http://www.arktimes.com/arkansas/george-takei-dreams-of-a-truer-democracy/Content?oid=2081990 Comments On: George Takei: dreams of a truer democracy by Philip M. Provost en-us Copyright 2013 Arkansas Times. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, Arkansas Times readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact Arkansas Times. robert@arktimes.com (Arkansas Times Webmaster) Fri, 24 May 2013 00:00:01 -0500 Fri, 24 May 2013 06:45:00 -0500 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Posted by Thomas Pope]]> Sun, 26 Feb 2012 23:28:33 -0600 Arkansas Times
If you think Thomas Pope is "attracted to women" you've not yet pored over his obsessive body of work here -- his rambling intellectually stunted verbally stupefying self-revelatory posts tilting, Don-Quixote-like, at all things same-sex.

He effectively recasts Cervantes' tale of the misadventures of delusional Don Quixote and pragmatic Sancho Panza starring Tom Cruise and John Travolta in "Brokeback Windmill."

And Jennifer --

Considering that George Takei's being gay is as much a part of his life as being Japanese-American; recognizing his long and noble public activism on "how the minority groups can maintain their civil liberties and not be suspect just because we are engaged in conflicts," as you put it; acknowledging Takei's decades-long fight to achieve same-sex equality in America just as he's fought racist bigotry since childhood; this thread's direction makes perfect sense.

Especially witnessing the homogenitacular avalanche between Thomas Pope's ears.


Posted by Norma Bates]]> Sun, 26 Feb 2012 08:59:12 -0600 Arkansas Times Posted by Thomas Pope]]> Sun, 26 Feb 2012 03:25:50 -0600 Arkansas Times
The heterosexual model for gender identity development and sexual attraction develops when the child has two loving, caring and engaged parents. The child models the same sex parent for gender identity development because they are receiving adequate intimacy with both parents and don't feel a need to model one parent to gain intimacy with the other. But this theory has nothing to do with the child seeing their parent as a sexual object, rather a father or mother figure is eroticized.

Permitting homosexuals to marry enables homosexuals to engage in anti-social relationships and sexuality because it has an adverse impact on them and society. Underlying every neurotic condition is low self-esteem which affects any number of emotional problems. A young child who feels rejected by the same sex parent or their absence is affected with negative emotions such as resentments, anger, depression, passive aggressive feelings etc. As the child models the opposite sex parent to increase intimacy with the same sex parent a gender identity confusion develops along with a sexual fetish. Once the fetish is practiced a compulsive sexual addiction begins. Gays experience higher suicide rates, substance abuse and partner abuse etc. which can be attributed to poor self image. The only way to improve self-esteem is to abstain from homosexual relationships and sexuality.

Another anti-social aspect of society accepting homosexual relationships is the increase in bisexuality that occurs. In the Greco-Roman world bisexuality was common as fathers mentored young boys in a trade or profession which also implied a sexual relationship. Wives, children and the young mentees hated the practice and it took its toll on families. Rampant bisexuality by the world's political and commercial leaders contributed to the notorious corruption of Pagan Rome. The social democrat movement reveals a glaring lack of wisdom by its inability to see that the practice lessens humility and character over time and family life deteriorates. That's what happened in the ancient world and it can happen in this era too.

This theory isn't harmful to anyone nor does it try to make anyone superior to another. As I said, gay people have to want to know why their sexual attraction is so different than the rest of society. This theory offers them the opportunity, if they take it serious to have a greater sense of self-awareness and a higher quality of life. Sometimes the person you think is your worst enemy at one time in your life turns out to be your best friend in another.
Posted by Thomas Pope]]> Sun, 26 Feb 2012 03:16:46 -0600 Arkansas Times Posted by Jennifer Blakeslee Peterson]]> Sat, 25 Feb 2012 08:26:37 -0600 Arkansas Times
If you are sexually attracted to red heads, I do not think that anyone should judge you for that. Nor would I say that for politically correct reasons. I simply do not think that who you choose to love or why should be any of my business. Nor do I think there should be any laws keeping you from getting married to a red head, although we all know that redheads are witches who have brain washed you into loving them. (Just as probable as your theory).

No, your parents as a roll model has nothing to do with homosexuality. First of all, I have never, and will always avoid thinking of my parents as sexual beings (shudders at the thought). I am a straight female, but I definately use my father as my roll model (I am like him in almost every way). I am nothing like my mother and although she is not the most "girly" female, I am even less "feminine" than her. Even as a child, I always rather play with hotwheels than dolls. Now as an adult, I spend my time watching baseball, playing video games, and working in engineering. I like making more money than my partner and being the one who makes most the decisions. Yet somehow I am still attracted to men. Why? Because society has stereotyped certain things as being "feminine" or "masculene" is meaningless. (Why is the color pink against the rules for men? Its illogical!).

