REPORT: Should Gays Adopt? - by Bob Enyart

beanieboy

New member
I find it fascinating how good Enyart is at lying. There was part of the article that kept popping up in my head all last night:

"I am not saying that my cousin will sexually molest a child. I am saying that homosexuals have long given aid and comfort to pedophiles, publicly. And I am saying that the media and other defenders of homosexuals are the silent partners of those who work toward the day when children are a sex commodity. The media rejects but intuitively fears the connection between child molestation and homosexuality. It therefore suppresses reports of the torrent of public advocacy for gay pedophilia. Instead, the media wears out the same worn cliché that homosexuals are no more likely to molest children than heterosexuals."

So, while he brings up his gay cousin who is adopting, he talks about his opinion that gays are more likely to molest children than heterosexuals. He writes an extensive article making several false claims, quotes a few people, and says, "see how they all are?" He claims that the media never talks about child molesters, and in so, defends them (He must not read or watch the news.) He claims that homosexuals, in general, are all for having sex with children, it's just no one wants to appear homophobic.

Oh, but he's not saying that his cousin will probably molest HIS kid. No. That's a horse of a different color. That's not what he's saying at all.

It's clever. It is what he's saying. He makes bold statements, most of which are false, using words like "most" and using inference in order to make a point, yet will not come right out and say, "I fear that my cousin will molest his child BECAUSE my cousin is homosexual." He won't come right out and say it, and in so, has a way out. He just implies it. He infers it. He dances around it. Lies like a pro.
 
Last edited:

JGaltJr.

BANNED
Banned
Originally posted by beanieboy
So, while he brings up his gay cousin who is adopting, he talks about his opinion that gays are more likely to molest children than heterosexuals. He writes an extensive article making several false claims, quotes a few people, and says, "see how they all are?" He claims that the media never talks about child molesters, and in so, defends them (He must not read or watch the news.) He claims that homosexuals, in general, are all for having sex with children, it's just no one wants to appear homophobic.

Statistically isn't there a very high rate of people who were molested who go on to molest their own children? Perhaps we should not allow victims of abuse to raise children for fear that they may repeat the cycle of abuse. Wonder if any of these good Christians around here fit that criteria and would agree that their children would be safer in someone else's care?
 

ClaypoolKid

New member
Ok beanieboy, I have since skimmed through the report published by the ASA and here is what I found. The article begins by stating the purpose of the study to be the following:

“The question that we have asked, and that we will attempt to answer in this presentation, is: For people who have experienced Child Sex Abuse, does the experience cause intense psychological harm on a widespread basis for both genders?”

Midway through the report there is a chart displayed that records how sexual abuse for some children might not be all that bad of an experience. In fact, the report claims that it can be a positive experience. The article states:

“Of the 1,421 female experiences of Child Sex Abuse, 11% were positive, 18% were neutral, and 72% were negative. Of the 606 male experiences, 37% were positive, 29% were neutral, and 33% were negative.”

They conclude the study with the following statement:

“The results of our reviews clearly show that the assumptions of most mental health professionals, legislators, law enforcement personnel, media workers, and the lay public that sexual relations defined as Child Sex Abuse cause intense harm pervasively for both boys and girls are vastly exaggerated.”

In reading what the APA published, it seems reasonable for Mr. Enyart to arrive at his conclusion. And that is all Bob did. He read the article and drew a conclusion. If you do not agree with his conclusion that is fine. But that does not make him a liar. Anyone with any level of moral consciousness would have to question the motives of the APA. Of course, after the report was drug out into public view by Dr. Laura and other conservatives, the APA attempted to defend what they published by saying, “We do not support the ‘normalization’ or decriminalization of any form of sexual relations between adults and children. Such behavior must remain criminal and punishable to the fullest extent of the law”. Would anyone expect the APA to confirm the suspicions of Dr. Laura and Mr. Enyart? If they were not trying to normalize pedophilia, what were their motives?

In your next post you again try to attack Mr. Enyart for writing the following:
“Billions of people in the world oppose homosexuals, as have most cultures throughout civilization.”

You write: “Yes, there are billions of people who oppose homosexuality. And there are billions who don't. By saying, "there are billions of people who oppose homosexuality" and not acknowledging those who do not, you are making it sound like everyone is opposed to it.”

Beanieboy, please explain to me why Bob should feel obligated to mention the billions of people who don’t oppose homosexuality? Is it for the sake of idiots like you who are unable to comprehend what he was trying to convey? Because when I read what Bob wrote I did not think he made it sound like EVERYONE was opposed to homosexuality. Nor did I think that he was implying that the MAJORITY of people oppose homosexuality. If I said that millions of Americans waited until the 15th of April to mail in their tax returns, would you ever assume that I was implying that the majority of Americans had procrastinated?

