California prop 8:

Kinsey might just be the most perverse and deranged "academic" in the modern era.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

NO DOUBT!!!

Americans bestow authority-and billions of tax dollars-upon science in the belief that scientists will make important contributions to society. There is the further belief that scientists, in their responsibility and trust, will behave ethically, especially in research that involves human subjects.

Under scrutiny is the role of Dr. Alfred C. Kinsey and his contention that Americans are 10% to 47%, more or less, homosexual. Kinsey's percentage was seized upon by Harry Hay, the father of the homosexual "civil rights" movement, when Hay formed the Mattachine Society, urging that homosexuality be seen no longer as an act of sodomy but as a 10% minority class. Today, scores of homosexual activists cite Kinsey as the man who made the homosexual movement possible.

But what if all of Kinsey's work was fraudulent, or worse? What if it reflects unethical scientists conducting unprosecuted criminal acts? For example, is it possible that scientists have conducted sexual experiments on children? Or that they could allow or encourage child abusers to conduct such experiments?

The possibility that this actually occurred-and indeed that the claimed results of such experiments have played a critical and sustained role in our law and public policy-has led Congress to submit legislation which calls for an examination of the relevant facts. The legislation focuses on the research and publications of Dr. Alfred Kinsey and his colleagues ("The Kinsey Institute") conducted at Indiana University in Bloomington, Indiana from the late 1930s to the early 1950s. The legislation is known as H.R. 2749, "The Child Protection and Ethics in Education Act."


Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany and Communist Russia are modern cross- cultural examples of totalitarian regimes which produced highly educated scientists who served their leaders without question-but with frightening and disastrous results. As cruel as were the actions of key scientific brutes like Dr. Joseph Mengele, just as instructive is the evidence of wholesale collusion by colleagues, universities, colleges and higher order think tanks. Thousands of state and private professional and pedagogical clubs and agencies were aware of the inhuman and unethical scientific activity, but rarely was there a protest made. Instead, their educated colleagues obsequiously bowed and jealously coveted association with the chosen scientific barbarians.

Beginning in the late 1940s, under programs authorized by Truman, the U.S. government deliberately dropped radioactive material from planes or released it on the ground in a dozen experiments after World War II....Eight of the tests occurred in Tennessee and Utah in an effort to create a battlefield radiation weapon. In four other tests, radiation was released into the air in New Mexico....In at least four of these 12 experiments, radiation spread beyond the planned boundaries of the test....

[And] All the tests were conducted between 1948 and 1952. The implication is clear: so vile were these "experiments" that even the Eisenhower administration could not stomach their continuation.... Nineteen mentally retarded boys who thought they were participating in a science club in the 1940s and 1950s were actually fed radioactive milk by scientists who wanted to learn about the digestive system, the Boston Sunday Globe reported." The "scientists" in question were affiliated with such ruling- class institutions as Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; their too-trusting subjects came from the Fernald State School....

The other part of the problem is, without an informed public directing its own community affairs, science historically serves its funders. Scientific patrons tend to be a small, powerful elite, which is necessarily subversive of a self-governing republic. If the medical, or the harder science experiments cited here are difficult for Americans to come to terms with, these aberrant experiments at least adhere to scientific form and are possible to replicate and validate or repudiate. However, the public does not understand (nor do scientists seem to understand) that the softer social sciences are largely not science, but rather what Professor Hobbs termed, "scientism." Human behavioral experiments without the limits of scientific protocol are easily manipulated and have frequently been misused by those in positions of trust to undermine the American way of life in the second half of the twentieth century.

Kinsey's fraudulent sex science statistics seemed to "prove" middle America to be a nation of sexual hypocrites, liars, cowards and closet deviates, despite the fact that all of Kinsey's data were repudiated by the then current public health data.


Despite the common sense fact of low rates of illegitimacy and VD, despite personal knowledge of faithful and virtuous family and friends, mainstream America was dramatically shaken by Kinsey's data.

And, while no one noted that 317 infants and children were "tested" for Kinsey's child sex data, educators repeated his conclusions-that children were sexual from birth, hence school sex education, Kinsey style, should be mandated.

