The Republican candidate for governor, Carl P. Paladino, told a gathering in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, on Sunday that children should not be “brainwashed” into thinking that homosexuality was acceptable, and criticized his opponent, Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo, for marching in a gay pride parade earlier this year.

Addressing Orthodox Jewish leaders, Mr. Paladino described his opposition to same-sex marriage.

“That’s not how God created us,” he said, reading from a prepared address.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39608685/ns/politics-the_new_york_times#

I have mixed feelings about his opinions as I am much more in favor of gay domestic partnerships than gay marriage, but he does not seem hateful and much of the public would agree with at least some of what he says. What do you think?

I'd vote for Paladino.

I wrote a long reply, but as there was no "Post" button, I had to refesh. Can't be bothered to repeat all that I said, but note in the article the "Human Rights Committee" being a homosexual pressure group. The type of mis-labelling that I have been ranting about elsewhere in this forum.

sounds negative to me. brainwashed etc are all negative connotations and I, for one, find people who tell me what I should and should not think highly offensive.

I'd vote for Paladino.

I wrote a long reply, but as there was no "Post" button, I had to refesh. Can't be bothered to repeat all that I said, but note in the article the "Human Rights Committee" being a homosexual pressure group. The type of mis-labelling that I have been ranting about elsewhere in this forum.

I really wish you would rewrite your post as I usually enjoy reading what you have to say.

I ALWAYS do "ctrl c" to save a post in case it gets eaten.

"That's not how God created us," he said, reading from a prepared address.

So who created the homosexuals then? Does he have elves like Santa? Were they drunk or just got the parts mixed up? Or is Paladino saying that God himself made a mistake? Uh-oh. Or maybe Satan created them. Though I always thought Satan would create monsters and demons, not nancy-boys.

sounds negative to me. brainwashed etc are all negative connotations and I, for one, find people who tell me what I should and should not think highly offensive.

Well said....you should keep thinking that way.

No offense intended

"That's not how God created us," he said, reading from a prepared address.

So who created the homosexuals then? Does he have elves like Santa? Were they drunk or just got the parts mixed up? Or is Paladino saying that God himself made a mistake? Uh-oh. Or maybe Satan created them. Though I always thought Satan would create monsters and demons, not nancy-boys.

I'd vote for Paladino.

I wrote a long reply, but as there was no "Post" button, I had to refesh. Can't be bothered to repeat all that I said, but note in the article the "Human Rights Committee" being a homosexual pressure group. The type of mis-labelling that I have been ranting about elsewhere in this forum.

What was the label you applied to gays? Was it "abberation? No......that wasn't it........ corrupted? yes, I think you said "corrupted" and "slightly wrong".

"Mislabelling" must be a matter of opinion, not fact, therefore.

I would have thought that "mislabelling would be a matter of fact.

I'd vote for Paladino.

I wrote a long reply, but as there was no "Post" button, I had to refesh. Can't be bothered to repeat all that I said, but note in the article the "Human Rights Committee" being a homosexual pressure group. The type of mis-labelling that I have been ranting about elsewhere in this forum.

What was the label you applied to gays? Was it "abberation? No......that wasn't it........ corrupted? yes, I think you said "corrupted" and "slightly wrong".

He also mentioned the dreaded 'L' word (Leviticus). I've had a read through it and it seems to spend a lot of time talking about bullocks but Leviticus 19:18 seems appropriate:

Leviticus 19:18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

This sentiment is echoed by Jesus himself in Matthew:

Matthew 22:35 Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,

36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38 This is the first and great commandment.

39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Sounds good to me.

Just imagine the uproar if he'd said Judaism rather than homosexuality.

I agree that he was stupid to claim that God did not create homosexuals to be as they are - It is obvious that he did - but, to some extent, I can see his point about "brainwashing" children when it comes things like gay pride parades.

The ones I saw in San Francisco were nothing but sordid freak shows and did nothing to promote equality or the gay cause with average people - in any way. Maybe things have changed since back then, but it does not sound like it from what he had to say.