Bob said that “most cultures throughout civilization” have opposed homosexuality. I believe Bob’s was including ALL cultures throughout the HISTORY of civilization. (This seemed clear to me since he used the verb ‘have’.) Yet you try to refute this statement by showing results from a survey conducted RECENTLY and is focused on ONE modern culture (America). Bob would openly admit that most Americans are rather tolerant of homos. Sorry, but all those stats you gave were a waste of your time.

In your next post you criticize Bob for quoting homos without providing sources. You then make some remarks concerning things said by Pat Robertson without giving any sources. (By the way Pat is a fool, but I would like to see exactly what he said.)

Are you sure Bob is lying or are you just assuming that he is? How many sources would Bob have to offer to establish the accuracy of his observation that many homo leaders seem to want to normalize sex with children? There has been a recent outcry against the Catholic community for the severe problem of priest molesting children. But where is the outcry against the homo community for the severe problem of homos molesting children? Weren’t most of these crimes in the Catholic Church committed by adult MALES on adolescent MALES? Isn’t the same true for most child molestation cases? Sounds like the homo community has a problem.

Oh, and if Bob knew that you laid in bed thinking about him all night, he would probably throw up.

And to answer JgaltJr. let me say this: No, it would be wrong to punish someone for fear that they might do something to a child that was done to them when they were a child. You can’t punish a person for something SOMEONE ELSE did in the PAST. The situation with homos adopting children is different. THEY are PRESENTLY behaving in a manner that distinguishes them as perverts.

And about Bob's spanking incident. He is very proud of what he did to his step son. He has spoken very openly about it on his show many times. So if your trying to embarrass him, it will not work. What Bob did to his step son is called administering discipline. If you spank a 7 year old boy and it does not leave some sort of mark then it was not a good (effective) spanking. For a spanking to be effective on a 7 year old boy it has to hurt. And if it hurts then it will most likely leave a mark.

“I'm kind of an idiot, But since I am an idiot, I'm kind of an idiot.”--- Beanieboy
(I hope I did not take your quote out of context.)
 
Last edited:

Projill

New member
Oh, and if Bob knew that you laid in bed thinking about him all night, he would probably throw up.

Though I don't know beanieboy personally, I'm quite certain the feeling is mutual.
 

o2bwise

New member
Another Hint...

Another Hint...

Swordfish, a little hint - quoting a fool like Paul is no more significant than hearing you say something. Opinions are a dime a dozen and most of Paul's opinions are pretty worthless.

JGalt, a little hint, this is a Christian forum and (as such), the bulk of the constituency are people who believe in the Bible and believe Paul was wise and not a fool.

So, if I "wear your moccasins" (so to speak), you're talking to a bunch of fools and words like the above being voiced here, are so without influence as to be - well - foolish to even bother voicing them!
 

ClaypoolKid

New member
“So, if I "wear your moccasins" (so to speak), you're talking to a bunch of fools and words like the above being voiced here, are so without influence as to be - well - foolish to even bother voicing them!”--- o2bwise

Translation: Since I can’t find a logical way to refute ClaypoolKid, I’ll just call him a fool and dismiss anything he says.”
 

kiwimac

BANNED
Banned
Claypool,

Nothing you said requires refutation, why? because it was not intelligent enough to be considered an argument! Simply supporting that idiot Enyart does not a useful discussuin make.

Kiwimac
 
F

firechyld

Guest
If you spank a 7 year old boy and it does not leave some sort of mark then it was not a good (effective) spanking.

Sheesh... please tell me you don't have kids. Please. I'll give you money if you promise never to try and raise one...

This whole right-wing Christian stance on Gays/Adoption is one that interests me in a big way. I have a question which I asked a couple of times on other threads, but have yet to receive an answer to.

If you oppose abortion, and think it should be outlawed completely, would you allow non-nuclear family units to adopt unwanted children, as the numbers would surely rise? If not, how would you propose this situation be dealt with?

By "non-nuclear" family units, I mean everything from single parents to gay and lesbian couples to polygamous family units. Feel free to break that down in your response.

*grin*

Presuming someone deigns to grace me with their response this time....

firechyld
 

Projill

New member
Originally posted by beanieboy
Polygamous family units:

Go ask you mother; and your other mother; and your other mother.

Wow...I never considered what a nightmare that would be. It was bad enough growing up getting just two parents to agree.
 

Barbiedoll

New member
Originally posted by beanieboy
Hasn't Enyart been charged with child abuse?
But somehow thinks his words have weight on who is a fit parent?

A lot of parents have been arrested for child abuse when it wasn't child abuse. Its abusive to not correct your child in the right way.

What are parents supposed to do, let them grow up to die in the electric chair? That might hurt their little feelings.
 

missedmarks

New member
Spanking is lazy parenting,

Yeah, I used to spank my kid, but mainly because I was mad, not because it did him any good.

If you believe "Spare the Rod, Spoil the Child" means hit your kids with a stick, you need to have a chat with someone who can interpret scripture a little bit better.

"What are parents supposed to do, let them grow up to die in the electrict chair? That might hurt their little feelings."

That quote right there shows the three elements of the ArchConservative argument for anything. First a throw your hands in the air black or white choice between one of two extremes. Then the dire end of the world consequence that will justify any means necessary. Then the dismissive statement that shows that the conservative is "Tough" and any alternatives to that viewpoint is "Wimpy, touchy feely nonsense"

As for me at my house, Im done beating the kid, when he gets in trouble, he gets some kind of unpleasant chore to do. I think it provides a consequence and he learns a little something as opposed to learning that dad is bigger and can hit hard.
 

wcgreer

New member
So called Christians today regard the Bible like a selective Windows install...I'll take this, one of those, let's uncheck that one, and soon you'll have a religion to fit your world view.
Nowhere in the Bible does God ask, "Can we make a deal", he repeatedly says 'This is the deal'.

One post ask us to ignore Paul. Without Paul, we have no Grace, saving Grace. You would like to keep the salvation he brings, but reject everything else he says. Just for the sake of argument, I'll leave Paul out for now.

What did Jesus say? The Old Testament is the word of God down to the last dot. Jesus himself confirmed the Old Testament is true down to the last detail. You mean just the names, right? Maybe the places? Perhaps just major events? No, down to the last detail. If Jesus tells me the Old Testament is his fathers word, I believe him. The Old Testament very specifically states homosexuality is an abomination.

Even up to the last decade, homosexuality was still hidden, and concealed. Coming out of the closet is an adequate phrase as it is confirming that is was something to be hidden. Shortened to just 'coming out' now, still means to make public, which implies it was once a secretive thing. So why was it ever necessary to to hide, to be ashamed, or to conceal homosexuality? Was it just after 1930 it became wrong? After 2000 years of ignorance, not to mention the 4000 years before that, suddenly in 1996 you figured it out? The Bible, surely it didn't mean me?

"Many will say Lord, Lord, but I hear them not". Just who is he talking about? Who is calling out to him and who, after calling his name, will Jesus turn his back on? It's got to be someone or he wouldn't have said it. We're not talking about the millions of Muslims calling to Allah, they're not calling out to Jesus, he said many are saying MY name, and I hear them not.

I don't think God is going to be impressed with your fancy lawyering tricks, play on words, stretched meanings. Many are calling to him and he is turning a deaf ear to them. So many think they're 'in', and Jesus isn't hearing a word of it.

It's going to be your soul burning in hell if you're wrong.
What a chance to take.

I would give everything, everything but my soul of course, to have God come seek me out, personally, and speak to me. What a great honor that would be, but an awesome responsibility to have placed on my shoulders, to go save the world. How so many of you can just discount Paul, it just laughs in the face of God.
1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud,...
3 Without natural affection.....
4 ....lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof:
from such turn away.
7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the
truth.
8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.

When you specifically exclude parts of the Bible you don't like, then you need to reexamine your faith.
 

Barbiedoll

New member
Originally posted by missedmarks
Spanking is lazy parenting,

Yeah, I used to spank my kid, but mainly because I was mad, not because it did him any good.

If you believe "Spare the Rod, Spoil the Child" means hit your kids with a stick, you need to have a chat with someone who can interpret scripture a little bit better.

"What are parents supposed to do, let them grow up to die in the electrict chair? That might hurt their little feelings."

That quote right there shows the three elements of the ArchConservative argument for anything. First a throw your hands in the air black or white choice between one of two extremes. Then the dire end of the world consequence that will justify any means necessary. Then the dismissive statement that shows that the conservative is "Tough" and any alternatives to that viewpoint is "Wimpy, touchy feely nonsense"

As for me at my house, Im done beating the kid, when he gets in trouble, he gets some kind of unpleasant chore to do. I think it provides a consequence and he learns a little something as opposed to learning that dad is bigger and can hit hard.

___________________________________________________

As for me, I'll correct mine according to the Word of God. When God said "spare not the rod and spoil the child", he meant to spank them when the need it.

I am well aware there are other forms of discipline, and I think they should be used first (except some actions require immediate spankings), but sometimes a spanking is the only means of getting the message across.

God gave us our children, and he expects us to raise them as he sets forth, not as we think.
 
Top