One Political PlazaSM - Home of politics
Homosexual "Rights" ... Suicide for Humanity?
Page: 1 2 3 next>>
May 30, 2014 13:05:24   #
ldsuttonjr Loc: ShangriLa
 
LAWS OF GOD & NATURE
Homosexual 'rights': Suicide for humanity?
Exclusive: Alan Keyes considers implications of 'self-inflicted genocide' on human race

At Barbwire.com I recently read Steve Baldwin’s excellent analysis of the flawed thinking characteristic of self-styled “conservatives” who are part of what he rightly describes as “a headlong rush by many conservatives … in support of various aspects of the homosexual agenda.” Mr. Baldwin questions the assumption that homosexual activity involves an issue of constitutional or civil rights like the one involved in the movement to end law-enforced racial discrimination.

Baldwin’s cogent analysis makes sense, but only if we assume that not all valid claims of right are the result of purely man-made law. So the terms “constitutional rights” and “civil rights” require further clarification. At the time the United States was founded, when the American patriots justified their resistance to the British government’s unjust actions, they referred (in the Declaration of Independence) to “the laws of nature and of nature’s God,” including first of all the determinations of the Creator’s will whereby He endowed all human beings with their “unalienable rights.”

“Constitutional rights” arise in the context of human agreement on the establishment of a constitution. “Civil rights” arise in the context of the human practices, habits and norms connected with the establishment of political societies. Both arise from prior human agreement, by word or deed. But neither necessarily refers to any standard of right that transcends the concurrence of human wills. Both may include respect for God-endowed unalienable rights, but not necessarily.

Only the explicit reference to God-endowed unalienable rights refers to a standard of right that transcends the concurrence of human wills. This does not mean that human concurrence is irrelevant to lawful government. It does mean, however, that only where, by word and deed, human beings agree to respect and implement what is right according to God’s will for human nature, is it their purpose to institute just law and government. When and where they do not so agree, there may be law and there may be government, but the aim of justice cannot be assumed.

This explains the relevance of the question about whether homosexuals are born that way, or not. Human beings are not born with wings, yet we fly. We are not born with the ability to withstand the airless vacuum of outer space, and yet humans have traveled to the moon. But we are born with imagination, self-consciousness, curiosity and rational thought. These faculties have combined to produce effects that extend our activities beyond what once appeared to be the limits of our natural existence.

Homosexuals may argue that the specially combined faculties of human nature have extended human sexual activities, in just this way, beyond what instinctively appears to be their natural limits. Do we forbid people to fly because they were not born with wings? Do we forbid them to travel to the moon because they were not born equipped to withstand the rigors of being in space? Among all the various ways of being in the universe of our experience, isn’t this capacity consciously to extend our reach beyond the limits of our original nature the special quality of our human nature? Isn’t it the one that, above all, distinguishes humanity from the rest?

The answer seems to be both yes and no. It seems to be yes because our everyday experience now confirms the fact that human understanding can redefine the limits of human activity. It therefore redefines, in practice, the nature of human being, for individuals and on the whole. It seems to be no because, as we erase the boundaries of human possibility, we efface the lineaments that distinguish humanity from the not particularly human appearance of the rest of things. Every day we seem to ourselves more knowledgeable, more capable, more powerful – but also less and less distinctly human.

On the whole, homosexual activity epitomizes this dilemma. We call it sexual activity because it involves bodily organs and feelings associated with the activity for which the different sexes appear to exist. Yet, in the strict sense of the term, it is not “sexual” activity at all. The functional difference that distinguishes one sex from the other quite literally has nothing to do with same-sex activity. That activity abstracts from the functionally defined difference in order exclusively to focus on bodily feelings and emotions that are important to the individuals involved, but that are of no consequence, concretely, for the species as a whole.

