# There goes that 'there are no victims in homosexuality' argument...



## dmp (Oct 22, 2004)

:-/





> KING COUNTY - First he asked for a plea bargain.
> 
> Then he fired his attorney.
> 
> ...



If the guy wasn't 'gay' - he wouldn't have abducted that boy.    Cause and Effect.  Because the guy enjoyed ramming into the butt of another male, he found a boy to attack.  If the guy did NOT enjoy such behavior, that boy would have been safe.


----------



## MJDuncan1982 (Oct 22, 2004)

-=d=- said:
			
		

> :-/
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This points more towards the nature of sexual predators in general, whether homosexual or heterosexual.

How many young girls have been in the similar situation?


----------



## dmp (Oct 22, 2004)

MJDuncan1982 said:
			
		

> This points more towards the nature of sexual predators in general, whether homosexual or heterosexual.
> 
> How many young girls have been in the similar situation?




This isn't about 'predators' - it's about one 6 year old boy and the homosexual who, by very definition, cannot control his deviant urges.  I KNEW...I KNEW one of the first replies would be 'he didn't attack that boy cuz he's GAY! if he were straight, he'd have attacked a girl.  It's about 'anyone' attacking a child, so it doesn't matter"

Tell that to the kid's parents.  Explain to the kid how 'well, if it wasn't YOU, it'd have been somebody else'.


----------



## MJDuncan1982 (Oct 22, 2004)

-=d=- said:
			
		

> This isn't about 'predators' - it's about one 6 year old boy and the homosexual who, by very definition, cannot control his deviant urges.  I KNEW...I KNEW one of the first replies would be 'he didn't attack that boy cuz he's GAY! if he were straight, he'd have attacked a girl.  It's about 'anyone' attacking a child, so it doesn't matter"
> 
> Tell that to the kid's parents.  Explain to the kid how 'well, if it wasn't YOU, it'd have been somebody else'.



Homosexuals by definition can't control deviant urges?  Explain this one to me please.

And yes, if he were straight I believe he would have attacked a girl.  I do not believe the fact he is attracted to the same sex is a factor as to why he rapes.  I believe he rapes because he is a rapist.  Then, as a rapist, he rapes young boys because he is homosexual.  But the fact he is a rapist is paramount to the fact he is homosexual.


----------



## dmp (Oct 22, 2004)

MJDuncan1982 said:
			
		

> Homosexuals by definition can't control deviant urges?  Explain this one to me please.



Okay - easy. A homosexual 'is' as a homosexual 'does'.  There is no magic power controlling them; they have issues, or don't otherwise fit into the 'norm', and express that by screwing others of the same sex.  




			
				MJDuncan1982 said:
			
		

> And yes, if he were straight I believe he would have attacked a girl.  I do not believe the fact he is attracted to the same sex is a factor as to why he rapes.  I believe he rapes because he is a rapist.  Then, as a rapist, he rapes young boys because he is homosexual.  But the fact he is a rapist is paramount to the fact he is homosexual.



Attacking that boy is understandable; if the guy cannot control his sexual urges in one area of his life, there is no reason to suspect him able to control 'other, similiar' urges.   If that man was NOT gay, he'd not have hurt that boy.  I'd bet if the man were not gay, he'd likely not be so screwed up inside as to attack ANYONE, frankly.


----------



## Said1 (Oct 22, 2004)

-=d=- said:
			
		

> If that man was NOT gay, he'd not have hurt that boy.




He's a pedophile who may happen to prefer boys. If he wasn't gay, it doesn't mean he wouldn't rape children, only that he might prefer girls.


----------



## dmp (Oct 22, 2004)

Said1 said:
			
		

> He's a pedophile who may happen to prefer boys. If he wasn't gay, it doesn't mean he wouldn't rape children, only that he might prefer girls.




Like my assessment - your comment is purely speculation.  THIS child was the victim of a guy who was used to acting on his abnormal sexual impulses.


----------



## wolvie20m (Oct 22, 2004)

LMAO at him being gay the cause of this...to think him being gay is related to him being a pedophile. No that is just slanderous to the gay comunity. Him being sick is him...not because he's gay. as the many people before me have said, had he not been gay it just would of been a little girl.


----------



## Said1 (Oct 22, 2004)

-=d=- said:
			
		

> Like my assessment - your comment is purely speculation.  THIS child was the victim of a guy who was used to acting on his abnormal sexual impulses.




This is one topic I need to stay away from, lots to say about it, but get to upset.


----------



## dmp (Oct 22, 2004)

wolvie20m said:
			
		

> LMAO at him being gay the cause of this...to think him being gay is related to him being a pedophile. No that is just slanderous to the gay comunity. Him being sick is him...not because he's gay. as the many people before me have said, had he not been gay it just would of been a little girl.




Him being gay had EVERYTHING to do with him molesting a young boy.  Nobody is 'born' a rapist...we are shaped by the conditions we find ourselves in; by experiences and environments we are placed in, or choose to place ourselves in.  If this guy had been given guidance to help with his conflicting feelings about sexuality, and taught to control impulse urges, perhaps he 'would not' have hurt that boy.   The 'well, if it wasn't that boy, it would have just been a girl' argument is rather fucked up - talk about insulting.


----------



## Said1 (Oct 22, 2004)

-=d=- said:
			
		

> The 'well, if it wasn't that boy, it would have just been a girl' argument is rather fucked up - talk about insulting.



 I certainly hope you don't find my attitude to be as blase as you are suggesting, because that isn't the case at all. Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you basing your opinon on the fact that he might have been introduced to homosexual sex as a child by another man to be WHY he rapes little boys? If this is the case, then I agree.


----------



## dmp (Oct 22, 2004)

Said1 said:
			
		

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you basing your opinon on the fact that he might have been introduced to homosexual sex as a child by another man to be WHY he rapes little boys? If this is the case, then I agree.



I wasn't insinuating that specifically, but I bet we'd see some form of abuse towards him by an older man if we looked thru his past.

:-/


----------



## OCA (Oct 22, 2004)

wolvie20m said:
			
		

> LMAO at him being gay the cause of this...to think him being gay is related to him being a pedophile. No that is just slanderous to the gay comunity. Him being sick is him...not because he's gay. as the many people before me have said, had he not been gay it just would of been a little girl.



NAMBLA, gay organization. Only group to advocate relationships between adults and minors.


----------



## dmp (Oct 22, 2004)

OCA said:
			
		

> NAMBLA, gay organization. Only group to advocate relationships between adults and minors.



b-b-b-but...that's different! It's like..uh...if they were NOT gay, they would have formed the same organization but have targeted little girls!! yeah! that's it!


----------



## OCA (Oct 22, 2004)

-=d=- said:
			
		

> b-b-b-but...that's different! It's like..uh...if they were NOT gay, they would have formed the same organization but have targeted little girls!! yeah! that's it!



Yeah thats it, no its not because they are deviants! Its not their fault ever!


----------



## dmp (Oct 22, 2004)

OCA said:
			
		

> Yeah thats it, no its not because they are deviants! Its not their fault ever!




Exactly - it's as if no matter WHAT action ANYONE takes it's okay, because somebody would have done the same action to somebody else anyway.

:-/


----------



## Mr. P (Oct 22, 2004)

I don't care if this guy is homosexual or heterosexual, He's a pedophile
and should be locked-up for a long time.


----------



## nakedemperor (Oct 22, 2004)

Mr. P said:
			
		

> I don't care if this guy is homosexual or heterosexual, He's a pedophile
> and should be locked-up for a long time.



Seriously...him being gay wasn't the impetus for attacking a minor, him being a sick pedophile was the impetus for attacking a minor.

Him being GAY was the impetus behind choosing a male target. No more, no less.


----------



## Mr. P (Oct 22, 2004)

nakedemperor said:
			
		

> Seriously...him being gay wasn't the impetus for attacking a minor, him being a sick pedophile was the impetus for attacking a minor.
> 
> Him being GAY was the impetus behind choosing a male target. No more, no less.



That may be true, I don't claim to know the pedophile mind.
Do you?


----------



## nakedemperor (Oct 22, 2004)

Mr. P said:
			
		

> That may be true, I don't claim to know the pedophile mind.
> Do you?



This is an irrelevant question. He was a sick man. Having a mental disorder is completely independant of him being homosexual. He happened to be gay AND have a mental disorder.


