Roundup

I have to confess that until Wednesday of this week I didn’t even know who Mark Sanford (aka Stupidity On Steroids) was.  It has been analyzed to death, so I’ll just sum up the political side by saying that Sanford’s sins don’t impact the truth of conservative ideas and that he is the hypocrite, not Republicans (who actually do a much better job of policing their ranks than Democrats).

More importantly, I hope readers will focus on pieces like Randy’s that will help people avoid Sanford’s mistakes. 

I want to give a message to my sons and sons-in-law. Watch yourself carefully. If it can happen to this man, it can happen to you. Never, never develop a “dear, dear friend(ship)” with a lady. It can only lead to problems. In this case, Sanford apparently had a friendship with this lady for 7 years, before it turned sexual. In my opinion, his adultery started long before the last year. I firmly believe that you can’t have a close relationship with any woman other than your wife.

I heard a speaker on a Podcast (Family Life Today, I think) talking about the anatomy of an affair.  What was chilling was how there is a line couples almost always cross before getting physical such that the physical part is inevitable.  In other words, they think they are safe when in reality they have made an emotional bond that dooms them. 

Side note: His wife seems like a class act (seriously).

Speaking of hypocrites, did anyone notice Obama’s outrageous hypocrisy on his health care plan?  Liberal politicians oppose school choice because they aren’t sending their kids to public schools and they want to protect unions.  They oppose true health care competition because they don’t plan on using the services of the common man.  And so on.

Pastor Timothy has a list of the latest scams (I think he wants you to avoid them, not employ them)

Psychiatry Textbook Acknowledges that Homosexuals Can Change — Don’t hold your breath waiting for the MSM to report on this one.  Too many myths to prop up.  But keep it as a reference for when people trot out the “born that way” canard.

Could life have emerged spontaneously on the early Earth? — Great read by the Wintry Knight.  Short answer: Really, really, very unlikely — and that’s an understatement.

Great post at Marie’s place about eternal security (i.e., Can you lose your salvation?) — lots of good back and forth conversation about Reformed theology pros and cons.

0 thoughts on “Roundup”

  1. Sanford came onto the national scene when he rejected the federal stimulus funds. For a while, people were hoping that he would run against Obama in 2012.

    As for the affair: I have many friends who are male. That’s not a problem that will ever lead to an affair. The problem comes in when the spouse/girlfriend is not part of the friendship and is not included in the outings. Yes, men and women can have deep, meaningful talks that never lead to anything physical… so long as they both have their significant others present. Then it’s not a man and a woman, at least one of whom is married to someone else, having dinner together, lingering over wine, etc… it’s a group of people who are close to each other.

    My two cents. (Then again, I think it’s much easier for women to maintain opposite-sex friendships without wanting to get physical than it is for men. Definitely one of those Mars/Venus things.)

    Like

  2. Hi Theobromophile — good distinctions about the presence of significant others. In that sense I have many close friends who are female but I never meet with them one-on-one.

    Like

  3. You wouldn’t meet with a friend of the opposite sex one on one? Why not? I’ve spent lots of time alone with members of the opposite sex without having even the slightest urge to turn it into more than a friendship. My wife has as well, and I would feel terrible if she passed up an opportunity to spend time with a good friend because I couldn’t make it.

    Like

    1. A lot of good, honest, and faithful men cheat on their wives. And I think it’s important to recognize that a lot of the folks who engage in affairs often aren’t setting out to engage in affairs.

      Their intentions are often good, and then things can get out of hand. A special friendship develops, small secrets start being kept, and things snowball.

      It’s about avoiding putting one’s self in the position where something could happen. People may say, “Well, what could possibly go wrong?” or “Well, that can’t happen to me”, but I’ve seen a lot of wrecked marriages where one (or both) of the spouses is saying precisely that, “I didnt see how things would ever get this out of hand” or “How could this have happened to me?”

      Like

      1. I’ve seen that way too many times. I think the important thing is to be intentional and follow the amusement park advice: “Please stay behind the yellow line.” (I.e., draw a line and don’t cross it.)

        Like

    2. It is very rare — such as taking my administrative coordinator to lunch on administrative coordinators’ day at my last job (she was a close friend). Even at work I keep the door open when meeting with female co-workers. I’m not judging your behavior, just saying that the point isn’t that you don’t have the urge to turn it into more, but if you spend lots of “quality” time with individuals it may turn into something more without realizing it.

