Friday, January 06, 2006

Delegate Lingamfelter Weighs In

Discussion amounted below on Delegate Lingamfelter's abstinence bill. Kenton Ngo had already looked into it..Claiming Delegate Lingamfelter wants to "leave them(students) in the dark , let them get pregnant" Waldo Jaquith also weighed in negatively and stated that "abstinence is not the accepted norm" -something I disagree with greatly..Especially in Virginia. Just because something is "in the norm" doesn't make it right. Delegate Lingamfelter weighed in to me on his reasons for the bill: "My intent is to so no more or less than the bill says. All I want is a balanced presentation so kids understand that refraining is not only good, but the safest way to avoid and early pregnancy and the full range of consequences that occur. It's how I raised my kids, and thank God they seem to be on a good path. Note I do not take away other instruction. That is not the intent. Rather to give a complete picture..." As I stated below-I believe this is a great bill, and I want to thank Delegate Lingamfelter for caring about students, because I have no doubt abstinence education helps put students on the right path. Maybe now some of these liberal blogs can stop the speculation...

132 Comments:

At 1/06/2006 04:35:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

Well, my sex-ed included that already.

Forgive me for being skeptical of his true motives. Republicans have a tendency to stuff bills.

 
At 1/06/2006 04:39:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

Willis-

I hope you agree I am skeptical alot of the time..even at my own party...but this bill is not something to get skeptical over.

He is doing what is right for the population.

 
At 1/06/2006 04:41:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

This is the full text of his bill:

"Emphasis of abstinence in family life curricula. Requires that any family life education course including a discussion of sexual intercourse emphasize that abstinence is the accepted norm and the only guarantee against unwanted pregnancy. The bill also requires that family life courses include materials that emphasize honor and respect for monogamous heterosexual marriage; provide information on the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases; inform students on laws addressing child support obligations and the unlawfulness of sexual relations between unmarried persons; and advise students on ways to avoid unwanted sexual advances and resist negative peer pressure. Further, the bill provides that students may opt out of family life courses if a parent or guardian submits a written objection."

I'm sure his motives are good. I think any bills of this nature need to recognize homosexuality and alternative lifestyles more. Could be worse, though.

 
At 1/06/2006 04:48:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

Also, as Waldo noted, having unmarried sex isn't against the law. So at the very least, that part of the bill needs to be changed.

I believe abstinence is already part of the curriculum. I distinctly remember it being mentioned in my sex-ed classes.

This seems to me to be a political move, rather than a bill that will really accomplish anything. A precursor to more conservative law, I'd guess. The Republicals will claim "You voted for this, so you should vote for this!!" Common tactic.

 
At 1/06/2006 05:01:00 PM, Anonymous conservativetakeover said...

great BILL!

 
At 1/06/2006 05:04:00 PM, Anonymous getagrip said...

Willis - I suspect that what they are trying to do is create some basis in law, however dubious, to prohibit gay-straight alliances in public schools. Matt Lohr is resubmitting the failed Weatherholz bill from last year for that purpose. You'll recall that they tried to characterize these student clubs as promoting sexual behavior between unmarried minors, which of course is ludicrous. The fact is that the anti-gay cadre knows that what they want to do violates federal equal access law, and they're trying to figure out an end-run around it.

The whole thing is just pandering at the expense of quality of life issues, and the extent to which they are successful is the extent to which Virginia's image is harmed.

 
At 1/06/2006 05:10:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

I hadn't thought about that, but you are probably right getagrip.

Given that abstinence edication is already a part of sex-ed teachings, there is no need for this law, other than for a hidden purpose like getagrip mentions.

 
At 1/06/2006 05:15:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

I do not agree with gay-straight alliances in schools...

Maybe I just have a personal vendetta against them, considering they came into a Chantilly Republican club waving ranbow flags..and spit on all of us.

 
At 1/06/2006 05:17:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

Oh, cmon TC. Claiming persecution again???

Do you really think young Republicans are more persecuted than young homosexuals??

Give me a break.

 
At 1/06/2006 05:31:00 PM, Anonymous getagrip said...

Well, that wasn't very nice.

Not to point fingers at anyone, in particular TC, but do you have any sense of why they were so angry with the Republican club that they would do something like that? Perhaps the club or someone in it tried to get them banned, or was abusive to gay students? It's certainly not a justification for that behavior, but I'm left wanting a more complete story.

Have you ever talked with GSA members or gay students about why they feel such a club is neccessary?

 
At 1/06/2006 05:35:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

TC often offers incomplete stories.

He once told me, with indignation, that he was called a bible-beater by an "atheist teacher", who proceeded to throw him out of class!!

When I was able to pull the complete story out of him, her reaction made complete sense.

My guess is the same will be true here.

 
At 1/06/2006 05:39:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

Yes anon-

We were fixing our case in the school..and putting up a Bush sign..they came by and said Bush hates gays..and spit on us.

If one of the Chantilly club members went around harassing gays..they would be suspended from the school..and kicked out of the club

 
At 1/06/2006 05:41:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

TC: do you think young Republicans are discriminated against more than young homosexuals???

 
At 1/06/2006 05:48:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

Also: I'm sure that someone, maybe many people, in your young Republican's club have used the term "fag" or "faggot" in a derogatory way.

Stop the self-righteous B.S. TC. You know homosexuals experience discrimination on a daily basis, even in northern virginia, which is more accepting than most places.

I'm not condoning whatever spitting and harassment they may or may have not done, but you are definitely painting an incomplete picture.

 
At 1/06/2006 06:06:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

Willis-

You dont know the club..or me...

pick your battles, I am not a Republican you should be arguing with.

The picture is very clear..

The officers of the club(me and 4 other people) were changing our case..the gay straight alliance had a meeting that day..and came up behind us..and spit on us repeatidly and said "f you, and f president bush"

the alliance at chantilly is filled with...shall i say..not so nice people who have chosen to take their strange vengence out on others.

Its not as if just because were republicans we slander gay people all the time.

You crossed the line willis

 
At 1/06/2006 06:07:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

I was in high school 3 years ago.

For you to state that you, the young republicans, are more persecuted and discriminated against than young homosexuals, is very revealing.

You are out of touch with reality. But, most of us already knew that.

 
At 1/06/2006 06:11:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

I NEVER STATED THAT WILLIS

PLEASE READ MY COMMENTS

i am not out of touch with reality..your comments are simply crazier than dean plus clinton and chavez

you always get me off topic of the posts 2...

howd you even find the blog?

 
At 1/06/2006 06:15:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

You never stated it, but you repeatedly ignored the question, so I gleaned your response by the tone of your comments.

You do believe that republicans are more persecuted than homosexuals, don't you???

If that's not the case, please correct me, and state how you do feel.

 
At 1/06/2006 06:24:00 PM, Anonymous getagrip said...

No, TC didn't say that, he acknowledged that he was biased and offered a reason having to do with a personal experience with some individuals.

I think that shows some introspection, honestly. He's able to make a distinction between a personal dislike for some people and an ideological position, which he doesn't seem to share.

From my own limited experience, GSAs often have more straight members, people who are passionate about standing up for their gay friends. What's important about them, though, is that they provide a place for the gay kids who are out there to seek support and commonality, when they may have no other source. To be able to talk to someone else who has come out to their parents and find out that it wasn't the end of the world can be life saving. It's really that simple.

 
At 1/06/2006 06:37:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

I think he just has a persecution complex, driven by O'Reilly, Limbaugh, and all those who claim "liberal media" whenever something goes wrong with their party.

It's just excuse making. He wouldn't recognize it if he insulted a gay person, but of course he recognizes it when they insult him.

I'm just trying to get him to say he believes he, and other young republicans in his school, are persecuted and discriminated against more than homosexuals.

