America's sexual deviation & decadence over the line

I already supplied a link with the information.

 

True.

But it also depends upon your location. That gender identity stuff takes root in some places, but I think most places reject it. I also think the entire LGBT issue is the result of too many people having too much time on their hands, too much comfort, and no sense of reality. Where I live, many people are or were connected to the military, too many have seen the good and bad of the world and dealt with harsh reality, and things like transgender bathrooms in elementary school is a total non-starter. I can't even conceive of a school here even attempting to label bathrooms with the transgender sign.

 

Transgender and transsexual are the same thing, are they not? Semantics!

 

http://waltheyer.typepad.com/blog/2...fter-surgery-a-large-number-remain-traum.html

Regret, unhappiness and suicides, even after surgery--studies says many remain traumatized
For 35 years serious questions have been raised about the overall long-term success of changing genders.

Regarding the outcome of reassignment surgery Dr. Charles Ihlenfeld said, "80% should not do it" and for the remaining 20%, he says it will not be a lifelong solution but rather a temporary "reprieve." In other words, do not expect long term success.

Dr Ihlenfeld has some strong support from The Guardian (UK) from July 2004 that included a review of more than 100 international medical studies of post-operative transgenders by the University of Birmingham aggressive research intelligence facility. They found "no robust scientific evidence that gender reassignment surgery is clinically effective." Seeing that they reviewed not just one study but 100 international studies makes this report alarming.

In my view, this shows that failure comes all too often for transgenders and it is so unnecessary. The Guardian reports:

After gender reassignment, there's still a large number of people who had the surgery but remain traumatized - often to the point of committing suicide.
Research from the US and Holland suggests that up to a fifth (20%) of patients regret changing sex. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2004/jul/30/health.mentalhealth
Thirty-five years ago, in 1979, uncertainty about gender change success was surfacing. At Johns Hopkins Hospital concerns about the reported success rates of changing genders and whether Dr. Money had been falsifying the reports of sex change success prompted a review. Dr. Paul Mc Hugh commissioned Dr. Meyer to study post-operative transsexuals from the Johns Hopkins Gender Identity Clinic program. Dr. Meyer's results were far different than Money’s reports of success a decade earlier and also validated the concerns regarding Dr. Money and his reports. Dr. Meyer said, “To say that this type of surgery cures psychiatric disturbance is incorrect.” As a result of studying the results of Hopkins patients, Hopkins closed its gender clinic and university-based gender clinics around the country began to close. http://www.baltimorestyle.com/index.php/style/features_article/fe_sexchange_jf07

Also in 1979, Dr. Ihlenfeld, a former associate of Dr. Harry Benjamin, told an audience extreme care should be given in using cross gender hormones because 80% of patents who want to change their sex shouldn't do it. "There is too much unhappiness among people who have had the surgery," he said. "Too many of them end as suicides." http://lvtgw.jadephoenix.org/Info_htm/Herbal_G/ginko_b2.htm

 

I guess you dont need to but it helps to know what your dealing with. They have a bit of a different perspective on life and dont think on your level.

honestly... it isnt just gays that dont have manners these days.... its everyone.... its largely a cultural thing. People who dont like themselves cope by projecting hatred and disrespect towards those around them. I suggest you just keep away from people who dont like themselves and stick to those who do. I think you will find that areas of self improvement.... gyms, parks, libraries etc. tend to attract those who do not have these issues where as places like bars, internet forums etc. tend to pull in all the nuts hell bent on pursuing all that is negative in the universe.

 

The reports of Kinsey experimenting on children have been refuted by many sources. Is there any new information on that? The article makes claims of reports, but does not back it up.

 

While it's never been proven, a LOT of people say that Dr. Kinsey did some experiments himself on babies and children because that would have been the ONLY way to come to some of the conclusions that he came to. He also collaborated with former Nazis who performed horrible experiments on children in concentration camps, sexual and otherwise. He also interviewed pedophiles and never turned them in but allowed them to continue abusing children so that he could write about them. He was an advocate for pedophilia.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah? Who refutes them? The KINSEY foundation?

 

I tend to agree

 

Transgender is the preferred term by the LGBT community. I was using transsexual for historical references to check your claims.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Kinsey

It was later revealed that Kinsey used data from a single pedophile and presented it as being from various sources. Kinsey had seen the need for participant confidentiality and anonymity as necessary to gain "honest answers on such taboo subjects".[34][35] The Kinsey Institute wrote that the data on children in tables 31–34 came from one man's journal (started in 1917) and that the events concerned predated the Kinsey Reports.[35][36]

- - - Updated - - -

Ooohhh, really? Well we wouldn't want to upset them now. Goodness gracious.

