Refuting the infertility argument used to promote Same Sex Marriage

[Thorolfr]

Frankly I think it is the epitome of compassion to alert the gay community as to the danger of their activity. They should know and others should be fully aware that people are dying because they engage in unhealthful sexual practices.

It frustrates me to no end to have gay sympathizers and gay supporters who are fully aware of the spread of disease within the gay community…make excuses, promote the lifestyle and expect Catholics to accept a same sex relationship as a marriage.

I think it should be required that anyone who is pro gay should spend the last few hours with a dying AIDS victim.

Spare me your pretended “compassion” when much of what you write is dripping with vitriol and contempt for LGB people. How many dying AIDS victims did you spend time with? As someone who lived in the gay community in San Francisco during the height of the AIDS pandemic in the 1980s and lost countless friends and a former partner to this plague, I doubt from your words that you know much either about AIDS victims or about the experiences of LGB people.

 

[zamyrabyrd]

Lots of back-peddling going on today. Whatever happened to: Sorry – didn’t mean to cause offence.

Let’s hear it from you first or maybe you do mean to cause offense. What was that “did you skip biology…(I) make nonsensical statements.”
You might think you are on the right side of history but morality is not decided by a referendum. Fascism in action such as outrageous fines inflicted on those who dare to disagree may be a wake up call for those who bought the innocent sounding propaganda in good faith. You may be surprised by a backlash when people realize they signed away their rights by supporting false rights. But meanwhile you are not going to change your mind and I am not either. So let’s give it a rest.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Spare me your pretended “compassion” when much of what you write is dripping with vitriol and contempt for LGB people. How many dying AIDS victims did you spend time with? As someone who lived in the gay community in San Francisco during the height of the AIDS pandemic in the 1980s and lost countless friends and a former partner to this plague, I doubt from your words that you know much either about AIDS victims or about the experiences of LGB people.

Ah…forgive them Father for they know not what they talk about…

I lived in San Francisco from 1957 to the mid 1990s. I still call it home. I remember when AIDS was known as GRID. (Gay Related Immune Deficiency)

I only spent time with one dying AIDS victim. He was the only gay guy I knew. We went to high school together. He took my sister to the Senior Prom. We were not really close buddies but I called him a friend. I was with him when he died.

You are right about me in that I don’t know much either about AIDS victims or about the experiences of LGB people. I was sad to lose a friend and very upset by the way he died.

You are wrong about not having compassion…I have a great deal of compassion about the stupidity of those who live that lifestyle.

If you lost countless friends and a former partner…why are you not shouting from the roof tops about the dangers of your activities?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Ah, I see. Sheeple is not to taken as a derogatory term because you consider yourself a sheep as well. That’s like calling someone a complete moron and when they take offence, you tell them: ‘Oh, no. Let’s face it – we’re all complete morons after all. Myself included’.

I’m giving that a fail.

Being a “moron” can only be offensive if pride feeds a presumption of intelligence.

Socrates had it essentially correct. We can only know that we don’t really know and only that if truth shines its light into the darkness of our being. Everything else is mere intellectual preening and fluffing of conceptual feathers - inconsequential really.

I guess I see no problem with being called a complete moron. Such a statement would say more about the speaker than about the intended target.

Apparently, you and I have radically different views of knowing and the nature of intelligence. Truth, for me, is existentially grounded, not equivalent to conceptual engineering. What you are is far more important than what you think. Any person being a “complete moron,” is indistinguishable from their being an intellectual giant.

As to human beings acting like sheep, how do you explain the sudden “moral shift” (in a little over a decade) by a massive segment of the population to gay persons’ rights to marry? You can’t seriously contend that large sectors of the population suddenly had a great moral awakening - an a-ha moment - with regard to the legitimacy of same sex behaviour, especially considering the shallow case to be made by advocates. If the perspective were so obviously morally true, why didn’t humanity realize the legitimacy of same sex marriage thousands of years ago? Seems to me, that you would have to insist all past human generations were essentially moral morons for not getting such a self-evident moral position correct long ago.

Personally, I think coercive socialization is a far more elegant explanation and is intellectually insulting to a far smaller segment of humanity (modern libertarians) than your implication that "virtually the entire human race up to this current enlightened generation has been comprised of bigoted moral morons.