I don't think he'll answer though, because he doesn't want to reveal it either way.

 
At 1/06/2006 06:49:00 PM, Blogger Involved said...

High School is also an excellent place to infect a new generation of youth with a gay ideology. Since homosexuals can not naturally procreate, the longevity of the gay movement depends upon children following their lead.

At the same time, liberals like Willis are claiming that gays are more persecuted than others, as a way to excuse when gays actually bully those who they disagree with.

So it's okay to pick on people, so long as you feel like society doesn't accept you enough. Interesting.

 
At 1/06/2006 06:54:00 PM, Blogger Involved said...

New Persecution Rule: You can persecute as much as you'd like, so long as you think there's a chance that in secret the other group may have made a joke about your perverted lifestyle.

So long as we understand the rules, I guess you kinda deserved to be spit upon TC. Serves you right for possibly doing something!

 
At 1/06/2006 07:07:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

As far as I'm confirmed, 'faggot' is the same as 'nigger'. But the first word is much more socially acceptable now than the second, and is used commonly in high school.

involved: what a successful movement this has been!! Since of course, homosexuality is a choice, and homosexuality depends on old generations influencing the new (since gays cannot procreate), what a wonder it is that homosexuals have constituted about 5% of all covilizations of the past few thousand years!!!

(note: I am mocking his ideology. I do not agree with him. Homosexuality is not a choice)

TC: I ask you again. In your opinion, are young republicans persecuted and discriminated against more than young homosexuals??

 
At 1/06/2006 07:11:00 PM, Blogger Lucy Jones said...

Willis,

The whole "persecuted" string is somewhat ridiculous here. Going around spitting on people is ridiculous no matter who you are. Spit on me and you will feel more than persecuted! That's gross and childish!

Please, move on!

 
At 1/06/2006 07:12:00 PM, Blogger Not Larry Sabato said...

Willis, come over to NLS anytime. I love your commentary.

 
At 1/06/2006 07:18:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

lucy- I said earlier, I don't condone that sort of behavior, if that is in fact what they did. TC has been known to paint incomplete stories before, as I stated earlier.

nls- be careful what you wish for

 
At 1/06/2006 07:20:00 PM, Blogger Too Moderate said...

Willis--
"Homosexuality is not a choice"--What is a choice in life? Do people who have a thing for children choose this? Do people who have a thing for animals choose this? What actions are choices?

I also see you did not answer TC's comment. If a member of the football team or the YR's came up and yelled a bunch of things to the GSA and started spitting on them how fast do you thing your "hate crimes" laws would have those guys thrown out of school and made an example of?

 
At 1/06/2006 07:23:00 PM, Blogger Involved said...

Willis,

I think you mean 'civilizations', and it would be great (for a laugh) to see where you came up with your 5% number.

I'm pretty sure that they didn't do gay-polls of the general population over the last couple thousand years.

Did they do a study of 10 gays who think there were probably a lot more of them in the past?

 
At 1/06/2006 07:27:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

TM: read other posts for my comments regarding pedophilia, beastiality, and necrophilia. Any attempt to connect those to homosexuality won't work. They are entirely different, because homosexuality is between consenting adults.

And I did answer TC's comment. Go to a high school, and listen for the word "fag" or "faggot". It won't take long before you hear it.

I'm not trying to make excuses for spitting on people; clearly, that isn't a good thing. But, I understand why they would do it, given the level of discrimination those youths experience on any given day.

I can't imagine what it would be like, since I wasn't one of them. But I know it would be tough.

 
At 1/06/2006 07:35:00 PM, Blogger Too Moderate said...

Willis--

You speak of insults...lets see, how far back to I have to go on here to see you call bloggers and pols any sort of names...but that is not the pot calling the kettle black is it?

Who knows maybe they are calling them cigarettes (see English use of the word Faggot) :)

Also, if no one chooses to be gay do they choose pedophilia, beastiality, and necrophilia? Lets even throw in Alcoholism for good measure. You can get indignant and say how can you say that just because someone is gay they are like these deviants, but the question comes down to what is chosen. --- What is choice and what is not?

 
At 1/06/2006 07:39:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

TM- I've already made my argument regarding the first three. Alcoholism is an addiction, which begins as a choice and becomes a need, but is treatable.

And yes, TM, I insult people when they insult me. I'm not a saint.

But TC is claiming that he was persecuted, not me. So, look at his past, not mine.

 
At 1/06/2006 07:41:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Too Moderate,

Good point! I like you... but not in a 'Willis' sort of way.

 
At 1/06/2006 07:41:00 PM, Blogger Too Moderate said...

Can you re-submit your argument for the first three. I have not seen them. I will be away from the computer for a few hours. We can resume this conversation in a bit. I would like to see your argument!

 
At 1/06/2006 07:43:00 PM, Blogger Too Moderate said...

Anon--thats a bit scary :)

We can like Willis too in a non Brokeback MTN way as well. He is fun to argue with!

 
At 1/06/2006 07:44:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

It's very simple. Homosexual relations are between two consenting adults. Pedophilia is between an adult and a child (children cannot consent), beastiality is between an adult and an animal (animals cannot consent), and necrophilia is between an adult and a corpse (corpses cannot consent).

 
At 1/06/2006 07:45:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

I'm not gay, seriously. It is possible for a heterosexual man to believe homosexuals deserve equal rights.

 
At 1/06/2006 07:48:00 PM, Blogger Lucy Jones said...

Are you kidding Willis? Being anything is being persecuted to teenagers. Gay, straight, overweight, skinny, white, black, tall, short, etc. I would venture to say that homosexuals are equally persecuted in that age group.

I am more and more shocked every day at the things kids do in my daughter's school. The teachers turn a deaf ear. If kids had tormented each other like that when I was growing up, they would have been expelled. And then they'd have to deal with MOM AND DAD!

 
At 1/06/2006 07:50:00 PM, Blogger Involved said...

Willis you still aren't answering the question, and TM has stated it quite nicely THREE times already.

There are people who engage in the acts of pedophilia, bestiality, and necrophilia. Regardless of who or what these people are messing around with, you still haven't actually answered TM's question:

DO THEY CHOOSE THESE ACTS?

YES or NO ???

 
At 1/06/2006 07:51:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

K I am back-

Willis-actually..

in my experience, as I stated below about my generation being more accepted, for the most part..people do not say those words(faggot) to homosexuals, nor do they say the word gay in common language to homosexuals..they are used to slam straight people.

I might agree with you that homosexuals might not be "treated" nice, but the story I told you was true.

Not all people are nice, if they're gay, straight , black or white..and I hope you realize that there are bad mean people in a bunch, but those people should not be meant to allow a generalization of their entire race, creed, sexual orientation.

I also agree that the gsa have more straight members, as the ones I am familiar with do ...it's more the hippie pot-smoking type kids who join than actual homosexuals..although they're there.

No I would not say Republicans were persecuted more than gays..simply because I do not believe at my high school that gays are really persecuted.

Everyone gets poked fun of..it's high school..it's life..people have things to poke fun of..so I find no excuse for them in the story I told you.

Nationally..I honestly do not feel most of the anti-gay semtiment is in pure spite, but instead is morally based which I can respect.

The killers of Matthew Shepard I obviously do not respect..but I give to you this..

-a small case was overshadowed in the media by the shepard case..which is still talked about by the mainstream press...

a case that occured no more than a year from shepard murder, in which a gay couple killed a straight couple by brutal tortue in the mid-west.

As I said earlier...there is bad seeds in the bunch..lets not charachterize..

 
At 1/06/2006 07:52:00 PM, Blogger Lucy Jones said...

