My dislike for homosexuality has nothing to do with religion

LOL....

In your mind allowing homosexuals to be in love will lead to the end of civilization- and of course beastiality.

Let me put your mind at ease- none of that is going to happen. The United States is not a small city state in the bronze age. We don't even speak Greek.

- - - Updated - - -

Do you have a reading comprehension problem- or did you purposely misconstrue what I said?

I am pretty much going with purposely misconstrue.

Anyway- your response is both stupid- and intellectually dishonest.

 

You help create that by continuing to support laws that are discriminatory towards gay people.

Get rid of all the legal prejudice and make the playing field truly level and you will have nothing to fear because you will have removed the basis for the entire gay right's movement. I don't personally think your ominous warning will ever be reality, but on the flip side of that, if you think gay people are going to go away or that they should go away because they disgust you, you're going to be very disappointed.

Think about it this way. The longer gay people have to fight to be treated equally by the law, the more anger and derision you generate, which leads to the motivation to fight harder and longer, sometimes surpassing the original goals of the fighting in the first place. We're talking about gay rights here but this is true of any minority that you try to suppress. The longer you allow the inequality to remain in place, the closer you come to actually making your prediction a reality, and you will share the blame for it. When you want to maintain an inherently unfair and prejudicial institution, you are responsible for what that causes when you know damn well it's just plain wrong to use the law for subjective discrimination.

 

Your reaction is, of course, a subjective one, and everyone is conditioned to form personal likes and dislikes, some of them intense, but it's your home and you have every right to expect guests to be sensitive to yours, whether it's openly expressing affection, playing loud music that does not comport with your tastes, or chanting Hare Krishna mantras in a cloying falsetto.

 

What YOU don't understand, is that YOUR LIES (or distortions) are an integral and substantial part of this society's "erosion". You make up sophisticated ideas to promote your terrible agenda; and even foolishly expect the same to go unchallenged. Despite the data you've 'interpreted' here, it's clear that I and others have good solid reasons to be tentative about your overall conclusions or assertions.

That is an extreme fallacy you are entertaining within your own thinking. I'll have no part of that whatsoever.

And that you are so certain of that, is what causes me to put people with such views as yours on-watch. All I see is paranoia and abject pessimism about your views. You aren't being realistic; and that is very clear.

You are LEAPING to false conclusions. Even so, I've seen/heard it before. This is not "Greece" per se and you're assuming SO MUCH that you aren't even making good sense.

On top of it all, you are promoting homophobia, which I would encourage EVERYONE to challenge and not tolerate on little bit.

- - - Updated - - -

You are correct.

 

Yeah... I knew that's how you would react. Seems to happen a lot in these threads.

Your words, dude....

Not sure how that can be misconstrued.

In your attempts to try and say that "most child molestations come from heteros" (which we all know), you blindly condemned the gays.

It was just a blatant fail... why not own up to it ?

This is where you either don't reply.... or shout "stupid" again.... without actually explaining a thing.



Sorry if you were pwned.
No need to get all huffy.

 

Watching fat people make out is as well, to a lot of people. So what? You're allowed to be grossed out. But you don't have to be an аsshole about it.

It is obviously not repulsive to everyone. Lots of straight people have no problem at all with it.

But even if that were not true...why should everyone else conform to you? What makes you special?

 

I don't buy the numbers most people put out in a forum such as this. It takes a far-more academic setting to reach proper conclusions using numbers, than what exists here.

More often than not, I just read people's conclusions and match them to the reality I've paid attention to over the years. I'm sure that if the data is pointing to a certain outcome (so significantly), then it WILL be covered in the media and by those who are experts in a particular field.

You see, regardless of 'politics'... if a scientist or sociologist can make the kind of claims that some make in these threads and actually PROVE the same, then there is MONEY in it. They aren't sitting on as much as some like to claim.

I'm sure of one thing right now: Being gay does not mean one is more likely to be a pedophile. Believe me, if proof of that comes around... it WILL be in the news in a BIG way.

 

No, according to YOUR data, it is "men" and not "homosexuals" who pose the greatest risk to children. And it was YOU who made children's safety an issue, not me, ergo, the onus falls on YOU to remain consistent in proposing a solution to the problem. A lesbian couple, according to your skewed and amateurish data analysis, is within the normal range of their popular representation, and is 15 times safer than a male, yet you would single out a lesbian over a straight male because you lack consistency. It's painfully obvious you are just trying to push an agenda of prejudice using tortured data.

Oh, I'm watching.

 

Curious as to how a man, who molests boys, is not homosexual ?


He's certainly not after the female naughty bits.... you know, those ones that would mean he's hetero.

 

You clearly don't know much about the topic. Try Google.

 

Please, educate yourself and change your mind. No one here can operate your 'brain' for you.

 

See, I was hoping for something other than the usual hateful, gay response.

Like one without the typical anger and "if you don't know I'm, not gonna tell you" childishness.

All this reaction tells me is that he's not homosexual because homosexuals don't want people to label him that way.
If the kids are of legal age, then he is a homosexual whose rights should be protected....
but if the kid is 1 year younger, he is suddenly "not a homo!".

Maybe someone else will have an actual explanation..... sans the overdone juvenility.

Anyone? Why is a male, who likes boys, not "homosexual" ?

 

I'm not tolerating YOUR nonsense nor anyone else's. It's not hatred, but you think that it is; sorry.

Welcome to reality.

 

So, you don't have access to Google on your computer? Is that what you are saying?

 

Like I said from the beginning- do you have a reading comprehension problem- or are you intentionally being dishonest?

Here is what I said- the words in red are the words you carefully and intentionally left out

"First of all your numbers are bogus- but lets pretend for a moment that this was true- remember this is all pretend- if every homosexual in the America disappeared overnight- between 60 and 90% of all child molestations would still continue."

This is why this stupid and asinine attack on homosexuals is so destructive.

As the father of a daughter it pisses me off that you- and yes I am speaking of YOU- do not care what happens to the majority of child molestation victims- you care only about targeting homosexuals.

Your lack of reading comprehension is not my problem- you willfully and intentionally misconstruing what I said- be leaving out the part that is inconvenient to your agenda though irritates me.

So tell me- why don't you care about child molestation victims?

Why do you only care about attacking homosexuals?

 

I have answered this several times. But I will be glad to do so again.

I am gloriously and hopelessy heterosexual- I have been married for over 20 years and I love everything about women- their smell, their curves, their softness.

I refuse to consider a man who would put his penis into the vagina of a 2 year old girl a heterosexual- he is a sick monster, a pedophile and has nothing to do with the fraternity of heterosexual men that I belong to.

Now I ask you- do you believe that the sick monster who would stick his penis into the vagina of a 2 year old has the same sexual inclinations as you do?

 

They should make it a crime to do sex changes-transexuals are mutilated gays. With gay/lesbian conduct, yes, that has been around and is not disappearing soon. But if they find a cure for gay/lesbian conduct, then world is a better place. Gay/lesbian conduct is bad for health just as smoking is and gay/lesbian conduct needs to be marginalized just as smoking is. Most gay bashings are men reacting to crimes which the gays first did.

If you had asked in 2003 on homosexuality, I wouldn't have cared by saying if 2 knowing and willing adults want to do gay/lesbian behaviors that it's their business. But my view on gayism & lesbianism changed in 2004, after thinking about it. I've thought about this topic and truth again is that there's something wrong with gay/lesbian behaviors just as there's something wrong with drug junkyism and that we must find cure for this. If gay/lesbian behaviors are eventually cured, then I don't see why you should lose sleep or care 1 way or the other. I've even talked to individual gays who have said that if a cure for gayism, lesbianism and transexuality were found, that they would not lose sleep over it. With gayism and lesbianism, another reason I changed my first neutral view is because it's gay/lesbian groups who push their views on others including in public schools with little to no opposing views. Public schools must be neutral on political topics including homosexuality, abortion, etc. I'm pro-abortion but if I were a teacher, I wouldn't discuss my abortion views with schoolkids because school isn't the place for this. If it were raised, then there should be debate where pro-lifer students also give views w/o punishment. But with gayism, lesbianism, there have been problems of pro-gay teachers pushing their views on homosexuality on others and then suspending high school kids who tell the truth that gay/lesbian behaviors are comparable to cocaina smoking.

Michael E. Glatze said that childhood sex abuse is major cause of homosexuality, along with other bad things and he used to be editor of Young Gay America before converting to Christianity & realizing his earlier views were wrong. See here http://www.wnd.com/2007/07/42385/
With gayism/lesbianism, if 2 knowing and willful adults want to do this, then yes, law allows them to. But it must be understood that gay/lesbian behaviors are result of bad things in life, whether it's childhood sex abuse or if it's proven to be biological then bad biology such as gene defect if that's proven. It's useless to normalize gay/lesbian behaviors just as it's useless to normalize drug junkyism-drugs are gay. If a cure for gayism/lesbianism's found, there will be many gays/lesbians taking the cure. It would be interesting to know how many gays/lesbians including gay rights activists would rather be straight. My reasons for being against gay/lesbian behaviors are unrelated to a religion because I'm a nonreligoius person. I'm against gay/lesbian behaviors because I thought about this and concluded gay/lesbian behaviors are bad in and of itself, after originally being neutral on this. Transexuals are worse and abolish sex change maimings. Gay/lesbian groups are not to be trusted & not qualified to comment on gayism just as drug junkies are not qualified to comment on drug junkyism.

 

First of all, I know you were disputing the numbers. As shown in the numbers you posted which were a very vague "60-90%".
And by trying to say that "even if you remove gays, most molestation is by heteros" (which we all know)... what you ended up saying is "3% of the population is responsible for 10-40% of molestation".
How could I not point out your incriminating evidence toward gays ?
Was pretty rude, I must say.

