← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Gabrielle
Thread ID: 20691 | Posts: 8 | Started: 2005-10-18
2005-10-18 23:10 | User Profile
[img]http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images2/timegay.jpg[/img]
Time magazine's controversial cover story on "gay teens" is being denounced by critics as blatant homosexual propaganda – which is not surprising, since the Time journalist who researched and wrote the story is a homosexual with a long history of advancing "gay" causes, including the promotion of anonymous homosexual orgies.
In its Oct. 10 cover story, "The battle over gay teens," Time fails to disclose that its reporter, John Cloud, is himself homosexual, nor does Cloud mention until near the end of his lengthy report that the key researcher on which the entire story is based is also homosexual.
In the article, Cloud positively portrays the phenomenon of ever-younger American children self-identifying as "gay," praises the massive proliferation of Gay Straight Alliance clubs in public schools nationwide, showcases the Point Foundation, which provides scholarships to youngsters who believe they are "gay," and categorically dismisses professional therapeutic and religious attempts to help homosexuals change their orientation. Cloud's key expert throughout the Time cover story is Ritch Savin-Williams, chairman of Cornell University's human development department and author of a new book called "The New Gay Teenager." Not until near the close of the article does Cloud slip in the fact that Savin-Williams is "a 56-year-old gay man with a slightly elfish mien."
Cloud's piece is particularly derisive of reparative therapy – psychiatric, psychological and religious efforts to help homosexuals change their sexual orientation. "It's important to note," Cloud asserts, "that nearly all mental-health professionals agree that trying to reject one's homosexual impulses will usually be fruitless and depressing."
But Stephen Bennett, a high-profile ex-gay, says, "This article is filled with tons of misinformation, mocking of Bible-believing Christians, of people who have come out of homosexuality such as myself and who are happily married now."
And one of the nation's key professional organizations involved in reparative therapy – NARTH, the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, headed by psychologist Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D. – isn't surprised Cloud's latest article is biased against it.
"In past Time articles," notes NARTH's website, "Cloud has promoted gay political attacks against the Boy Scouts, portrayed transgender activists as a new oppressed minority group; wrote approvingly of anonymous gay sex orgies for an alternative newspaper in Washington, D.C.; and earlier had penned a guide to gay bathhouses in Washington, D.C."
Indeed, in the May 9, 1997, edition of the Washington City Paper, a homosexual publication, Cloud authored a piece called "The Naked City" in which he described his first-hand experiences at a Washington, D.C., group-sex party for homosexuals.
While such blatant advocacy on Time's part has provoked outrage, it also plays a central role in advancing the radical "gay rights" agenda, says David Kupelian, who dramatically exposes the sophisticated homosexual propaganda machine in his new book, "The Marketing of Evil."
"When it comes to homosexuality and gay rights, most Americans simply have no idea what hit them," said Kupelian. In the book's opening chapter, "I unveil all of the amazing techniques and strategies radical 'gay rights' marketers have used over the last 15 years to utterly transform Americans' views toward homosexuality.
"An absolutely vital part of that marketing campaign," Kupelian adds, "is played by the not-so- 'mainstream media,' including Time."
EDITOR'S NOTE: In an Internet exclusive, today's edition of WorldNetDaily includes the entire first chapter of "The Marketing of Evil" – which reveals as never before exactly how the radical "gay rights" agenda is being sold to Americans.
[url]http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46884[/url]
2005-10-19 07:05 | User Profile
[QUOTE]"It's important to note," Cloud asserts, "that nearly all mental-health professionals agree that trying to reject one's homosexual impulses will usually be fruitless and depressing."
But Stephen Bennett, a high-profile ex-gay, says, "This article is filled with tons of misinformation, mocking of Bible-believing Christians, of people who have come out of homosexuality such as myself and who are happily married now." [/QUOTE]
I agree with some of the ideas in this article, but this has always been amusing to me. Homosexuals becoming straight.lol. If you have ever been around homosexual men, especially, it becomes apparent that the stereotypes about their behavior(their feminine characteristics,etc) are correct. They more often than not seem to display these characteristics throughout their life, which would suggest it is inborn and therefore not something that they can truly "just come out of" How many of these people truly exist and for those that do, how many of them are now "straight" only because they feel more accepted or like this is an evil behavior,etc. I can't say I particularily like the idea of some man who was living that lifestyle, where he has probably been exposed to all kinds of diseases, including AIDS, now choosing to live the straight lifestyle(which he is probably not, in reality, going to be completely doing) and possibly spreading their diseases among heterosexuals. That is a certain danger in this and that is why this idiocy is annoying to me. They need to stay among themselves. :furious:
It is always the religious people who are trying to "change" fags and who seem to think that this is some sort of chosen lifestyle. That seems ridiculous, since even though it has been forced down our throats to accept fags, not many people actually think homosexuality is positive, cool, or something they want in their family. Who the hell is going to choose to be a fag, when they are 100% straight? These religious people want to believe that homos can be changed and that homosexuality is not inborn for two reasons,imo. 1. When they "change" a fag they can feel like they have done a good deed 2. If they were to actually believe that this was "the way they were born" then they would have to accept them, since they would then believe that "god" made them this way for some unseen reason. retarded,itz.