Speaking of epic fails, Bradski…

 

[Bradski]

As to human beings acting like sheep, how do you explain the sudden “moral shift” (in a little over a decade) by a massive segment of the population to gay persons’ rights to marry?

Many reasons. None of them hard to discern.

Maybe it started with Stonewall, when gay people were encouraged to be themselves. Not to hide away their sexuality. Before that, people saw gays as a threat. Now everyone knows someone who is gay. Friends, relatives, work colleagues, the girl who baby sits the kids, the guy who services your car. There is some discrimination still. Obviously. You only have to read some of the posts in this thread to see what attitudes still linger. But there’s not so much so as to prevent people being open about it. And when you know someone that you like and recognise as a decent person, the fact that they are gay has no influence on your attitude to them anymore.

There’s more travel as well. People have more disposable income. My parents never left the street they always lived in. I had the opportunity to move a round somewhat and become exposed to different viewpoints.

And if you can’t physically travel, then the world comes to you. All you need is a laptop or just an iPhone. Social media gives you more connectivity to more people than is probably good for you.

The pill, strangely enough. It helped people realise that sex wasn’t just for creating smaller versions of yourself. So there has been a lot of sexual freedom. More experimentation and hence a more liberal attitude to gay sex (female as well as male).

But mostly education, in a general sense. More people know about the matter now than they ever did so they get to make a considered opinion, rather than, as you might say, going with the herd. And education in schools tends to encourage less learning by rote and more critical thinking. You are encouraged to think for yourself, to dissent, to make an argument. So younger people today are more wary of being sheep, despite what you think. They are more willing to question the status quo. And if they find no reason to maintain it, they reject it.

And finally, our two Zeds and people like them. Zoltan, for example, is blissfully unaware (even though it’s been explained to him) that his arguments, mostly irrelevant and at best inconsequential, and more importantly, the way he presents them, do nothing but drive reasonable people away from his viewpoint. He knows full well that terms like deviant are inconsiderate and hurtful yet wonders why I don’t pick him up on it. Maybe he doesn’t actually know, so I will spell it out for him:

I want him to continue to use terms like that. I want him to bring up children’s sex education and stds and aids and deviant sexual practices and the APA because I can then ask any reasonable person – is this the type of guy with whom you would like to associate? Are these the types of attitudes to which you would like to align?

You can see the answer for yourself. You recognise the moral shift. People are embracing gay rights because the Zeds are making their views known.

 

[PRmerger]

Many reasons. None of them hard to discern.

Maybe it started with Stonewall, when gay people were encouraged to be themselves. Not to hide away their sexuality. Before that, people saw gays as a threat. Now everyone knows someone who is gay. Friends, relatives, work colleagues, the girl who baby sits the kids, the guy who services your car. There is some discrimination still. Obviously. You only have to read some of the posts in this thread to see what attitudes still linger. But there’s not so much so as to prevent people being open about it. And when you know someone that you like and recognise as a decent person, the fact that they are gay has no influence on your attitude to them anymore.

Do you feel the same way about the folks who are now “coming out polyamorous”? They say that is their sexual orientation.

Or the folks who are throuples?

 

[Bradski]

Do you feel the same way about the folks who are now “coming out polyamorous”? They say that is their sexual orientation.

I am aware of it, but I don’t know anyone who has stated that they are polyamorous, although I’ve read of marriages that have had more than two people (I’m sure our old friend Theroux did a documentary on it, but then again, it may have been the Mormons).

I’ve never met anyone who has suggested it and I’ve not read anything from anyone who wants to change anything to allow it. I’m not aware of any specific organisations that promote it (although I’m sure I could find some). I’m also not aware of any arguments these people might use to persuade the general population that it should be allowed.

But off the top of my head? I don’t see a major problem with it. The sky is not going to fall if there are three people living next door to me in a happy and stable relationship. In fact there may well be - the new couple only moved in a couple of weeks back. They seem quite nice. If he has two wives or she has two husbands, then should I shun them when she chats over the back fence or he wants to borrow my ladder?

 

[PRmerger]

I am aware of it, but I don’t know anyone who has stated that they are polyamorous, although I’ve read of marriages that have had more than two people (I’m sure our old friend Theroux did a documentary on it, but then again, it may have been the Mormons).

I’ve never met anyone who has suggested it and I’ve not read anything from anyone who wants to change anything to allow it. I’m not aware of any specific organisations that promote it (although I’m sure I could find some). I’m also not aware of any arguments these people might use to persuade the general population that it should be allowed.