As individuals, some human beings may find this activity intensely gratifying. But considered on the whole, in terms of its consequences, it implies the nonexistence of humanity. The homosexual couple is not engaged in the act of human procreation. Their activity is not haunted by the possibility of human offspring. It does not imply the reification of their responsibility for the future of humanity as such. The pleasurable satisfaction it involves does not draw individuals away from their particular selves toward a concrete physical union (in the child they conceive) that represents the perpetuation of their being as a whole, their human being. Their ecstasy is more like the highest pitch given off by a guitar string just before the turn of the tuning peg that causes it to break.

Because it is, on the whole, of no consequence, homosexual activity involves no natural right – for every claim of natural right arises from respect for the law of nature, which in turn necessarily requires respect for the nature of law. Law is a sovereign determination that gives and takes account of the whole. When a man and a woman engage in the act of procreation, their individual self-gratification arises in the course of an activity that represents this understanding of law. The information each one contributes toward the nature of the individual child takes account of and passes on the Creator’s information as to the nature of humanity as such.

This simultaneous respect for the nature of the individual as a whole and the nature constituted by the whole of all such individuals is the hallmark of the natural law. Human sexual activity in the true sense (i.e., the activity of human procreation) is the concrete paradigm of this respect. Respect for the nature of human sexual activity, therefore, implies respect for the authority of the natural law. The special combination of human faculties allows human beings to act without such respect. But just as homosexual activity implies the extinction of humanity as such, so acting without respect for the natural law implies the extinction of humanity as a whole.

This reveals the supreme irony of the contemporary debate over law-enforced respect for so-called homosexual rights. In their clamor about global warming, poverty or an end to racism, those who advocate such respect pretend to be “humanitarians.” Yet they seek to discard our respect for the activity that implements the law (of the Creator) intended to preserve and perpetuate the nature of humanity as, in and of ourselves, we know it to be.

We do not forbid people to fly because they are born without wings. So the advocates of law-enforced respect for homosexuality may argue. But if and when they propose that, as a species, we should, like Icarus, fly into the sun, what then? If genocide is wrong for this or that race of human beings, how can self-inflicted genocide be right for humanity as a whole?

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/05/homosexual-rights-suicide-for-humanity/#Ae1huzJWJJKV8V8p.99

| Reply
May 30, 2014 13:17:06   #
dennisimoto Loc: Washington State (West)
 
I'm not gonna do the "quote reply" for a long post like this but it does raise a question in my pea brain. How in heck does the sexual activity of less than 2% of the worlds population lead to the extinction of mankind? Seems to stretch credulity just a tad.

| Reply
May 30, 2014 14:19:28   #
petertimber
 
who substantiated 2% "of the worlds population" so that you can use it as relevant research?

| Reply
May 30, 2014 14:59:38   #
Brian Devon
 
ldsuttonjr wrote:
LAWS OF GOD & NATURE
Homosexual 'rights': Suicide for humanity?
Exclusive: Alan Keyes considers implications of 'self-inflicted genocide' on human race

At Barbwire.com I recently read Steve Baldwin’s excellent analysis of the flawed thinking characteristic of self-styled “conservatives” who are part of what he rightly describes as “a headlong rush by many conservatives … in support of various aspects of the homosexual agenda.” Mr. Baldwin questions the assumption that homosexual activity involves an issue of constitutional or civil rights like the one involved in the movement to end law-enforced racial discrimination.

Baldwin’s cogent analysis makes sense, but only if we assume that not all valid claims of right are the result of purely man-made law. So the terms “constitutional rights” and “civil rights” require further clarification. At the time the United States was founded, when the American patriots justified their resistance to the British government’s unjust actions, they referred (in the Declaration of Independence) to “the laws of nature and of nature’s God,” including first of all the determinations of the Creator’s will whereby He endowed all human beings with their “unalienable rights.”

“Constitutional rights” arise in the context of human agreement on the establishment of a constitution. “Civil rights” arise in the context of the human practices, habits and norms connected with the establishment of political societies. Both arise from prior human agreement, by word or deed. But neither necessarily refers to any standard of right that transcends the concurrence of human wills. Both may include respect for God-endowed unalienable rights, but not necessarily.

