that homosexuality and drug abuse are essentially the same) is an opinion that, while once very popular, is rapidly declining.

Politics has certainly played a part in that, but so has your side’s struggle to present a rationality for your beliefs. As our side presented evidence and came out of the closet, your side relied upon the bible and fears of sexual predators. You state that “politics & namecalling doesn’t change the facts”, which is true, but simply stating that something is a fact doesn’t make it one.

That requires evidence.

I have several times asked you for the source of your assertions about the dangers of homosexuality, and the lack of studies that you can refer to are not a failure on your part, but a failure of the anti-gay movement. You can’t present evidence that you don’t have, and where groups like the AFA and NARTH have tried to present evidence, they’ve relied upon taking other studies out of context, drawing conclusions that have nothing to do with the research, or using flawed methods to tailor their results.

I’m still waiting for you to direct me toward a single piece of research that proves me wrong on that count.

Thank you for pithily summing up what SPLC is all about. Now…who gets to decide who needs silenced?

As one who has been alive for a few years, I can remember how it used to be, before gay/lesbians were able to ‘come out’; a lot of fear, a lot of confusion, inappropriate attempts at intamacy, lack of understanding.

Today, people are able to openly seek out those who share their desires, appropiately and without fear. To again shut the closet door will not serve good for anyone.

I am not gay, but I am also not controlling or arrogant. So, I have no idea what it is that makes a man prefer another man as a partner. As I am mortal, I can admit to many other things I don’t understand as well.

A phrase kept going through my mind some years ago: “…don’t criticize what you don’t understand…”

Oh yeah, Bob Dylan from ‘The Times They are a Changin’. Not the other one, that being The Bob Roberts character, from the movie. The times cannot, must not, change BACK.

Again, you make this assertion based on the claims of a group you admit is on the fringe, and based on the idea that there is some conspiracy within the APA and AMA.

It is clear that you have some serious issues with sex.

With homosexuality, it used to be that mainstream science supported the views of American College of Pediatricians on the harms of homosexuality but since 1973 & esp. since the late late 1990s, mainstream science has become pro-homosexual with those who talk of the dangers of gay/lesbian sexual activities being in the ‘fringe.’ This has happened because mainstream science is driven by politics on the topic of gay/lesbian activities & do what’s politically correct but scientifically wrong. If a Dr. talks of the harms of gay/lesbian activities such as this group, they’re condemned by gay/lesbian groups & the mainstream media is pro-gay/lesbian.

But politics & namecalling doesn’t change the fact that gay/lesbian activities are harmful. The American College of Pediatricians is also against sex change mutilations & these mutilations must be abolished. Mainstream medicine has even taken part in giving puberty delaying drugs to kids who suffer from GID to prepare them for mutilation. Mainstream medicine, etc. may condemn the FRC, but the FRC is right when discussing the harms of homosexual & lesbian activities.

RLavigueur, if you’re not familiar with my posts, I’m a non-Judeo Christian who is against gay/lesbian activities & see it the same as crack smoking. My view is that even if sexual orientation doesn’t change, it’s about ending gay/lesbian activities regardless of orientation change. Anyhow, your turn, but different posters writing/asking me the same thing as you did is going to get the same answers by me, so read what I wrote on other topics here on SPLC to know my view.

Incidentially, why would anyone care what someone whose view of human sexuality and relationships are so backwards that he pretty clearly has implied that a husband has the right to rape his wife if she refuses his request for sex thinks is normal?

It doesn’t really matter what your views are on the topic of the American College of Pediatricians, they’re a fringe group with no credibility and will be remembered in history as a laughable group of homophobes struggling to present a veneer of legitimacy as science leaves them behind.

For every member of the College who vows to ignore science that contradicts his religion, three hundred members of the American Academy of Pediatrics continue to advance the discipline and human knowledge. The College barely even qualifies as a fringe group, and the gap between them and the public grows each year.

Face it, you know absolutely Nothing about sexual orientation, you make it your business to know Nothing about the topic, so you are in no situation to determine what kids should or should not know or be exposed to. I sincerely hope that if you have any children, none of them are gay, because I wouldn’t wish the horror of growing up in such a hateful environment on anyone. Homosexuality is neither harmful to children nor to adults, but being raised in a household poisoned by hatred, that can cause lasting and serious harm.

So long as you and others like you ignore reality because of your own discomfort, your views will become more and more marginal. Perkins had the chance to present solid evidence of his views, or rational explanations for his opposition to homosexuality. Instead, he chose to lie and distort studies, probably because he has no rational views or evidence for his position. By lying, however, he gives MSNBC and every other media organization a solid reason not to feature him on their programs. That’s the most amusing part of this whole situation, the fact that he could have avoided the most damning charges in the petition if he’s paid attention to a different part of his Bible. The part that says:

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

In a way I disagree with the position – MSNBC is the network most likely to have hosts who actually challenge a wacko like Perkins and expose him as teh fool he is – but too often even MSNBC plays the game of balancing a wacko like Perkins with a more moderate person

To the extent that MSNBC is inviting him on to expose what a fool he is, MSNBC should have him on as often as they want. To the extent that MSNBC is using Perkins to make the moderate right wing appear to be liberals they should stop (not that they won’t because it interferes with the interests of their sponsors and shareholders).

I’ll be honest, I just don’t see how stifling people like Tony Perkins (and Phelps, Metzger, et. al.) is gonna affect my life or anyone else that doesn’t live their lives in a damn hole fighting off progress and evolution like they do.

Yeah, I suppose pushing these people underground is gonna cause violence from them, but letting them speak publicly doesn’t really stop the violence thereof. The people of Oklahoma City can tell you that.

Some people just need to be silenced.