As for the rest of your bold, it doesn't apply to anything I've said.
All I've done is try to help explain TheImmortal's numbers... because people are stuck on a claim he isn't even making.
He isn't saying "most molesters are homosexual"....he is saying a greater number of homosexual molestation occurs, based on the percentages of population. Google "per capita".

Of course, because the homosexuals suddenly disown these men when they get caught molesting, we aren't allowed to call them "homosexuals"... even though they like boys. ?!?
Liberal logic 101, I guess.

Anyway...
You have no idea what I do with my life so I'll let the "you don't care about child molestation victims" accusation go.
Much of my inheritance, and very much of my time are dedicated to an organization working under The Polaris Project. Something my parents were wholly involved in before they were killed.
No doubt you've never heard of Polaris or similar organizations because it's not something you would take the time to care about.
It's much easier to sit online and act outraged, than it is to actually do something about it.
We work toward rescuing abducted children who are sold into human sex trafficking circles here in the US and Canada. Polaris itself, has a much broader targeted area.

Basically... I tend to "care".

These scum are not labelled "homo" or "hetero"... they are just scum. Who, with any luck, end up in prison.

My issues are not to call homos pedos. My intent in this thread was to try and explain the statistics people kept ignoring and shouting down.

Expectedly, people like you are calling this an "attack" on homosexuals. When it's just a statement of numbers.
An "attack" is anything said about homosexuals, that homosexuals don't agree with. Anything that would dare show them in a poor light... is an attack. Why they didn't call you a "homophobe" for attacking them with that "gays = 10-40% of all molestations" stat, I have no idea. heh.

People like to pretend to be outraged. Stick up for these "attacks" and yell at people... instead of just debating the content.
Some of these people, while defending gays, even have a need to make one thing VERY clear.....
Like this guy:

Whew!
Wouldn't want anyone thinking you're gay !

Have a nice weekend, Jeff.

 

Doesn't change fact that he is a homosexual or homolester. There's the homosexual Gerald Arthur (Jerry) Sandusky unless of course you don't define some1 who has sex with young boys as a gay. There are those who call Jerry Sandusky straight because he was married, but Gerald A (Jerry) Sandusky's gay because he had sex with young boys and it remains to be seen how many boys will turn ou gay or transexual because of this homolestation they suffered.

With abortion, I actually don't care about this topic that much but have said I'm pro-abortion if it can be predicted an unborn baby will be gay, lesbian or transexual and I also support aborting unborn babies who have handicaps. But it's usually people who support a woman's right to abort that complain about possibility of aborting unborn gays, lesbians and transexuals and my post's directed to them-if you're pro-choice on abortion, then don't complain.

Mrs. Linda P. Harvey of Mission America's an eg. of a straight woman who is against gayism, lesbianism and transexuality. But to simply say it gay/lesbian behaviors are comparable to drug junkyism such as crack smoking. Often times, gay/lesbian behaviors in adulthood happen because of childhood sex abuse which isn't debatable. Gay/lesbian behaviors is bad for health and comparable to people smoking drugs. Yes, this will offend gay/lesbian groups but that
is the truth. When gay groups push views of homosexual statutory rapist Harvey B. Milk on others in public schools, then that's wrong. I don't care if gay/lesbian groups want to have heros such as homoexual statutory rapist Harvey Bernard Milk, but when they require schools do this, then it's bad. Harvey B. Milk is a bad person.

Yes, gay/lesbian behaviors by willing adults is legal and if 2 adults want to do this, then it's their legal right to do so. But to repeat, that doesn't change the fact that gay/lesbian behaviors=drug junkyism. I don't think Jonsa that many posters who say there's no link between childhood sex abuse and adult gay/lesbian behaviors believe their propaganda because it's truth that when a boy is homosexually raped in youth especially repeatedly such as by a gay priest or homosexual Gerald Arthur (Jerry) Sandusky, the likelihood is more that he'll be gay in adulthood vs. if he wasn't. Those who deny this are dishonest, delusional or both. You've heard this before, but asking the same things as you did gets the same answers.

 

Certainly no one here does.

 

Google.com. You are welcome. The thing is, you are either 1} pretending to be stupid or 2} actually stupid. In either case there is no point in taking the time to help you out. So google.com. It's a modern marvel. Really.

 

Blackrook has greatly illustrated the real argument against they gay lifestyle... its Yucky!!

 

Ironically, there is a scientific theory that by 'coming out', homosexuals could effectively be elimating themselves in the far future.
How so?

The thrust of it is that in the past, homosexuals would still have retained the veneer of a hetro lifestyle. They would have married women and had children by them.

Thus by doing so, a possible genetic trait for homosexuals was passed down.

However. Now homosexuals are less likely to marry a women and have children by them. Therefore, in the future, there would be less homosexuals.

Dawkins explained it better than I have.