He says that he really does not have a problem with gays - other than marriage - but it sure seems like he thinks that homosexuality is being promoted as just another modern lifestyle choice, rather than a biological imperative. I have to wonder if, in this case, he might not have a point.

"We must stop pandering to the pornographers and the perverts, who seek to target our children and destroy their lives. I didn't march in the gay parade parade this year — the gay pride parade this year. My opponent did. And that's not the example that we should be showing our children, certainly not in our schools. And don't misquote me as wanting to hurt homosexual people in any way; that would be a dastardly lie. My approach is live and let live. I just think my children, and your children, will be much better off, and much more successful getting married and raising a family. And I don't want them to be brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is an equally valid or successful option. It isn't."

Paladino's remarks might raise an eyebrow but would be little cause for surprise coming from a Republican candidate for governor of Arkansas or Tennessee, but are unusually socially conservative for a candidate for the executive post in New York.

On Monday, Paladino alternately sought to temper and defend his comments on "Today," saying his views would not prevent him from appointing gays to government positions and distancing himself from Rabbi Levin's hand-out: "Whatever their expertise might be we'll put 'em in our government," Paladino said.

"That remark has to do with schooling the children. My feelings on homosexuality are unequivocal. I have absolutely no problem with it whatsoever. My only reservation is marriage," he said.

Pressed on his comments by a combative Lauer, Paladino said he was objecting to children being exposed to gays and lesbians, especially in the gay pride parades where "they wear these little Speedos and they grind against each other and it's just a terrible thing."

He objected, in particular, to his opponent Andrew Cuomo's treatment of gay pride parades as normal.

"Mr. Cuomo took his daughters to a gay pride parade. Is that normal? Would you do it? Would you take your children to a gay pride parade?" Paladino asked. "I don't think its proper for them to go there and watch a couple of grown men grind against each other. I don't think that's proper. I think it's disgusting."

At the same time, Paladino sought to suggest that he was sympathetic to concerns he might discriminate or back discrimination against gay people should he win office. "I have a lot of homosexuals working in my organization," Paladino said.

"I have a nephew and many workers" who are gay and have faced discrimination, Paladino said. It's "horrible" and "terrible," he said.

"It's a very very ugly experience for those that are discriminated against," Paladino said. "It's terrible and it shouldn't be."

He said his remarks on gay issues came "from my heart." Paladino said he hoped his "live and let live" comment would be heeded.

http://www.whorunsgov.com/politerati/whos-news/carl-palladino-no-regrets-on-brainwashed-gays-comment-that-sparked-furor-whos-news-10-11-10/?sid=ST2010101103093

He says that he really does not have a problem with gays - other than marriage - but it sure seems like he thinks that homosexuality is being promoted as just another modern lifestyle choice, rather than a biological imperative.

Being gay IS NOT a lifestyle CHOICE. It is obviously biological. I am straight and always have been. No amount of favorable coverage of gay parades, no amount of funny gay guys on TV, no amount of whining about "human rights" is going to get me to stick cock in my mouth or take one up the bum. IF YOUR son gets "convinced" to join the gay lifestyle, I have news for you - your son has always been gay, he just didn't know it earlier. IF he is straight and somehow got talked into giving guys blowjobs, then you've got one f'd up kid. Blame yourself and your DNA - or your spouse's side of the family which is probably easier.

He says that he really does not have a problem with gays - other than marriage - but it sure seems like he thinks that homosexuality is being promoted as just another modern lifestyle choice, rather than a biological imperative.

Being gay IS NOT a lifestyle CHOICE. It is obviously biological. I am straight and always have been. No amount of favorable coverage of gay parades, no amount of funny gay guys on TV, no amount of whining about "human rights" is going to get me to stick cock in my mouth or take one up the bum. IF YOUR son gets "convinced" to join the gay lifestyle, I have news for you - your son has always been gay, he just didn't know it earlier. IF he is straight and somehow got talked into giving guys blowjobs, then you've got one f'd up kid. Blame yourself and your DNA - or your spouse's side of the family which is probably easier.