What my interests are and who my roll models are have nothing to do with my own sexual fetish, I like men. It was never a choice for me, I never sat down and had to think about it. I didnt use my mother as some kind of roll model. If sexuality is based on roll models, it should work for straight people too. Sorry to mess up your theory. If you want to think about the psychcology behind view points, start with your own. Why do you care about what other people do in their bedrooms? Why do you think we should not judge you on your sexual fetishes? (female, young, Hair color, nighty, high heels, push up bras, dirty talk, whatever)? Why are you going out of your way to push your own views (trying to over compensate for something)?
Posted by :)]]> Fri, 24 Feb 2012 08:36:08 -0600 Arkansas Times
But here's the thing about science, Thomas Pope. And about democracy. And about the interface of the two in a nation whose founders (Jefferson above all) built its democracy on close observation of the world as it is and on reason.

Here's the thing: you don't use research to prove your theory. You first do the research, observe carefully, and THEN develop theories to account for what you see in the world you're observing.

Your "theory" has had well over a hundred years to be tested against the facts after Freud first proposed it, and it has been resoundingly rejected by scientists precisely because the data at our disposal in no way fit the theory. Scientist have concluded, the vast majority of them, that homosexuality is a natural variant of human sexuality right alongside heterosexuality.

They've come to that conclusion because abundant data suggest this.

In a democracy, you don't get to make up a theory that is harmful to some of your fellow human beings, impose it through law, and then ask scientists to prove your theory. You don't behave that way unless you live in the kind of society that stigmatizes groups of people, invents laws to support the stigmatization, and then conducts grotesque research experiments on the stigmatized group to prove your pet theory that validates your superiority.
Posted by William D. Lindsey]]> Fri, 24 Feb 2012 08:35:17 -0600 Arkansas Times
Still the MSM (including CSPAN) dusts him off and trots him out to spew his bile and bigotry. I suspect Pope is as old as Buchanan and as fossilized in his thinking and unable to change. One day, they will mostly be gone, and we will look back in wonderment that they actually held sway on our thinking.




Posted by the outlier]]> Fri, 24 Feb 2012 08:22:09 -0600 Arkansas Times Posted by CyberBiker]]> Fri, 24 Feb 2012 08:09:12 -0600 Arkansas Times
Suppose your theory is correct. Gay men and women are created entirely through social means. Okay, sure. Why, then, should that be marginalized? Why shouldn't they be able to be married just like anyone else? Unlike pedophilia, which clearly raises moral problems, homosexuality is harmless. Sure, there's AIDS. But eventually that will be preventable.

The only thing you said about it being wrong is: "It enables a person to engage in anti-social relationships and sexuality." So? Once upon a time, marrying a person of a difference race was anti-social. Here's the thing. When we see something is considered "anti-social," but it's not harmful, we simply change society. When gay men and women are getting married, I don't think that signals some mythic end of society. I think it just signals the end of your narrow worldview.
Posted by Lakeshore]]> Fri, 24 Feb 2012 07:35:01 -0600 Arkansas Times
The etiology of a homosexual interest is not genetic nor is it hormonal as many gay activists are claiming. Homosexuality is a sexual fetish that begins when Infants and young boys model their mothers after they notice she is able to gain the attention of a distant or absent father with her feminine charms and assertiveness. Eventually the child eroticizes a father figure. That explains the often times noticeable femininity and assertiveness of the gay person. Other fetishes such as pedophilia or S&M preferences etc. result from a complication of intimacy in infancy and childhood as well. That's not to suggest that a gay interest is as harmful to others as pedophilia or other fetishes just that they have a similar social cause. There are too many fetishes as compulsive or more as the gay fetish for us all to be born that way. Once the child matures and begins to practice the fetish a very compulsive sexual addiction develops. The reverse process occurs for females.

This was a theory popular before political correctness took over the AMA and APA and they decided it had a genetic etiology. However, since the Human Genome Project was not able to identify a gay gene it has reopened the door for more research into this theory. Other evidence that suggests a gay interest has a social cause is an elevated suicide rate and higher incidence of partner abuse. These complications are most likely because of the underlying low self-esteem that accompanies neurotic conditions or feelings of rejection by a parent, real or perceived. It's unlikely that many people in the gay community or the social democrat movement will ever accept this explanation for the gay condition but there may be some that will.

Eventually America's politically correct institutions in network broadcasting, wire service print media and academia will be reformed and this theory will be demonstrated through scientific research. Making marriage legal for LGBT people is a great mistake because it enables a person to engage in anti-social relationships and sexuality. Gay people have to want to know why their attraction is so different from the rest of society and this theory provides an opportunity for greater self-awareness for them and the entire world.
Posted by Thomas Pope]]> Fri, 24 Feb 2012 01:13:55 -0600 Arkansas Times
When did this happen? Why wasn't it in the news?
Posted by Bluefriction]]> Thu, 23 Feb 2012 14:16:31 -0600 Arkansas Times