      And by “meet” I mean I don’t make an appointment to have lunch with them or something like that. That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t talk to them in the hallway at church.

      You have to be careful with work relationships as well.

      Like

    3. Thanks, Neil.

      Ryan: one of my best friends is a recently married man. I would certainly, if his wife couldn’t make it, meet with him one-on-one; however, the vast majority of the time, she’s involved, and she is always part of the plans. When the wife/husband is no longer invited, or not in the picture to begin with, that’s when you start having huge problems.

      Big picture: certainly, a lot of opposite-sex friendships involving married people do not lead to adultery, but almost all adultery starts that way. (Shrug.) This comes up a lot in other situations – some rules or conventions seem overly restrictive because there’s so many innocent activities that are prohibited, but the goal is to eliminate the common root of bad activity.

      Like

  4. I agree, Neil.

    My conviction is, once you are married, you give up all rights to pursue friendships w/ members of the opposite sex. That is, outside of the scenario theobromiphile describes — you’re friends as couples. That seems to be the most appropriate way.

    Of course casual/friendly contact can’t be avoided entirely, but you have to use common sense. E-mail, telephone conversations, etc. should be pretty much kept to a basic exchange of information, because friendship by definition entails a certain level of intimacy.

    That said, I heard Paul Washer preaching recently that “the only woman you should ever be alone in a room with is your mother, your sister, and your wife”. Immediately my mind goes to: A) what if your physician is a member of the opposite sex? Are you going to bring in the “accountability partner” he always mentions? B) What if you’re in a taxi? C) What if your boss is a member of the opposite sex, and you’re having your annual performance review? Those generally take place behind closed doors. D) A woman goes to her pastor for counsel. Sure, he’s going to most likely refer her to a female discipler, but for that initial meeting, she has to talk to him. If there’s no one else there, is he going to turn her away? E) You go for a job interview – same scenario as C.

    Washer’s point was well-intentioned, but virtually impossible (not to mention impractical) to consistently carry out.

    The bottom line is: common sense. Also, we have the Holy Spirit guiding us for a reason in these types of situations.

    Like

  5. Neil, I’ve heard that Billy Graham would never allow himself to be alone with a woman other than his wife. He would not even enter an elevator if a woman was already aboard. If he was in an elevator and a woman entered, he would step out and await the next one.

    For Reverend Graham, not only would it keep him from succumbing to temptation, it would also prevent even the unlikely appearance of impropriety, that could be used by others as evidence of hypocrisy.

    Like

    1. Hi Mark,

      I was thinking of him this morning when commenting. I can see why someone in his position would have to take such great care. You want to eliminate the possibility of someone making a false claim. I remind people who work with the youth of that as well. Some mixed up kid could easily make a false allegation that could destroy a reputation and/or a ministry.

      Like

  6. Neil, thanks for the link. My message was directed towards my sons/sons-in-law (I started to ask them if they needed to see my gun 🙂 ). Glad to know it applies to others.

    Theo, I like your comments about the mars/venus thing. I ‘m not sure why, but I agree, it’s easier for women to maintain opposite-sex friendships. But sadly, the equal rights movement has made this gap much smaller.

    Like

  7. I was going to say what theobromophile said. The problem is that the Mark and his wife were not acting as a unit towards this other woman.

    And let me also add that in Christianity, other people are not there for us to be happy with. It’s not like we are supposed to look at other people as if we were atheists and try to amuse ourselves with them.

    Other people have a purpose – to know God. When you look at other people, your job as a Christian is to help them to know God. Having out-of-wedlock sex with a person does not help any.

    Honestly, I am sometimes perplexed by how so many Christians are so unwilling to include God’s goals in their relationships. I see this problem a lot with men choosing women on the basis of looks, and women choosing men on the basis of vanity and non-judgmentalism.

    We need to start looking at the opposite sex as potential allies for God-related operations. Not the least of which is parenting.

    Did you all see this post about William lane Craig’s wife Jan? This is what marriage should be like.

    Like

  8. Look, I know that all of you who are distancing yourselves from the opposite sex in certain situations are doing so with good intentions, and I agree that in some cases, it really is best to avoid temptation that could lead to disaster.

