larry

I give up, where does the word "fun" come from, and what does that have to do with unicorns? I think all that comes from a bottle of booze, or a wacky week smoke.

dennisimoto Loc: Washington State (West)

Good GRIEF, Man! Lighten UP will you PLEASE! I absolutely believe that you do NOT know where the word "fun" comes from.

larry

Is it an abbreviation for Fouled Up Nothing?

Brian Devon

*********

Living in liberal northern California, I have never met anyone over 18, who never fornicated.

I have also never met anyone who ever repented for that particular "sin". Actually, I can't even remember the last time I heard someone even talk about sin...

The majority of Americans, according to Gallup, have no problem with consensual non-marital sex.

The culture war is over. The prudes lost. You can kind of tell when you go to the movies or turn on the television.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

larry

Living where you do, they are both dirty.

rhomin57 Loc: Far Northern CA.

Brian lives in Mid-California, not in the wholesome conservative Far Northern California!

rhomin57 Loc: Far Northern CA.

Carnival ride, water skiing, picnics, tree climbing, visiting old museums, etc. These answers are from kids.

larry

having sex casually is sin, but sex itself is not. It is part of God's design. Treating it as recreation is part of the design as long as it is done properly it is a wonderful thing. If it is just for lust, it is meaningless, but if done for love it is more than just a physical connection. It is also spiritual experience. If you miss that, you are missing the most important part.

Brian Devon

*********
Rhomin,

You mean like the wholesome meth kingdoms of Chico and Redding or are you referring to wholesome "Pot Central" otherwise known as Eureka-Arcata???

Brian Devon

*********
To borrow from a famous comedian--Casual sex may be a meaningless experience......but as far as meaningless experiences go, it is one of the better ones.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

engaged Loc: New York City and Broward County Florida

Quote from larry

What makes you think, that homosexuals are h**ed? It is not the person that is h**ed, it is what they do that is outside of the sensibility of marriage. The purpose of marriage, is to form a consistent and trusting relationship in order to provide a basic foundation for offspring. Since the sexual acts of homosexual relationships do not produce an avenue for more people, it is an empty and selfish union that is against the concept of what marriage is all about. Suppose all selfish acts were to be honored by society, where then would cooperation stand, and what would society be?


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


How can you say that all gay partnerships are an "empty and selfish union?" How many gay families are in your life? I know several couples, both male and female, who have children. Some born naturally to one of the lesbian couple through artificial insemination, some gays use surrogate mothers using their own sperm, both adopt - usually older, immigrant, hard-to-adopt children.

The couples I know make a special point of giving their children complete free reign in the "straight" world. They build a community around them that includes positive role models of both sexes. Although their children know their parents are gay, they also know that people are born that way or they're not. Homosexuality is NOT hereditary.

As to your final statement, "where then would cooperation stand?", I see a Congress that refuses to work together, where the top 10% ignore the less fortunate, where greed and consumerism dominate the culture? I'm afraid that America has gone way past selfish.

Homosexuality is not selfish; it is a reality. Among all life forms there is a constant 10% who are wired to seek love with their own kind. I know that you cannot see this because you take the Bible literally. I honor your right to do so. But be Christian in your compassion and acceptance. Jesus was.

larry

Of course it is a selfish way to procreate, however, I would rather see couples raising children properly than aborting them. The only reason these gay couples adopt or have natural children is because they do not know how to give up their desire to be in control of their will rather than subject it to the will of God.

You can try to cover up depravity by using a false compassion, but it is not going to work with anyone. Homosexual unions are not natural, and trying to make them so is just pandering to a social sickness. Jesus did not accept homosexual unions or homosexual non unions because they are not part of the scheme of procreation. No matter that there are "gay" couples raising someone else-s child, they are bound to warp the natural tendency of the child's thinking. Religion is not the only social group that calls it a depravity, but it is the most vociferous. Rightly so, because that way of life God it is anathema. Sodom and Gomorrah are set as an example of how God feels about it.

bdamage Loc: My Bunker

You must be pleased now that you know you can get to the pearly gates regardless of sexual orientation.