----------



## 007 (Oct 22, 2004)

nakedemperor said:
			
		

> This is an irrelevant question. He was a sick man. Having a mental disorder is completely independant of him being homosexual. He happened to be gay AND have a mental disorder.



What the fuck are talking about naked? If you're a fag, you're sick in the head too. If you're a fag AND a pedophile, then you're just DOUBLE sick in the head.


----------



## 007 (Oct 22, 2004)

wolvie20m said:
			
		

> LMAO at him being gay the cause of this...to think him being gay is related to him being a pedophile. No that is just slanderous to the gay comunity. Him being sick is him...not because he's gay. as the many people before me have said, had he not been gay it just would of been a little girl.



OH?! _Is that right?_

*The Sexual Behavior of Homosexuals  *

Pedophilia and Hebephilia

A pedophile is an individual with intense, recurrent sexual attraction toward pre-pubescent children that often borders on obsession-compulsion and is sometimes obligatory. (1) Many men who molest their children do not display an intense erotic interest in children that often borders on obsession-compulsion and such men along with a number of other child molesters do not display the degree of physiological arousal that is typical of pedophiles upon exposure to erotic stimuli involving children. Incestuous child molesters typically do not seek non-related children for molestation. Hence, child molestation is neither necessary nor sufficient for a pedophilia diagnosis. Therefore, to address pedophilia, we need to focus on non-incestuous child molesters and account for the fact that not all child molesters are pedophiles. (2, 3)

Excluding individuals that molest both boys and girls, the proportion of incarcerated men that molest boys but not girls is about 33%. (4-7) Therefore, as a first approximation, homosexuals appear considerably relatively overrepresented among child molesters. 

To compare the proportion of pedophiles among homosexual and heterosexual men, one needs to adjust the above figure for 1) the proportion of child molesters that are pedophiles, 2) the average number of children molested by homosexual and heterosexual pedophiles, and 3) how boys compare to girls with respect to reporting molestation.

Pedophiles are expected to molest more children, on average, than non-pedophile child molesters. *Among incarcerated child molesters, more homosexuals than heterosexuals have committed multiple offenses against children.   * (8) This suggests that a greater proportion of homosexual child molesters are pedophiles compared to heterosexual child molesters. (9) In a sample of 100 expert-appraised child molesters, half the homosexual/bisexual child molesters were pedophiles, whereas only a quarter of the heterosexual child molesters were pedophiles. (10) Consistent with such results are phallometric data (penile arousal following erotic stimuli), which Freund and Watson used to calculate that among pedophiles, 41-43% are homosexual, assuming that homosexual and heterosexual pedophiles molest an equal number of children, on average, and that boys and girls are equally likely to report molestation. (7) 
Homosexual pedophiles are about twice as likely to be repeat child molesters as heterosexual pedophiles. (1) Abel et al. reported that among non-incarcerated pedophiles, the average heterosexual pedophile had molested 20 girls, whereas homosexual pedophiles had molested an average of 150 boys each. (11) Freund and Watson used this figure to calculate that among pedophiles, 10-11% are homosexual, assuming that boys and girls are equally likely to report molestation. (7) However, in a sample of 91 non-incestuous child molesters, 34 homosexual child molesters (all but 3 molested boys exclusively) had molested an average of 3.3 boys each, and 57 heterosexual child molesters (all but 4 molested girls exclusively) had molested an average of 4.7 girls each. (12) Hence, Abel et al.s figures, (11) given that the high status of the researchers may have been responsible for the referral of the worst pedophiles to them, (12) likely does not represent the typical difference in the number of children molested by homosexual and heterosexual pedophiles. Therefore, the proportion of pedophiles that are homosexual, assuming that both boys and girls are equally likely to report molestation, is certainly higher than 10-11%. 
Boys are less inclined than girls to talk to their parents about their sexual adventures with grown-ups, and are more likely to sexually cooperate with male adults. (13) In a probability sample of 585 men and women sexually abused in childhood, the men had experienced more severe sexual abuse, i.e., repeated assaults over a prolonged period involving force and actual or threatened violence, but were less likely to report it than the abused women. (14) Boys are far less likely to report molestation than girls. (13-16) This fact significantly increases the proportion of pedophiles that are homosexual, although Freund and Watson (7) failed to adjust for this factor. 
What accounts for the huge discrepancy between the proportion of pedophiles that are homosexual and the proportion of men that are homosexual? The etiology of homosexual teleiophilia (sexual preference for mature adults) may differ from that of homosexual pedophilia. In support of this possibility, one notes that a number of homosexual teleiophiles exhibit childhood sex-atypical (feminine) behavior, but this is not true of homosexual pedophiles. (17) In addition, only homosexual teleiophiles manifest feminine identification. (18) However, sex-atypical childhood behavior is far from a universal correlate of homosexuals. Male homosexuals display considerable heterogeneity with respect to feminine identification and extent of sex-atypical childhood behaviors. (19) Another difference between homosexual pedophiles and homosexual teleiophiles is that unlike homosexual teleiophiles, homosexual pedophiles do not appear to experience earlier puberty compared to heterosexual men. (20)

On the other hand, a universal correlate of both homosexual teleiophilia and homosexual pedophilia would suggest that the main causes of both are the same. In this regard, although high birth order (having older siblings) or high fraternal birth order (having older brothers) is not characteristic of every homosexual, all male homosexual groups manifest high birth order or high fraternal birth order compared to the corresponding group of heterosexual men. (21-39) , [1] Such male homosexual groups include homosexual teleiophiles, homosexuals that strongly desire to be women, (25, 33, 35, 37, 38), [2] homosexual and bisexual pedophiles, (28, 30), [3] and homosexuals that rape adult men and teenage boys. (27) The association between male homosexuality and high fraternal birth order holds even if one controls for maternal and paternal age, (29) although the high birth order effect on male homosexuality becomes weaker with increasing parental age. (39) Therefore, it appears that the major factor(s) underlying the development of homosexual teleiophilia, homosexual pedophilia, and bisexual pedophilia is(are) the same. [4] This, of course, does not imply that homosexual teleiophiles are likely to molest children. High fraternal birth order is not a characteristic of female homosexuals, (32) and the number of older sisters of male homosexuals is irrelevant to male homosexuality. (29) Assuming that older brothers have a causal effect on male homosexuality, an early study reported that about 1 in 7 (15.1%) homosexual men owe their sexual orientation to the high fraternal birth order effect, (43), [5] but a more recent analysis of the data from two representative samples of American and British men suggests that this figure is about 1 in 4. (44), [6]

...full article at...

http://www.amazinginfoonhomosexuals.com/pedophilia.htm


----------



## Mr. P (Oct 22, 2004)

nakedemperor said:
			
		

> This is an irrelevant question. He was a sick man. Having a mental disorder is completely independant of him being homosexual. He happened to be gay AND have a mental disorder.


I've not claimed he did this because he was gay.


----------



## nakedemperor (Oct 22, 2004)

Pale Rider said:
			
		

> What the fuck are talking about naked? If you're a fag, you're sick in the head too. If you're a fag AND a pedophile, then you're just DOUBLE sick in the head.



Don't use that kind of language.


----------



## jimnyc (Oct 22, 2004)

C'mon guys, let's debate without the use of vulgarity. Surely we can kick one anothers asses without offending others reading the threads!


----------



## 007 (Oct 22, 2004)

jimnyc said:
			
		

> C'mon guys, let's debate without the use of vulgarity. Surely we can kick one anothers asses without offending others reading the threads!



Is "fag" vulgar? If so, why? It's the same thing as "gay". Only "gay" has absolutely NO connection with being a queer! "Gay" means to be HAPPY.

Maybe I shouldn't have come back. It we have to walk around the board fags on egg shells now, I have no inclination stay. The sick fuckers make me ill, and I feel I have the right to tell them so, since we all are forced to endure all their fucking pro fag propaganda.


----------



## Said1 (Oct 22, 2004)

Pale Rider said:
			
		

> Is "fag" vulgar? If so, why? It's the same thing as "gay". Only "gay" has absolutely NO connection with being a queer! "Gay" means to be HAPPY.
> 
> Maybe I shouldn't have come back. It we have to walk around the board fags on egg shells now, I have no inclination stay. The sick fuckers make me ill, and I feel I have the right to tell them so, since we all are forced to endure all their fucking pro fag propaganda.