2005-10-19 12:11 | User Profile
Religion aside...what makes you think homosexuality isn't an addictive learned behavior? A lifestyle choice.
2005-10-19 15:03 | User Profile
I wonder how many Christians and conservatives have cancelled their subscriptions to Time, after this and a series of pro-homosexaul articles?
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the ultra-left Jew activist on the Supreme Court, was confirmed by 98 votes in the Senate. Bork didn't even get half of that. Liberals do what they want and fight for what they want. Christians and Conservatives just go with the flow and sign about the direction America is going. So, I don't think any conservatives have sent a message to Time by cancelling their subscriptions.
If Time had an anti-homosexual cover, the magazine would be out of business in a year. Liberals across the country would cancel their subscriptions and pressure the advertisers to leave the magazine.
2005-10-19 15:21 | User Profile
[quote=starr]They more often than not seem to display these characteristics throughout their life, which would suggest it is inborn... By 'throughout their life' I assume you mean throughout their adult lives? If so, many (most?) psychological disorders are already evident before a person becomes an adult. This does nothing to prove that the disorder is inherent.
[quote=starr]and therefore not something that they can truly "just come out of" Psychological disorders can sometimes, but not always, be overcome. Giving up faggotry is probably at least as hard as giving up booze or dope, especially because it involves giving up an entire lifestyle and self-identification.
[quote=starr]If they were to actually believe that this was "the way they were born" then they would have to accept them, since they would then believe that "god" made them this way for some unseen reason. retarded,itz. I find it interesting that people assume that the only rational response to the idea that homosexuality is inborn is that homosexuals must now be totally accepted. If it is inborn, then it is a genetic defect, and there would be at least as much justification for aborting any baby suspected of harboring the 'gay gene' as there would be for aborting a baby with any other serious birth defect. The 'inborn' argument is a double-edged sword.
2005-10-20 03:50 | User Profile
[quote=Quantrill] I find it interesting that people assume that the only rational response to the idea that homosexuality is inborn is that homosexuals must now be totally accepted. If it is inborn, then it is a genetic defect, and there would be at least as much justification for aborting any baby suspected of harboring the 'gay gene' as there would be for aborting a baby with any other serious birth defect. The 'inborn' argument is a double-edged sword. When a horse and a donkey breed they create a mule. The mule is incapable of creating offspring because the horse and donkey are of two different species. So since gays can create babies and those babies are not necessarily infertile, I would argue that being gay is not inborn. I think that identifying as gay is a choice, maybe not a concious one but none the less a choice. It is despicable that we are allowing this rubbish to infiltrate the minds of children who do not understand yet what it means to make a lifestyle choice. Once they go down this road it is I believe too difficult for them to come back. They believe that this assumed identity is real and that when they finally get to a point where they can question it, their peer group is so entrenched in their lives that it would be a miracle for them to change. Just as a drug addict is more likely to fall off the wagon because of his lifestyle, friends, and habits that keep him in the situation where he will go right back to using.
2005-10-20 15:14 | User Profile
[quote=BlueBonnet]When a horse and a donkey breed they create a mule. The mule is incapable of creating offspring because the horse and donkey are of two different species. Just for the record, hybrids are not always infertile. Wolf-dog mixes are not infertile, and neither are female ligers.
[quote=BlueBonnet]So since gays can create babies and those babies are not necessarily infertile, I would argue that being gay is not inborn. This is a non sequitur. If a gay creates a baby, it is because he has bred with another of his same species, so no cross-breeding has taken place. I don't see how this relates to your original point about mules.
[quote=BlueBonnet]I think that identifying as gay is a choice, maybe not a concious one but none the less a choice. Despite my disagreement with the logic you used to arrive at your position, I agree with you. I am unconvinced that homosexuality is inborn. My previous point, however, was simply that even if it were inborn, that is not necessarily the 'get-out-of-jail' free card that the sodomite activists seem to think it is.
2005-10-20 18:39 | User Profile
[quote=Quantrill]Just for the record, hybrids are not always infertile. Wolf-dog mixes are not infertile, and neither are female ligers.
This is a non sequitur. If a gay creates a baby, it is because he has bred with another of his same species, so no cross-breeding has taken place. I don't see how this relates to your original point about mules.
Despite my disagreement with the logic you used to arrive at your position, I agree with you. I am unconvinced that homosexuality is inborn. My previous point, however, was simply that even if it were inborn, that is not necessarily the 'get-out-of-jail' free card that the sodomite activists seem to think it is. Ok so my logic was crap. When I said that gays can create babies that aren't infertile I didn't mean that they would be impregnating each other. Invetro, donar whatever, they can produce offspring. Meaning that if they can produce offspring that are not infertile, unlike Mules, that they are therefore not inherently "gay". Just my way of trying to make sense out of the twisted world we live in. But I agree, it seems that the activists are so hell bent on demanding that everyone just believe that it is inborn so that they can achieve "minority" status and therefore be protected from being acused of racism, sexism, and any other ism there is.