    My problem with it is that it really seems very “cultish” to be making rules about not ever being alone with the opposite sex. If you never put yourself in a situation where a difficult decision might arise, then how committed are you really? I feel really good about myself when I see an attractive women, but then immediately remember how much I love my wife. I also feel good when I see a delicious burger and fries, but decide on something healthy. Resisting temptation builds character more than avoiding temptation.

    Like

    1. I really don’t see anything cultish about it. I don’t see anyone forcing others to do it as an entrance requirement or to stay “in the club.”

      This advice applies to believers and non-believers alike. It isn’t like we never make exceptions (speaking broadly), but it is a matter of setting wise standards and being intentional.

      Like

    2. By your logic, we honor our wives most by going to strip clubs to build character so as to better resist temptation?

      Like

  9. Psychiatry Textbook Acknowledges that Homosexuals Can Change – Don’t hold your breath waiting for the MSM to report on this one. Too many myths to prop up. But keep it as a reference for when people trot out the “born that way” canard.

    Homosexuality has been a “treatable” condition for decades. Get on the ball, man. Still doesn’t mean it necessarily should be. Guess it depends on the person.

    Like

  10. Fox,

    Should be? If it shouldn’t, why would it be looked upon as treatable? That’s like saying my healthy heart is treatable. It’s plain silly. A doctor wouldn’t say that. Something is treatable because there’s something that needs treatment. What YOU’RE referring to is whether or not someone WANTS to be treated.

    For the record, I’m not saying that anyone should be forced to be treated for the affliction. My opposition is only to attempted legislation that enables the afflicted and attempts to “treat” the condition known as “knowing right from wrong”.

    Like

    1. I guess it all comes down to whether or not you believe homosexuality is a condition which demands “treatment.” I put treatment in quotation marks because you can no more treat a homosexual man to become heterosexual than you can treat a heterosexual man to become homosexual. It’s not a mental illness, there’s nothing to treat or cure; only alter.

      Like

  11. Anyone still talking about “treating” and “changing” homosexuals has never known one very well. Homosexual “treatments” have resulted in more suicides than “cures”. Everyone knows that a certain percentage of humans are born with an attraction to the same sex. Those people who are homosexual and desire a partner in life are either going to choose a same sex partner, or live a miserable life pretending to be straight.

    Teachers would beat my Dad’s left hand until it was too swollen to hold a pencil. They thought left-handedness was a sin. If only you could imagine the pain you are causing for people by labeling them as abnormal and sick..

    Like

    1. Everyone knows that a certain percentage of humans are born with an attraction to the same sex.

      No, the truth is that “some people,” not “everyone,” repeat urban legends about that. And even if it was true it doesn’t mean it would be desirable behavior. Don’t confuse “is” with “ought.”

      Not all treatment programs may be effective. And the people may have committed suicide anyway. These are often very troubled souls. I’ve known many gays.

      Ryan, if an alcoholic gets beat up do you blame AA?

      Like

    2. Ryan writes, “homosexual “treatments” have resulted in more suicides than “cures”.”

      I reply: Source please.

      Ryan writes, “Those people who are homosexual and desire a partner in life are either going to choose a same sex partner, or live a miserable life pretending to be straight.”

      I reply: False dichotomy. There are a wide range of other logical options available.

      Ryan writes: [Paraphrasing] Comparing left handedness to homosexuality.

      I reply: You have not supplied evidence that homosexuality is an inherited genetic trait.

      Ryan, more fact based statements please, less un-critical dogmatic talking points please.

      Like

    3. Neil & LCB, you are both smarter than that.

      You both know that gay people are born that way. Some people are undeniably different. There are many reasons for homosexuality to occur naturally that fit very well with the theory of evolution. I’d tell you about those theories if I thought you would care.

      You ask for facts about this being a genetic trait. If homosexuality is anything but a genetic trait, then the instances of homosexuality would be drastically different all over the world, and throughout history, but the percentages are quite consistent.

      The suicides in the gay community are not due to them living a “sinful” lifestyle – they are due to living in a world where the only lifestyle that feels right for them is ridiculed.

      You demand proof for everything I say, yet you fawn over the comments of anyone Christian on this site, regardless of their baseless claims. Did you ask Randy for proof that “it’s easier for women to maintain opposite-sex friendships” when if a women is in a “maintained” opposite friendship, then so is a member of the opposite sex?

      Debating you guys just makes me angry now – I think it’s time to stop.