I think Jimmynyc means other members in general. 

Why do you insist on being such an ass? Seriously, why so hostile?


----------



## jimnyc (Oct 22, 2004)

Pale Rider said:
			
		

> Is "fag" vulgar? If so, why? It's the same thing as "gay". Only "gay" has absolutely NO connection with being a queer! "Gay" means to be HAPPY.
> 
> Maybe I shouldn't have come back. It we have to walk around the board fags on egg shells now, I have no inclination stay. The sick fuckers make me ill, and I feel I have the right to tell them so, since we all are forced to endure all their fucking pro fag propaganda.



Nobody said you couldn't use the term 'fag'. All I'm asking is that WE ALL try to be a little less vulgar when replying. Speak your beliefs but please don't say it in a manner that would scare away potential members.

I've never asked you to stop before and I haven't this time. I'm just asking things to be toned down a little. You are free to tell them how you feel. Hell, you know I agree with you for the most part. Let's just not let anger take over good threads. Debate with common sense, facts and our beliefs with less profanity (it's still cool to let loose once in awhile).


----------



## wolvie20m (Oct 22, 2004)

Bring me a source with a un-bias opinion. Seems the site you gave me does nothing but discredit gays. No worries though we got you pinned a gay bashing fascist. I hope your views on gays change some day. I'm not sayin you need to accept it, just consider it, thier people just like you. To say pedophiles that rape boys do it cause thier gay, is to be ignorant to the people with and without morals.


----------



## 007 (Oct 23, 2004)

wolvie20m said:
			
		

> Bring me a source with a un-bias opinion. Seems the site you gave me does nothing but discredit gays. No worries though we got you pinned a gay bashing fascist. I hope your views on gays change some day. I'm not sayin you need to accept it, just consider it, thier people just like you. To say pedophiles that rape boys do it cause thier gay, is to be ignorant to the people with and without morals.



wolfie... I've heard you're pathetic response to common, GOOD people voicing their GENUINE disgust with homosexuality and lesbianism a million times. It's lost it's punch and effectiveness, ESPECIALLY here on this board. You queer lovers and spineless anti-morals sect are the biggest name callers on the planet. Anyone who's opinion is different from your's you instantly label with one of your pet names. Phobe this, facist that, basher whoever. It's like the little boy that cried wolf and people came running, but there was no wolf. But the one time the little kid cried wolf and there was one, no one listened. It's "YOU" crying wolf... wolfie, and no ones listening.

And to say queers are just like me is a slap in my face. Homo's may share the same anatomy, but that's where the similarities end. Don't insult me like that anymore.

Jimnyc, I'm sorry for going off. Uprooting my life and moving was pretty stressful. It's a huge job. I really haven't had time to relax yet. But I get the impression that with the coming of our token queer here, it's like he brought with him his own rooting section. They're all new, and I just want them to know there's people here that don't condone, agree, accept, or in any other way are going to think homosexuality is anything but the disgusting, perverted, mental illness that it is.

And if you can't believe wolfie, the *VOLUMES* of facts and links that ALL show homosexuality to be the filthy, vile, perverted sexual fetish that it is, then that's your damn problem... not mine.


----------



## wolvie20m (Oct 23, 2004)

Illiterate, ignorant, fascsit, shall I keep going, oh wait wouldn't want you to miss your clan rally. To call me spineless LMAO I am currently training to enter spec forces in the USMC. I plan to be in Iraq as soon as possible defending against ignorant and oppresive people like you. I would be glad to come see you in person to see if this name calling of yours wants to continue. Just so you know I am a very much strait and luv women. So calling me a queer or queer luver(having no gay friends either) is wrong and an assuption. I'm just stating your basing assumptions on facts that don't exsist. Calling homosexuality a mental diseases shows really who has the mental problem. Just to clairify it it's wolvie with a "V" as in wolverine not wolf, so read carefully and be careful, I love to travel so don't name call again please. Pale as well as you say it you'll be alone for a long long time and may god help you to see your wrongs.


----------



## wolvie20m (Oct 23, 2004)

Also Pale got a question for you. Are you a god bearing man cristian catholic. or do you believe in a higher power. You remind me of the early twenties when whites said black people are less inteligent they had all kind of medical and psychological doctors to back this up. Doesn't mean it was right. In 50 or so years people like you will be a dying breed, and also proven wrong. I only hope you see your wrongs before it's too late for you. Your correct I can't tell you what to think or say. Although I would like you to consider the fact maybe your wrong about gays. Possibly look at both sides of the arguement. Perhaps even sit down and talk to someone gay. Can't judge something you know nothing about, and papers and fact aren't know gay people. So I can only hope you think about what you said. calling them names just shows fear. It's been proven people fear what they don't understand, just you watch you'll have a gay son or daughter, or someone around will turn out to be gay. Then what will you do sow them the same respect you've shown me here. Hopefully not or you'll be missing out on some of the best things in life is understanding life. So hope you try my advice out or atleast consider it.


----------



## 007 (Oct 23, 2004)

wolvie20m said:
			
		

> Illiterate, ignorant, fascsit, shall I keep going, oh wait wouldn't want you to miss your clan rally. To call me spineless LMAO I am currently training to enter spec forces in the USMC. I plan to be in Iraq as soon as possible defending against ignorant and oppresive people like you. I would be glad to come see you in person to see if this name calling of yours wants to continue. Just so you know I am a very much strait and luv women. So calling me a queer or queer luver(having no gay friends either) is wrong and an assuption. I'm just stating your basing assumptions on facts that don't exsist. Calling homosexuality a mental diseases shows really who has the mental problem. Just to clairify it it's wolvie with a "V" as in wolverine not wolf, so read carefully and be careful, I love to travel so don't name call again please. Pale as well as you say it you'll be alone for a long long time and may god help you to see your wrongs.



Don't threaten me you little fucker. You have no fucking clue who or what you're dealing with on this end, and that's incredibly stupid. I'm no more afraid of your marine ass than the man in the moon. I'm sure one of my .45 hollow points would split your skull just as easily as anyone else's.

Now, the arguement you're purporting has been made time, after time, after time on this board, hence the reason why no one else is responding to you. They're TIRED of talking to morons like you who THINK they know everything, and that you are right and we are wrong. And to top it off, you don't have single link to a single fact that would back you up, so you're luke warm here at best!

There are threads upon threads upon thread, and pages and pages and pages of this arguement on this board. I'd recommend you get your little sissie dog faced fingers in action and look some of them up, instead of trying to tell me something that's no more than just your faggot loving "opinion".

And just for the record wolf pup, I'm a Christian, and God, of which you din't seem fit to capitolize the name, is very specific about how he feels about queers, and he's NOT in agreement with YOU!

*The Law of God Speaks Against it:

Leviticus 18:22, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." 

Leviticus 20:13, "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their  blood shall be upon them." 

Deuteronomy 23:17, "There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel." *

http://www.seafox.com/homo.html

You've been brainwashed into believing this homo shit is acceptable boy, and it's not. That's the problem with young people today. They've been taught ass fucking and dick sucking between two men is OK, *INSTEAD* of morals, right and wrong, and the laws of nature.

Wake up. Homosexuality is a mental illness, of the perverse, disgusting, and immoral sort, and ALWAYS WILL BE, no matter how hard you faggot lovers push for it to be OK.


----------



## Merlin1047 (Oct 23, 2004)

People, this happens all too often on discussions involving homosexuality.  We end up with the conversation disintegrating into personal insults and confrontation which have nothing to do with the issue under discussion.

Do you suppose that we can all just take a moment to assess our thoughts and then express them in a more calm and less obnoxious manner?

Just a thought.


----------



## Merlin1047 (Oct 23, 2004)

Now here's one of the main things that frost my cookies about the whole homosexual issue - the fact is that the way which homosexuals portray themselves is dishonest.  If homosexuals had their way, the very word "homosexual" would be considered hateful.  They prefer the euphemism "gay".  As was pointed out previously, "gay" used to mean happy and carefree until the word was appropriated by the homosexual contingent.  Homosexuals use this tactic in order to soften their image in the eyes of the general public and to characterize themselves as "happy and carefree" when in fact their conduct fits Webster's definition of "perversion".

So let's at least be honest enough to use the right word.  They are not "gays" they are homosexuals.  Their's is not a "lifestyle" choice, it is a perversion.