Willis,

If your argument "Homosexual relations are between two consenting adults" is true then homosexual groups should not be allowed in high schools. High school kids are not of an age to consent.

 
At 1/06/2006 07:56:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

involved: I'm not sure whether they do or not. Studies should be done on that.

If I had to guess, I'd guess that beastiality and necrophilia are choices, but pedophilia isn't as much.

People aren't born pedophilies, but bad experiences as children, and other developmental problems, make them this way. But, once they grow up and are pedophiles, it isn't a choice anymore.

The difference, as I stated earlier, is that pedophiles are abusing kids WHO CANNOT CONSENT. It is an entirely different situation.

lucy: I would agree with you that children can be cruel to one another regarding a variety of things, including homosexuality. This doesn't make it right.

I don't think, however, that being republican can be equated to being homosexual. Fat, probably, republican, not a chance.

It's hard for public schools to deal with this kind of behavior, given the meager budget they have to work with. It is a problem though, I agree with you. Pity you are with a party that won't give them the money they need to adress these, and other, problems.

 
At 1/06/2006 07:58:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

to your recent comment, lucy: then straight relationships shouldn't be allowed either.

 
At 1/06/2006 08:04:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

At Chantilly..the GSA was begun by a lesbian science teacher...

I am going out on a limb here..and sound like Delegate Black..but she was trying to push her agenda on people...

She had really short spiked hair, and always dyed it differnent colors. The organization has silent days..where they dont speak for entire days in memory of homosexuals who have been killed for being gay.

-This comes into problem with the teachers, when leading discussions.

The President of the GSA was not allowed to donate blood..he went all crazy..and wrote all these letters to the editor saying how he was descriminated for being gay..

Every april they hand out pamphlets saying how god and jesus would encourage people to go about the homosexual lifestyle, and to be themselves..something noble I guess..but this is what encourages anger towards them.

The christian organizations get involved..and begun handing out scripture stating how bad homosexuality is..

To top it off...the president hijacked the school newspaper..and talked about having sexual relations with his boyfriend in there.

They also wear homemade shirts with pictures of homosexuals to school who have been killed..and have their death day underlined.

-This stuff should not go on in a public school...it takes away from learning.

8:03 PM

 
At 1/06/2006 08:09:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

LMAO TC, your recent post is ridiculous.

Your comment seems to indicate that you have a problem with gay-straight relations in your school, something you have previously denied.

All the more reason to have a gay-straight alliance there, right??

 
At 1/06/2006 08:14:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

Willis-

You belong on some show to twist peoples stuff around.

Just as I never said Republicans were more made made fun of then gays..I never said that homosexuals never cause problems for themselves.

There is a radical group in the gsa who goes out of their way to cause trouble..

it rarely finds its way back to them..aka no ones every fought them or anything..

 
At 1/06/2006 08:16:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

Let me make it clear as I said earlier in the post..that I personally have nothing against homosexuals just for being homosexual...

I look at them as regular people..

I only have a problem with the small minority who pretends to represent them and speaks radically..but these group of people is present in every culture(black panthers, white power, islamic jihad)...

 
At 1/06/2006 08:17:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

You said yourself that the "christian organizations get involved..and begun handing out scripture stating how bad homosexuality is.."

Sounds like both sides contributed to the disagreement, using YOUR OWN WORDS.

 
At 1/06/2006 08:26:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

Willis-

Use my words all you want..your misinterpriting what I said...

The GSA causes this on themselves..if the organization simply did not exist..I would wager homosexuals would be "treated better" ..not to say anyone is treated bad now..as I have never heard of a fight or huge problem towards anyone homosexual.

The people who are not in gsa do not start the problems..

 
At 1/06/2006 08:28:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

So, christian organizations should be able to hand out "scripture stating how bad homosexuality is" but no gay-straight alliance should be allowed to exist???

 
At 1/06/2006 08:36:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

Willis-

Slow down buddy...and listen.

They only handed it out in retribution..when the gsa did a mass hand out that god/jesus agreed with homosexuality.

 
At 1/06/2006 08:36:00 PM, Blogger nova_middle_man said...

um I think we have a draw. There are two political parties one for each of you. Both of you go out and party it's friday night or start enjoying your weekend at least :)

 
At 1/06/2006 08:39:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

Oh, ok. The christian group only was RETALIATING against the gay-straight alliance. In reality, they're great people.

Riiiight.

 
At 1/06/2006 08:40:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

and TC:

when I quote you, it is not possible that I'm misinterpreting what you said.

Learn from Craddock. If you say something, stand behind it. Don't say I'm misinterpreting when I'm QUOTING YOU.

 
At 1/06/2006 09:27:00 PM, Blogger Lucy Jones said...

I didn't say relationships, I said "groups", as in clubs. Schools should not be allowed to have any clubs based on sexual orientation. Are there clubs in your county's schools expressly for heteros?

 
At 1/06/2006 09:33:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

No, but thats because the vast majority of students are heterosexual.

I don't see why there can be political groups, religious groups, ethnic and cultural groups, but not a gay-straight alliance.

Explain that to me.

 
At 1/06/2006 09:46:00 PM, Blogger Lucy Jones said...

Religious groups should not be allowed. Not that I'm happy about that but if they aren't allowing "under God" in the allegiance and prayers, etc, then there should not be religious groups.

Ethnic groups - It's great when they are groups like latino heritage, black heritage, etc. but are we also going to allow nazi groups and all white heritage groups? I should think not.

I'm not even a big supporter of the sex ed classes. I think that teaching should remain in the home and be taught with the family's ethics.

It gets really sticky... Why can't schools just have groups for baseball, basketball, art, etc. like in the old days? To promote SCHOOL subjects. I would even stretch to say political groups would be allowed in the high schools where politics are taught.

 
At 1/06/2006 09:51:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

agreed lucy-

at my school ..it is still defacto segregated i would say..and these groups only add to the segregation..

asians sit here..blacks here...for the most part.

 
At 1/06/2006 09:58:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

I actually sorta agree with you lucy. when I was in high school, I wasn't in any group really, except for the "redskins club" which I created along with a friend of mine.

I think the whole group thing is sorta stupid on the whole. Kids get all into it. I didn't really see the draw of the whole thing.

But as long as there are groups about all sorts of things, I don't see why there can't be a gay-straight alliance.

 
At 1/06/2006 10:09:00 PM, Blogger Lucy Jones said...

If the school is sponsoring it it's a club and it should be school related. If it's just a clique of giggly blondes or latinos or whatever, there's not a lot the school can do about it. Humans are more comfortable in groups of their own kind be it race or religion. In these cases though, I don't think the school should sponsor it in any way. No special pages in the yearbook, no teachers devoted to stay after and "lead" the group, etc.

 
At 1/06/2006 10:12:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

If I could make the system myself, I would eliminate all school sponsored groups, including sports teams.

But most people wouldn't agree with that.

 
At 1/06/2006 10:36:00 PM, Blogger Lucy Jones said...

I like the sports. It's a good way to lead students to a healthy lifestyle. They also promote sportsmanship and "team" mentality. School sports provide a safe place for kids to go after school and deters students from smoking, drinking, low grades, etc. to stay on the team. I don't have any problems with the sports.

 
At 1/06/2006 10:52:00 PM, Blogger Riley, Not O'Reilly said...

Whatchu talkin' 'bout, Willis?

As I said before, you really should have your parents check their basement for radon. That is where you live, right, since your blog is called "A View From The Basement"?

Also, given that the 3 links on your blog go to Google News, CNN and Democrat Underground (yes, conspiracy central for the Lefties), I think we have a pretty good idea of where you're coming from. DU is a pretty good source of humor if anyone here wants to see how the other side "thinks" and perceives reality.

 
At 1/06/2006 11:14:00 PM, Anonymous getagrip said...