These are all things someone would have said about homosexuals 30 years ago

But off the top of my head? I don’t see a major problem with it. The sky is not going to fall if there are three people living next door to me in a happy and stable relationship.

Fair enough. You are at least consistent.

And it’s going to be the next wave of rights. The next movement to redefine marriage.

In fact there may well be - the new couple only moved in a couple of weeks back. They seem quite nice. If he has two wives or she has two husbands, then should I shun them when she chats over the back fence or he wants to borrow my ladder?

What a curious statement, given that you are on a Catholic forum.

Again, have you forgotten that you’re not on a fundamentalist forum?

You do have, I’m certain, a rudimentary understanding of the Catholic ethos and know (or, ought to know) that the Catholic who shuns this throuple or refuses to lend his ladder to them would be violating the teachings of Catholicism, yes?

 

[Bradski]

These are all things someone would have said about homosexuals 30 years ago.

That was my point. Because we didn’t know any gay people, because we didn’t see them as people just like us, because we had no knowledge of what they wanted (to be treated no differently), then they were treated…well, differently. It was easy making a gay joke and putting on a camp voice and mincing about with a limp wrist. Anyone trying it now would be risking a smack in the mouth.

You do have, I’m certain, a rudimentary understanding of the Catholic ethos and know (or, ought to know) that the Catholic who shuns this throuple or refuses to lend his ladder to them would be violating the teachings of Catholicism, yes?

Well, let me put it this way. I’m sure you would chat over the back fence and gladly lend them anything at all to help out. I’m also certain that you wouldn’t call them depraved or deviant or accuse them of spreading disease. Whereas some might. No names mentioned, of course.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Many reasons. None of them hard to discern.

Maybe it started with Stonewall, when gay people were encouraged to be themselves. Not to hide away their sexuality. Before that, people saw gays as a threat. Now everyone knows someone who is gay. Friends, relatives, work colleagues, the girl who baby sits the kids, the guy who services your car. There is some discrimination still. Obviously. You only have to read some of the posts in this thread to see what attitudes still linger. But there’s not so much so as to prevent people being open about it. And when you know someone that you like and recognise as a decent person, the fact that they are gay has no influence on your attitude to them anymore…

The difficulty with your analysis is that it conflates personhood with behaviour – a conflation which has certainly been a product of the mind molding and social engineering that has taken place over the past several decades.

What has happened is a conflation of behaviour and personhood such that we have been led, by questionable "psychology,’ into thinking that a “gay” person is a unique class of being rather than a person, like any other, who engages in certain sexual behaviours. Such a view serves to mask the ethical questions regarding said sexual behaviour behind a facade of inviolable personhood.

The fact that persons are “decent,” “non-threatening” or even competent to service your car, has nothing to do with their being “gay,” merely owing to their being decent, non-threatening and competent human beings.

That hardly does anything to settle the question of whether homosexual behaviour is morally licit or not. The point that otherwise decent, non-threatening or professionally competent individuals do have a predilection towards certain types of sexual acts does not, logically, add up to “Well, then, those behaviours MUST be okay because Joe, the wunderkind mechanic thinks they are okay and acts in kind.”

It seems to me that the incapacity to separate out the two questions and the reticience on the part of most in our culture to even think they can be addressed separately demonstrates how blindsided about the issue our culture has been.

It also demonstrates the “sheeple” mentality at work. If someone appears decent, non-threatening and minds their own business, they have a place in the flock. After all, an inclusive flock is a happy flock, no? If the entire flock heads in one direction, then the flock must be right – safety in numbers, I suppose. Which is why it has been very important to those who have a predilection for eccentric behaviour to have it approved by the flock – hence the PR campaign in the media and the attacks (social and legal) on those who dare to voice disapproval and to convince by social coercion and ostracism that dissenters are not to be tolerated because they spout “feelbad” that upsets the sheeples. The point of your post, I suppose is to make the Zs feelbad because they are upsetting members of the flock.

 

[Bradski]

The fact that persons are “decent,” “non-threatening” or even competent to service your car, has nothing to do with their being “gay,” merely owing to their being decent, non-threatening and competent human beings.