For a little further insight on the evolution of euphemism, the following is a rather interesting article:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/johnleo/jl20040223.shtml

Euphemisms
John Leo (archive)


February 23, 2004 |  Print |  Send


"Wardrobe malfunction" is of course the euphemism of the year, a staggering achievement in language distortion. But there are many worthy contenders for silver and bronze medals in the language-debasing competition.

Some medical euphemisms now appear in the fine print of your staggeringly large hospital bill. You may see charges for "disposable mucus recovery systems" (Kleenex), "thermal therapy" (a bag of ice) and an "oral administration fee" (the charge for handing you a pill in a paper cup). A dose of three pills, though delivered in a single paper cup, may require three separate oral administration fees.

How about these terms for firing workers: "facility and cost rationalizations," "dehiring," "normal involuntary attrition," and "negative employee retention." When a state agency lays off workers for some times, without pay, it calls this practice "furloughing."

In its science teaching standards, the state of Georgia changed the word "evolution" to "biological changes over time," then backtracked to "evolution" when protests arose.

The Bush administration contributed "temporary steel safeguard measures" (tariffs), "healthy forests" (more logging) plus "earned legalization," "regularization" and "normalization" (amnesty for illegal immigrants--sorry, undocumented workers). Did the Agriculture department announce frankly that it ordered the killing of 450 cattle because of mad cow disease? Of course not. The announcement said it had decided to depopulate the bull calf operation in Mabton, Washington. The department was just negatively retaining some cows. Or maybe placing them on permanent furlough.

Other political euphemisms include "managed" or "fair" trade (protectionism) and "sustainable utlization" a comforting term for despoiling the environment while claiming that there's really nothing to worry about. The term has been used to cover overzealous mining and foresting, as well as the trophy killing of big-game animals in Africa. On safari, you might call out, "Look dear, you sustainably utilized that rhino!" 

Remember the under-the-table funds that went to members of the International Olympics Committee members when Salt Lake City was picked as an Olympic site? They weren't bribes, said long-time IOC member Dick Pound of Canada. They were "payments, I think, to encourage good feelings about Salt Lake."

Harvard academic Martin Feldstein told the economics conference in Davos last month that he doens't like the terms "weak dollar" and "strong dollar." Well, then how is the dollar doing? Next year it will be in a more competitive position, Feldman said, weakly.

At St. Mary's Catholic Church in South Brisbane, the priests are apparently no longer priests. Thye are "mass presiders," a term popping up here and there in other countries as well. "Body bags" (Vietnam war) and "human remains pouches" (the Gulf War) are now "transfer tubes" in Iraq, a term (like "choice" for abortion) that sucessfully eliminates any hint that death might be involved.

The British have a new word for military retreat, "exfiltration." This is not a great euphemism, but it sounds lots better than "running away."

China's economic expansion under stern one-party rule gave rise to several euphemisms, including "cloaked capitalism" and "soft Leninism." Why not "totalitarian freedom"?

Many gas stations have figured out that if you decide to charge more for credit card purchases, you can always describe the increase as a discount for those who pay cash. Several takeout restaurants in Australia now advertize a 10 percent discount if you pick up the food yourself. This means that a 10 percent change has been added for all deliveries.

Kansas City is establishing a "compassion zone" for homeless people just outside the downtown freeway loop. This is an upbeat way of announcing that the downtown area and most of the rest of the city are now compassion-free zones from which vagrants and homeless people will be expelled. Many universities use the same trick to control free speech on campus. They announce small "free-speech zones," thus establishing 99 percent of their campuses as places where speeches and protests are forbidden.

"War on terror" is a widely overlooked eupehemism. "Terror" isn't a party to the war, but militant Islam is. Reuters famously refuses to call terrorists "terrorists" because the news service thinks it's a subjective term. The BBC says its reporters may not call Saddam Hussein a former dictator. Staffers must refer to him as "the deposed former president." No word yet on whether Hitler can be called a dictator. Oops. That sounds way too subjective. Make that "the former legally selected leader of the Third Reich." Whatever.


----------



## wolvie20m (Oct 23, 2004)

Ok also the most simple rules

I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world.
John 12: 47

The Fifth Commandment: Thou shalt not kill!

(Post edited by Merlin1047)

As it's so bluntly stated it's not your place to judge anyone on thier actions. So keep up your hating and we'll keep laughing at you. Hate is like baggage it only slows you down in life. So I leave this on a positive note may god help you, and if he can't may you burn in hell.


----------



## Merlin1047 (Oct 23, 2004)

Wolvie, I'm going to assume that you posted that before you had a chance to read my request that you and PR both tone down the rhetoric.

Homosexuality is not a topic one can successfully argue for or against by employing juvenile stupidity.

So knock it off.


----------



## dmp (Oct 23, 2004)

wolvie20m said:
			
		

> Illiterate, ignorant, fascsit, shall I keep going, oh wait wouldn't want you to miss your clan rally. To call me spineless LMAO I am currently training to enter spec forces in the USMC. .



Liar.


----------



## dmp (Oct 23, 2004)

wolvie20m said:
			
		

> Ok also the most simple rules
> 
> I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world.
> John 12: 47
> ...




...and you are so blatantly taking verses out of context.  Christ called on us to judge people's actions according to His word.  It's quite clear.  People with little understanding of Biblical principles often use a couple popular verses to twist God's word to fit their agenda.

It's common, really.


----------



## 007 (Oct 23, 2004)

Thank you... *Merlin1047, Sir Evil, and -=d=-.*

I don't know where they keep coming from, or if they've never been on a message board before, but if they read the rules, they'd know that "calling people out", or any other type of "threats" aren't tolerated. Generaly it's the little pussies hiding behind their computers that do it anyway, never having any intentions of ever following through with their big talk. It just over-rides their lady bug ass.

Just for the record, I agree with -=d=-. This moron wasn't any Marine. Just another wanna-be dreamer.


----------



## MissileMan (Oct 23, 2004)

-=d=- said:
			
		

> :-/
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You apparently are unaware of the difference between homosexuality and pedophilia.  I don't hear you arguing that all heterosexuals are pedophiles when a man molests a little girl.  Get a grip on reality!  And invest in a dictionary!


----------



## dmp (Oct 24, 2004)

MissileMan said:
			
		

> You apparently are unaware of the difference between homosexuality and pedophilia.  I don't hear you arguing that all heterosexuals are pedophiles when a man molests a little girl.  Get a grip on reality!  And invest in a dictionary!




Again - did I 'claim' all homosexuals are pedophiles?  I wrote "If this guy had not been gay, he would not have hurt that little boy" 

It shouldn't be that hard to understand.


----------



## MissileMan (Oct 24, 2004)

-=d=- said:
			
		

> Again - did I 'claim' all homosexuals are pedophiles?  I wrote "If this guy had not been gay, he would not have hurt that little boy"
> 
> It shouldn't be that hard to understand.



You STILL don't get it!  If he had not been a PEDOPHILE, he would not have hurt that little boy.


----------



## dmp (Oct 24, 2004)

MissileMan said:
			
		

> You STILL don't get it!  If he had not been a PEDOPHILE, he would not have hurt that little boy.




...and if he hadn't been used to or conditioned fullfilling his deviant urges, he'd not have molested the boy.  

Homosexuals cannot exercise good judgement in control of their sexual urges.  That's the point. I'd bet money that if we had a time machine, and got that man help when he first started his homosexual activities, we could have stopped them, and that boy would NOT have been hurt - there's a good chance if that man had learned to control his actions/behaviours, he'd NOT have molested any child. 

Homosexual Proponents really enjoy shifting the focus - Homosexual priests who molest boys are the biggest example of a 'group' failing to acknowledge the perrils of their lifestyle


----------



## wolvie20m (Oct 24, 2004)

That is simply your opinion and a far fetched one at that. There is no factual proof of Gay or Homosexual men being pedophiles, NONE. Unless you can base this assuption on something you are simply sterotyping a group of people. Which like saying all lesbians are lesbians cause they hate men. I have a question for you also do you belive women homosexuals are bound to be pedophiles, or are you basing your whole case just cause of your disgust in men gays?