TC: Teachers can't start student extra-curricular clubs. They consent to act as an advisor, but they do not "start" clubs. You may have that impression because this teacher is very supportive of the club.

Students have the right to start and maintain extra-curricular clubs of their choice, as long as a teacher agrees to serve as the advisor. If there are other extra-curricular clubs at a school, it is not a legal option to deny students the right to have a gsa, a bible study club, a Muslim Student Association, or what have you. This means that if some students wanted to start an "ex-gay" club, they have every right to do so. This is very firmly established federal law. That the mission or topic of a club may be controversial or upsetting to some people is immaterial.

Lucy: this law was passed because of lawsuits brought by students who were denied the right to have a bible study group. The distinction here is that it's extra-curricular. It is by definition not part of the curriculum or endorsed by the school, and therefore doesn't violate the Establishment Clause. The examples you are giving are curriculum-based clubs. Some school districts have tried an end run around the equal access law by eliminating all extra-curricular clubs, but that means no Key Club, no FFA, a lot of things that students, parents, and college admissions boards want to have in high schools. Trying to redefine certain extra-curricular clubs as "curriculum related" hasn't worked, either. In jurisdictions where this was attempted (e.g., Utah) the school districts were sued and lost, at significant public expense. I fear that this is where we are headed in Virginia with the sort of legislation that started this thread. It will not be pretty.

 
At 1/06/2006 11:14:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am glad that Lingamfelter's children have learned well. Kudos to him and to them.

Ah, were that the case with many others in the Republican field who do such a grand job of preaching good behavior to the public and whose children (and themselves in the case of one delegate candidate) tend to fall oh so far from that high and mighty pulpit.

If abstinence only education works such wonders (as opposed to well-rounded instruction covering all of the pitfalls and protections) - then why are so many "Republican" young adults getting pregnant?

Seems to me abstinence-only only works part of the time. Hmmm -- what to do about all the time it DOESN'T work???

 
At 1/06/2006 11:36:00 PM, Blogger Lucy Jones said...

I consider it "endorsed by the school" if a teacher is sponsoring it, it's being held on school grounds, and the school allows posters, handouts, ropes at graduation, etc. My opinion is that clubs that don't expand on the approved curriculum should not be endorsed by the school. Extra-curricular clubs should be endorsed by churches, businesses, etc. If colleges and/or parents want to see students participating in certain activities then let them sponsor them with private funds - not the public education money which is stretched as far as it can go.

The taxpayers are paying the electric bill, the paper bill, the supplies, etc. I'm not happy about my tax dollars supporting a gay club or a nazi club.

 
At 1/06/2006 11:42:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

getagrip-

You are mistaken..

Teachers often lead students into beginning clubs..as Math teachers begin Math clubs..french teachers begin french honors clubs..

so did this teacher lead a gsa

 
At 1/06/2006 11:54:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

riley- Now you are insulting me too???

TC- might want to get a hold of some of your co-blog owners.

 
At 1/07/2006 02:03:00 AM, Blogger Too Moderate said...

Now that I just wrote a book length response that somehow didn't make it on the blog I will post a shorter version.

First I want to join your Redskin club. I predict 31-24 Skins tomorrow. Moss with 2 TD's.

Willis you said that something in the child/animal molestors childhood causes them to be like that...lets see could that also cause people to have a messed up view of masculinity and manhood?

Like the hollywood fav. out right now (brokeback mtn) the idea that these gay cowboys leave their family to be "who they really are" is the same idea that would say that people who like animals and children if born that way should be who they really are? Isn't that the same line of reasoning? (don't give me that outrage argument saying "how dare you say a gay person is like someone who screws animals" this is a real question and demands a response)

Next you are saying that Christians are bad people because they hand out stuff saying that the Bible says homosexuality is wrong? So you want tolerance for those you agree with but not for people you disagree with. Can't you tolerate people fighting for what they believe is right? (assuming that you beat the same drum as the rest of the Dem party)

Get a grip--teachers almost always get students to start clubs. Many times offering extra credit to those who do so. Check it out.

Finally shouldn't we encourage people to engage in healthy lifestyles? There are no studies that say that homosexuality is healthy. In fact the scientific community seems to think the opposite as they won't even allow homosexuals to give blood.
I would go into more of the health risks and long term medical problems with being gay and what it does to the human body, but it is not for the faint of heart so I will spare you.

Go Skins!!!!

 
At 1/07/2006 03:26:00 AM, Blogger Willis said...

TM: my response.

--The Redskins club, as far as I know, died when I graduated high school. It was like a film session thing where we went over the game tape like coaches; kinda nerdy, but pretty fun. I miss it sometimes.

--I think that homosexuality is mostly something you are born with, but a person's childhood probably has an effect as well. This doesn't change the fact that it IS NOT A CHOICE, since your childhood isn't really a choice. Homosexuality isn't genetic; I surmise that most of what makes a homosexual is the level (or lack) of appropriate testosterone-bathing in the womb. For women, it is probably too much testosterone bathing. That's my guess, anyway.

So even though homosexuality isn't "inherited", as far as genetics is concerned, it still isn't a choice at all. The environment in the womb and early childhood isn't a choice.

As I said earlier, homosexuality is completely seperate from beastiality, pedophilia, or anything else in which an adult takes advantage of a non-consenting "thing". I don't know why you don't get that.

--My comment regarding the christian group distrubuting luiterature was merely to illustrate that there were many different groups participating in this debate or fight, and it wasn't something that the GSA brough upon itself. I'm not morally equivocating at all, I was merely illustrating a point.

--Homosexuals are allowed to give blood, but there is some additional waryness given the increased risk of HIV and AIDS in that population. That is a medical decision and not a cultural one, and it is entirely justified. I believe all donated blood is AIDS tested anyway, so it really isn't an issue.

--Whether being homosexual is healthy or not, is irrelevant, because it is not a choice!! Some people are gay, some people aren't. That's how it is. Many of us need to learn to deal with that fact, and accept these people for who they are, instead of trying to "fix" them.

 
At 1/07/2006 09:40:00 AM, Blogger Lucy Jones said...

Willis,

You say "stop trying to "fix" them":

Saying that a person is homosexual because up poor upbringing, childhood abuse or incorrect testosterone levels in the womb would put them in the same group with any other human who has mental or physical disabilities.

If that is true then they are not able to consent anymore. They are disabled or mentally ill.

How many parents have a baby and say "I really hope this kid grows up to be gay"? No one does. It's not a healthy lifestyle any parent would wish for their child. Why should society promote this by allowing marriages and other "family" benefits?

I'm certainly not saying that homosexuals should be treated badly. I have very close friends that are gay and believe me, they get enough grief. We don't go around taunting people in wheelchairs and we shouldn't treat gay people in a bad way either.

 
At 1/07/2006 12:29:00 PM, Anonymous getagrip said...

Lucy: Your opinion is your opinion, but it is at variance with the law. TC's Republican club is extra-curricular, for example. There is no "Republican" class or department, but the students have a 1st amendment right to have such a club that reflects their common interests. A curriculum-based political science club would be entirely different, and would have to be non-partisan.

TC: You are correct that Math teachers can start Math clubs, etc, but again those are curriculum-based. I can't emphasize enough the distinction the law makes between these two things.

The remarks about disability, etc, are simply misinformed. To get back to Delegate Lingamfelter's bill, the "complete picture" would have to include the fact that there are many happy, healthy, and successful gay people in the world, so that is clearly not his objective.

 
At 1/07/2006 12:32:00 PM, Blogger Too Moderate said...

Willis--

I think you are skirting the most important question...what is your prediction for todays skins game?