 

dont worry too much about this place. Most of the folks here are paid to post spin. half of those are most likely illegal or in another country. They are not crazy as much as they are dishonest and have hidden agendas that stem from a check handed out from a political party.

 

Of course the KINSEY institute is going to deny that their founder was into pedophilia, yet, he wrote books about it, condoning and encouraging it. What in the heck do you think THAT means?

This world is going to hell in a hand basket.

 

Yes, like I said he interviewed a pedophile. How does that make Kinsey a pedophile? If I interview a murderer, am I a murderer?

 

He advocated for and condoned pedophilia. What does that say to you? He did those studies to try and say that children enjoyed having sex with adults.

 

It was not a study, but a report from the interview. I am not condoning his views, nor his actions of advocating for pedophilia, but those things do not make him a pedophile. You can call those actions despicable, but saying someone is a pedophile for those actions alone is misrepresenting the details.

 

http://icolf.org/fact/ecosoc-the-kinsey-institute-and-child-sexual-abuse/

At no point in time has either the Institute or Indiana University disavowed Kinsey’s affiliation with Balluseck or others who advocate for pedophilia and/or have sexually abused children under the guise of research. Thousands of records of sex crimes against children are alleged to exist in the archives at Indiana University Institute, however, officials of this Institute have consistently refused to open their records for inspection or investigation. Both Kinsey’s co-author Wardell Pomeroy, former Institute Director Paul Gebhard and photographer Clarence Tripp, have stated that they would destroy the records, rather than release them. Moreover, numerous attempts by the United States Congress to investigate the Institute’s activities have been thwarted. Indeed, perpetrators remain at large while the number of victims continue to mount.

- - - Updated - - -

You don't think a person who tries to "normalize" pedophilia is a pedophile himself???

 

He did "extensive" studies on pedophiles and pedophilia. What game are you trying to play here?

 

You citing proof from a site that says marriage is only allowed between a man and women, and life begins at conception. It is a catholic backed site that is attacking the Kinsey Institute. Do you think there is any other motive?

 

Reisman reports extensive and Kinsey Institute reports it is a single case. If it was extensive and there was proof, there would be more than one person investigating this in 60 years. Ethics are important to research and obvious ethics violations are cited as examples of why there is oversite of research. This predates the ethical review boards, but most ethic violations that are used as examples also predate the ethical review boards (e.g., the Tuskegee syphilis studies). This seems to be one person accusing without proof.

 

If your point is to convey a misunderstanding of the term "sexual content" or "sexual nature", then you are doing a fine job.
Millions of people also misunderstand the definition of the term irony. Being part of a group that misunderstands a definition doesn't make the definition right.

What you actually object to is the potential portrayal of a gay couple, which you are quite welcome to do [I have seen no evidence that they are actually gay though at this point]. If you want to dilute your position with confusion by using "sexual ....", then that's just making your position harder to maintain, not easier. Perhaps you don't want to admit a homophobic stance so try to convince yourself that it's "sexual". The truth is that a gay couple is no more sexualized than a hetero couple, just by being a couple.

You may choose to believe otherwise, but I'll maintain my position that you are incorrect. Language is, by default, proves me correct.

 

They would have a hissy fit based on, well, how they act toward anything Christian.

 

Please tell me what is this ideology of mine to which you refer and how it's relevant to your position in this debate.

Also, please tell me what your weird fetishes are and how they are relevant to your position in this debate. Secondly, perhaps I should suggest you keep your weird fetishes to yourself.

 

Perhaps it is you who only cares about your own selfish desires to not have your delicate sensibilities offended. I think the word they use nowadays is 'snowflake.' Don't like what's on TV? Turn the channel. See two men kissing? Look away - or shoot up a nightclub apparently...

 

If a kids movie showed a man and a woman kissing, would you call that "mixing sexual content and children"?

- - - Updated - - -

What you are really saying:

"If there was only heterosexual content, there would be no controversy, and no objection on my part."

 

A man and a woman kissing is sexual content by that definition (specifically heterosexual content). Should exposing children to a man and a woman kissing be considered child abuse?

- - - Updated - - -

You understand that a person can be transgender but never have even had sex right?