----------



## MissileMan (Oct 24, 2004)

-=d=- said:
			
		

> ...and if he hadn't been used to or conditioned fullfilling his deviant urges, he'd not have molested the boy.
> 
> Homosexuals cannot exercise good judgement in control of their sexual urges.  That's the point. I'd bet money that if we had a time machine, and got that man help when he first started his homosexual activities, we could have stopped them, and that boy would NOT have been hurt - there's a good chance if that man had learned to control his actions/behaviours, he'd NOT have molested any child.
> 
> Homosexual Proponents really enjoy shifting the focus - Homosexual priests who molest boys are the biggest example of a 'group' failing to acknowledge the perrils of their lifestyle



Your whole point is BS!  If you had printed a story about a homosexual rapist, that might have forwarded your position that homosexuals have no control.  Instead, you cite an example of pedophilia and scream "Oh look! It's those bad homos again!"  

The very fact that most of them want to enter into binding, monogamous relationships contradicts your argument also.  

And since you brought it up, how about those priests?  You said that you could have "cured" the original rapist in your post if you had gotten to him early.  I assume you mean by putting him in touch with god and getting him to modify his behavior based in a stronger belief in religious morals.  That would be a pretty good trick when you consider that there are all those priests who have dedicated their life to god, spent countless hours in prayer and contemplation of the bible, and STILL molest little boys.  Do you suppose there might be a stronger force than religion at play here?


----------



## 007 (Oct 24, 2004)

missleboy said:
			
		

> Your whole point is BS!  If you had printed a story about a homosexual rapist, that might have forwarded your position that homosexuals have no control.  Instead, you cite an example of pedophilia and scream "Oh look! It's those bad homos again!"



OK... let's go through this _sloooooooowly_, so that it can sink into that thick skull of your's. And READ IT ALL... I don't want to hear anymore of your idiotic claims that there "is no proof", when it's ALL RIGHT HERE.

*Report: Pedophilia more common among 'gays'
Research purports to reveal 'dark side' of homosexual culture*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: April 29, 2002
1:00 a.m. Eastern


By Jon Dougherty
© 2002 WorldNetDaily.com 


*Child molestation and pedophilia occur far more commonly among homosexuals than among heterosexuals on a per capita basis, according to a new study.   * 

"Overwhelming evidence supports the belief that homosexuality is a sexual deviancy often accompanied by disorders that have dire consequences for our culture," wrote Steve Baldwin in, "Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement," soon to be published by the Regent University Law Review. 

Baldwin is the executive director of the Council for National Policy in Washington, D.C. 

"It is difficult to convey the dark side of the homosexual culture without appearing harsh," wrote Baldwin. "However, it is time to acknowledge that homosexual behavior threatens the foundation of Western civilization  the nuclear family." 

Though the homosexual community and much of the media scoff at such accusations, Baldwin  who chaired the California Assembly's Education committee, where he fought against support for the homosexual agenda in the state's public schools  says in his report that homosexual activists' "efforts to target children both for their own sexual pleasure and to enlarge the homosexual movement" constitute an "unmistakable" attack on "the family unit." 

Baldwin's research is substantiated in a recently completed body of work written by Dr. Judith Reisman, president of the Institute for Media Education and author of numerous authoritative books debunking sexual myths, including "Kinsey, Crimes & Consequences." 

In her thesis  also written for the Regent University Law Review  Reisman cited psychologist Eugene Abel, whose research found that homosexuals "sexually molest young boys with an incidence that is occurring from five times greater than the molestation of girls. " 

Abel also found that non-incarcerated "child molesters admitted from 23.4 to 281.7 acts per offender  whose targets were males." 

"The rate of homosexual versus heterosexual child sexual abuse is staggering," said Reisman, who was the principal investigator for an $800,000 Justice Department grant studying child pornography and violence. "Abels data of 150.2 boys abused per male homosexual offender finds no equal (yet) in heterosexual violations of 19.8 girls." 

Jay Heavener, spokesman for PFLAG  Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, counters that federal crime data refute claims that homosexuals molest children at higher rates than heterosexuals. 

"According to data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), this claim is false," he told WND by e-mail. "The gay and lesbian community calls into question any dubious research which flies in the face of our own experience." 

And Gary Schoener, a clinical psychologist who has been diagnosing and treating clergy abuse for 28 years, told Salon.com, "There are far more heterosexual cases than homosexual." 

In terms of sheer numbers, that may be true. But in terms of numbers of children abused per offender, homosexuals abuse with far greater frequency; and boys, research shows, are the much-preferred target. 

Baldwin says evidence he examined disproves the assertion that child molestation is more prevalent among heterosexuals. Both he and Reisman found that media coverage of adult homosexual abuse of minors is also slanted. 

"The National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA) recently boasted that although homosexuals are less than two percent of the population, three-fourths of the people who decide the content of the front page of the New York Times are homosexual," Reisman wrote. 

That one fact is especially noteworthy, experts point out, given the recent child sex scandals taking place within the American Catholic church. 

A survey by WorldNetDaily of recent news reports found that rarely did the media describe priestly sexual abuse as "homosexual" or "gay" activity  even though the worst incidents involved male-to-male contact, and a spate of investigative reports has revealed that the Vatican is concerned about an upsurge of homosexuals in seminary schools throughout the world. 

*Gay press promotes sex with children 

Baldwin says his research not only "confirms that homosexuals molest children at a rate vastly higher than heterosexuals," but it found that "the mainstream homosexual culture" even "commonly promotes sex with children."   * 

"The editorial board of the leading pedophile academic journal, Paidika, is dominated by prominent homosexual scholars such as San Francisco State University professor John DeCecco, who happens to edit the Journal of Homosexuality," Baldwin wrote. 

During his research, he also found: 


The Journal of Homosexuality recently published a special double-issue entitled, "Male Intergenerational Intimacy," containing many articles portraying sex between men and minor boys as loving relationships. One article said parents should look upon the pedophile who loves their son "not as a rival or competitor, not as a theft of their property, but as a partner in the boy's upbringing, someone to be welcomed into their home." 

In 1995 the homosexual magazine "Guide" said, "We can be proud that the gay movement has been home to the few voices who have had the courage to say out loud that children are naturally sexual" and "deserve the right to sexual expression with whoever they choose. " The article went on to say: "Instead of fearing being labeled pedophiles, we must proudly proclaim that sex is good, including children's sexuality  we must do it for the children's sake." 

Larry Kramer, the founder of ACT-UP, a noted homosexual activist group, wrote in his book, "Report from the Holocaust: The Making of an AIDS Activist": "In those instances where children do have sex with their homosexual elders, be they teachers or anyone else, I submit that often, very often, the child desires the activity, and perhaps even solicits it." 

In a study of advertisements in the influential homosexual newspaper, The Advocate, Reisman found ads for a "Penetrable Boy Doll  available in three provocative positions. She also found that the number of erotic boy images in each issue of The Advocate averaged 14. 

Homosexual newspapers and travel publications advertise prominently for countries where boy prostitution is heavy, such as Burma, the Philippines, Sri Lanka and Thailand.
Homosexuality 'youth-oriented'? 

"Research on the homosexual lifestyle confirms it is almost exclusively a youth-oriented culture," Baldwin wrote. "Very few gays exhibit preference for older men." 

"Some admit to focus on teenage boys," he said, "some on prepubescent boys, and many cross over between categories." 

A 1988 study detailed in Baldwin's report found that most pedophiles even consider themselves to be "gay." According to the study, "Archives of Sexual Behavior," some 86 percent of pedophiles described themselves as homosexual or bisexual. Also, the study found, the number of teenage male prostitutes who identify as homosexuals has risen from 10 percent to 60 percent in the past 15 years. 

When asked what he thought about critics who attempt to debunk his research, Baldwin said the results speak for themselves. 

"For them to say this theory is false is to call many of the homosexual movement's leaders liars," he said. "Most of my evidence comes right from the gay community." 

"I managed to find enough evidence that my thesis  child molestation is an integral part of the homosexual movement  is a valid thesis," Baldwin told WorldNetDaily. 

Other experts have also found a distinct pattern between child sex abusers and the incidence of homosexuality. 

"How long can psychologists be in denial about the significance of the dark side, and ignore what it implies about the homosexual condition? And there's a matter of even greater concern. How long will psychologists eagerly throw open the door to gay life for every sexually confused teenager?" writes Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D, on behalf of NARTH  the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality  a group that says it exists to "provide psychological understanding of the cause, treatment and behavior patterns associated with homosexuality, within the boundaries of a civil public dialogue." 

The North American Man-Boy Love Association, or NAMBLA, is "a group that openly promotes sex with minor boys and claims that boy-lovers respond to the needs of the boys they love," Baldwin said in his report. 

The group is often endorsed by "many of the homosexual movement's most prominent leaders," he said. 

Advocacy moving to schools 

Promotion of the "gay and lesbian lifestyle" is increasing in the nation's public schools. 

A WND survey of homosexual-oriented websites found that almost every group has some sort of program to "educate" teachers, school administrators and other school employees about the homosexual lifestyle: 


GLSEN  the Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network  bills itself as "the largest national network of parents, students, educators and others" specifically formed to end "discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity/expression in K-12 schools. Two recent press released boasted of the Broward County (Fla.) school board approving GLSEN-sponsored "training for teachers." 

A student activist working with GLSEN officials has managed to "give voice" recently to "gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered students" at California schools; 

PFLAG has created a national campaign called, "From Our House to the Schoolhouse," distributing to school officials  among other materials  a booklet entitled, "Just the Facts About Sexual Orientation and Youth: A Primer For Principals, Educators, & School Personnel. [Editor's note: Readers need the Adobe PDF reader to open and read this file.]
Though most school-related programs are sold to administrators and parents as programs designed simply to end persecution of homosexuals and lesbians, none disclose what Baldwin says is compelling evidence that homosexuality is harmful to children. 

"What  does the academic literature say about the relationship between homosexuality and child molestation? Quite a bit, actually," he wrote, quoting data compiled by the Family Research Institute: "Scientific studies confirm a strong pedophilic predisposition among homosexuals." 

The institute, after reviewing more than 19 studies and peer-reviewed reports in a 1985 "Psychological Reports" article, found that homosexuals account for between 25 and 40 percent of all child molestation. 

"But this number is low," Baldwin says, "due to the fact that many reporters will not report if a child molester is a homosexual, even if he knows that to be the case." 

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27431




			
				missleboy said:
			
		

> The very fact that most of them want to enter into binding, monogamous relationships contradicts your argument also.



And it goes on... and you just don't seem to be right about ANYTHING. Read up and be educated...

*HARMFUL ASPECTS OF THE HOMOSEXUAL LIFESTYLE*

The evidence demonstrates incontrovertibly that the homosexual lifestyle is inconsistent with the proper raising of children. Homosexual relationships are characteristically unstable and are fundamentally incapable of providing children the security they need.


*Homosexual Promiscuity*

Studies indicate that the average male homosexual has hundreds of sex partners in his lifetime, a lifestyle that is difficult for even "committed" homosexuals to break free of and which is not conducive to a healthy and wholesome atmosphere for the raising of children.

A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, in their classic study of male and female homosexuality, found that 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex with five hundred or more partners, with 28 percent having 1,000 or more sex partners.29 

In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that "the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101500." In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than 1000 lifetime sexual partners.30

A survey conducted by the homosexual magazine Genre found that 24 percent of the respondents said they had had more than 100 sexual partners in their lifetime. The magazine noted that several respondents suggested including a category of those who had more than 1,000 sexual partners.31 

In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, M. Pollak found that "few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners."32


*Promiscuity among Homosexual Couples * 

Even in those homosexual relationships in which the partners consider themselves to be in a committed relationship, the meaning of "committed" typically means something radically different than in heterosexual marriage. 

In The Male Couple, authors David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison report that in a study of 156 males in homosexual relationships lasting from one to thirty-seven years: Only seven couples have a totally exclusive sexual relationship, and these men all have been together for less than five years. Stated another way, all couples with a relationship lasting more than five years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships.33 Most understood sexual relations outside the relationship to be the norm, and viewed adopting monogamous standards as an act of oppression. 

In Male and Female Homosexuality, M. Saghir and E. Robins found that the average male homosexual live-in relationship lasts between two and three years.34

In their Journal of Sex Research study of the sexual practices of older homosexual men, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that only 2.7 percent of older homosexuals had only one sexual partner in their lifetime.35

*Comparison of Homosexual Couples and Heterosexual Spouses*

Lest anyone suffer the illusion that any equivalency between the sexual practices of homosexual relationships and traditional marriage exists, the statistics regarding sexual fidelity within marriage are revealing: In Sex in America, called by the New York Times "the most important study of American sexual behavior since the Kinsey reports," Robert T. Michael et al. report that 90 percent of wives and 75 percent of husbands claim never to have had extramarital sex.36

A nationally representative survey of 884 men and 1,288 women published in Journal of Sex Research found that 77 percent of married men and 88 percent of married women had remained faithful to their marriage vows.37 

In The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States, E. O. Laumann et al. conducted a national survey that found that 75 percent of husbands and 85 percent of wives never had sexual relations outside of marriage.38 

A telephone survey conducted for Parade magazine of 1,049 adults selected to represent the demographic characteristics of the United States found that 81 percent of married men and 85 percent of married women reported that they had never violated their marriage vows.39

*While the rate of fidelity within marriage cited by these studies remains far from ideal, there is a magnum order of difference between the negligible lifetime fidelity rate cited for homosexuals and the 75 to 90 percent cited for married couples. This indicates that even "committed" homosexual relationships display a fundamental incapacity for the faithfulness and commitment that is axiomatic to the institution of marriage.  *

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/DaileyGayAdopt.htm




			
				missleboy said:
			
		

> And since you brought it up, how about those priests?  You said that you could have "cured" the original rapist in your post if you had gotten to him early.  I assume you mean by putting him in touch with god and getting him to modify his behavior based in a stronger belief in religious morals.  That would be a pretty good trick when you consider that there are all those priests who have dedicated their life to god, spent countless hours in prayer and contemplation of the bible, and STILL molest little boys.  Do you suppose there might be a stronger force than religion at play here?



That's simple. Those priests who have decided to molest young boys have succumbed to the temptation of the devil. They have forsaken God and his word.


----------



## dmp (Oct 24, 2004)

MissileMan said:
			
		

> Your whole point is BS!  If you had printed a story about a homosexual rapist, that might have forwarded your position that homosexuals have no control.  Instead, you cite an example of pedophilia and scream "Oh look! It's those bad homos again!"
> 
> The very fact that most of them want to enter into binding, monogamous relationships contradicts your argument also.



This man enjoys sex with males.  He has urges which he does not control.  Now, that lack of control has lead him to sex with a young boy.  

Most of whome want a binding monogamous relationship? Don't make up bullshit facts.  


			
				MissileMan said:
			
		

> And since you brought it up, how about those priests?  You said that you could have "cured" the original rapist in your post if you had gotten to him early.  I assume you mean by putting him in touch with god and getting him to modify his behavior based in a stronger belief in religious morals.  That would be a pretty good trick when you consider that there are all those priests who have dedicated their life to god, spent countless hours in prayer and contemplation of the bible, and STILL molest little boys.  Do you suppose there might be a stronger force than religion at play here?



Again - you don't want truth...you make assumptions which are impossible to argue.  

I'm saying "If we, as a culture, stop promoting homosexuality as 'valid' we can cut down the number of cases where a man molests a young boy.  

I'd like to find ONE homosexual man who doesn't have daddy issues.


----------



## dmp (Oct 24, 2004)

wolvie20m said:
			
		

> That is simply your opinion and a far fetched one at that. There is no factual proof of Gay or Homosexual men being pedophiles, NONE.



Again... "If THIS man controlled, and fixed his homosexual issues, he would not have molested that boy".

Why is that so hard to understand?


----------



## wolvie20m (Oct 24, 2004)

Ok so your proof providing most of the pedophiles are gay. This doesn't prove that being gay or homosexual causes them to do what they do. Only proves more of them are homosexual. So you got all this proof of being homosexual cause lack of sexual control. What about the ones that target girls? Your saying they do it cause they want to, and gays do it cause thier homosexuals not because they have a dissorder just like someone whos strait and rapes or molests children. Just doesn't make sense to say they do it cause thier homosexual. You do have a argument that a larger portion of pedophiles are homosexual, not that they do what they do cause thier homosexual. Give some of these links where you retrived this info if you would please.


----------



## 007 (Oct 24, 2004)

wolvie20m said:
			
		

> Ok so your proof providing most of the pedophiles are gay. This doesn't prove that being gay or homosexual causes them to do what they do. Only proves more of them are homosexual. So you got all this proof of being homosexual cause lack of sexual control. What about the ones that target girls? Your saying they do it cause they want to, and gays do it cause thier homosexuals not because they have a dissorder just like someone whos strait and rapes or molests children. Just doesn't make sense to say they do it cause thier homosexual. You do have a argument that a larger portion of pedophiles are homosexual, not that they do what they do cause thier homosexual. Give some of these links where you retrived this info if you would please.



So at least you realize there are MORE "homosexual" pedophiles than hetero. That's all the point I was making. But in the same arguement, a "heterosexual" pedophile would NOT molest a little "boy". So with that, yes, the reason this "man" molested this little "boy" is because he was a QUEER!


----------



## dmp (Oct 24, 2004)

wolvie20m said:
			
		

> Ok so your proof providing most of the pedophiles are gay. This doesn't prove that being gay or homosexual causes them to do what they do. Only proves more of them are homosexual. So you got all this proof of being homosexual cause lack of sexual control. What about the ones that target girls? Your saying they do it cause they want to, and gays do it cause thier homosexuals not because they have a dissorder just like someone whos strait and rapes or molests children. Just doesn't make sense to say they do it cause thier homosexual. You do have a argument that a larger portion of pedophiles are homosexual, not that they do what they do cause thier homosexual. Give some of these links where you retrived this info if you would please.



No - Being homosexual does not cause lack of sexual control; homosexuality is caused by lack of control.  It's when instead of seeking help for, or otherwise understanding their desires, they give-in, allowing their sexual experiences to define 'who' they are.


----------



## wolvie20m (Oct 24, 2004)

Damn after all the BS we just went through I thought we had agreed till you went and ruined by sayin he does it cause he's gay. I would like to see links to your source's if you would. You make a good argument but it falls through when you say someone does something cause thier something. They maybee linked in some way, everything is linked in some way. You just can't prove it. I agree though your entitled to your opinion, just keep your opinion and the facts seperate.


----------



## MissileMan (Oct 24, 2004)

Pole Rider said:
			
		

> OK... let's go through this _sloooooooowly_, so that it can sink into that thick skull of your's. And READ IT ALL... I don't want to hear anymore of your idiotic claims that there "is no proof", when it's ALL RIGHT HERE.
> 
> *Report: Pedophilia more common among 'gays'
> Research purports to reveal 'dark side' of homosexual culture*
> ...



Oh so now, the Debil made em do it!  You are so laughable!  Who's making excuses now?  It was the Debil, it wasn't the pedophilic priest, it was the Debil!   :wank: 



			
				Pole Rider said:
			
		

> "The rate of homosexual versus heterosexual child sexual abuse is staggering," said Reisman, who was the principal investigator for an $800,000 Justice Department grant studying child pornography and violence. "Abels data of 150.2 boys abused per male homosexual offender finds no equal (yet) in heterosexual violations of 19.8 girls."
> 
> The institute, after reviewing more than 19 studies and peer-reviewed reports in a 1985 "Psychological Reports" article, found that homosexuals account for between 25 and 40 percent of all child molestation.



Now do some math!  If a homosexual pedophile has over 7 times the number of victims as the heterosexual pedophile, how is it that homosexual pedophiles only account for 25 to 40 percent of the molestations?  Ding!  Survey says, " It must be because there are wayyyy more heterosexual pedophiles than homosexual."  Those are your own numbers!


----------



## wolvie20m (Oct 24, 2004)

Ding Ding round 3, if your could excuse me I'm gonna do a little dance now


----------



## Bullypulpit (Oct 24, 2004)

-=d=- said:
			
		

> :-/
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Pedophiles are not neccessarily homosexual. Most, in fact, deny being homosexual. They are attracted more to male and female children than to adults of either gender. 

You know, the most virulent homophobes have been found to be serious closet queens. So, it seems to me that you should be the one seeking help.


----------



## musicman (Oct 24, 2004)

wolvie20m said:
			
		

> Ding Ding round 3, if your could excuse me I'm gonna do a little dance now





I don't know what you're dancing about, wolvie. That there are wayyyy more heterosexual pedophiles than homosexual has never been in dispute. The problem is that, while homosexual males make up only 2-3% of the population, they are responsible for a wildly disproportionate number of child molestations. Doesn't that give you pause?


----------



## wolvie20m (Oct 24, 2004)

Musicman, if you've read all the previous posts you'll see this has been in debate for some time. I am simply doing a dance to the fact that the argument was a slam dunk on my side.


----------



## musicman (Oct 24, 2004)

wolvie20m said:
			
		

> Musicman, if you've read all the previous posts you'll see this has been in debate for some time. I am simply doing a dance to the fact that the argument was a slam dunk on my side.





Well, wolvie, I've not only read all the posts - I daresay I have participated in dozens of similar such debates on this board. As for a "slam dunk" - sorry, man - I don't see it. The fact that a tiny minority account for 25-40% of child molestations seems to argue against you rather convincingly. The sheer numbers are not the issue here. The wildly disproportionate number of molestations commited by homosexuals is damning. Surely you can see that.


----------



## wolvie20m (Oct 24, 2004)

Of course I would never condone a child molestation. I simply want to show that a person being gay does not prove them more likely to be a pedophile. I exclude no group from being punished for crimes such as these.


----------



## musicman (Oct 24, 2004)

wolvie20m said:
			
		

> Of course I would never condone a child molestation. I simply want to show that a person being gay does not prove them more likely to be a pedophile. I exclude no group from being punished for crimes such as these.





Nor would I. But, don't you find those numbers disturbing?


----------



## wolvie20m (Oct 24, 2004)

I find every case disturbing, not just the homosexual ones.


----------



## Said1 (Oct 24, 2004)

wolvie20m said:
			
		

> I find every case disturbing, not just the homosexual ones.



That's really the main point isn't it?


----------



## musicman (Oct 24, 2004)

wolvie20m said:
			
		

> I find every case disturbing, not just the homosexual ones.





Right. Me, too. But the numbers demonstrate that homosexuals actually ARE more likely to be pedophiles.


----------



## Said1 (Oct 24, 2004)

musicman said:
			
		

> Right. Me, too. But the numbers demonstrate that homosexuals actually ARE more likely to be pedophiles.



I think it has more to do with molestation of said gay molesters as children. Repeting the pattern of abuse introduced to them at a young age is a common theme among them.


----------



## wolvie20m (Oct 24, 2004)

Nope just states most of them are, and if you wwanna get in to this again Give me till tommorw then we can go at this again.


----------



## musicman (Oct 24, 2004)

wolvie20m said:
			
		

> Nope just states most of them are, and if you wwanna get in to this again Give me till tommorw then we can go at this again.





Cool.


----------



## musicman (Oct 24, 2004)

Said1 said:
			
		

> I think it has more to do with molestation of said gay molesters as children. Repeting the pattern of abuse introduced to them at a young age is a common theme among them.





While what you say is certainly true, I got the sense that the study actually addressed it self to the youth-oriented nature of homosexuality. And, of course, the adult victim of childhood abuse has the option of seeking help, while a child is pretty much helpless.


----------



## Said1 (Oct 24, 2004)

musicman said:
			
		

> While what you say is certainly true, I got the sense that the study actually addressed it self to the youth-oriented nature of homosexuality. And, of course, the adult victim of childhood abuse has the option of seeking help, while a child is pretty much helpless.



Of course, my comment was NOT a defense - not even close.


----------



## musicman (Oct 24, 2004)

Said1 said:
			
		

> Of course, my comment was NOT a defense - not even close.





Oh, I never took it as such! And, you're quite right - the abuse is an awful cycle.


----------



## Said1 (Oct 24, 2004)

musicman said:
			
		

> Oh, I never took it as such! And, you're quite right - the abuse is an awful cycle.



Cool. This topic always gets so heated, I always feel the need to be perfectly clear to avoid any misunderstandings!


----------



## wolvie20m (Oct 25, 2004)

Ok musicman, here it goes I searched the interenet for a un-bias info site. This is what I found after reading through countless sites.
http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet2.html

Reading this has accutually made me depressed. The only group that can be proven to be more likely for child abuse/molestation is people who work with children. Now hopefully you can find me a un-bias site to dissprove me, or read carefully and accept the fact that being a homosexual doesn't constitute them being more likely to be pedophiles.