Mr JMS. I liked the radon comment, I am going to lock that away for future use (I guess like TC is claiming Centrist is doing with your posts :) )

Now for this other stuff...

The point I am making is not about consent---it is about choice, which is why pedophilia and bestiality and even alcoholism is relevant. The argument I hear over and over again is "why would gay people choose to be gay?" That is what many who argue for that lifestyle use as their most convincing argument, and frankly it seems to be the logic underwriting your arguments. That is why I am countering with the question "why would anyone choose pedophilia or bestiality"...maybe something in the childhood or is the problem. We can discuss over bathing or genetic make ups, but don't you see similarities in your own life to your parents (good and bad)? When your role models from a young age are not "normal" wouldn't you think there is some affect on the child's life? Even more important, children crave the attention of their father. When their father figure is non-existent or mistreats their kids it is going to leave the kids looking for male attention in different ways...do you agree? I would argue that some will look up to coaches or teachers or other role models. Others will look for male attention in other ways.

If it is chosen, that is when there needs to be a look into the health risks. Then we can ask the question "is this a good lifestyle"?

 
At 1/07/2006 12:37:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

Lucy: there are plenty of characteristics, prevalent in the general populace, that may or may not exist because of the environment in the womb and in early childhood.

Most of these minute details in environment are so minute as to be rendered indetectable, and often produce different results.

This is just my personal, untested hypothesis. In my opinion, there is a masculinization of the body and the mind which occurs in the womb. This takes place to differing degrees is every man, and some men turn out to be homosexuals.

However, the testosterone level is relative to the genetics of the individual. I could get less pre-natal testosterone than another guy, and he could be gay and I could be straight.

There are many factora at work, so to attempt to prevent something like this, would be incredibly hard to do and could violate general medical ethics, as well.

Really, I'd guess most parents would take the chance that their kid is homosexual, rather than risk ruining his physical development with medical interference.

Being homosexual is fine. It's not optima;, in most people's opinion, but it isn't maladaptive. As getagrip stated, there are many sucessful, happy, productive homosexuals

 
At 1/07/2006 12:43:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

TM--The Skins game will be very close. too close to call, in fact. It will come down to turnovers and big plays. We are the better team, but the bucs' homefield advantage evens that out.

Research is being done concerning the causes of homosexuality. It still remains a mystery to us, which likely means many different factors are at work.

It the cause9s0 are ever found, parents can choose, at their own volition, whether or not they wish to engage in preventative measures. I wouldn't personally, since homosexuals have contributed to society in many meaningful ways.

In fact, many of the most influential people are not "normal". Differences should be embraced.

 
At 1/07/2006 12:43:00 PM, Blogger Too Moderate said...

One more question:

You said once they are adults they no longer choose to be pedophiles?

Does an alcoholic or a druggie choose alcohol and drugs once they are addicted?
(I know I have said this before, no phonie outrage to avoid the question...real question)

 
At 1/07/2006 12:52:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

Once you are grown up, you are what you are.

Addiction is different. Sometimes it is hard to break, but it is changable.

i would look at it like this: say you srink a ton of hard liquor as a kid (bad supervision, etc). As a result, you suffer brain damage and developmental problems.

As an adult, even if you no longer drink, you cannot regain your potential brain capacity. Your brain is damaged for life.

Think of it that way.

 
At 1/07/2006 01:10:00 PM, Blogger Too Moderate said...

I thought you might say something like that.

What you are saying is once an alcoholic always an alcoholic right? I agree. And believe you made my point.

Here is my point. Even though they are alcoholics and will always have a propensity for alcoholisism it does not mean that they have to follow that propensity. They have the CHOICE between following what has become an inclination that is unhealthy and leads to very bad things (even though it feels natural once you get to that stage) or they can CHOOSE to not practice unhealthy ways and work to lead a life that is much more healthy.

The homosexual, the pedifile, animal lover and alcoholic all have that same choice. It may feel natural to them, but is it the best long term ideal?

Medical studies on health risks (I have only read the ones on homosexuality but would venture to say the other ones would probably be just as unhealthy...that is TM speaking not a MD) would say this lifestyle is not good for the body.

 
At 1/07/2006 01:18:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

I didn't say once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic.

I said once brain damaged, always brain damaged. That's not a choice.

Re-read what I said. You were obviously looking for a particular answer, but that definitely isn't what I said.

Addiction can be beaten. Brain damage, at least currently, is what it is, and cannot be changed.

 
At 1/07/2006 01:25:00 PM, Blogger Too Moderate said...

Your still not answering my question about the skins game!

Read about it...anywhere you go it will say once an alcoholic always one. Meaning one drink will lead you right back to where you were.

I don't want to speculate about addiction. Is there always a propensity once you are an addict?

So what I am hearing is that there is no choice. An alcoholic has to drink. I don't think you believe that, but is that what you are saying?

 
At 1/07/2006 01:32:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

I already answered your skins question a few posts back.

No. I agree that once someone is an alcoholic, they have an increased propensity for getting re-addicted once they stop drinking. That has nothing to do with homosexuality or pedophilia though, as they are not addictions.

Brain changes that take place before birth and in early childhood are not choosable, at least by the person whose brain is changing. And once the brain changes, for the most part those changes are there to stay forever. It's just the way it is, currently.

Alcoholism and other addictions are a completely seperate topic. Of course an alcoholic can choose whether to drink or not. A homosexual can't choose whether to be gay or not, he just is.

 
At 1/07/2006 05:21:00 PM, Anonymous Waldo Jaquith said...

Waldo Jaquith also weighed in negatively and stated that "abstinence is not the accepted norm" -something I disagree with greatly.

If you can demonstrate empirically that sexual abstinence is considered normal behavior, I'll eat your hat.

 
At 1/07/2006 09:01:00 PM, Blogger Lucy Jones said...

A agree Waldo. Not the accepted norm for teenagers these days or any other group (well, except for young children).

I'm not sure why the bill needs to even state that. Since when do laws need to be made to spell out what is normal?

It would probably be just as effective to have "that abstinence is the only guarantee against unwanted pregnancy."

It does seem suspect that the "norm" statement was put there.

Willis,

I didn't say anything about parents using medical intervention to choose the sexuality of their children. My point was that no parent would hope for this lifestyle for their children and therefore seems to be undesired, not normal, ill adapted, etc.

 
At 1/07/2006 09:52:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

Being "normal" isn't necessarily a good thing. As I said earlier, some of the most influential people have been decidedly not "normal".

A big reason for homosexuality being undesirable is the social stigma that goes along with it. Absent that stigma, it wouldn't be any more undesirable than being, say, incredibly socially aware.

 
At 1/07/2006 10:18:00 PM, Blogger Lucy Jones said...

A big reason for homosexuality being undesirable is the social stigma that goes along with it.

I just don't agree with that. I consider it an unhealthy lifestyle whether it's socially acceptable or not.

 
At 1/08/2006 12:35:00 AM, Blogger Involved said...

You might not like it Willis, but the gay community has a higher STD rate that the straight one. We can go into all of the reasons for that, if you'd like, but I challange you to find any study that says otherwise.

It's an unheathy lifestyle that can not produce children, and limit's the average life of those who participate in it.

 
At 1/08/2006 01:04:00 AM, Blogger Willis said...

Black people have much higher STD rates too. Are they inherently unhealthy??

 
At 1/08/2006 01:57:00 AM, Blogger Too Moderate said...

You yourself in your own words said that something in the childhoods of pedophiles and animal lovers causes them to be that way. So something in their childhood causes them to have a mixed up sexuality. Is it too far out of the realm of possibility that this could be the case with homosexuals as well? (please make sure you answer this question and not just the others)
Next is it possible for pedophiles to change?
What do you make of ex-gays?
Homosexuality is not just undesirable because of the social stigmas, there are also health risks. We see some of them when we spoke of blood donation. There are also many others which as I stated earlier are probably a bit too graphic to go into.