      Like

  12. Neil & LCB, you are both smarter than that.

    C’mon, Ryan, what is that supposed to prove?

    You both know that gay people are born that way. Some people are undeniably different. There are many reasons for homosexuality to occur naturally that fit very well with the theory of evolution. I’d tell you about those theories if I thought you would care.

    You have some “just so” ideas, I’m sure, but no genetic information. Meanwhile, we have many reasons to know they aren’t born that way — people who convert to/from the lifestyle, abused people, neglected people, those who just rebel against the natural order, etc. You live in stereotype land. Yes, some people have typical gay characteristics, but many with those characteristics are not gay.

    The suicides in the gay community are not due to them living a “sinful” lifestyle – they are due to living in a world where the only lifestyle that feels right for them is ridiculed.

    Yeah, that’s why so many Christians commit suicide when people like Dawkins, Hitchens and you ridicule our views (that allegedly came about via evolutionary processes, btw).

    And I didn’t even make the claim you are trying to rebut. I just pointed out that they may have had serious issues anyway that could lead to suicide.

    You demand proof for everything I say, yet you fawn over the comments of anyone Christian on this site, regardless of their baseless claims. Did you ask Randy for proof that “it’s easier for women to maintain opposite-sex friendships” when if a women is in a “maintained” opposite friendship, then so is a member of the opposite sex?

    I don’t recall that comment, but so what? You are the one demanding scientific evidence for immaterial things.

    Feel free to take a break if you like and come back when you aren’t angry. I really don’t mind the differing views, but you often drift back to the misleading stereotypes that just aren’t productive for conversation.

    I do hope you’ll continue to consider how irrational many of your views are if your worldview is true. Preemie babies, abuse, gay bashing, mayhem, death, etc. are only tragedies if there is a God. If your materliastic worldview is true then they mean nothing. It is just your mis-firing, evolutionary-challenged brain that makes you think things should be “better” and that those things are “wrong” in any way.

    Like

    1. I disagree with both Neil and Ryan on the genetic issue.

      There is evidence that being gay is a biological, but not a genetic, trait. (No, not everything that has biological underpinnings is genetic as well.) The most recent research found that women who have many sons tend to have more gay sons, and those tend to be born in later pregnancies. Apparently, when a woman gestates a male baby, it changes her body in ways that influence the brains of subsequent male babies.

      It has also been found that many gays and lesbians have brain structures (or at least response to stimuli) that are more like the members of the opposite sex (e.g. those with one brain type are usually attracted to women, whether they be straight males or lesbians).

      On the other hand, research also suggests that many lesbians were abused as children. Their “lesbian” relationships, though, often centre around affection and caring and have very little physical activity involved. (My guess is that they are humans who crave closeness and warmth, cannot get that from men, and look for it elsewhere.)

      It is quite possible that some people are just that way and others adopt the lifestyle (without having the underlying brain/chemical structures). That does not mean (and here is where I disagree with both of you, again) that gay marriage is the only right thing to do, or that all gays can be “cured.” It does, however, raise questions about how we, as a society, deal with that particular group of people.

      My own opinion is that a) the government shouldn’t be in the business of religious marriage anyway; b) civil unions would be a fine compromise; c) straight people don’t want to marry gays; and d) giving homosexuals access to an institution that solidifies their commitment may discourage them from engaging in promiscuous behaviour, become depressed, feeling isolated from society, etc.

      Oh, yeah, and it is a very legitimate argument to point out that heterosexuals haven’t done such a great job with that marriage thing, either. (Fixing “no fault divorce” might be a good start.)

      Like

      1. Quick thoughts . . . yes, fix no-fault divorce. That heteros have done a bad job with marriage doesn’t mean that “same sex marriage” isn’t an oxymoron (you didn’t make that claim, I was just anticipating the logical follow on from others).

        I submit that homosexuals have access to that commitment today even without gov’t recognition.

        Agreed on the lesbians — I’ve known several who came out of abusive marriages.

        Like

      2. I’m not sure we disagree too much on this. The case where later, and subsequent male children are more like to be homosexual is well researched. Those biological changes in the women are certainly caused by a genetic trait as well.

        I will also concede that there may be cases where girls who are abused my men in childhood can shy away from men later in life, and self-identify as lesbian. In fact I suspect this may be the case with a good friend of mine. I do not think this is the norm though.