True. And the fact that they are gay has nothing at all to do with anything at all other than they have a sexual preference for members of their own sex. The point being that it wasn’t long ago that saying that ‘Joe likes other men’ would be whispered behind a raised hand: ‘Listen. Don’t say I said anything, but you’ll never guess…’. And Joe would be in for some ridicule. Whereas now, the usual response would be to ridicule the teller of the tale and not Joe.

That hardly does anything to settle the question of whether homosexual behaviour is morally licit or not. The point that otherwise decent, non-threatening or professionally competent individuals do have a predilection towards certain types of sexual acts does not, logically, add up to “Well, then, those behaviours MUST be okay because Joe, the wunderkind mechanic thinks they are okay and acts in kind.”

You’re right. Joe might be a pillar of society, but if he likes having sex with children, then it doesn’t make it right at all. But if he likes having sex with another man and you make mention of it, then most people will now ask: And your point is…? Less and less people even consider it to be a moral problem to be decided in the first instance.

If you think it’s immoral, then I have no problem with that and I don’t think that many people who support gay rights would either. Lots of people think that sex outside marriage is immoral. Having sex just having sex for fun is likewise. Or indeed, any type of sex except the ‘usual’ variety. Put on a condom or take the pill and you’re doubly damned. Some people think that drinking beer is immoral or working on a Sunday. But quite frankly, as Mr Butler said, I don’t give a damn.

Otherwise, how do you treat Joe? Well you don’t treat him any differently than you do any other person. You can pray for his soul if you are so inclined. And if he asks you to his wedding you could politely decline (he may be fixing your brakes next week, so be polite), explaining your reasons and if Joe is a decent guy, he’d respect your views. And the world keeps on turning…

The point of your post, I suppose is to make the Zs feelbad because they are upsetting members of the flock.

No, no. I’d prefer it if they felt good about what they do. The last thing I want to do is discourage them.

 

[zamyrabyrd]

Many reasons. None of them hard to discern.

And finally, our two Zeds and people like them. Zoltan, for example, is blissfully unaware (even though it’s been explained to him) that his arguments, mostly irrelevant and at best inconsequential, and more importantly, the way he presents them, do nothing but drive reasonable people away from his viewpoint. He knows full well that terms like deviant are inconsiderate and hurtful yet wonders why I don’t pick him up on it. Maybe he doesn’t actually know, so I will spell it out for him:

I want him to continue to use terms like that. I want him to bring up children’s sex education and stds and aids and deviant sexual practices and the APA because I can then ask any reasonable person – is this the type of guy with whom you would like to associate? Are these the types of attitudes to which you would like to align?

You can see the answer for yourself. You recognise the moral shift. People are embracing gay rights because the Zeds are making their views known.

Somehow I felt it was not finished with you. Defending the moral basis for Western Civilization for 2000 years has now been reduced to just"views"! Moreover, for having those views in the new enlightened environment one is subject to punitive fines of 100’s of thousands of dollars, euros or pounds.

Since you mentioned it, here’s the latest in children’s “sex” education. This is the result, but by no means the end of having accepted same sex marriage in Massachusetts:

www.lifesitenews.com/all/yesterday#article-unbelievable-surveys-given-to-children-in-massachusetts-and-schools-across
Across Massachusetts – and across America – thousands of schoolchildren are given
sexually graphic, psychologically intrusive surveys by the public schools without parents’ knowledge. These surveys also ask youth to reveal their criminal activity, personal family matters, and other intimate issues.

This is done in the public middle schools and high schools during school hours. At best, parents are told about the surveys in vague terms, but are rarely allowed read them beforehand. The surveys are “officially” anonymous and voluntary. But they are administered by the teacher in a classroom and (according to teachers we’ve talked to) there is often pressure for all kids to participate.

Which of the following best describes you?
A. Heterosexual (straight)
B. Gay or lesbian
C. Bisexual
D. Not sure

A transgender person is someone whose biological sex at birth does not match the way they think or feel about themselves. Are you transgender?
A. No, I am not transgender
B. Yes, I am transgender and I think of myself as really a boy or man
C. Yes, I am transgender and I think of myself as really a girl or woman
D. Yes, I am transgender and I think of myself in some other way
E. I do not know if I am transgender
F. I do not know what this question is asking

Have you ever had sexual intercourse (oral, anal, vaginal)?
A. Yes
B. No

 

[Bradski]

Since you mentioned it, here’s the latest in children’s “sex” education. This is the result, but by no means the end of having accepted same sex marriage in Massachusetts:

I’m missing the connection between allowing gays to be married and asking the type of questions in that survey (which isn’t sex education). Perhaps you could explain. It seems that you might believe that if same sex marriages had not been allowed in MA, then those type of questions would not exist.