 
At 1/08/2006 09:46:00 AM, Blogger Too Moderate said...

Willis--

Are you race baiting?

You should know better than that!

 
At 1/08/2006 12:35:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

TM-- First, I never said anything about beastiality being ingrained. I, honestly, have no fucking clue about that.

I'm not sure about pedophilia either, but I believe early childhood has alot to do with that. Homosexuality is somewhat similar, but I think that happens earlier, mainly in the womb with chemical levels and such.

And no, I'm certain that homosexuality is not a choice, at least among 98% or so of homosexuals.

I don't think pedophiles can change, and I don't think homosexuals can change either. Ex-gays, what do I make of them?? They are denying their impulses, niot acting on their attraction to men, usually because of the social and/or religious stigma associated with it. That's what I make of it, and its stupid for them to do that.

As I said earlier, just as homosexuals have higher STD rates, so do black people. If you are going to argue that homosexuality is inherently unhealthy, and use the STD rate as evidence, I'm going to ask you if black people are inherently unhealthy too. It's not race-baiting, its a form of debate. Deal with it.

 
At 1/08/2006 02:04:00 PM, Blogger Too Moderate said...

Come on Willis, I am happy to debate this topic but look at the spirit of what you are saying. Maybe you are not doing this, but Democrats use the race card to skirt the real issues.

You are saying that something in the childhood of a pedophile makes their sexuality be messed up, but that cannot be the case with homosexuals?

Don't let what you want to believe cloud your logic.

Here are a few facts about the homosexual lifestyle. This shows that the sexuality is a bit out of whack.


•In 1978, 75% of white, gay males reported more than 100 lifetime sex partners – recent studies report that #s are again on the rise.
•In Australia, 93% of lesbians reported having had sex with men, and lesbians were 4.5X more likely than hetero women to have 50+ lifetime partners.
•94% of married couples and 75% of cohabitating heterosexual couples report only one sexual partner in the prior year; but 66% of gay men report having sex with someone other than their partner within the first year of the relationship –90% if the relationship endures 5 years.
•In one study, only 15% of gays and 17.3% of lesbians had relationships lasting over 3 years.

Taken from a report by Dr. John Diggs

 
At 1/08/2006 03:07:00 PM, Blogger Lucy Jones said...

Willis,

Where is your support that homosexuality is the result of pre-birth causes and not the result of childhood abuse?

I'm really asking. All of the gay people that I personally know experienced childhood sexual abuse by a person of the same sex.

 
At 1/08/2006 04:20:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

NTM-I agree that homosexuality can be caused by early childhood abuse. That doesn't make homosexuality a choice, though. Kids don't choose to be abused.

Lucy-you must not know many homosexuals if you believe that all of them were abused as children. Some are, but that constitutes a very small percentage.

I'm sure, lucy, that you do in fact know gay people who were not abused at all. You might know many. But they are probably afraid to let you know they are gay.

 
At 1/08/2006 05:17:00 PM, Blogger Too Moderate said...

Willis--you need to do your homework.

One of the most salient findings of this study is that 46 percent of homosexual men and 22 percent of homosexual women reported having been molested by a person of the same gender. This contrasts to only 7 percent of heterosexual men and 1 percent of heterosexual women reporting having been molested by a person of the same gender.[33]

33. Marie, E. Tomeo et al., "Comparative Data of Childhood and Adolescence Molestation in Heterosexual and Homosexual Persons," Archives of Sexual Behavior 30 (2001): 539.

 
At 1/08/2006 05:21:00 PM, Blogger Too Moderate said...

Willis--More debate about choice later tonight!

 
At 1/08/2006 05:52:00 PM, Anonymous 10th District Conservative said...

Fascinating that Lingamfelter's bill became a discussion of the legitimacy of GSA's.

I think the bill is a good idea and is in the spirit of our current VA standards for sexuality education (although these standards are frequently ignored in some localities).

Just as many teens do not believe that they will get killed in a car accident if they drive irresponsibly, many teens do not believe that they will get an STD in high school. Too bad sincere belief is no measure of reality. Unfortunately, more than 1/3 of sexually active high schoolers will contract an STD before they graduate. The CDC considers STD's (STI's, VD, or whatever you call it) to be a modern epedimec. They are much more dangerous than pre-marital pregnancy and there is only one way to be sure you don't get one: stay a virgin until you are in a monogomous relationship with a committed lifetime partner who is equally committed to you. Some people call that unrealistic, but I have made that committment as have hundreds of thousands of others. It's a healthy choice.

Studies almost universally show that where parents and other adult authority figures set expectations that their kids will practice sexual integrity, kids are more likely to do so. The vast majority of pre-teens & teens who sign abstinence pledges delay sex one to two years longer than their peers who do not take such pledges. And some of these kids will make the sacrifices necessary to wait until they are in that committed monogomous lifetime relationship (usually known as "marriage"). They'll have better lives and fewer marital troubles too.

For those who still think that it's unrealistic to encourage kids to save sex for that really special someone who is willing to put a ring on their finger, I would ask you if you think it's also unrealistic to teach kids not to drive dangerously, avoid illegal drugs, underage drinking, and other illicit behaviors too???

 
At 1/08/2006 06:06:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

TM-I don't trust your statistics. Seems incredibly high. But even if true, that still indicates the majority of homosexuals are not molested as children, so that can't be the main cause.

10th-I don't see marriage as anything more than a governmental tool. If you regard it as more than that, thats great for you, but I see nothing wrong with pre-marital sex. There is nothing wrong with "illicit" sex so long as it is done responsibly, with a condom (which also protects against STDs by the way).

This is why teaching kids how to use condoms correctly is so important. I think sex-ed should actually teach kids something, rather than tell them what they should/shouldn't do. Provide them with knowledge they can use, rather than orders they must follow.

Instead of using dangerous driving as an analogy to premarital sex, it seems more useful, IMO, to use driving as the analogy.

Sure, many teens die in car accidents. For this reason, we have driving schools to teach kids how to drive SAFELY. Just like we have sex-ed to teach kids how to have sex SAFELY.

Seems to me, if you want kids to abstain until marriage, the car analogy would be abstaining from driving until you are 20, or so, as well.

Will you tell your kids to abstain from driving until they are 20?? Or will you try to teach them how to drive safely??

 
At 1/08/2006 08:38:00 PM, Blogger Lucy Jones said...

10th district,

I agree with you that it is better, safer, more desirable, etc. for people to wait until marriage before having sex. I believe those morals should be STRONGLY taught at home. I am, however, aware that these morals are not going to be observed by a majority of people (young and old) these days. With the divorce rate at an incredible high, the media glamorizing sex and society's general acceptance of pre-marital sex, I think we need to take our head out of the sand and at least teach our children the safest alternative if they are not going to remain celibate.

I do not believe that by passing a law that describes what is the "norm" or strictly teaching that abstinence is the only way is going to benefit our children.

 
At 1/08/2006 10:07:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

lucy-I can respect your beliefs on abstinence, and I'm glad you agree with me as to the importance of education on contraceptives, the various STDs and ways to seek treatment if contracted, other alternatives, etc.

I hadn't thought of the driving analogy, but since 10th district brought it up, it seems to be a good one.

Imagine if in driving school, instead of teaching the meaning of various roadsigns, how to drive a car, proper maintenance, etc, all they said was, "The SAFEST thing to do, given teenage death rates in car accidents, is to not drive at all!"

Would that be effective??? Think about it.

 
At 1/09/2006 01:15:00 AM, Blogger Too Moderate said...