I wouldn't have put it quite like that....but I agree with you totally.

Me three, but we were all indoctrinated early.

Kinsey said gays were 10% of the population. Current estimates change that to 1 to 3%. Politicians are realizing that the gay vote is not what they thought it was. More traction to be gained with the anti gay vote.

It is just a matter of time before people realize 2% is not a minority it is an anomaly.

I would imagine you will see a rainbow coalition minus gays soon.

Again, this is raising the nature -v- nurture discussion.

Are some people born that way, or are they influenced at an impressionable age to follow a certain lifestyle?

If born that way, there is no argument - that is the way the person is.

If, rather, it is a 'nurture' influence, then would that (influenced) person have been better-off living a life in the mainstream and thus - are the nurturers to be condemned?

Teaching young people in Thailand and seeing 5 year old lady boys dressed with skirts in kindergarten classes I have wondered.

I wondered how in the heck could the parents and school administration allow a 5 year old boy to dress as a girl for school.

Same thing in 4th or 5th grade with some boys prancing around with bows in their hair.

Hard to think they were not born that way. But on the other hand are the parents nuts for allowing it?

Teaching young people in Thailand and seeing 5 year old lady boys dressed with skirts in kindergarten classes I have wondered.

I wondered how in the heck could the parents and school administration allow a 5 year old boy to dress as a girl for school.

Same thing in 4th or 5th grade with some boys prancing around with bows in their hair.

Hard to think they were not born that way. But on the other hand are the parents nuts for allowing it?

Nuts for allowing it? Surely they would be nuts to disallow their child's nature?

Teaching young people in Thailand and seeing 5 year old lady boys dressed with skirts in kindergarten classes I have wondered.

I wondered how in the heck could the parents and school administration allow a 5 year old boy to dress as a girl for school.

Same thing in 4th or 5th grade with some boys prancing around with bows in their hair.

Hard to think they were not born that way. But on the other hand are the parents nuts for allowing it?

Nuts for allowing it? Surely they would be nuts to disallow their child's nature?

You know I thought about that. But darn if I can think of another country where they allow 5 year old boys to wear girls clothes to class, not even Australia.

I have raised 4 children in three different countries and in none of those places did kindergarten children cross dress or male grade school children wear female hair ornaments.

Maybe I am not well informed. Perhaps you can point out a school system or country that encourages children to select their gender or change their sexual orientation before the age of 12.

I tried wearing a dress to my draft physical and the sergeant just laughed at me and said I would be very happy in the Marine corps and that I was the fourth guy to come in in a dress that hour.

Headline in The Huffington Post:

PRO-GAY WHEN IT PAYS

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

article :

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/13/paladino-rented-to-gay-cl_n_760750.html

LaoPo

Again, this is raising the nature -v- nurture discussion.

Are some people born that way, or are they influenced at an impressionable age to follow a certain lifestyle?

If born that way, there is no argument - that is the way the person is.

If, rather, it is a 'nurture' influence, then would that (influenced) person have been better-off living a life in the mainstream and thus - are the nurturers to be condemned?

How many stories have we heard of men coming out of the closet because they couldn't take "living a lie" any longer. THEY were "nutured" to be straight and that being gay was bad but in the end, that's where they decided to take it because it 's their nature - not because one day they just decided they liked men better. I guess you could raise a straight boy to be gay but I don't think it would work unless the kid was a bit poofy in the first place - like a metro-sexual for instance. I'm sure they could be brought up gay and not miss a beat. But in the end, they would "come out" straight and leave their hubby for a woman.

I am way out of my depth here so anyone feel free to jump in and point out any errors on my part.

I think HB and K are saying it is better to let kids be gay from an early age.

OK I get that.