In Brunei they are facing a different challenge.
Pure brutality and the l*****t MSM are mum, as usual.

Sharia Brunei: ‘Stone the gays’ law to be phased in starting today
Robert Spencer May 1, 2014 at 2:59pm

Yet gay advocates in the U.S. such as Theresa Sparks and Chris Stedman attacked Pamela Geller and me for calling attention to the institutionalized mistreatment of gays under Islamic law. Their gay advocacy doesn’t extend to standing up to Sharia oppression of gays, even though that oppression is far more virulent and violent than anything from “right-wing extremists” in the U.S. And you can’t blame them: given the L*****t/jihadist alliance, it’s clear that if they spoke out against Sharia mistreatment of gays, they would no longer be invited to the best parties, and might even be branded as “right-wing.” Their moral cowardice and duplicity, however, are obvious.

“Brunei: ‘Stone the gays’ law to be phased in from tomorrow,” Pink News, April 30, 2014 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/05/sharia-brunei-stone-the-gays-law-to-be-phased-in-starting-today?utm_source=Jihad+Watch+Daily+Digest&utm_campaign=571216ba7a-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_ffcbf57bbb-571216ba7a-123486081

Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...

[quote=engaged]Quote from larry

What makes you think, that homosexuals are h**ed? It is not the person that is h**ed, it is what they do that is outside of the sensibility of marriage. The purpose of marriage, is to form a consistent and trusting relationship in order to provide a basic foundation for offspring. Since the sexual acts of homosexual relationships do not produce an avenue for more people, it is an empty and selfish union that is against the concept of what marriage is all about. Suppose all selfish acts were to be honored by society, where then would cooperation stand, and what would society be?


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


How can you say that all gay partnerships are an "empty and selfish union?" How many gay families are in your life? I know several couples, both male and female, who have children. Some born naturally to one of the lesbian couple through artificial insemination, some gays use surrogate mothers using their own sperm, both adopt - usually older, immigrant, hard-to-adopt children.

The couples I know make a special point of giving their children complete free reign in the "straight" world. They build a community around them that includes positive role models of both sexes. Although their children know their parents are gay, they also know that people are born that way or they're not. Homosexuality is NOT hereditary.

As to your final statement, "where then would cooperation stand?", I see a Congress that refuses to work together, where the top 10% ignore the less fortunate, where greed and consumerism dominate the culture? I'm afraid that America has gone way past selfish.

Homosexuality is not selfish; it is a reality. Among all life forms there is a constant 10% who are wired to seek love with their own kind. I know that you cannot see this because you take the Bible literally. I honor your right to do so. But be Christian in your compassion and acceptance. Jesus was.

Engaged, that 10% of humanity being homosexual is a complete misnomer, a deliberate lie perpetuated upon society by the man who first made the false claim.

Alfred Kinsey originally made that claim in the 40's and 50's, and his research was discredited long ago. Kinsey was a sexual pervert and predator, a homosexual paedophile - a pederast, actually, as he pursued and sometimes successfully seduced the young men who assisted him.

Kinsey's so-called research that arrived at that mythical ten percent of the population relied heavily on correspondence and interviews with imprisoned inmates, whose only sex was homosexual in expression, as well as paedophiles, sex ofenders, some who were imprisoned, and some who were not, but should have been.


http://www.drjudithreisman.com/archives/1992/05/kinsey_sex_and_1.html



"In recent years there has been a flurry of publicity surrounding some important cases of science fraud. But the names Baltimore in the United States, Benveniste in France, McBride in Australia, to list but a few - are quickly forgotten because, despite the breach of public trust involved, few would claim there has been a major adverse effect on individuals or society.