That said, if my kids were asked those questions without my permission at the age of 12 – or any age up to 16 in fact, then I wouldn’t waste a whole lot of time fronting up at the school and demanding to see who was responsible.

There would then be something of a one sided discussion on matters of privacy, requirements for parental permission before asking any student to take part in any sort of survey, questions of relevance and probably some sort of threat regarding legal action if this occurred in any way, shape or form at any future time.

I think things are done differently down here. As shocking and as intrusive as some of the questions are, the one that made my jaw drop was the one that asked how many days during the last month had the student carried a gun. You will have absolutely no idea how mind-boggingly unbelievable that is to a non-American.

But again, literally nothing there connected in any way to SSM. But thanks for letting me know how screwed up some parts of the US are.

 

[zamyrabyrd]

I’m missing the connection between allowing gays to be married and asking the type of questions in that survey (which isn’t sex education). Perhaps you could explain. It seems that you might believe that if same sex marriages had not been allowed in MA, then those type of questions would not exist…But again, literally nothing there connected in any way to SSM. But thanks for letting me know how screwed up some parts of the US are.

Wow, you really miss the dinosaur in the room. Talking about such practices to children as young as possible is the royal road for desensitization. Anyone can get married, anyone can decide what sex they are. Do you finally get it?

 

[Bradski]

Wow, you really miss the dinosaur in the room. Talking about such practices to children as young as possible is the royal road for desensitization. Anyone can get married, anyone can decide what sex they are. Do you finally get it?

Didn’t you read what I wrote?

You mention that MA has allowed SSM and then try to suggest that there is a connection between that and students being asked inappropriate questions. And I was quite clear that I thought they were inappropriate.

There is no connection.

What next? Gay marriage and global warming?

 

[inocente]

I’m missing the connection between allowing gays to be married and asking the type of questions in that survey (which isn’t sex education). Perhaps you could explain. It seems that you might believe that if same sex marriages had not been allowed in MA, then those type of questions would not exist.

That said, if my kids were asked those questions without my permission at the age of 12 – or any age up to 16 in fact, then I wouldn’t waste a whole lot of time fronting up at the school and demanding to see who was responsible.

There would then be something of a one sided discussion on matters of privacy, requirements for parental permission before asking any student to take part in any sort of survey, questions of relevance and probably some sort of threat regarding legal action if this occurred in any way, shape or form at any future time.

I think things are done differently down here. As shocking and as intrusive as some of the questions are, the one that made my jaw drop was the one that asked how many days during the last month had the student carried a gun. You will have absolutely no idea how mind-boggingly unbelievable that is to a non-American.

But again, literally nothing there connected in any way to SSM. But thanks for letting me know how screwed up some parts of the US are.

The shock-horror-secret-conspiracy headlines are not exactly honest reporting.

I had a look at the Mass. government site and the survey has been run since 1993, so there must be many adults in Mass. who answered the survey long ago when they were at school. Survey questions and results going back to 2005 have been available online for years, and the earliest of those has a comparison with 1995, so the same questions on sexual behavior have been asked for at least twenty years. Everything is there in the open including the methodology and all. The latest report says “There was a significant decline in the percentage of students who reported speaking with their parents or another adult in the family about sexuality and sexual risk prevention”, so it seems parents think it’s the school’s job anyway.

The stat’s for gay, lesbian and bisexual students are chilling: over five times more likely to have skipped school in the past month because of feeling unsafe; over eight times more likely to have required medical attention as a result of a suicide attempt; over nine times more likely to have used heroin one or more times during their life. And almost a quarter say they have attempted suicide in the past year.

Which indicates that in Massachusetts at least, bullying and discrimination is picked up by kids from adults, and will continue until a concerted effort is made jointly by society.

But like you, it was gun carrying that stood out. Your jaw may drop even more looking at the latest results. 18% of boys reported carrying a weapon in the previous thirty days, and 5% carried a gun. Combined with 20% of students reporting binge drinking (and 7% drinking and driving) in the last thirty days. It boggles the brain that some Americans get more excited about equal marriage than any of that.