I also understand that lady boys are not gay from a number of other threads. Is this true?

If lady boys aren't gay what are they and should 5 year old boys be allowed to be whatever that is?

I assume young children are not having sex. I also assume from what I read on TV that gay guys are just like regular guys and not swishy.

How would you know if a child was gay if he isn't swishy? I mean he is not having sex, hopefully. I think the great majority of gay posters on TV are not effeminate so how did their parents know they were gay at 5 years old? Or 10 years old?

If a gay male is just like a regular male except he likes to have sex with men how do you identify a gay male child?

And if you do identify a gay male child how do you bring him up gay? I mean what would you do differently?

Excuse me if this reads disconnected but like I said I really think it is a confusing issue.

He says that he really does not have a problem with gays - other than marriage - but it sure seems like he thinks that homosexuality is being promoted as just another modern lifestyle choice, rather than a biological imperative.

Being gay IS NOT a lifestyle CHOICE. It is obviously biological. I am straight and always have been. No amount of favorable coverage of gay parades, no amount of funny gay guys on TV, no amount of whining about "human rights" is going to get me to stick cock in my mouth or take one up the bum. IF YOUR son gets "convinced" to join the gay lifestyle, I have news for you - your son has always been gay, he just didn't know it earlier. IF he is straight and somehow got talked into giving guys blowjobs, then you've got one f'd up kid. Blame yourself and your DNA - or your spouse's side of the family which is probably easier.

My goodness, sex, sex, sex. Sex has nothing to do with being gay.

He says that he really does not have a problem with gays - other than marriage - but it sure seems like he thinks that homosexuality is being promoted as just another modern lifestyle choice, rather than a biological imperative.

Being gay IS NOT a lifestyle CHOICE. It is obviously biological. I am straight and always have been. No amount of favorable coverage of gay parades, no amount of funny gay guys on TV, no amount of whining about "human rights" is going to get me to stick cock in my mouth or take one up the bum. IF YOUR son gets "convinced" to join the gay lifestyle, I have news for you - your son has always been gay, he just didn't know it earlier. IF he is straight and somehow got talked into giving guys blowjobs, then you've got one f'd up kid. Blame yourself and your DNA - or your spouse's side of the family which is probably easier.

My goodness, sex, sex, sex. Sex has nothing to do with being gay.

You forgot the

I am way out of my depth here so anyone feel free to jump in and point out any errors on my part.

I think HB and K are saying it is better to let kids be gay from an early age.

That's not what I'm saying. Kids should be kids. They shouldn't be gay, straight, homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, anything sexual. They should be kids. That's the main gripe I have with that foolish book, "Heather Has Two Mommies". Keep that adult shit away from little kids. We should make it illegal to force adult issues on small children. There'll be plenty of time for that when they become teenagers. From birth to about 12, let them enjoy the innocence of childhood.

If your little boy likes playing dress up with the girls, wearing bows in his hair or wearing mommies clothes instead of playing football with the other little boys, then you'll be well prepared for when he brings home a boyfriend. Hey, that's life. Easy for me to say - I don't have kids.

Teaching young people in Thailand and seeing 5 year old lady boys dressed with skirts in kindergarten classes I have wondered.

I wondered how in the heck could the parents and school administration allow a 5 year old boy to dress as a girl for school.

Same thing in 4th or 5th grade with some boys prancing around with bows in their hair.

Hard to think they were not born that way. But on the other hand are the parents nuts for allowing it?

Nuts for allowing it? Surely they would be nuts to disallow their child's nature?

You know I thought about that. But darn if I can think of another country where they allow 5 year old boys to wear girls clothes to class, not even Australia.

I have raised 4 children in three different countries and in none of those places did kindergarten children cross dress or male grade school children wear female hair ornaments.

Maybe I am not well informed. Perhaps you can point out a school system or country that encourages children to select their gender or change their sexual orientation before the age of 12.