The question anyone should be asking is: How did Kinsey get the statistics on childhood sexuality... that were to revolutionize the schoolroom, courtroom, pressroom, and bedroom? More succinctly put, did the Kinsey team participate in the pedophile abuse of 317 infants and children?

There was nothing scientific about Kinsey's research, it was the work of a few sexual perverts, many were the worst sort of pedophiles.

In Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, Dr. Kinsey reported that the data on the 317 children came from "9 of our adult male subjects." However, Dr. John Bancroft, current Director of the Kinsey Institute, contradicted this claim. After examining the data, Dr. Bancroft indicated that the data for Table 31 came from a single adult male subject. There are a number of other instances where Kinsey's published claims about numerical or factual data-claims with important implications if true-are now believed to be misleading or false. A review of Kinsey's original data, claims and possible involvement is long overdue.

There are serious questions which must be answered by the Kinsey Institute directors-for Kinsey's is arguably the most influential model for scientific sex taught to the nations' schoolchildren today. The proposed Congressional investigation is critical for that reason alone. How did the Kinsey team know that an 11-month-old had 10 orgasms in one hour? How did they verify these data? Where were the children's parents? Have attempts been made to locate the children? Who were the subjects?? Certainly these were not the children pictured in the publicity photographs which were distributed to the press and the gullible academic world, such as the little, braided girl of roughly four years, sitting with "Uncle Prock" in innocent play.

H.R. 2749, the Child Protection and Ethics in Education Act of 1995, is a bill to determine if Kinsey's two principal books on human sexual behavior "are the result of any fraud or criminal wrongdoing." Clearly a useful step would be the gathering of facts on the work of Kinsey and his colleagues and a public disclosure of these facts in a responsible fashion. The U.S. Congress is in a strong position to carry out this kind of fact-finding as a precursor to legislation.

If the information collected and published by Kinsey proves, on examination, to be badly flawed or to involve fraud or criminal wrongdoing, what are the implications for the use of this information in science, education, law and public policy?

Kinsey fathered not only the sexual revolution, as Hugh Hefner and others have said, but the homosexual revolution as well. Harry Hay gave Kinsey that credit when Hay read in 1948 that Kinsey found "10%" of the male population homosexual. Following the successful path of the Black Civil Rights movement, Hay, a long-time communist organizer, said 10% was a political force which could be melded into a "sexual minority" only seeking "minority rights." With Kinsey as the wind in his sails, Hay formed the Mattachine Society.

(continued)
 
But 26% (1,400) of Kinsey's alleged 5,300 white male subjects were already "sex offenders." As far as the data can be established, an additional 25% were incarcerated prisoners; some numbers were big city "pimps," "hold-up men," "thieves;" roughly 4% were male prostitutes as well as sundry other criminals; and some hundreds of homosexual activists at various "gay bars" and other haunts from coast to coast. This group of social outcasts and deviants were then redefined by the Kinsey team as representing your average "Joe College." With adequate press and university publicity, the people believed what they were told by our respectable scientists, that mass sexual perversion was common nationwide-so our sex education and our laws must be changed to reflect Kinsey's "reality."

Kinsey's homosexual figures were exposed as wholly false in 1948 by Albert Hobbs et al, as well as by several other scientists then and since.


No matter what Kinsey's own sexual orientation, scientists and laypersons alike must acknowledge that he engineered a study of child sexuality which was unthinkable. The Kinsey Institute's data on child orgasms are, at best, a human concoction or, at worst, the results of child molestation.

The control of sexuality information has for too long been in the hands of the Kinsey elite-unethical scientists, men without moral conscience or honor, who fathered a bastard sexual revolution. It should come as no surprise then to those on our campuses and in the halls of legislative, judicial and educational power, that as our nation has followed Kinsey and his disciples, we too have become increasingly coarsened to conscience and honor. It is clear that sexual aggression, brutality and hedonism have greater sway in our society post-Kinsey than was the case pre-Kinsey.

Kinsey sold his soul to win his place in time, but now is the time to take back America's soul which has been led astray by fraudulent and criminal science.
 
And taking it one step farther, the next step is "animal rights" and the only regime to legitimize animal rights was the Nazis which turned out to be one of, if not the most inhumane tyranny of all time and incidentally, the Nazi party was brought to power by groups who were in most cases homosexuals.
 
Some people are just born that way, and it can't be "cured". No amount of therapy, short of castration, can "cure" child molestors. There is a reason it has the highest recidivism rate of any crime. People are just born with their brain working in different ways. This is why child molesters should just be locked away. If homosexuals aren't hurting anybody else and acting in a consenting fashion, it shouldn't be viewed as a disorder to be cured.
If linking child molestation and homosexuality is your way of defending homosexuality, then please continue to amuse us.

If you would like to partake in a factually correct and somewhat academic discussion of such, though, then please don't bring such false ideas to the table. You cannot disregard the countless studies which indicated that the majority of sexual deviants were themselves sexually abused as children. This would fly in the face of the "pedophiles are just born that way" theory.

Since you decided to use that theory as your justification for homosexuals just being born homosexual, then, until otherwise convinced, I am going to go ahead and check the "false" box next to your argument.
 
No doubt, then churches that refuse to allow them to be married in their church will be called intolerant and bigots, like I have been called in this thread.


Why wouldn't that qualify? I mean, you may think its justified, but it is intolerant, obviously. Bigoted, too, though not in the same vein you are used to using that word.

By the way I don't think a church should be required to marry anybody it doesn't want to and would defend their right to refuse to do so.
 
Why wouldn't that qualify? I mean, you may think its justified, but it is intolerant, obviously. Bigoted, too, though not in the same vein you are used to using that word.

By the way I don't think a church should be required to marry anybody it doesn't want to and would defend their right to refuse to do so.


Using this approach, those seeking to be married in a church that doesn't believe in gay marriages are being intolerant and bigoted regarding the church and it's values - it's an un-ending game.
 
Using this approach, those seeking to be married in a church that doesn't believe in gay marriages are being intolerant and bigoted regarding the church and it's values - it's an un-ending game.


That's a valid point. I guess its a matter of degree sometimes. I mean, I don't like that one gay fellow they have the video of screaming at the protestor. Nor do I agree with the protestor. I find her message lacking, his delivery.
 
Does anyone really believe most churches are being bigots by not supporting and fighting against gay marriage? No doubt there are some churches that promote bigotry, but the vast majority simply oppose gay marriage due to religious principles.
 
If linking child molestation and homosexuality is your way of defending homosexuality, then please continue to amuse us.

If you would like to partake in a factually correct and somewhat academic discussion of such, though, then please don't bring such false ideas to the table. You cannot disregard the countless studies which indicated that the majority of sexual deviants were themselves sexually abused as children. This would fly in the face of the "pedophiles are just born that way" theory.

Since you decided to use that theory as your justification for homosexuals just being born homosexual, then, until otherwise convinced, I am going to go ahead and check the "false" box next to your argument.


I'm not linking the two, I am just trying to draw a comparison, probably a bad one.

My point is if it is a mental disorder, then they were born that way. If not, it is a choice they are making. So the two options become a choice, or born that way.

Given the societal stigma, I don't see why anyone would choose to be homosexual...unless of course you really believe they are sinning just for the sake of sinning (a ridiculous notion IMO). If they were born that way, than it follows a creator or designer (if you believe that way) made it possible to be homosexual, then expressely condemned it.

And since you are concerned with factually correct and academic discussions, it would be nice for you to tell us all what exactly this "cure" is you spaeak of.
 
Does anyone really believe most churches are being bigots by not supporting and fighting against gay marriage? No doubt there are some churches that promote bigotry, but the vast majority simply oppose gay marriage due to religious principles.

I don't think they are being bigots. I think it is purely a religious principle idea as to why they fight against gay marriage. I truly believe if it wasn't metnioned in the bible at all it would be non-issue except to the bigots in society. Once a group of people have the requisite belief that a certain book details the word of God, then any belief that follows as a result is based on that, whether it is bigoted or not.
 
My point is if it is a mental disorder, then they were born that way. If not, it is a choice they are making. So the two options become a choice, or born that way.

Given the societal stigma, I don't see why anyone would choose to be homosexual...unless of course you really believe they are sinning just for the sake of sinning (a ridiculous notion IMO). If they were born that way, than it follows a creator or designer (if you believe that way) made it possible to be homosexual, then expressely condemned it.
Persons might be genetically predisposed to be more susceptible to mental disorders, however, very few are actually born with mental disorders. Do your homework, please.

As for the use of the word "choice", I will expound since you believe "choice" is synonymous with "conscientiously voluntary". It is not synonymous. The end.
 
That read on Kinsey was really thought provoking, be interesting if anything ever comes from it. I highly doubt it, as I truly believe we have lost our academic institutions to the extreme, radical left. Our society, country went to sleep in the '30's and let the "progressives" take over. I have no problem at all with discourse or debate with what I believe and would welcome healthy debate. However, if you honestly think these people aren't hellbent on the destruction of the traditional way of life, than you really need to wake up. If you even mention a slight leaning towards "intelligent design" you are tossed to wolves. Algore and his movement has labeled anyone who even tries to question their money making (carbon offsets $$$$) and power grabbing scheme as "deniers" or equated them to the people who fought for the fact that Earth was flat.

With that said, if you think that the same people who didn't waltz into a place many people consider sacred and desecrated them in the name of political discourse won't abuse their "right to be married" as a weapon to close churches down by burying them in legal costs from discrimination lawsuits, you are extremely delusional and naive.

I am a follower of Christ and the Bible, and I truly believe the first lesson God conveyed was that we are creatures of free choice (Adam and Eve CHOSE to sin). So, I honestly believe it's between a person and their Maker what decisions they make through the course of their life, and I have no right to dictate otherwise. That means that, yes if Adam and Nick want to tie the knot, have at it. BUT, if they want me to vote yes I want beyond EXPLICIT language that protects ANY religious institution from lawsuits that refuses to perform the ceremony.
 
Persons might be genetically predisposed to be more susceptible to mental disorders, however, very few are actually born with mental disorders. Do your homework, please.

As for the use of the word "choice", I will expound since you believe "choice" is synonymous with "conscientiously voluntary". It is not synonymous. The end.

If that is what you think, then what is the cure for homosexuality? What academic and factually based evidence are you using to support this? I would love to hear what homework you have done that I haven't.

This ought to be good.
 
Last edited:
That means that, yes if Adam and Nick want to tie the knot, have at it. BUT, if they want me to vote yes I want beyond EXPLICIT language that protects ANY religious institution from lawsuits that refuses to perform the ceremony.

I feel the same way, and I don't believe in the bible nor am I a follower of Christ.
 
Last time I check Homosexuals do have the right to marry. Women, just like us heterosexuals do. No difference.
 
If that is what you think, then what is the cure for homosexuality? What academic and factually based evidence are you using to support this? I would love to hear what homework you have done that I haven't.

This ought to be good.

date/marry the opposite sex. there... the end.
 
date/marry the opposite sex. there... the end.

Hmmm. This is very compelling.

Marrying someone of the opposite sex means one isn't gay anymore. As soon as they say "I do" the switch has been turned I guess.
 
If that is what you think, then what is the cure for homosexuality? What academic and factually based evidence are you using to support this? I would love to hear what homework you have done that I haven't.
The Catholic Church set up a treatment center for homosexuality this past year. I am quite confident that the results of the experiment will actually shake the foundation of the accepted "common knowledge" on the subject. The results, though, will most likely take 10 to 15 years to analyze.

However, whichever direction the results swing in, they will be much more scientifically firm than those of Kinsey.
 
Hmmm. This is very compelling.

Marrying someone of the opposite sex means one isn't gay anymore. As soon as they say "I do" the switch has been turned I guess.

Who says homosexuals can't marry? Just marry the opposite sex and both sides will be happy. Personally, I don't really care about this and it's a non issue. The people have spoken, and in a democratic nation that's usually how business is done.

Seems that these people wanting to shove homosexuality down peoples throats are unhappy with the same right that allows people to oppose it.
 
If that is what you think, then what is the cure for homosexuality? What academic and factually based evidence are you using to support this? I would love to hear what homework you have done that I haven't.

This ought to be good.

Are you saying there has to be a known cure in order for a disease or disorder to exist? Also, how much money do we spend on finding a cure or treatment? We don't. We as a society prefer to stick our collective head in the sand and insist on people being "tolerant" and not putting any real thought into such issues.
 
That read on Kinsey was really thought provoking, be interesting if anything ever comes from it. I highly doubt it, as I truly believe we have lost our academic institutions to the extreme, radical left. Our society, country went to sleep in the '30's and let the "progressives" take over. I have no problem at all with discourse or debate with what I believe and would welcome healthy debate. However, if you honestly think these people aren't hellbent on the destruction of the traditional way of life, than you really need to wake up.

And wake up we must.

American thinker's thoughts on Kinsey.


Excerpts:

"This contention that America was more Caligula and Nero than Ozzie and Harriet was itself more Siegfried & Roy than Washington and Honest Abe."

But as the famous psychologist Abraham Maslow [a friend of Kinsey's] pointed out, most people will not fill out a voluminous survey composed of intensely personal questions. Consequently, an inordinate percentage of such respondents will be people of easy virtue who engage in aberrant sexual behavior. This is an outcome—skewing factor that was even more significant fifty—five years ago, when people were much more reluctant to discuss these matters than they are today. What this means is that it was difficult to develop a clear picture of the average person's sexual behavior through such research, even when you tried.

But Kinsey didn't try.

Maslow offered to help him adjust for the aforementioned factor, but when Kinsey discovered that doing so would not yield the results he wanted, he refused and terminated his friendship with Maslow.

It gets even worse, though. While Kinsey made no effort to correct for incidentally skewed data, he purposely skewed data and made every effort to make it appear correct. Amazingly, outrageously, unbelievably, fourteen—hundred of Kinsey's male subjects were prison inmates and sexual offenders whom he classified as normal. Why? Kinsey's rationalization was that the only difference between these reprobates and average men was that the former got caught. But this is what you could call a circular justification. He used an anomalous sample, extrapolated its characteristics to the population at large, and then labeled the sample as normal because it was reflective of the sample—based conception of the population at large.

Kinsey repeated this scientific fraud when he studied women, once again drawing conclusions from a sample of unrepresentative females, such as prostitutes. It's no wonder, then, that Kinsey steadfastly refused to publish the data upon which his conclusions rested or reveal the questionnaire he used to compile that data. It's also not surprising that highly—esteemed contemporaries in the scientific community viewed Kinsey's work as invalid. One example would be the British Medical Journal, The Lancet, which wrote that Kinsey 'questioned an unrepresentative proportion of prison inmates and sex offenders in a survey of normal sexual behavior.' The fact is that Kinsey's methods were so shoddy, they prompted the 1999 Intercollegiate Review to rank Kinsey's book as the 'third worst book of the century.'

As shameful as the scientific fraud is, it pales in comparison to Kinsey's blatantly immoral and criminal behavior with respect to children. Kinsey conducted research that supposedly demonstrated that young boys — as young as two months of age — could experience multiple orgasms. He claimed that the maximum number observed in a twenty—four hour period was 26 climaxes . . . in a thirteen—year—old and a four—year—old. Now, to again quote the Intercollegiate Review, 'So mesmerized were Americans by the authority of science, with a capital S, that it took forty years for anyone to wonder how data is collected on the sexual responses of children as young as five.'


You don't have to wonder for long, however. Dr. Judith Reisman, who has been a longtime Kinsey critic, received the answer from an actual member of the Kinsey team. This accessory, named Paul Gebhard, stated that Kinsey's men used 'manual and oral techniques' to produce the desired effect.

In the same sordid vein, Kinsey relied on consultants — in the form of pedophiles — to gather added information on the sexual responses of children. One of these men was a notorious child—molester named Rex King, who was responsible for the rape of over eight—hundred children. This predator related to Kinsey numerous stories about his child rape in graphic detail, information that Kinsey considered to be merely 'scientific research.'

Another one of these men was Dr. Fritz Von Balluseck, a Nazi pedophile who contributed to Kinsey's research between 1936 and 1956. While on trial in a case that involved the murder of ten—year—old Loiselotte Has, it was revealed that Von Balluseck was regularly sending Kinsey details of his experiences with children. The court even discovered letters that Kinsey mailed to the Nazi encouraging him to continue his 'research.' In fact, so enthusiastic was Kinsey's correspondence with the child molester and so egregious his indifference to the plight of the man's victims, that the presiding judge, Dr. Henrich Berger, frequently expressed outrage at Kinsey for not reporting Von Balluseck to the authorities.

(the above was gleaned from only the first half of the article.)gs

As James H. Jones, a pro—Kinsey biographer wrote, 'Kinsey wanted his staff to know that as scientists, they are not bound by bourgeois morality.'

Or any kind of morality, it would appear.

For, the idea that scientists should not be bound by morality is a pernicious lie. The acceptance of perversion doesn't yield unbiased science, it yields perverse science. It is a philosophy of which the Nazi Dr. Mengele was an adherent.

Now, to ascribe to Kinsey Nazi sentiments is not a stretch that would render one guilty of hyperbole or specious analysis. Not only did the correspondence between Kinsey and Von Balluseck bear witness to the fact that the latter's Naziism seemed no more disturbing to Kinsey than his pedophilia, but Kinsey also was an avowed atheist who refused to hire Jews, blacks or committed Christians [Hitler was anti—Christian as well] throughout his career. Moreover, like the Nazis, Kinsey was a proponent of eugenics, which is the science of improving the human race through selective breeding.

However, Kinsey's quasi—fascist ideology doesn't fully explain his preoccupation with eroding America's firewall against depravity. For such insight you must delve into Kinsey's personal life and sexual inclinations, but you needn't delve too deeply.

(American Thinker then goes into detail about the sordid, perverted life style of Kinsey.)gs

As for Kinsey's legacy, I'm not sure that I would credit him with almost single—handedly sparking the sexual revolution, as some of his critics have. But there is no doubt that he has been one of its Caesars. Kinsey's portrayal of 1950's America as a land rife with perversion served to loosen her people's sexual mores, and provided a justification for anyone and everyone to act upon his deepest, darkest, basest desires. After all, if everyone else is doing it, it must be normal.

(next is detailed how American law changed at that time based on the false data put out by Kinsey)gs

A study of law review articles that were published between 1982 and 2000 found over 650 citations to Alfred Kinsey. What this means is that part of the blame for the kid glove treatment that criminals so long received and the consequent rise in crime can be laid squarely at Kinsey's doorstep. It was true folly, for basing sexual offense laws on Kinsey's work is much like basing laws pertaining to theft on the prescriptions of a committed thief.



The Kinsey Institute was a prototype for all the organizations that provide sexual education curricula in our country.
Is it any wonder then, that these curricula are imbued with Kinsey's ideas about early childhood sexual development, the prevalence of homosexual behavior, and the re—categorizing of perversion as normal behavioral variation? No, it's no wonder at all that our ideas about sex—education are so twisted. For, regarding Kinsey's books as authoritative sources on human sexuality is much like regarding Mein Kampf as an authoritative source on social policy and governance.

It's not easy writing an article such as this. Aside from the tedium of investigation, it also occurs to one that communicating the magnitude of Kinsey's depravity, scientific fraud and negative impact upon society through one article is an almost insurmountable task. Consequently, I will tell you that if you would like a to read a comprehensive expose of Kinsey, I recommend that you log on to Dr. Judith Reisman's website: www.DrJudithReisman.com, or buy her book, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences. No one has done more than Dr. Reisman to expose Alfred Kinsey for the complete fraud that he was.
--------------------------

"Dr. Reisman's study supports the conclusion that Alfred Kinsey's research was contrived, ideologically driven and misleading. Any judge, legislator or other public official who gives credence to that research is guilty of malpractice and dereliction of duty."
Charles E. Rice, Professor, Notre Dame Law School
-================================

(continued)
 
Kinsey is without a doubt one of the most vile, destructive and perverted individuals I have ever had the displeasure of studying. It's quite obvious to me that his misbegotten pseudo—scientific endeavors were simply a vehicle through which he could indulge his perversion, make money, and work to destroy the traditional standard of morality that condemned the dark sins for which he had developed such an affinity. And to buttress this point I'll quote the Intercollegiate Review one last time: '[this was] a pervert's attempt to demonstrate that perversion is statistically 'normal.''

Selwyn Duke (author)
Last time I check Homosexuals do have the right to marry. Women, just like us heterosexuals do. No difference.

The uncontested absurdities of today are the accepted slogans of tomorrow. They come to be accepted by degrees, by precedent, by implication, by erosion, by default, by dint of constant pressure on one side and constant retreat on the other - until the day when they are suddenly declared to be the country's official ideology.
~ Ayn Rand


Hmmm. This is very compelling.

Marrying someone of the opposite sex means one isn't gay anymore. As soon as they say "I do" the switch has been turned I guess.

"Demoralize the enemy from within by surprise, terror, sabotage, assassination. This is the war of the future."
- Adolf Hitler

"Our strategy is to destroy the enemy from within, to conquer him through himself."
- Adolf Hitler

"The man who has no sense of history, is like a man who has no ears or eyes"
- Adolf Hitler

"When an opponent declares, "I will not come over to your side," I calmly say, "Your child belongs to us already... What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community."
- Adolph Hitler Quotes
 
Given the societal stigma, I don't see why anyone would choose to be homosexual...unless of course you really believe they are sinning just for the sake of sinning (a ridiculous notion IMO). If they were born that way, than it follows a creator or designer (if you believe that way) made it possible to be homosexual, then expressely condemned it.

There really isn't much of a stigma to it in today's society. At least not in the society I see. Our creator simply set up the rules and allowed nature to run the course. We are allowed to make choices, the choices have consequences.
 
Kinsey repeated this scientific fraud when he studied women, once again drawing conclusions from a sample of unrepresentative females, such as prostitutes. It's no wonder, then, that Kinsey steadfastly refused to publish the data upon which his conclusions rested or reveal the questionnaire he used to compile that data. It's also not surprising that highly—esteemed contemporaries in the scientific community viewed Kinsey's work as invalid. One example would be the British Medical Journal, The Lancet, which wrote that Kinsey 'questioned an unrepresentative proportion of prison inmates and sex offenders in a survey of normal sexual behavior.' The fact is that Kinsey's methods were so shoddy, they prompted the 1999 Intercollegiate Review to rank Kinsey's book as the 'third worst book of the century.'



Wow! The third worst? That must be some impressive outfit that came up with that.

The "1999 Intercollegiate Review." Hmmmm ... They sure sound like they are academics and unbiased, don't they? I mean. you wouldn't ever want to question them, would you, as official as they sound and all?


Oh, wait ... Do you know who they are? Check out their credentials? Do so, and you will see that their title of "academic" or "intercollegiate" is a ruse.
 
The Catholic Church set up a treatment center for homosexuality this past year. I am quite confident that the results of the experiment will actually shake the foundation of the accepted "common knowledge" on the subject. The results, though, will most likely take 10 to 15 years to analyze.

Are you really serious?

The fact that it is being done by the Catholic Church is all that needs to be said. And forgive me, especially given its past glorious acceptance of the subject, if I am not awed by the scientific credibility of this institution. And while we are on the subject of scientific credibility, anything, including Kinsey, is better than a church run experiment with a religious agenda to prove.

So how flat is the earth still?
 
Last edited:

VN Store



Back
Top