Anyway, I’m off as the thread seems to be a logic-free zone.

 

[zamyrabyrd]

The shock-horror-secret-conspiracy headlines are not exactly honest reporting.

I had a look at the Mass. government site and the survey has been run since 1993, so there must be many adults in Mass. who answered the survey long ago when they were at school. Survey questions and results going back to 2005 have been available online for years, and the earliest of those has a comparison with 1995, so the same questions on sexual behavior have been asked for at least twenty years. Everything is there in the open including the methodology and all. The latest report says “There was a significant decline in the percentage of students who reported speaking with their parents or another adult in the family about sexuality and sexual risk prevention”, so it seems parents think it’s the school’s job anyway.

The stat’s for gay, lesbian and bisexual students are chilling: over five times more likely to have skipped school in the past month because of feeling unsafe; over eight times more likely to have required medical attention as a result of a suicide attempt; over nine times more likely to have used heroin one or more times during their life. And almost a quarter say they have attempted suicide in the past year.

Which indicates that in Massachusetts at least, bullying and discrimination is picked up by kids from adults, and will continue until a concerted effort is made jointly by society.

But like you, it was gun carrying that stood out. Your jaw may drop even more looking at the latest results. 18% of boys reported carrying a weapon in the previous thirty days, and 5% carried a gun in the last thirty days. Combined with 20% of students reporting binge drinking (and 7% drinking and driving) in the last thirty days. It boggles the brain that some Americans get more excited about equal marriage than any of that.

Anyway, I’m off as the thread seems to be a logic-free zone.

If you’re really gone, you won’t see it but it needs to be said anyway.

The over sexualization of youth that as a target group becomes younger all the time is a necessary adjunct in convincing kids that natural marriage is for old fogies. That is why the stats are higher for accepting millennials because they were propagandized into it in the stifling hot house atmosphere of all those uncontrollable hormones and orientations.

They are not old enough to appreciate the profound damage that redefining marriage will entail, the loss of civil liberties that is happening anywhere this change has been instituted, the whitewash of the negative ramifications like tendency to suicide (that is NOT the fault of society but you can blame it on others if you wish) the substance abuse, higher rates of violence, STD’s and last but not least the mind-boggling confusion of children who are left in a crazy mirror world of shifting genders.

 

[Bradski]

The shock-horror-secret-conspiracy headlines are not exactly honest reporting.

I had a look at the Mass. government site and the survey has been run since 1993…

Anyway, I’m off as the thread seems to be a logic-free zone.

Thanks for the details. I was going to check it out but too engrossed in a replay of the Barcelona v Bayern Munich semi…

So the questions are from a survey that’s been running since 1993? Well, whatever one thinks of the appropriateness of the questions (and the fact that it is an anonymous survey puts a slightly different spin on it), it cannot, in any way whatsoever, have been the result of gay marriages being allowed in the state, as Zam specifically said, as that happened over ten years later.

Hey, Zam. Why did you say the one resulted from the other? Would you like to retract your statement or try to put some spin on it to deflect from the fact that you were wrong.

And I think I’ll stick around the thread for a little longer, Inocente. Good to keep an eye on the veracity of any statements made. Hasta luego.

 

[zamyrabyrd]

Thanks for the details. I was going to check it out but too engrossed in a replay of the Barcelona v Bayern Munich semi…

So the questions are from a survey that’s been running since 1993? Well, whatever one thinks of the appropriateness of the questions (and the fact that it is an anonymous survey puts a slightly different spin on it), it cannot, in any way whatsoever, have been the result of gay marriages being allowed in the state, as Zam specifically said, as that happened over ten years later.

Hey, Zam. Why did you say the one resulted from the other? Would you like to retract your statement or try to put some spin on it to deflect from the fact that you were wrong.

And I think I’ll stick around the thread for a little longer, Inocente. Good to keep an eye on the veracity of any statements made. Hasta luego.

Desensitization to homosexuality has been going on from the 1980’s, to acceptance, and now to the king of the roost precisely because it is part of a package of anti-values.

 

[Bradski]

Desensitization to homosexuality has been going on from the 1980’s, to acceptance, and now to the king of the roost precisely because it is part of a package of anti-values.

But what you specifically said was definately incorrect. Now we all make mistakes. I do. And when I do I think that the right thing to do is admit it.

Would you please correct your earlier statement.