        As for gay marriage, I don’t think that decision is up to the individual. If a gay couple wishes to get married and register as such with the government in the same way the rest of us do, I can’t think of any reason why we should deny that to them. If the government wants to get out of the marriage business, I’m fine with that, but as long as they are handing out licenses, people should choose the partner they wish.

        Neil, your “same sex marriage” is an oxymoron schtick is tired. Hopefully one day nobody will use the term, since it will be redundant.

        Like

      3. Ryan, can you seriously not think of “any” reasons? I mean, you may not like these reasons, or think that some other factors override them, but are you claiming that you don’t consider these reasons at all?

        1. Marriage, by definition, is the union of a man and a woman. Therefore, “same-sex marriage” is an oxymoron. If you want to change the definition of a word then be honest about it. But don’t beg the question and assume the new definition as part of your argument.

        Calling my reference to an oxymoron “tired” just demonstrates that you can’t refute this foundational argument. It will always be an oxymoron until the definition is changed. But if you insist on changing the definition and making “same sex marriage” a redundancy then you’ve proved my point.

        2. Scientific fact: Each member of the next generation is produced by male and a female.

        3. A homosexual couple can never provide a mother and a father to a child. Never. Even in an evolutionary worldview the most natural thing is to have parents raise children.

        If you retract your “any reasons” statement I’ll take your arguments more seriously.

        Like

      4. Definition of words change all the time. When you have fun at a party, do you tell people you had a “gay” time? Your grandparents did.

        I don’t consider the meaning of the word (yes the dictionary probably says man and a women) reason enough to not let someone else use it when it means the same thing to them.

        Yes, you’re right, it takes a man and a women to make a baby. Would you deny marriage to a man and a women who do not wish to procreate?

        Your best argument is that it is best for a child to have a mother and a father in their lives. I don’t think I can argue you on that, but it’s another issue (whether same-sex couples should adopt children). I think that 99% of what children need in their lives is love, and same sex couples can provide that as well as any of us. Children do without all the time. Millions are without fathers or mother, millions are without food, millions are without love, and millions are without healthcare – which you apparently think is okay. If two people are willing to step up to the plate and provide a safe, loving home for a child who would otherwise be in an orphanage, then you are beyond evil to deny it.

        Like

      5. Give me a break. We are debating the definition of marriage and you want to say that the definition is irrelevant. That’s cheating, but you and the homosexual agenda proponents do it so habitually you probably don’t even realize it anymore.

        Re. procreation — you’re missing the point. If male/female couples didn’t produce the next generation the gov’t wouldn’t be involved in the marriage business at all. That’s why it is relevant. Just because some married couples don’t produce children doesn’t mean that children don’t come from exclusively heterosexual pairings.

        I see you’ve made up a little world of your own re. adoption, though I appreciate you conceding my point about only heterosexual couples being able to provide a mother and a father to a child.

        I wish you’d go the next step and realize that if you are going to argue that homosexuality is natural then by definition homosexual parents would be unnatural. Therefore, they should be excluded from the adoption pool.

        Millions are without fathers or mother, millions are without food, millions are without love, and millions are without healthcare – which you apparently think is okay.

        Now you are just being stupid. Really, if you are losing a debate so badly that you think you have to resort to comments like that you should just stop commenting. You’ll come out looking better.

        then you are beyond evil to deny it.

        Yeah, that’s me all right.

        Deliberately putting children with homosexual couples = evil.

        Pointing that out = not evil.

        Having a materialist worldview and railing about “evil” = incoherent.

        Like

      6. Have to agree with Ryan on that. If you’d rather see a kid out on the street than in a “gay” home you’ve got some serious issues to work out.

        Deliberately putting children with homosexual couples = evil.

        Pffffffwa ha ha ha. See above. Empirical data suggests that children raised by homosexual parents generally do not suffer adverse effects from it. They are not more liable to become gay (since that’s not how it works) or anything like that.

        Like

      7. Have to agree with Ryan on that. If you’d rather see a kid out on the street than in a “gay” home you’ve got some serious issues to work out.

        False dichotomy. Hey, getting hit with a hammer 9 times is better than getting hit 10 times, but that doesn’t make the 9 times a good thing.

        Empirical data suggests that children raised by homosexual parents generally do not suffer adverse effects from it.

        What a lie. Fact: Homosexual couples can never provide a mother and a father to a child. Whether you are religious or a materialist the male/female parenting role is the obvious preference. It isn’t just that the kids are more likely to be gay. Who knows about that. It is just that these people shouldn’t be parents and can never provide a mother and a father.

        Like

      8. Do you really believe that I have no moral code whatsoever? Just because you don’t understand how I could have a moral code without referencing the Bible doesn’t mean I don’t have one. You seem to believe that things that you don’t understand cannot possibly exist, and that is pure arrogance.

        I have morals and they are no less valuable than yours.

        Like

      9. Ryan, that is one of the most disappointing comments you’ve made to date. It shows that you haven’t paid one bit of attention and refuse to let anything crack your dogma.

        I readily concede that you have a moral code. I defy you to demonstrate otherwise.

        What I have said many times is that you lack a foundation or grounding to explain it. A molecules to man worldview has no logical reason to explain morality or why we should care about your particular version of it.

        Atheism is a strange bedfellow with postmodernism, rarely going three consecutive sentences without a moral claim yet never adequately explaining why anyone should care about your personal opinion of morality.

        Like

  13. RE: “Your best argument is that it is best for a child to have a mother and a father in their lives. I don’t think I can argue you on that, but it’s another issue (whether same-sex couples should adopt children). I think that 99% of what children need in their lives is love, and same sex couples can provide that as well as any of us.

    Allowing homosexuals to adopt children is child abuse. Same sex couples cannot provide love because they don’t understand the difference between love and sex. What they call “love”, normal people call “sex”.

    Look look no further than the late Michael Jackson as a perfect example. He claimed he loved children, but what he was doing with children wasn’t love, but sexual abuse.

    This is not unusual for homosexuals and child molesters. Experts on Pedophiles will tell you child molesters really believe, when they are raping children, that they are demonstrating genuine love for that child. Michael Jackson was telling the truth when he said he loves children. The problem is, he couldn’t distinguish a difference between sex and love.

    And neither can homosexuals.

    Like

    1. Oh look, only… all of those claims are completely unsubstantiated?

      Look look no further than the late Michael Jackson as a perfect example.

      Michael Jackson = every gay person on Earth. You’ve found us out.

      Aren’t you the same guy who said that the only reason gays want to adopt is so they can make the kids their sex slaves? Yeah, I thought so.

      It’s stupefying to me that you actually seem to believe that all homosexuals are by nature pedophiles, too.

      Like

      1. Not all homosexuals are pedophiles, of course, though the media does a good job of glossing over the ones that are — http://townhall.com/columnists/MikeAdams/2009/06/28/little_boy_blue_devil?page=full&comments=true . Wouldn’t want to burst the bubble about how swell gay adoptive parents are, eh? (Yes, I know that heterosexuals do the same things. But the media usually doesn’t hide the fact that they are heterosexual.)

        And of course, materialists have no foundation to say pedophilia is universally evil.

        Like

      2. I guess I don’t know what you’re trying to say. Are you stating that all homosexuals are on the hook for the actions of a select few gays?

        Like

      3. No, of course not. I was pointing out the typical media bias in advancing the homosexual agenda as well as the irrationality of materialists / moral relativists claiming that homosexual behavior is benign while pedophilia is evil.

        Like

      4. Going to stop you right there. That link of yours is a crock of garbage, and I’d like to think that you’re smart enough to see it. It’s frothing-at-the-mouth hatemongering, justified (in his mind) through his faith. I also love how he doesn’t appear to understand the concept of sarcasm, either, judging by how seriously he takes the excerpts from the porn director.

        Seriously, if you take what that man has to say with anything more than a grain of salt, you need to have your head examined.

        Like

      5. Oh give me a break. People using the Bible to justify their own prejudices is old news. The Bible has been used to defend terrible things like slavery, and they thought they were just as right then as you do now.

        Like

      6. Correct. And people used the Bible to oppose U.S.-style slavery and make it illegal. So what is your point? I readily concede that people can misunderstand the Bible accidentally or deliberately. That doesn’t prove that we never get it right. The key is to do your homework and make every attempt to read it accurately instead of just dismissing it altogether.

        Eternity is a long time and you never know when your time will come. I wouldn’t wait.

        Like

      1. Michael Jackson = every gay person on Earth.

        I never said that at all. And you know it. I said, “The problem is, he couldn’t distinguish a difference between sex and love.