Only the explicit reference to God-endowed unalienable rights refers to a standard of right that transcends the concurrence of human wills. This does not mean that human concurrence is irrelevant to lawful government. It does mean, however, that only where, by word and deed, human beings agree to respect and implement what is right according to God’s will for human nature, is it their purpose to institute just law and government. When and where they do not so agree, there may be law and there may be government, but the aim of justice cannot be assumed.

This explains the relevance of the question about whether homosexuals are born that way, or not. Human beings are not born with wings, yet we fly. We are not born with the ability to withstand the airless vacuum of outer space, and yet humans have traveled to the moon. But we are born with imagination, self-consciousness, curiosity and rational thought. These faculties have combined to produce effects that extend our activities beyond what once appeared to be the limits of our natural existence.

Homosexuals may argue that the specially combined faculties of human nature have extended human sexual activities, in just this way, beyond what instinctively appears to be their natural limits. Do we forbid people to fly because they were not born with wings? Do we forbid them to travel to the moon because they were not born equipped to withstand the rigors of being in space? Among all the various ways of being in the universe of our experience, isn’t this capacity consciously to extend our reach beyond the limits of our original nature the special quality of our human nature? Isn’t it the one that, above all, distinguishes humanity from the rest?

The answer seems to be both yes and no. It seems to be yes because our everyday experience now confirms the fact that human understanding can redefine the limits of human activity. It therefore redefines, in practice, the nature of human being, for individuals and on the whole. It seems to be no because, as we erase the boundaries of human possibility, we efface the lineaments that distinguish humanity from the not particularly human appearance of the rest of things. Every day we seem to ourselves more knowledgeable, more capable, more powerful – but also less and less distinctly human.

On the whole, homosexual activity epitomizes this dilemma. We call it sexual activity because it involves bodily organs and feelings associated with the activity for which the different sexes appear to exist. Yet, in the strict sense of the term, it is not “sexual” activity at all. The functional difference that distinguishes one sex from the other quite literally has nothing to do with same-sex activity. That activity abstracts from the functionally defined difference in order exclusively to focus on bodily feelings and emotions that are important to the individuals involved, but that are of no consequence, concretely, for the species as a whole.

As individuals, some human beings may find this activity intensely gratifying. But considered on the whole, in terms of its consequences, it implies the nonexistence of humanity. The homosexual couple is not engaged in the act of human procreation. Their activity is not haunted by the possibility of human offspring. It does not imply the reification of their responsibility for the future of humanity as such. The pleasurable satisfaction it involves does not draw individuals away from their particular selves toward a concrete physical union (in the child they conceive) that represents the perpetuation of their being as a whole, their human being. Their ecstasy is more like the highest pitch given off by a guitar string just before the turn of the tuning peg that causes it to break.

Because it is, on the whole, of no consequence, homosexual activity involves no natural right – for every claim of natural right arises from respect for the law of nature, which in turn necessarily requires respect for the nature of law. Law is a sovereign determination that gives and takes account of the whole. When a man and a woman engage in the act of procreation, their individual self-gratification arises in the course of an activity that represents this understanding of law. The information each one contributes toward the nature of the individual child takes account of and passes on the Creator’s information as to the nature of humanity as such.

This simultaneous respect for the nature of the individual as a whole and the nature constituted by the whole of all such individuals is the hallmark of the natural law. Human sexual activity in the true sense (i.e., the activity of human procreation) is the concrete paradigm of this respect. Respect for the nature of human sexual activity, therefore, implies respect for the authority of the natural law. The special combination of human faculties allows human beings to act without such respect. But just as homosexual activity implies the extinction of humanity as such, so acting without respect for the natural law implies the extinction of humanity as a whole.

This reveals the supreme irony of the contemporary debate over law-enforced respect for so-called homosexual rights. In their clamor about global warming, poverty or an end to racism, those who advocate such respect pretend to be “humanitarians.” Yet they seek to discard our respect for the activity that implements the law (of the Creator) intended to preserve and perpetuate the nature of humanity as, in and of ourselves, we know it to be.

We do not forbid people to fly because they are born without wings. So the advocates of law-enforced respect for homosexuality may argue. But if and when they propose that, as a species, we should, like Icarus, fly into the sun, what then? If genocide is wrong for this or that race of human beings, how can self-inflicted genocide be right for humanity as a whole?

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/05/homosexual-rights-suicide-for-humanity/#Ae1huzJWJJKV8V8p.99
LAWS OF GOD & NATURE br Homosexual 'rights': S... (show quote)






*********
The homosexual plot to depopulate planet earth is a flaming success???

As of now the human race is in extreme danger of perishing due to our miniscule number, which today is at 7,236,761,385.

Obviously gay people hatched this horrid plot at the very beginning of the human race......because they have always been with us.

You just can't write this stuff. More free gooberville material for late night television. LOL.

| Reply
May 30, 2014 15:30:14   #
ldsuttonjr Loc: ShangriLa
 
dennisimoto wrote:
I'm not gonna do the "quote reply" for a long post like this but it does raise a question in my pea brain. How in heck does the sexual activity of less than 2% of the worlds population lead to the extinction of mankind? Seems to stretch credulity just a tad.


dennisimoto: Try a little harder...like displaying this behavior in public doesn't fog little mines, or I have two mommies or two daddies...does it tend to go against the grain? I truly believe it can destroy a society...take a look back at Greece and Rome!

| Reply
May 30, 2014 17:10:44   #
no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun
 
petertimber wrote:
who substantiated 2% "of the worlds population" so that you can use it as relevant research?


Most of the research indicates a percentage of about 2.5 to 3 % of adult males are exclusively homosexual for a significant part of their adult life, and 1 to 1.5 % of adult females are exclusively homosexual for a significant part of their lives. Kinsey distorted intentionally those figures by using prison populations, and the specially selected pedophiles, and pederasts who were the staff members he used to do the "research" which gave the larger numbers. For his studies on sexual responses of children he had those same "researchers" molest children to find out at what age they could be responsive to forced sexual contact. That is what happens when you use the figures provided by a group of homosexuals exclusively with the majority of them being pedophiles and/or pederasts. The numbers were intentionally distorted because of Kinsey's intention to promote a cause, and therefore do faulty research to gain that end. Therefore his numbers were badly inflated. The numbers hat I stated above seem to be the most accurate that can be obtained by true researchers, and are for adults only, not teenagers in the under 16 category, who may have single homosexual experiences while developing during puberty. The " significant period" used is usually considered ten years or more, and doesn't include those in prison for the entire time.

| Reply
May 30, 2014 21:54:43   #
petertimber
 
Much obliged and Thank You.

| Reply
May 31, 2014 08:49:47   #
no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun
 
petertimber wrote:
Much obliged and Thank You.


You are welcome. For more information on Kinsey look at Sexaul Sabotage by Dr. Reisman


In response to the Keyes article. As I read it Keyes is not referring to the demise of the species Homo Sapiens but the demise of human beings from the standpoint of our humanness What makes us human is, in his opinion, at stake. Part of what makes us human is the established family structure, one man, one woman and children. Since homosexual behavior cannot produce children, unless artificial insemination is involved or adoption, a society that celebrates and encourages that behavior is damaging the structure designed to benefit society by proper education and socialization, which will lead to the demise of civilization, not the species except from the standpoint of a lack of desire for children and/ or the disinterest in raising them in a way that will benefit future generations. The results would be a "Brave New World" socialist collective of subjects, Homo Sapien robots, without humanity. That is my interpretation of the Keyes opinion article which is of course biased my my beliefs and the research done on the subject.

If you want information on the differences between heterosexual married couples raising children and homosexual couples doing so you might look to "Brian Has Three Daddies and That's OK" the sources quoted in it include unbiased government ones, as well as the author of the book from which I got the information, which is also listed.

| Reply
May 31, 2014 09:01:31   #
skopii
 
In reply to Brian & Devon: Homosexuality and Corruption have been around for a long time. Yes they have and so have serial killers, murders, pedophiles, rapists, arsonists, robbers, etc. All are destructive forms of behavior. The only reason homosexuality has been around for a long time, is because homosexuals corrupt naive youth, as they need fodder (if you will) to continue homosexual behaviors. Homosexuals left unto themselves would cease to exist, and must engage in parasitic, predatory behavior, to continue. Homosexuals do not reproduce. Homosexuals, ultimately have, harbor and embody; a "Death Wish" for themselves and all Humanity. The ramifications of their behaviors promotes deceit, corruption and destruction. Homosexual behavior is a Lie, and immoral on many different levels. To defend homosexuality is to defend corrupt behavior. Does anybody really want to CHOOSE corruption? If so, why? By the way, we have far, far too many homosexuals in government, making govern-Mental decisions and destructive policies. We need to: "Vote Incumbents OUT!" Thank you.

| Reply
May 31, 2014 09:16:42   #
no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun
 
skopii wrote:
In reply to Brian & Devon: Homosexuality and Corruption have been around for a long time. Yes they have and so have serial killers, murders, pedophiles, rapists, arsonists, robbers, etc. All are destructive forms of behavior. The only reason homosexuality has been around for a long time, is because homosexuals corrupt naive youth, as they need fodder (if you will) to continue homosexual behaviors. Homosexuals left unto themselves would cease to exist, and must engage in parasitic, predatory behavior, to continue. Homosexuals do not reproduce. Homosexuals, ultimately have, harbor and embody; a "Death Wish" for themselves and all Humanity. The ramifications of their behaviors promotes deceit, corruption and destruction. Homosexual behavior is a Lie, and immoral on many different levels. To defend homosexuality is to defend corrupt behavior. Does anybody really want to CHOOSE corruption? If so, why? By the way, we have far, far too many homosexuals in government, making govern-Mental decisions and destructive policies. We need to: "Vote Incumbents OUT!" Thank you.
In reply to Brian & Devon: Homosexuality and ... (show quote)


This administration has a significant number of homosexuals in high places, and they are of the activist variety which is the most dangerous kind.

| Reply
May 31, 2014 09:56:17   #
Singularity
 
no propaganda please wrote:
This administration has a significant number of homosexuals in high places, and they are of the activist variety which is the most dangerous kind.

Sexual Sabotage Dr. Judith Reisman about the fraudulent research by Kinsey that started the sexual revolution
Sexual Sabotage: How One Mad Scientist Unleashed a Plague of Corruption and Contagion on America
Customer Reviews

One of the Most Detailed, Comprehensive, and Thorough Books I've Read
By Jason Salamone - October 11, 2010
Many Kinsey followers will judge this book on their emotions alone, for they obviously have based their core being on their sexuality and have counted on Kinsey to justify their behaviors as an identity. Reisman does an excellent job explaining the fraudulent methodology behind Kinsey's "research" and backs it up with irrefutable evidence. She also explains in a very logical sequence of events how Kinsey's destructive research has infiltrated the hearts and minds of the people. We are talking about the whole picture here. Kinsey was a complete fraud, and his fraud was funded heavily by elites (Rockefellers) then propagated to make us believe that his science was something we already are, when that wasn't the case at all.
76 of 95 people found this review helpful
Helpful
Not Helpful
Just one more piece of the puzzle
By DNL - September 9, 2011
There is simply so much information out on this topic..a fabulous book, an eye opening view into the agenda...get your kids out of the public schools people..this is where it is taught..turn off the tv, and raise your own kids. I am not going to waste my time talking about the book..there is enough ...
Read full review
26 of 34 people found this review helpful
Helpful
Not Helpful
Sheds light on fake research
By D. Sturgis - December 1, 2010
Amazon Verified Purchase
I wasn't sure what all was in this book, and now I am very glad I got it- It shows, with Kinsey's own charts, the "subjects" of his so-called studies, on children as young as 2 months old. No valid researcher on human sexuality would 'test' subjects like this. Also lists those who provided the research - pedophiles, rapists, and prostitutes (aka "everyday married women") This shows plainly that Kinsey's research is a fraud perpetrated on the American society, with SEICUS and Planned Parenthood using Kinsey's research as a basis for their 'education', and normalization of deviant behavior. I highly recommend this book.
46 of 62 people found this review helpful
Helpful
Not Helpful
Finally, the Emperor's (deviate's) new clothes are exposed
By Thomas More - December 9, 2010
One reviewer referred to this author's work as "paranoid". I assure you (as a clinician and a university faculty member) that her assault on Kinsey is not paranoid. Kinsey's personal history is replete with deviance and an attempt to integrate his Bohemian mentality (in an obvious attempt to rationalize his own behaviors)into the university setting and then to the culture at large. His research was contaminated by selection bias and then was sold as "normality". The results of his (and other cultural "Icons" like Hugh Hefner)efforts are seen all around us today: cohabitation,abortion,fornication, homosexual marriage(an oxymoron) and the general degradation of our culture. Sadly, we have two generations raised on his faulty research and the projection of his own needs under the umbrella of research and academia. He reminds me on another "famous researcher":Charles Dawson who provided us the Piltdown man! Scientists are as vulnerable to "group think" as any human and entire swaths of American professors and educators have bought Kinsey's lies for much too long. Thanks to this brave author!
50 of 69 people found this review helpful
Helpful
Not Helpful
A Good Presentation of Facts Surrounding This Issue
By Allen - December 14, 2013
Amazon Verified Purchase
The author presents a great deal of painstaking detail concerning this issue. I found the book very revealing and full of useful facts. The facts and truth must prevail.
2 of 2 people found this review helpful
Helpful
Not Helpful
must read
By mel - September 22, 2013
Amazon Verified Purchase
great book, important work, everyone should know the truth about this criminal who shaped our modern laws and changed society, not for the better
3 of 4 people found this review helpful
Helpful
Not Helpful
Good Points, Terrible Writing
By Birt Acres - August 6, 2012
Amazon Verified Purchase
Let me start off by saying that I'm a conservative and I'm sympathetic to the author's point of view. I think Kinsey was a disgusting individual and a shoddy scientist, and his "work" has had a negative effect on our culture.

However . . . there are a few major problems with this book. The first is the editorializing. Rather than simply presenting the material and assuming that the reader will be smart enough to draw the commonsense conclusion, the author constantly, repeatedly, relentlessly pounds her ideas into your head. Of course there is no problem with presenting a thesis at the beginning of the chapter and reaffirming the thesis at the end of the chapter--and that thesis can occasionally be repeated to remind the reader. But it's insulting to the reader's intelligence to constantly shove your opinion into his face. Yes, we know that Kinsey was a pervert who was using science to legitimizing his pathologies; move on already.

Second, the tone of the book is outrageous. Again, there is no problem with occasionally (erring on the side of rarely than often) dropping in an editorial comment. But how often does the author need to mention that Kinsey was a sexual psychopath? And aren't terms like "sexual psychopath" just a tad heavy handed? Again, it's as if the author has a need to shove our noses in her point of view, as if she doesn't trust us to come to the "right" conclusion without her strong, guiding hand.

Finally, the book is overly long and unfocused. I occasionally got lost in her chapters, reading material that I had already read in previous chapters. I wasn't always sure what point she was trying to make in her individual chapters, apart from the fact that Kinsey was a disgusting individual who had made our culture worse. Shorter, more focused chapters would have solved this; chapters that had focused on ideas rather than the author's need to editorialize.

In sum, I agree with the author's conclusions--and she does have some good, solid information in her book--but she seriously needs an editor.
14 of 21 people found this review helpful
Helpful
Not Helpful
Well.......
By Barnabus - September 2, 2013
Amazon Verified Purchase
This lady has an agenda. I do not believe that her research is as pristine as it needs to be. I believe, like some preachers, that she has developed an idea and then looked long and hard for material to substantiate her biases. But, if what she says is true, and Kinsey used children, infants, as sexual test subjects to study orgasmic ability, the man was truly demonic. I have more to read. Its obvious our culture is thoroughly dominated by sex. I don't think that this genie will be put back in the bottle. But, we do need to understand the consequences of inappropriate and immoral sexual expressions which harm people of all ages, and then work to end those practices, such as human sex trafficking.
2 of 3 people found this review helpful
Helpful
Not Helpful
kinsey was a sexual deviant and may have been a child molester
By Anna W. Felkins - August 24, 2013
five stars for exposing this sex criminal and psychopath! kinsey was a party to the molestation of children and deserves exposure.
2 of 3 people found this review helpful
Helpful
Not Helpful
Important message -- tough reading
By C. J. Fair - April 15, 2014
Amazon Verified Purchase
The underlying message of this book -- the unquestionable ill effect of Kinsey and his gaggle of perverts on America -- is clear and well-substantiated. Unfortunately, organization is a bit odd and there is considerable repetition. Reisman is a vital balancy to the insanity of the Kinsey "revolution" but there are shorter summary books that likely are more helpful for casual or less academic readers.
Was this review helpful?
Helpful
Not Helpful
A Must-Read
By kim shutt - April 20, 2012
Reismann's book is thorough, unbiased, and scholarly and provides profound reading for those who have a tolerant/open mind. If you are intolerant, you won't make it past the first chapter.
11 of 17 people found this review helpful
Helpful
Not Helpful
Entranced by a psychopath
By Daniel E. Riggs - January 10, 2014
Amazon Verified Purchase
I just kept thinking while I was reading how susceptible humanity has been historically to Kinsey and people like him (Hitler)I bought this book because at 50 years old and as someone who has worked in the mental health field for the last 20 years I am appalled at the rise in disease, dysfunction and despair in this society especially among children. This book went a long way in helping me to understand. I am less concerned with a writer's credentials (something which Amazon reviewers seem to be obsessed with) as I am with whether or not the message rings true. The message of this book rings true to me. I would have given the book 5 stars but I found it to be repetitive and not particularly well written in some parts.
1 of 2 people found this review helpful
Helpful
Not Helpful
Don't buy in to this.
By Josh - July 4, 2013
I don't understand why people are taking this crazy woman seriously. She is a "visiting" professor of Law at a CHRISTIAN university who coincidentally preaches a conservative agenda in all she writes. Some might say "But wait! She's a doctor!" Yeah, she has a Ph.D. in communications. She isn't even a scientist! Her own personal credibility is shot as far as I am concerned. You don't need to read much of her writing to realize that she is writing from the heart with a completely biased agenda and a complete lack of scientific anything. It is a shame that this biased, uneducated woman has been able to so successfully slander a real scientist of Kinsey's caliber.
6 of 16 people found this review helpful
Helpful
Not Helpful
Don't expect a thoughtful or nuanced discussion here.
By virginia m. jenkins - April 22, 2012
This author uses the failings of Dr. Kinsey to argue that the acknowledgement or acceptance of any sex other than heterosexual vanilla marital sex is dangerous to individuals and society. She sincerely believes that all pornography should be made illegal. Yes, that would include "50 Shades of Grey". She conflates the "dangers" of homosexuality with the dangers of child rape. She tries to use Kinsey's breaches of professional conduct 50 years ago to tar the whole field of human sexual research. She seems to think that the only good way to approach human sexuality in the new millenium is to suppress and control it. Good luck with that. If you want a thoughtful look at history or sexuality, look elsewhere.
16 of 39 people found this review helpful
Helpful
Not Helpful
Reactionary Nonsense
By Seth Rosenberg - March 16, 2011
This book, and the reviewers who like it clearly have the agenda of dragging U.S. society back to the artificial, puritanical, sexist, homophobic sexuality that was officially sanctioned in the 50's (even though the majority of adults were, behind closed doors, not following the supposed rules). Kinsey's research has been built on by thousands of other researchers, and no, it is not "group think" - it is just science. Sorry if their work, like evolution, or the heliocentric model of the solar system doesn't fit into your backwards view of humanity and the universe. I'm sorry if the author and her supporters see sexual experimentation, homosexuality, cohabitation, sex before marriage, open relationships and god-knows what else as sins, crimes, or abominations - they're not - they are different options or sexual orientations for the myriad of individuals that exist. The sexual revolution happened, and it was a good thing - wrt the advancement of humanity and the freedom of women and Gays from oppression. There is still a long way to go. Get over it.