I tried wearing a dress to my draft physical and the sergeant just laughed at me and said I would be very happy in the Marine corps and that I was the fourth guy to come in in a dress that hour.

Samoa. The fa'afafine (katoey) will wear dresses from an early age.

So, you attempted to dodge the draft by doing a Corporal Klinger......funny.

I am way out of my depth here so anyone feel free to jump in and point out any errors on my part.

I think HB and K are saying it is better to let kids be gay from an early age.

OK I get that.

I also understand that lady boys are not gay from a number of other threads. Is this true?

If lady boys aren't gay what are they and should 5 year old boys be allowed to be whatever that is?

I assume young children are not having sex. I also assume from what I read on TV that gay guys are just like regular guys and not swishy.

How would you know if a child was gay if he isn't swishy? I mean he is not having sex, hopefully. I think the great majority of gay posters on TV are not effeminate so how did their parents know they were gay at 5 years old? Or 10 years old?

If a gay male is just like a regular male except he likes to have sex with men how do you identify a gay male child?

And if you do identify a gay male child how do you bring him up gay? I mean what would you do differently?

Excuse me if this reads disconnected but like I said I really think it is a confusing issue.

Was it you who a couple of times mentioned your homosexual period? I would have thought you would have had more empathy

I was going to keep out of this (I gave up justifying my existence a long time ago) but I'll give this a go.

I am way out of my depth here so anyone feel free to jump in and point out any errors on my part.

I think HB and K are saying it is better to let kids be gay from an early age.

OK I get that.

I also understand that lady boys are not gay from a number of other threads. Is this true?

If lady boys aren't gay what are they and should 5 year old boys be allowed to be whatever that is?

Ladyboys are men who want to be women to some degree. They are often so desperate about feeling that they've been born into the wrong body that they're willing to have surgery on their genitals. Gay boys are men who are attracted to other men. They don't want to be women. They want to be men.

I assume young children are not having sex. I also assume from what I read on TV that gay guys are just like regular guys and not swishy.

Some gay guys are swishy but many more aren't. Some straight guys are swishy too.

How would you know if a child was gay if he isn't swishy? I mean he is not having sex, hopefully. I think the great majority of gay posters on TV are not effeminate so how did their parents know they were gay at 5 years old? Or 10 years old?

They don't.

If a gay male is just like a regular male except he likes to have sex with men how do you identify a gay male child?

You wait until he trusts you enough to tell you

And if you do identify a gay male child how do you bring him up gay? I mean what would you do differently?

You don't. You bring him up with the same amount of love and affection that any decent parent would use to bring up any of their children. As I said, if you do a good job he'll tell you that he's gay when he judges that the time is right. When he does you carry on loving him the way you did before he told you.

Again, this is raising the nature -v- nurture discussion.

Are some people born that way, or are they influenced at an impressionable age to follow a certain lifestyle?

If born that way, there is no argument - that is the way the person is.

If, rather, it is a 'nurture' influence, then would that (influenced) person have been better-off living a life in the mainstream and thus - are the nurturers to be condemned?

Wouldn't it be better for the mainstream to get over itself and treat all people equally whether gay or straight?

Again, this is raising the nature -v- nurture discussion.

Are some people born that way, or are they influenced at an impressionable age to follow a certain lifestyle?

If born that way, there is no argument - that is the way the person is.

If, rather, it is a 'nurture' influence, then would that (influenced) person have been better-off living a life in the mainstream and thus - are the nurturers to be condemned?

How many stories have we heard of men coming out of the closet because they couldn't take "living a lie" any longer. THEY were "nutured" to be straight and that being gay was bad but in the end, that's where they decided to take it because it 's their nature - not because one day they just decided they liked men better. I guess you could raise a straight boy to be gay but I don't think it would work unless the kid was a bit poofy in the first place - like a metro-sexual for instance. I'm sure they could be brought up gay and not miss a beat. But in the end, they would "come out" straight and leave their hubby for a woman.

:jap: