My dislike for homosexuality has nothing to do with religion

What I consider rude was how you dishonestly quoted me to make a point

"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.

My quote above- you only quoted the bold- leaving out the part which explains that this was just a hypothetical. And clearly you either are unwilling or unable to understand my point.

This obsession with homosexuals= pedophiles ignores the vast majority of child victims- my clearly hypothetical example was to show that even if the bigots who hate homosexuals were absolutely correct- which I absolutely disagree with- and all homosexuals disappeared tomorrow, the vast majority of child sex abuse would continue.

This obsession with homosexuals= pedophiles puts all children at more risk- especially girls- the majority of child molestation victims.

I have seen this argument play out in almost every thread in PF talking about child molestation.

90% or more of all such threads are about men who abuse boys- which is just about exactly opposite of the actual crimes against children.

I have seen this over and over- and my conclusion has become- that posters like yourself either:
a) don't care about the female victims of child sex abuse or
b) want to stigmatize homosexuals by equating them to pedophiles.

If you are really involved in an organization that is concerned about the trafficking of children- why on earth are you spending your time 'to try and explain the statistics people kept ignoring and shouting down'?

here I will be nice.

What do you think those number mean. I will make some approximates

Adult population- men attracted to adult women- heterosexual call it 95% of male population.
men- attracted to adult men- homosexual- call is 5% of the population

Victims of child sex abuse
Girls- between 60-90%- depending upon the age group- feel free to google Dr. Hall and Pedophilia for a comprehensive and well written document that includes the stats.
boys- between 10-40%- depending on the age group.

Now tell me how you think that those two groups of statistics correlate to each other- what is the significance that is important to you that you makes you part of this conversation?

- - - Updated - - -

I believe Fun is a sterling example of the mind set of those who are opposed to homosexuality.

 

Richard Dawkins, an Oxford biologist, says homosexuality could survive for a number of reasons. One idea is that homosexual males in early human societies may have had access to the females in a harem of a dominant male, who believed, wrongly, that a homosexual male could be trusted not to have sex with his wives. As Dr Dawkins points out, 'homosexual males do sometimes copulate with women' and such a situation would have ensured the survival of the gene 'for' homosexuality.

His other explanation is more subtle but essentially proposes that any gene that gives rise to a homosexual tendency today may not have done so many thousands of years back in our evolutionary past, when our environmental upbringing was so very different. 'Another way to put it is that the gene wasn't always a gene 'for homosexuality'. When it was subject to natural selection, it might have been a gene 'for' something quite different.'

 

go ahead. Dawkins gets things wrong...genetics doesn't work like that. Or no child would be born ever with any genetic difference that renders them sterile.

 

Read what I did say.

I said he presented a theory.

That was all.

Nothing more and nothing less.

I then try to outline his own theory.

For which I get abuse and personal attacks from you - AGAIN.

- - - Updated - - -

Appreciate you finding that, and expanding on what I remembered.

 

I didn't refer to equality. If you think I did, please produce a quote.

I'm not "implying," I'm stating that we have no right to impose our morality on others. Obvious exceptions are the education of children and those behaviors so egregious as to be deemed crimes. But these exceptions don't vindicate your attitude. Parents may educate their children as they wish, but schools must teach one curriculum to a diverse public. In a society like ours that's in moral flux, with many contending points of view, some of them tied to racial, ethnic, or regional groups, tolerance and mutual respect are unavoidably important. That's what prevents society from collapsing into warring camps, as we see in so many other countries. We must get along to preserve our civil society. So schools teach tolerance and mutual respect. You say that schools should reproduce your hatreds and fears among children. I can only say that you act without conscience when you do so. "Our" values include tolerance and mutual respect, even if yours don't.

Your point - one commonly made by antagonists of homosexuals - that it is hypocrisy to accept homosexuality if one doesn't also accept incest and bestiality assumes that people are unable to distinguish among different things, that we must preserve the moral order of 1950 or allow everything without condition. This is obviously wrong. It assumes that the customs of the recent past - which may differ from those of the more distant past - are somehow self-evident or natural; that no discriminating thought went into them. If you knew more social history, you'd know that in the 1950s old people lamented the laxness of youth and felt that society was on the edge of disintegration because of it. And when those old people were young, their parents and grandparents said the same about them. Morality is always changing. It changes with the rest of society. Economic, technological, and political changes raise new ways of life, and with them new morality. Do you know that when zippers were introduced they were widely denounced by clergy as conducive to lewdness because they were too easy to open? Do you know that vaccination against illness was once widely denounced by clergy as against God's order? You claim to defend a universal and immemorial morality, but history and anthropology would show you otherwise. My point is that a society's morality is never natural, even though people believe it to be. Morality is a social construct which alters to fit circumstances. So no, accepting homosexuality does not entail accepting incest and bestiality. We can and do discriminate. We can and do make choices. In fact, you make a conscious choice to execrate homosexuality. If you're capable of that choice, you're just as capable of the reverse. And please don't insist that your revulsion is instinctive. It may be instinctive for you to be heterosexual, but it is not instinctive for you to scorn other people. That's a choice. Is it "instinctive" for you to scorn people of other races? In the 19th century, most people said that it was.

I explained that heterosexual men don't have as much sex as they might like because women won't let them, but that homosexual men don't have that restraint. There's also the question of anal sex, but I'm sure you know that many homosexuals have oral sex only or mutual masturbation, and that many heterosexuals have anal sex. (If I'm to gauge by internet porn, I'd say anal sex was common among heterosexuals.) So the difference in STDs is caused by more frequent casual sex among homosexual men. As I pointed out, if you pick up fewer women in bars for one-night stands without protection, your risk of STDs will plummet. Homosexual men needn't subsidize the immoral behavior of heterosexuals. If you think you have a right to control the sexual behavior of other men, let me ask why your sexual behavior shouldn't be controlled, and just how you propose to exercise such control. Perhaps the NSA can put cameras in everyone's bedroom.

When it comes to children, you just repeat that you're right and others are wrong. Polygamy was practiced by the Mormon church in Utah. Islam allows a man to have 3 wives, and men that can afford it do throughout the Islamic world. I suppose a wrathful God will punish them, but then they think he'll punish you. To repeat, morality is fluid, and you're just bitter that not everyone agrees with you.

I was very clear that in this country you cannot marry without a license, so homosexuals may not marry in any but the 13 states which allow it. I explained that even if some clergyman might be found to perform a wedding ceremony between two homosexuals, the marriage would not be recognized by society. I know of no major denomination which performs homosexual weddings as a matter of policy. If some renegade clergyman holds a ceremony, it will probably be rejected by most other clergy even in his own church. That hardly constitutes an ability to marry anywhere. Feeling as you do about homosexuals, I doubt that you would acknowledge such a marriage. People don't get married just for "benefits." (I hope you're not speaking for yourself.) Regardless, there's no reason you should be able to exploit homosexuals by forcing them to pay higher taxes than you. Don't inflate your self-service into a moral principle. Heterosexual couples usually have and raise children when they're young. Are you proposing that heterosexual couples over 40 should lose their tax preference because they're no longer reproducing? What about the homosexuals who have and raise children, or who adopt? You're trying to pose as a victim, and that just won't fly.

In history, acceptance of homosexuality is correlated with affluence. Rich societies don't need as many hands for labor. That's why rich modern societies are becoming tolerant. Technology also has an impact. Manual labor was the backbone of most economies. For the first time, machines do much of the hard labor. That too means we need fewer babies, which is why the average size of a family is much smaller than it used to be. In some European countries, the birth rate is smaller than the replacement rate. The economic imperative for couples to marry and churn out 8 or 10 kids to do farm work is no longer there. So we can't be sure what the future will bring.

I disapprove of incest, bestiality, etc., for practical reasons, because they do harm. I don't wake up every morning fuming at the thought that somewhere a man is loving a sheep. Incest causes recessive genes to be expressed, so it's dangerous. The others are too uncommon to pose threats to society. Homosexuality does no more harm than heterosexuality, and it is obviously the preference of a significant minority of humanity.

As you know, there are different sorts of conservative. I'm the sort that believes in the Constitution, free market capitalism, a small central government with less regulation, minimum foreign entanglements, and the principles of liberty enshrined in the Declaration of Independence. There's another sort - "social values" conservatives - that believes the government should be a tool to enforce their understanding of a moral society. In this, they agree with liberals, though most don't know it. It seems to me that these social conservatives violate the principles of liberty which are the core of America. Variety of opinion is the natural state of man. Those who would impose their own views by force do violence against their fellows and renounce the American tradition. There is no real difference between the society sought by social conservatives and Stalin's Soviet Union.

 

Did your study separate between child molester and pedophile?
And how are they categorized differently?
Still haven't addressed:
What % of gays are molesters?
What % of heteros are molesters?
Of children that is.

 

You seem to be all over the place here.
You tell me its not pedophiles you're talking about but child molesters and then give this big study talking about pedophiles.

 

That is not what the OP is about. You have taken this thread way way OT.

 

That is a bad prayer. They are suppose to end, in Jesus' name, then Amen.

 

I have asked him for that stat point blank about 3x already.
Nil response, he doesn't have it.
Just has his hate.

 

If you hate gays so much, why is the pic next to your name of a gay man or appears to be effiminate?

 

What proof do you have it destroyed their civilization?
Does greece not exist today?

 

Because he's trying to lump to categories into 1.
If gay = possible pedophile.
Forgetting most pedophiles aren't interested in adults and even teenagers.
Or if you stick with his notion = If hetero = possible pedophile and perhaps more of them.
But then he turns around and says no not about pedos, just about molestation. He is all over the map and very confused what he believes.

 

I guess they answered that way because no answer would be good enough for you.
How do you label Jerry Sandusky?

 

http://buchanan.org/blog/post-v-puti...re-you-on-5760 President Barack H. Obama has no business to be lecturing ANY COUNTRY on what their laws should be against filthy gay/lesbian propaganda-the transsexuals are worse than the homos-in fact the transsexuals are the mutilated gays and lesbians. Make it a crime to do sex changes. Rest is copy/paste but needs to be said again. I don’t watch Olympics anyhow, but Russians have these laws to protect children from filthy propaganda.

Also with gay bashings which are happening in Russia, media version can’t be trusted because it gives 1/2 trtuhs. Though what the Russian men did was assault and battery, the circumstances possibly call for less punishment. The media only gave 1/2 truths by saying the Russian men (calling them neo-Nazis with no proof) bashed gays and put the images on Internet, but here’s what most media omitted though some have now raised it. The Russian men who were bashing gays had pretended to be 15 year old boys on Internet by going on gay websites. Gays looking for teenage boys on Internet replied and set up places to meet them, but instead the gays got bashed by men pretending to be 15 year old boys. Yes, what the Russian men did is vigilanteism for which they should do jail time because right thing to do is to report this to cops and let the cops arrest the gays for soliciting minors and then hopefully the legal system will convict the gays and send them to prison.

But these gays who were bashed did commit a crime by looking for teenage boys on Internet and instead got bashed by men who pretended to be the teenage boys, so I have no sympathy for the gays bashed here. If a man were looking for teenage girls on Internet but instead got bashed by a mob, many would say the man was a disgusting pig looking for underage girls. Gays often harass teenage boys. Those gay bashing victims deserve no sympathy because there is something wrong with an adult looking for teenagers. The gay bashers put the images on Internet after they bashed the gays with slogan ‘occupy pedophilia’ because they aren’t going to tolerate gays harassing teenage boys. Yes, it’s the job of police to do this, but again, no sympathy for these gay bashing victims.

 

One doesn't really know until one gets there. In the meantime, time to put on the 'big boy pants' and shed the victim-hood. That is how 'they' are able to control you.

 

An adult male who is ONLY interested in little boys MAY or may not be homosexual.
The fact is that adult males who molest children often are attracted NOT by one sex or the other, but by the "juvenile" and "untouched" and yet "undifferentiated" nature of a child, and, given the chance, would molest either a little boy or a little girl. . .as long as the child does not present the characteristics of puberty or those characteristics are still only appearing.

It is not the "SEX" they are interested in, it is the LACK of outright sexual differentiation that many children of both sex have. For example, it is just as likely (probably even more) that a pedophile will molest a little girl who is a tomboy than a very feminine little girl who already is using her femininity, although innocently.

It is NOT so much about the presence of a penis or clitoris, but the lack of pubic hair.

It is not so much about the budding breasts of a girl, but the flat breasts of a child of either sex.

It is the INNOCENCE of a child that is attractive to a real pedophile, its inability to protect him/herself, its purity, it's vulnerability.

If you are REALLY interested in knowing the FACTS, rather than interested in "urban legends" and prejudice crap, I suggest you follow this link:

http://www.minddisorders.com/Ob-Ps/Pedophilia.html#b

 

People are scared of things that are different.

 

It's right to be 'bigoted' against homosexuality, lesbianism and transexuality (worse than gays) just as it's right to be 'bigoted' against drug junkyism and cocaina smoking. Homosexual and lesbian behaviors are comparable to throwing turds @ eachother even if Elton PortaJohn, Lady Gaga, Adam Lambert and other musicians say it's good.

If you're pro-choice on abortion, then don't complain about my view justifying aborting unborn gays, lesbians and transexuals. I believe world is better without sex change maimings and without gay/lesbian behaviors. I to repeat support abortion if it can be predicted an unborn baby will be deformed such as no arms, no legs, but it must be mom's call.

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.

 

I don't know why this is so difficult to understand.

 

1) Absolute ban on internet traffick that permitted child porn sites. Quite simply, I would delegate a team of top experts to implement a method in which these sites would be simply blocked from the country. Anyone trying to get around this in any way, at any level, would be arrested, tried, and if convicted - sent to a penal colony. All assets that they owned would be liquidated and donated to victims of child abuse.

2) I would invest heavily in a dedicated army whose sole purpose was to track down paedophile rings and child traffickers, operating in my borders. There would be a publicly announced amnesty, in which paedo whistleblowers would be offered some form of immunity if their information led to the arrest and conviction of the others who were part of their specific circle. This amnesty period would last for three months only, and would be designed to bring psychological terrorism down on the paedophile rings.

3) Following that three month amnesty, I would fully expect now to have arrested a good % of low, middle and high level paedo's. There level of involvement, degree, and actions would all be looked at. If convicted they would face one of three outcomes - A min of 15yrs inside with no parole. Sent to a penal colony for life, their assets liquidated as before. The third would be reserved for the worse of them. I would cease using animals to test for drugs that are meant to be homo sapien. And I would use these delinquents instead.

 

I am no longer going to address your red herring after this post. And you must be being obtuse because obviously I don't think they're going to get molested in a room full of men. The point is that they're more likely to encounter a child molester in a room full of 100 homosexual men than 100 heterosexual men.

So according to your logic, one cannot advocate for convicted child molesters to not have full and unfettered access to children without also advocating that all men should be denied access to children as well? That is in no way, shape or form logical.

Don't blame me that the numbers indicate a very high rate of child sexual abuse in the homosexual community. I'm just the one pointing it out.

Well according to you... you're a threat to her and you can't argue that convicted child molesters be denied access to her without arguing that you should be denied access to her as well... at least according to your logic.

First of all let me state that I'm a capitalist... I don't believe in subsidies whatsoever. I don't think anyone should receive marriage benefits. You should not be able to steal money out of one groups pocket to give it to another group that you are attempting to subsidize.

HOWEVER, with that being said, if you ARE going to steal money out of my pocket to subsidize another group, you better have a damn good reason for it. There Is only one justifiable reason why you would take money out of the taxpayers pocket to provide subsidies for married couples. We are attempting to promote procreation, or in economic terms the creation of revenue streams. There is only one group on earth that is capable of procreation in and of themselves... that is a male and a female of the human race. If we want to promote the creation of more revenue streams, we were presented with a conundrum. The only way to know if a couple is willing and able to procreate is to test them every single year. This is too costly, inefficient and ultimately ineffective. So we decided to provide the entire group, that possibly had the potential for procreation, marriage benefits.

Homosexuals are inherently incapable of providing that benefit to society in and of themselves. Therefore they do not qualify for those benefits. It's really quite simple.

We are not paying for the RAISING of the revenue streams... we are paying for the CREATION of those revenue streams.

 

Yes which is why you should understand that the statistics are valid. If you don't then I question your earlier claim of a minor in statistics.

I have no problem reducing the total amount of child molesters by 7% and recalculating the numbers. The homosexuals will still be far overrepresented. You can't twist the numbers enough to ever make that not true.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not... He made a claim based upon the conclusions of the APA. I asked him if he agreed with the rest of their claims and conclusions on the subject as well. Pay attention.

 

I never said they can't love each other. I don't care what they do. However, our society should not subsidize their derelict behavior.

And for you to say it's not going to happen. It's already happening.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/08/15/conference-aims-to-normalize-pedophilia/

 

Because that is the ONLY way they can manipulate the numbers to an extent which it makes it appear as if homosexuals are not more likely to be child molesters. The ONLY way they can do it is by claiming that man that has sex with a young boy isn't ACTUALLY a homosexual... he's some kind of weird third sexuality. Of course... he was a homosexual 30 minutes earlier before they realized he was having sex with that young boy.