However, what about a massive scientific research project that had succeeded in its purpose of using fraudulent data to radically alter perceptions of normal human behaviour? What if, in addition, this "research" had attempted to substantiate an unproven and potentially dangerous theory of child development with data from abusive and unethical sexual experiments conducted by paedophiles on infants and children, needless to say, without consent?

And what if the results of this research were still uncritically taught as fact in academia and formed the foundation of current sex education philosophy? Would evidence of such a subterfuge, especially if it had been successfully covered up for 40 years, be of concern to the scientific community and the public at large? Would such a scheme qualify as the scientific fraud of the century? You be the judge.

THE RESEARCH

This is not a hypothetical question, as will become very clear. What follows is a review of a simple expose of one of the most famous and most ballyhooed research projects of the 20th century. Establishing that fraud took place in this research is not particularly difficult.

The trick is to try and explain how this major piece of deception was passed off as valid science for more than 40 years. However, the answer to this puzzle is becoming more obvious through, ironically, the efforts of those now rallying to the defense of the original project and its authors.

There is an identifiable ideological tie binding this phony science's defenders and true believers. In 1948 a Harvard-trained zoologist, who had gained a reputation classifying gall wasps, suddenly became an international scientific celebrity - perhaps the first truly media-manufactured science icon of the 20th century.

His name was Alfred Kinsey. His springboard to fame was the publication of his first landmark work on human sexuality, Sexual Behaviour in the Human Male.1 This was followed five years later by Sexual Behaviour in the Human Female.2 These two tomes (known subsequently as Kinsey's Male and Female Reports) altered Western society's view of how people behaved sexually and forced a sea change in what was considered "normal" sexual behaviour.

Today the findings of Kinsey (who died in 1956) and his team (still surviving) continue to provide us with what the authoritative news weekly U.S. News and World Report (January 9,1989, p. 54) describes as "the cornerstone of almost everything known about human sexuality," and the philosophy emanating from their research has become the foundation of modern sex education.

The Kinsey team's 1948 and 1953 books shocked society with a picture of what citizens were supposedly doing sexually. "Statistically common behaviour"3 was deduced from a sample of just over 5,000 men and almost 6,000 women and was presented by newspapers and magazines across the United States (and several other countries) as a scientific exposition of "normal" sexual mores.

Premarital, extramarital and same-g****r sex were found to be more common than anyone had dreamed. Kinsey's books became best sellers (though few were actually read) and Kinsey came to be (and still is) regarded as "the world's foremost sex researcher."4(p23)

In the wake of the startling revelations, sexual practices were gradually revised to conform with perceived reality. This became the Sexual Revolution. Kinsey's research, claimed to be an "objective" study of facts "without moral interpretations,"1(p5) demonstrated that socially accepted behaviour was "rationalisation" while socially condemned behaviour was usually "normal" or "normal in the human animal."1(p327)

Traditional morality was suddenly "unscientific." Real science would now free society from the Judeo-Christian myth of the value of monogamy and fidelity and the view of heterosexuality as a behavioural norm.

Albert Deutsch, writing in Harper's magazine (December 1947, p. 494) said & research "explodes traditional concepts of what is normal and a******l, natural and unnatural in sex behaviour." Look magazine (December 9,1947, p. 106) said the Kinsey team had produced a "social atom bomb" that "may have a tremendous effect on the future social history of mankind. For they are presenting facts. They are revealing not what should be, but what is."

Even today the conventional wisdom on Kinsey is that while his research had flaws it was, and remains, a valid informational source on human behaviour. A special 1990 issue of Life magazine, in which Kinsey was named as one of the 100 most important Americans of the 20th century, repeats the view that Kinsey's "raw facts" were "a mirror held up to the nation."

It was Kinsey's research that provided the inspiration for the sexual philosophy of Hugh Hefner's Playboy magazine. Hefner wrote in the first issue, "We believe ... we are filling a publishing need only slightly less important than one just taken care of by the Kinsey Report."