Willis--

You say ex-gays deny their impulses? How many guys have the impulse to cheat on their wives? Are they not being true to themselves by denying that?

Willis we are not animals.

If ex-gays say they have a better life now than before might one ask the question...why is this?

The homosexual lifestyle harms the body. The body was not made for it. Procreation is not even possible. And the damage done to the body is incredible (If you would like some of them mentioned I would be glad to pull them out).

We both agree that a messed up childhood screws with sexuality.

Your arguments are just not working.

 
At 1/09/2006 01:24:00 AM, Blogger Willis said...

TM- we, in fact, are animals.

 
At 1/09/2006 01:31:00 AM, Blogger Too Moderate said...

I doubt that argument will carry much weight if you cheat on your spouse.

Anyone out there want to try this one out?
We are just animals...you can't blame me.

You didn't answer any of the points.

 
At 1/09/2006 02:51:00 AM, Blogger Willis said...

I'm not going to bother. This argument is going nowhere.

We are, in fact, animals just like anything else. We have impulses, we can just control them better.

I wouldn't want to live my life, constantly having to deny my natural impulses. I doubt anyone would.

 
At 1/09/2006 11:13:00 AM, Blogger Involved said...

Note to Willis' future wife/boyfriend,

HE WILL CHEAT ON YOU, BECAUSE IT'S "NATURAL"!

 
At 1/09/2006 11:45:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Willis

Don't want to bother? Or don't have an answer?

 
At 1/09/2006 02:18:00 PM, Anonymous Jersey Girl said...

I hate to say this, but none of you know what you're talking about. Cheating on your spouse doesn't have anything to do with being gay or straight... gay people have to make those kinds of choices just like straight people do if they are in an exclusive relationship. Your comparing apples and oranges. "Cheating" isn't a sexual orientation any more than only dating rich people or white people is one.

Statements like "I have a lot of really close gay friends, and they were all sexually abused as children" don't have any credibility at all. Anybody who really knows a lot of gay people would see right through it.

You need to talk to some PFLAG parents and find out what sexual orientation really is, and stop repeating this ignorant stuff.

 
At 1/09/2006 04:06:00 PM, Blogger Too Moderate said...

Jersey Girl

First, please read the context of a statement before trying to comment on part of it.

Willis seems to believe that we are animals who must act in-line with whatever our instincts dictate. My point about cheating is not necessarily about gay people, but more about the fact that we are not animals.

Second, I know you were not responding to my argument, but I have to respond. You state that someone cannot know gay people who were abused because you know some that are not abused. You cannot argue that an argument is subjective with a subjective argument...logic 101.

Finally, why would someone who knows many homosexuals and their parents and their children need to talk to PFLAG parents? Just because someone's experience with homosexuality is different than yours does not mean they are ignorant or wrong.

Medical studies prove that it is unhealthy. Ex-gays as well as other unhealthy sexual choices prove that people can chose different much healthier options.

 
At 1/09/2006 04:14:00 PM, Blogger Too Moderate said...

You can also check out PFOX
Parents and friends of Ex-gays.

But that is not politically correct now is it :)

 
At 1/09/2006 04:23:00 PM, Blogger Lucy Jones said...

Jersey Girl,

Statements like "I have a lot of really close gay friends, and they were all sexually abused as children" don't have any credibility at all

Credibility? Where did that come from? I don't live in NY or wherever there are multitudes of gay people. I live in podunk Virginia where we're glad to get sun piped in. The gay friends that I have have divulged their upbringing to me as I have mine to them. Like I said, we are close friends. None of them have said to me that they are gay because of their horrific abuses and I didn't state that. I was asking Willis for his experience or backup that gay people are born gay.

It's that simple. I would never claim to be an expert on the subject since I have already stated I am not gay. Contrary to your insinuations, I have an open mind and I'm asking for information.

Please enlighten us instead of calling us ignorant.

 
At 1/09/2006 05:42:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

I could enlighten you guys, but you keep misinterpreting my statements. I've lost patience with your idiocy, especially yours TM.

"We're not animals." Yea right.

Have fun debating with your similarly prejudiced buddies.

I'm out.

 
At 1/09/2006 06:05:00 PM, Blogger Involved said...

Hmm, now why didn't I see that in any of my text books?

"If you don't agree with everything that Willis says, you must be an idiot. Please agree with him at all times, even when he can't back-up his opinions with anything factual."

I guess that's the price I have to pay for having a public education until the end of my undergraduate years. You'd think that my private school graduate-level work would have helped... but alas.

 
At 1/10/2006 12:43:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Did Willis just lose a debate and decide to call names?

 
At 1/10/2006 01:28:00 AM, Blogger Willis said...

Nah, I just got tired of correcting TM when he says I said things i didn't say.

Various TM quotes:

"Willis seems to believe that we are animals who must act in-line with whatever our instincts dictate."

"You are saying that something in the childhood of a pedophile makes their sexuality be messed up, but that cannot be the case with homosexuals?"

"You are saying that something in the childhood of a pedophile makes their sexuality be messed up, but that cannot be the case with homosexuals?"

"What you are saying is once an alcoholic always an alcoholic right? I agree. And believe you made my point."

I never said any of these things. I got extremely tired of correcting him EVERY SINGLE TIME. I'm sure you would too, in my situation.

 
At 1/10/2006 01:56:00 AM, Blogger Too Moderate said...

Willis--

Did you say him? Hmmm.


Also, you don't need to get so upset. Even though we disagree on most things, I think I like you if for no other reason than the fact you started a Redskins club. (btw, I can admit when I am wrong. Like my Redskins game predition)


As far as alcoholics, your statement may have meant something else, but in re-reading it it could definately mean that an alcoholic is always an alcoholic.

Next, childhood...your words not mine.

"People aren't born pedophilies, but bad experiences as children, and other developmental problems, make them this way"


So you don't have to get bitter and call names (I do recall you getting upset at Riley for that earlier).

 
At 1/10/2006 03:37:00 AM, Blogger Willis said...

I included that quote about childhood because, yes, I did say that about pedophilia, but I definitely didn't say it about beastiality, which you nonetheless attributed to me. I had to correct you.

Hail to the Redskins, btw. I felt really sick in the second half of that Bucs game. Ready to hurl. But they managed to hold on, thank the fake wizard in the sky.

 
At 1/10/2006 11:16:00 AM, Blogger Too Moderate said...

What do you predict for this week (skins)?


My point that I made was that if childhood can affect sexuality in on instance, is it outside of the realm of possibility for it to happen in another instance.

Won't most people agree that if the man or woman that you lear how to be a man or woman from (father, mother, step-father, step-mother, uncle whatever) (Although I personally believe it has more to do with the father than the mother) beats, abuses(phisically, verbally, sexually) and or is never around it might have an affect on people view manhood and womanhood in others and in themselves?

 
At 1/10/2006 01:07:00 PM, Anonymous Jersey Girl said...

Lucy, I apologize. I shouldn't have singled out something you said, because I was really talking about all the comparisons between sexual orientation and all these other things that are completely unrelated, as if they are the same kind of thing. Since everybody has a sexual orientation it's hard to understand how people can confuse that as a trait with the idea of making choices to behave in certain ways, etc. The "impulse" to cheat on your wife or abuse children is not a sexual orientation, and making that comparison just shows a fundamental misunderstanding. I read Lucy's post as one of those "lots of my friends are gay (black, jewish, fill in the blank), so I'm not biased" kind of statements, and maybe that wasn't fair.

I think that what most parents want is for their kids to be happy and to be honest, and don't want anything to interfere with that... This post, "If your argument "Homosexual relations are between two consenting adults" is true then homosexual groups should not be allowed in high schools. High school kids are not of an age to consent" sounds like you're implying that gay-straight alliances are clubs for underage kids to have sex or something, which is obviously untrue. At least that ought to be obvious. GSAs are support groups. Kids dealing with realizing they are gay need places where they can talk about it with like-minded peers. How the reality gets distorted into this bizarre idea of a "sex club" is something that should really be looked at.

 
At 1/10/2006 01:12:00 PM, Anonymous Jersey Girl said...

Too moderate, I think that the common problem in kids who are abused like that is that they become abusers themselves. Why are you so obsessed with trying to explain why people are gay with this? Since most people who were abused as children are straight, did the abuse make them that way? That makes about as much sense.

 
At 1/10/2006 02:18:00 PM, Blogger Too Moderate said...

I am not saying that is the only thing, but using it as that was one of the things that was said by Willis for other sexual related issues. Although the study I posted does show an abnormally high amount of Homosexuals were abused as children.

The impulse statement was another response. I do not believe that it is healthy to be a slave to one's impulses. Just because there is an impulse to do anything does not mean we have to act on it.

 
At 1/10/2006 04:12:00 PM, Anonymous getagrip said...

TM: I agree completely, people have to make choices about how we behave. If you make a commitment to be faithful to one person, you don't give in to the impulse to cheat and then claim you "couldn't help it" because after all we're animals. I don't agree with that at all. That has nothing to do with sexual orientation, though. Wanting to have love and companionship with someone you're attracted to is not an "impulse," it's perfectly human. Being oriented toward one or the other gender isn't in the same category as these compulsive behaviors you keep trying to compare it to.

re: the abuse thing: This data only presents a correlation, which as anyone with a graduate degree knows does not imply causation, let alone a particular causation. If we wanted to speculate about causation, does it not seem likely that children who have a secret about themselves and know that they are different in a way that others consider shameful would be more vulnerable to predators? Actually, I can tell you unequivocally that it is so. And that adult predators are adept at identifying children who make good targets.

 
At 1/10/2006 05:07:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

Also, getagrip, there have been studies that show that, overall, a large percentage of children are abused sexually, gay and straight.

 
At 1/10/2006 05:22:00 PM, Blogger Too Moderate said...

Just for the record, who commits most acts of sexual abuse on children?

 
At 1/10/2006 06:25:00 PM, Blogger Involved said...

Getagrip,

As I asked before: Why is it that there are people who were gay and became straight; and those who were straight and became gay? Both groups have people who claim to be happy with their decisions.

Your claim seems to be that orientation is beyond choices that people make, and their behavioral patterns. My question is why there are people who seem to be making choices regarding their sexual orientation, if this is not actually a choice they can make, as you are suggesting?

 
At 1/10/2006 10:19:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

involved: are you rreally that dense??

There are many people who are neither gay nor straight, but somewhere in between. For these people, it is more of a choice, and some of them will chose each side.

I would argue that the majority of people who were once gay, and turned straight, did so because of religious and societal pressure. And, I would argue that those who were once straight, and turned gay, were only straight initially because of societal pressure.

Open your mind, dude.

 
At 1/11/2006 12:36:00 AM, Anonymous getagrip said...

Just for the record, who commits most acts of sexual abuse on children?

Just for the record, heterosexual married men who victimize people in their own families - somewhere upwards of 90%. Is this a trick question?

 
At 1/11/2006 11:26:00 AM, Blogger Involved said...

Willis,

So, now you've created a grey area!?

To recap your views, please correct me if I get any of this wrong.
According to you:

-Unidentified studies, (which only you have seen) have shown undeniable proof that people are born with a gay sexual orientation that controls the person beyond what their own personal choices or freewill allow. [If you could post a couple of those studies, that would be great.]

-However, sometimes people are born with the ability to be gay or straight. And these people are the ones with the ability to choose which one they are, and they can switch back and forth at will. [I'd LOVE to read scientific studies done to prove this as well!]

-That said, anyone who does switch from being gay to straight is doing it because of the pressures of society; while those who choose to turn gay were only straight because of society as well...even though these people weren't born with an orientation that would make them more inclined to be either straight nor gay.

So, to summarize: If people say they are straight, they were born that way... unless they become gay, in which case they were a part of a select group that has a choice in such matters... and they were only straight because society forced them to be that way and now society no longer has an influence on the individual (for some reason) and they can be gay, even though they weren't actually born with any sexual orientation.

If someone is gay, they were born that way, unless they decide to become straight, which means that they are actually a part of a select group that has a choice in such matters... and society has more influence over them then before (for some reason) and they are being pressured into being happy as a straight person, even though they have no sexual orientation at all.

Am I missing anything here, or is this really the way that you see things? Can you back ANY of this up with science, or is this the way things are, simply because it’s the way you want them to be?

 
At 1/11/2006 01:05:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

Look bro, I'm just trying to make things clearer for you, since you tend to see the world in black and white.

In reality, there is likely a sliding scale of straight and gay. Nobody is entirely heterosexual or homosexual. Most of us are more one than another, and we identify with this group.

Some people, however, are "bisexual", and those are the people who are towards the middle of the gay-straight continuum.

Now, what I just said probably blew your mind, but this is probably the way things work. And no, there isn't a "gay gene", its all because of chemicals in-utero, and their varying levels.

Early childhood can play a smll role in some cases, but generally its in utero where this stuff happens.

 
At 1/11/2006 07:10:00 PM, Blogger Involved said...

Willis,

Where is any of the scientific background that justifies your "chemical" basting theory? Have my numerous requests for such simple items been too difficult for you to comprehend? Or are you avoiding the request because you know, as I do, that such evidence does not exist because your theory is full of crap?

People make choices all the time; some good, some bad. But to blame your sexual decisions on 'scientific evidence' that doesn't exist is just stupid and lazy!

If you have any evidence to show that this is anything more than a personal choice made by individuals, I'd like to see it.

I also want to point out that you are not my girlfriend, so I really don't want to know what your personal FEELINGS are on this matter. I DO want scientific proof that will justify any of the nonsense that you've been typing on here.

 
At 1/11/2006 08:14:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

The scientific evidence exists, involved. I'm sure if you searched for some, eventually you would find it.

But, to clarify: I don't like you. I don't care to enlighten you, and I have a strong sense that even if I did the legwork, found the studies, that you would still think what you think and hate homos. So, I'm not going to work hard to smartenen you up because, frankly, I don't give a shit about you.

 
At 1/11/2006 11:13:00 PM, Blogger Lucy Jones said...

Here's an interesting site that shows both sides with all sorts of professionals on both sides of the fence.

 
At 1/11/2006 11:16:00 PM, Blogger Lucy Jones said...

Oops. Forgot to include the base link of the site. It's an entire site devoted to the issue.

 
At 1/13/2006 10:39:00 AM, Blogger Involved said...

Willis,

Harsh words. Needless to say, I'm not too afraid of your ability to "smartenen up" anyone.

However, just to clarify, I'm not anti-anyone. It's a misconception that you kids have on the left, which leads you to have a hatred for those who don't think about issues as foolishly as you.

I may disagree with you, due the fact that science and all measures of common sense seem to refute everything you have come to believe, but that doesn't mean that I hate you, and it certainly doesn't mean that I hate anyone who has chosen an unhealthy lifestyle.

To the contrary of your apparent hatred, I'm having this debate with you because I care. I care about you, and for those who have chosen to willfully engage in unproductive and sinful behavior.

 
At 1/13/2006 07:55:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

Sure you do, involved.

Let me reiterate, I'm heterosexual.

But I do engage in other sinful behavior all the time.

In a few minutes I'll be burning your body in effigy. Then I'll procede to cast voodoo hexes on the little doll I made of you.

Should be fun!

 

Post a Comment

<< Home