This book is a hatchet-job - an attempt to soil the name of a solid scientist - posing a serious research. The author and her supporters should be ashamed.
30 of 93 people found this review helpful
Helpful
Not Helpful
Paranoia
By Jim - October 9, 2010
This book furthers the damage of American minds. It perpetuates the idea that there are simple solutions to big problems. In this case it is a problem is only visible to a minority of the population, generally to those who choose to be religious. This makes the belief much less credible since this predictor is a choice and not something indelible like ones genetic heritage.
18 of 108 people found this review helpful.

| Reply
May 31, 2014 11:30:13   #
Brian Devon
 
skopii wrote:
In reply to Brian & Devon: Homosexuality and Corruption have been around for a long time. Yes they have and so have serial killers, murders, pedophiles, rapists, arsonists, robbers, etc. All are destructive forms of behavior. The only reason homosexuality has been around for a long time, is because homosexuals corrupt naive youth, as they need fodder (if you will) to continue homosexual behaviors. Homosexuals left unto themselves would cease to exist, and must engage in parasitic, predatory behavior, to continue. Homosexuals do not reproduce. Homosexuals, ultimately have, harbor and embody; a "Death Wish" for themselves and all Humanity. The ramifications of their behaviors promotes deceit, corruption and destruction. Homosexual behavior is a Lie, and immoral on many different levels. To defend homosexuality is to defend corrupt behavior. Does anybody really want to CHOOSE corruption? If so, why? By the way, we have far, far too many homosexuals in government, making govern-Mental decisions and destructive policies. We need to: "Vote Incumbents OUT!" Thank you.
In reply to Brian & Devon: Homosexuality and ... (show quote)



*********
Homosexuality is caused by a complex interplay of genes and childhood socialization. The classic formula for producing a gay male child is a smothering, overly intrusive mother (with poor boundaries), combined with a none-too-present father.

If men want to avoid having a gay son, the best way is to be a Dad who spends lots of quality activity time with their boy.

Recruitment has very little to do with the creation of homosexuality.

| Reply
May 31, 2014 11:52:41   #
marjorie
 
singularity Why such a long non-informative post? The truth can be found in the greatest book of all books on sodomy. I don't need any other reasoning, knowledge, understanding. The Word Of God says it all. It is wrong just as hate is wrong, so is anger, how about greed, then adultery. Those just a few. Still we are to LOVE those sodomites but abhor the sin of sodomy.

| Reply
May 31, 2014 12:05:30   #
ldsuttonjr Loc: ShangriLa
 
Brian Devon wrote:
*********
Homosexuality is caused by a complex interplay of genes and childhood socialization. The classic formula for producing a gay male child is a smothering, overly intrusive mother (with poor boundaries), combined with a none-too-present father.

If men want to avoid having a gay son, the best way is to be a Dad who spends lots of quality activity time with their boy.

Recruitment has very little to do with the creation of homosexuality.


Brian: I'm sure you believe in the bullshit you just spouted!

| Reply
May 31, 2014 12:08:52   #
dennisimoto Loc: Washington State (West)
 
Wow! I'm nonplussed.

| Reply
Page: 1 2 3 next>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2020 IDF International Technologies, Inc.