        And neither can homosexuals.

        Racing Boo, please show examples that my point isn’t logical. I have done extensive research into pedophilia. How much have you done?

        The following is a post I did back when Jackson was still alive and on trial for molestation:

        Let me shed some heretofore never addressed light on this mess.
        Several years ago, I did some research on pedophilia and I have some insights into this case that the media hasn’t really bothered to touch on, at least as far as I know.

        To begin with, Michael Jackson says he loves children and would never hurt a child. Believe him. He really does love children. All pedophiles do. And molesting a child, in a pedophiles twisted mind, is not hurting them, rather, it is an expression of the love they have for the child. He really believes he has done nothing wrong.

        Pedophiles cannot differentiate between love and sex. When he molests children he is showing the child that he loves him.

        Is there hope that Michael can be cured? Studies have shown the answer is no. There is no evidence to suggest that pedophilia can ever be cured, however, if the pedophile can be brought to the point that he can acknowledge that he has a problem, he can control the urge to “show love”.

        The problem with this is that one can never know if the sexual urges of a pedophile will stay controlled. There is always a chance that he will molest again. From the press and media reports concerning Michaels childhood and lifestyle, I can say with reasonable confidence that he fits the psychological profile of the textbook pedophile and in my opinion, he is one of the few that will never admit responsibility for his crimes.

        Therefore, if Michael Jackson is acquitted this time, he will not stop. And even if he is found guilty, he’d better be locked away or he will continue molesting children the rest of his life, especially if he can continue to find mothers and fathers that are willing to whore their son out for a few dollars and jewelry.

        With that said, let me say that Michael Jackson should not have to bear the burden of his crimes alone…He could not have gotten away with this for this long had he not had the cooperation of greedy parents, who care more for monetary gain than their own children.

        In short, even if Michael Jackson has never touched a child in a sexual way, the psychological evidence suggests that he will eventually.

        Now, let me add one thing about the outcome of this trial. I tried, unsuccessfully, to find out if the prosecution had put a psychologist on the stand to testify as to the psychological makeup of a pedophile. I don’t think he did. I think this may have been the reason he lost his case. Pedophiles are hard to spot unless one knows what to look for. Michael Jackson appears to be weird and freaky, but on the outside, there is little to suggest that he is anything worse than that. Had a psychologist been called to testify, I believe the jury could have seen him for what he is.

        Geraldo Rivera, on Fox news, said Michael has assured him that he will never sleep with children again, but, coming from a pedophile, that is a promise that means nothing, in the same way a wife beater tells his wife he will never touch her again or an alchoholic will never drink again. (I can’t believe someone with Geraldo’s intelligence could be so naive)

        If he continues to molest children, (and now that he has been acquitted, there is no reason to suspect he won’t) There will undoubtedly be another chance for a prosecutor to do it right.

        Like

      2. I have no problem with your points on paedophilia. But when you equate homosexuality to it, and make an unsubstantiated generalisation that homosexuals cannot tell the difference between love and sex, you need a reality check.

        Like

  14. Hey Bridget, where you been?

    Neil, I just got a tweet from the “velvet hammer” that had the following link. You might find it interesting (revealing)

    http://ianessling.com/blog/index.php/2009/07/02/obama-calls-biblical-view-of-homosexuality-a-worn-argument/

    Of course Obama’s claims of Christianity in my book went down the drain when he said he was a member of the United Church of Christ. Possibly the only or of the only few that would accept your affiliation without requiring you to divest previouos “isms” such as Moslem. Of course your probably remember that extended debate with that UCC minister before. As I said before, I know because my father in law was high up in the UCC…………steve

    Like

    1. Steve — Great to hear from you!

      When people accused Obama of being a Muslim my standard reply was that he probably wasn’t. Of course, I don’t think he’s a Christian, either. I think I know who he worships.

      Like

      1. Good point, I never believed he was REALLY a Muslim, but he tells the world we are NOT a Christian nation. Ok, that fine, I get the essential point. Then he goes and tells the Moslem world that America is one of the biggest Islamic countries. This causes me to pause and think that he probably did as a youngster identify as a Muslim and that culture is his primary sense of pride.

        However, point in fact that we would rank as one of the least Muslim countries if that metrix is based on the population of Muslims, hence he basically lied to exaggerate an untrue (it must reveal something not good).

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s