Another Kinsey legacy is the active and prominent Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, G****r and Reproduction - located on the Indiana University campus.

This Institute has received millions of U.S. government dollars for a variety of projects, is a source of syndicated sex advice columns and has provided extensive sex information resources on an international scale.

Less well known is the role of Kinsey's research in support of the proliferating paedophile movement. According to Tom O'Carroll, chairperson of the international organization PIE (Paedophile Information Exchange), the Kinsey team's science demonstrates the capacity for children to have harmless sexual interaction with adults.

This is a correct representation of one of Kinsey's conclusions. (See, O'Carroll's 1980 book P********a: The Radical Case6). Those who follow these matters will be aware that moves are afoot in sexological circles to have paedophilia regarded as an "orientation." Sound familiar?

With so much resting on the general validity of the Kinsey team's work, it will be no surprise that the appearance of the book Kinsey, Sex and Fraud 7 (of which we are editors and contributors) in 1990 was greeted with less than enthusiasm in some quarters. This work alleges that the Kinsey team's human sexuality research is so demonstrably fraudulent in so many respects that as science it is virtually worthless.

Kinsey, Sex and Fraud pulls together a mountain of documentation that the image in Kinsey's mirror was a deliberate distortion.

Here's a profile of Kinsey and team's male sample used to picture normal sexual behaviour in American men:

25% were prisoners or ex-cons; a further a******l percentage were sex offenders (Kinsey had the histories of over 1400); many were recruited from sex lectures, where they had gone to get the answer to sex problems, some were obtained through paid contact men, including underworld figures and leaders of homosexual groups; the group was wholly unrepresentative in terms of marital status, church attendance and educational level.

In addition, Kinsey had a minimum of 200 male prostitutes among his histories. That could have been, at the very least, 7% of the total (2,719) in his sample's occupational classes! 1(pp618,622) Kinsey's readers and the media got a different explanation of what was happening.

An advertising circular for this survey said it was conducted "with full regard for the latest refinements in public opinion polling methods" and Kinsey's own text presented it as "a carefully planned population survey." 1(pp618,622) (There is not space to discuss the female sample, it, too, was wholly unconventional.)

Already we have a description of fraud (using the intention-to-deceive definition). But it gets worse. In a 1941 paper Kinsey told the readers of the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology that attempts to determine the prevalence of homosexuality in society were c*********d by the use of prison populations.

His own study would avoid that pitfall and provide the first credible statistics on the subject! His article was submitted in November 1940. Several months before, according to biographer Christenson, 9(p115) Kinsey had already begun to recruit what became a large prisoner group in his survey sample.

Kinsey's homosexuality statistics were clearly inflated Thus, epidemiologist David Forman, after a careful survey of a much more representative population, was forced to say in his 1989, British Medical Journal article that "frequently cited figures such as [Kinsey's] 10% of men being more or less exclusively homosexual cannot be regarded as applicable to the general population." Other surveys support this view (eg, Tom Smith's 1989 study for the National Opinion Research Center11).

But today, in the United States, Kinsey's original figures have become ingrained givens. You will read in Time magazine (July 10, 1989, p. 56 [U.S. edition]), for example, that "about 25 million Americans are gay." It has become politically correct so to believe.

The Kinsey team's statistical manipulations of their homosexual data, when examined in some detail, can have had only one purpose: to achieve as high an apparent prevalence figure as possible. For example, the Kinsey tearn claimed that 37% of the male population had some homosexual experience "between adolescence, and old age."1(p650)

What they omitted to point out was that 32% had occurred by age 16 and the full 37% by age 19 (see Table 139, p.624 of the Male Report).

And the statistic they misleadingly represent as adult homosexuality was, in fact, principally homosexual play among heterosexual preadolescents and adolescents. Moreover, the Kinsey authors represent this activity, which may have occurred only once in adolescence, as occurring throughout adult life.

Other hallmarks of fraud abound in the Kinsey team's human sexuality research. Kinsey chose his research staff for their bias - his coauthor Pomeroy noted he was hired, in part, because of his freedom from the "taboos," "inhibitions" and "guilts" that his colleagues had (panel discussion, Eastern Regional Conference, Society for the Scientific Study of Sex, Philadelphia, April 17, 1983).

A candidate for the research staff, Pomeroy also tells us, was rejected for believing "extramarital intercourse harmful to marriage, homosexuality a******l, and animal contacts ludicrous."12 In the midst of his project Kinsey rejected valid criticism that his methods favoured overrepresentation of the sexually unconventional.

When given expert advice to this effect, he simply ignored the expert(Abraham Maslow), refused to deal with him further and lied about the information in his published work.7(p181)

Sweeping generalizations characterise Kinsey's work. Important statements of fact, without supporting data (in some cases contrary to the data), are common. Another fraudulent act was Kinsey's deception of Indiana University authorities about his filming of human sexual activities.4(p174)

And Kinsey coauthors Gebhard and Pomeroy compound their credibility problems by subsequently describing Kinsey's samples as "random" and a "cross section of the population" - patently false descriptions (Penthouse, December 1977, p. 118; Variations, 1977, p. 84).

Other examples of deception, such as obfuscation of research methods and inaccurate claims of statistical validations, would take too long to describe and are, in any case, redundant, given what we know already.

Frivolity with facts was a Kinsey modus operandi, as exemplified by one long-standing Kinsey invention recently laid to rest by Fidelity (U.S. catholic magazine) editor Michael Jones: that the Vatican had one of the three biggest pornography collections in the world - the others being Kinsey's and the British Museum's (Fidelity, April 1989, p. 22). This myth is treated as fact throughout Pomeroy's biography of Kinsey.4

From this point on, the story content becomes somewhat sordid and a suspension of disbelief has to be practised to get to the end of our review. Kinsey and team provided a body of experimental evidence demonstrating that children are "orgasmic" and capable of sexual pleasure - not just affection - from infancy.

Apart from fueling the aspirations of the growing paedophile movement, this finding now is taught as "scientific" fact in academic sexology.

Creating an awareness of this knowledge also has become one of the principal educational goals of SIECUS (Sex Information and Education Council of the U.S. - a leading force in the field of sex education in the United States), according to SIECUS co-founder and former Planned Parenthood medical director Mary Calderone.

Known as the "High Priestess" of sex education, Calderone wrote in a SIECUS publication in 1983 that children's sexual capacities should be "developed in the same way as the child's inborn human capacity to talk or to walk and that [the parents'] role should relate only to teaching the child the appropriateness of privacy, place, and person - in a word socialization" (SIECUS Report, May-July 1983, p. 9).

In the same vein and a little more explicit - if the previous quote seemed a bit ambiguous - Calderone's SIECUS colleague Dr. Lester Kirkendall (emeritus professor in the Department of Family Life(yes family life) at Oregon State University) has written in a 1985 issue of the Journal of Sex Education and Therapy " that sex education programs of the future will probe sexual expression across generational lines, particularly as our sense of guilt about these things diminishes.

Extending the Kinsey findings even further - to their logical long-term conclusion - James Ramey, visiting professor in a medical school psychiatry department, in an unusually candid piece in the May 1979 SIECUS Report, wrote, "We are in roughly the same position today with regard to incest as we were a hundred years ago with respect to our fear of masturbation" (p. 1). In a series of remarkable experiments, the Kinsey team provided the scientific base for these progressive developments.

Several hundred children, 2 months and older, were manually and orally masturbated by "partners" in "orgasm" experiments, in some cases over periods of 24 hours. The performance of at least 188 children was timed with a stopwatch (see tables). Particulars of physiological reactions, such as the presence of anal contractions, were carefully recorded.

Kinsey has assured us that "technically trained" individuals were involved in this experimentation and that some of the children were followed over a period of years to make sure that true orgasms were occurring. 1(p177) These data are unique in the scientific literature, but no satisfactory explanation has ever been given of how they were obtained.

Kinsey disingenuously has maintained that in the course of interviewing people about their sex lives he just happened to come across a technically trained few (who trained them?) with identical stopwatch measurements on hand from which to piece together the most remarkable and precise tables on infant and childhood sexual (orgasmic) response ever obtained. No other surveys before or since have been able to achieve this feat - for obvious reasons.

Pressed by Fidelity's Michael Jones to explain the precise measurements in so many children (Fidelity, April 1989, p. 32), Kinsey associate Paul Gebhard naively replied, "One parent used a stopwatch"! (The implication is that some of the information came from parents!)

Kinsey photographer C.A. Tripp, apparently oblivious to the enormity of what he was saying, told one of us (JGM) after a television show that the experiments did indeed take place (we have speculated the data may have been invention), that they were harmless, that the children enjoyed the activity and there was no need for parental consent!

Maybe the children benefited. Here are Kinsey and colleagues' descriptions of the orgasm-inducing experiments:

1 (p161) "Extreme tension with violent convulsion"... "mouth distorted ....... tongue protruding" ... "eyes staring"... "violent cries, sometimes with an abundance of tears (especially among younger children)". . . "extreme trembling, collapse, loss of color, and sometimes fainting of subject" . . . "excruciating pain and may scream if movement is continued" . . . "will fight away from the partner." Use of the neutral term 'partner' is interesting in this context.

This is the only example in Western scientific literature where data from the sexual abuse of infants and children are used to substantiate currently taught theories of human development - in this case normal sexual development.

A further remarkable fact is that data from these experiments were actually published as valid "science" shortly after the trial of 20 Third Reich doctors at Nuremberg for, in some cases, lesser degrees of human abuse. And the book in which these results were tabulated was hailed in the American media as a great work of science, sweeping away embedded myths and delusions.

In the December 1947 Harper's, for example, the "methods goals and findings" were said to have been "checked and rechecked by outstanding investigators" (p. 490). Not a word appeared anywhere about the illegality and abusiveness of the child sex experiments. The public, getting its information second hand from the press, believed a great scientific and cultural milestone had been passed.

This was to be the enlightenment whereby society would be educated away from its burden of Judeo-Christian superstition. Regarding sex education, Kinsey wrote to a colleague: "I shall aim to distinguish the scientific data in this field from the moralistic claptrap which has invaded our schoolroom." 9 (p118)

The authors and editors of Kinsey, Sex and Fraud are calling for an investigation into the entire Kinsey research effort and the full scope of its effects. It would seem appropriate to gain access to original material (if it is not destroyed) to help understand even the motivation behind what has been done.

In the case of the child sex studies, who were the children, who were the experimenters, who gave them their scientific training, who wrote the protocols (there is a remarkable consistency of method) and, most importantly, what happened to the children in later life? Many would now be in their 40s and 50s and should be privately evaluated for possible damage and treatment.

A Lancet reviewer, looking at the evidence now assembled in Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, has concluded that it "demolishes the foundations of the two [Kinsey] reports" and leaves "his former co-workers some explaining to do" 14 That would be a start.

But even a passing concern for integrity in science would make an investigation and accounting of the Kinsey team's research obligatory.

(It is noteworthy that Kinsey's co-workers remain silent.)"

larry

Jesus had compassion, but He also had disgust for those that did not honor the creative c**pling of man and woman, but went after selfish gratification by strange flesh. If there is any wiring toward this activity, it is a learned or curiosity experiment that has gotten out of hand. There is nothing wrong with filial love toward same sex persons, but it does not need to or should not lead to perversion of sexual activity. You seem to believe that a creator of perfection would purposely introduce perversity into the creation. This is absolutely against all knowledge of God. It may be a pagan concept but not one of Holiness.