----------



## musicman (Oct 25, 2004)

But the numbers don't lie, wolvie. Believe me, I take no pleasure in that fact. I'm not laughing and saying, "Aha - I was right!" It is the sad and sickening truth that, while homosexuals make up 2-3% of the population, they perpetrate 25-40% of child molestations. No amount of creative statistic-juggling can change it (and it's sure as hell not for lack of trying). We can all cry "homophobe!" till the cows come home - the truth still won't go away.


----------



## MissileMan (Oct 25, 2004)

musicman said:
			
		

> But the numbers don't lie, wolvie. Believe me, I take no pleasure in that fact. I'm not laughing and saying, "Aha - I was right!" It is the sad and sickening truth that, while homosexuals make up 2-3% of the population, they perpetrate 25-40% of child molestations. No amount of creative statistic-juggling can change it (and it's sure as hell not for lack of trying). We can all cry "homophobe!" till the cows come home - the truth still won't go away.



There was also a statistic that said a homosexual pedophile would have over 7 times as many victims as a heterosexual pedophile.  Therefore you need to divide that 25-40% by 7 and you get 3-6%.  That would indicate to me that pedophilia is only slightly higher in homosexuals than it is in heterosexuals.


----------



## dmp (Oct 25, 2004)

MissileMan said:
			
		

> There was also a statistic that said a homosexual pedophile would have over 7 times as many victims as a heterosexual pedophile.  Therefore you need to divide that 25-40% by 7 and you get 3-6%.  That would indicate to me that pedophilia is only slightly higher in homosexuals than it is in heterosexuals.



Since Homosexual Pedophiles have as many as SEVEN TIMES the number of victims as Heterosexual pedophiles, why would that indicated only 'slightly' higher pedophilia rates?  I don't follow the math on that one.


----------



## Said1 (Oct 25, 2004)

-=d=- said:
			
		

> Since Homosexual Pedophiles have as many as SEVEN TIMES the number of victims as Heterosexual pedophiles, why would that indicated only 'slightly' higher pedophilia rates?  I don't follow the math on that one.



I don't either. Math is hard.


----------



## wolvie20m (Oct 25, 2004)

Well glad to hear it musicman, better to have a debate with someone who isn't bias. Well all the numbers are there all this will be is repetive. I think we should call this one and walk away.


----------



## dmp (Oct 25, 2004)

*Biased*


----------



## OCA (Oct 25, 2004)

MissileMan said:
			
		

> You STILL don't get it!  If he had not been a PEDOPHILE, he would not have hurt that little boy.



NAMBLA, a gay organization supporting relationships between men and boys, enough said.


----------



## MissileMan (Oct 25, 2004)

-=d=- said:
			
		

> Since Homosexual Pedophiles have as many as SEVEN TIMES the number of victims as Heterosexual pedophiles, why would that indicated only 'slightly' higher pedophilia rates?  I don't follow the math on that one.



Ok, let's say 100 kids get molested, and we take the higher percentage meaning that 40 of the kids were molested by a homosexual pedophile.  These 40 molestations would be done by approximately 6 molesters (40/7).  That means that 60 hetero sexual molesters committed the remainder.  That would mean there are 10 heterosexual pedophiles for every 1 homosexual one.  If you go with the lower 25%, you come up with approximately 21 heterosexual per 1 homosexual.


----------



## musicman (Oct 25, 2004)

MissileMan said:
			
		

> There was also a statistic that said a homosexual pedophile would have over 7 times as many victims as a heterosexual pedophile.  Therefore you need to divide that 25-40% by 7 and you get 3-6%.  That would indicate to me that pedophilia is only slightly higher in homosexuals than it is in heterosexuals.





Look, let's be clear on this. It's too important a fact to allow it to get swallowed up in junk math.

Homosexuals comprise 2-3% of the population. However, 25-40% of child molestations are commited by homosexuals. The conclusion is as plain as the nose on your face: In proportion to their sheer numbers, homosexuals are vastly, astronomically more likely to molest children than heterosexuals. You can manipulate numbers; you can twist the English language until it cries out in agony - no one, but NO ONE, can refute this fact.


----------



## dmp (Oct 25, 2004)

MissileMan said:
			
		

> Ok, let's say 100 kids get molested, and we take the higher percentage meaning that 40 of the kids were molested by a homosexual pedophile.  These 40 molestations would be done by approximately 6 molesters (40/7).  That means that 60 hetero sexual molesters committed the remainder.  That would mean there are 10 heterosexual pedophiles for every 1 homosexual one.  If you go with the lower 25%, you come up with approximately 21 heterosexual per 1 homosexual.



....uh?  Negative Ghost Rider.   

The stat which matters is the 'number' of kids hurt.  

You are twisting the math until it makes 'technical' sense, but it's intellectually dishonest.


----------



## musicman (Oct 25, 2004)

Out of a pool of 100 men, 97 engage in behavior A. 3 engage in behavior B. Tragically, 10 children are molested. 7 were molested by men who engage in behavior A. 3 were molested by men who engaged in behavior B. Conclusion: The likelihood that men who engage in behavior B will molest children is astronomically higher. Refutation?


----------



## MissileMan (Oct 25, 2004)

musicman said:
			
		

> Look, let's be clear on this. It's too important a fact to allow it to get swallowed up in junk math.
> 
> Homosexuals comprise 2-3% of the population. However, 25-40% of child molestations are commited by homosexuals. The conclusion is as plain as the nose on your face: In proportion to their sheer numbers, homosexuals are vastly, astronomically more likely to molest children than heterosexuals. You can manipulate numbers; you can twist the English language until it cries out in agony - no one, but NO ONE, can refute this fact.



It's not junk math.  And i'm not twisting language or manipulating numbers, just using all of the numbers that PR provided as his evidence.  I'm not disputing that that 25-40% are committed, but you are leaving out the other factor that a homosexual pedophile will have 7 times more victims than a heterosexual.  See, if you leave out the 25-40%, then since the ratio is 7 to 1 on victims, then homosexual pedophiles would account for 87% but that's not the case.  

Since homosexual pedophiles only account for 25-40%, they would commit 2-3 out of 8, or 4-6 out of 16, or 5-8(1 homosexual pedophile) out of 20.  That is a ratio of 13:1.  In other words, about 8% of pedophiles prefer boys. Get it?

But the real point here is that we are talking about pedophiles, not homosexuals.  Some prefer boys, and some prefer girls. It's not correct to blame all homosexuals for these molestations of boys any more than it would be to blame the rest of us for the molestation of girls.


----------



## musicman (Oct 25, 2004)

The statistical probability that homosexuals - relative to their sheer numbers - will molest children, is so much greater than that of heterosexuals that it's off the chart. That's the truth. You can't make it go away.


----------



## MissileMan (Oct 25, 2004)

musicman said:
			
		

> The statistical probability that homosexuals - relative to their sheer numbers - will molest children, is so much greater than that of heterosexuals that it's off the chart. That's the truth. You can't make it go away.



Where are your numbers to back that up?


----------



## musicman (Oct 25, 2004)

MissileMan said:
			
		

> Where are your numbers to back that up?





http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI  EduPamphlet2.html


----------



## musicman (Oct 25, 2004)

I'm sorry, Missile man. Somehow, I've miscopied it, and I can't get the link to work. No big deal, though. Go to post#73 - it will take you therre.


----------



## musicman (Oct 25, 2004)

Also, from Pale Rider's post#48:

"The institute, after reviewing more than 19 studies and peer-reviewed reports in a 'Psychology Reports' article, found that homosexuals account for between 25 and 40 percent of all child molestation".


----------



## MissileMan (Oct 25, 2004)

musicman said:
			
		

> Also, from Pale Rider's post#48:
> 
> "The institute, after reviewing more than 19 studies and peer-reviewed reports in a 'Psychology Reports' article, found that homosexuals account for between 25 and 40 percent of all child molestation".



I got to the link ok, thanks.  I will concede that 25 - 40 % of molestations are of the homosexual variety.  But...those numbers also include girls being molested by older women, I didn't really see an estimate of what portion that might be. And...



> In France, 129 convicted gays (21)(average age 34 years) said they had had sexual contact with a total of 11,007 boys (an average of 85 different boys per man). Abel et al reported similarly that men who molested girls outside their family had averaged 20 victims each; those who molested boys averaged 150 victims each.



You are not taking into account the 7 victims to 1 ratio, when you figure that also into the 25-40%, it comes out to 2-3 times as likely, not 20 times as per my previous post.

All in all though, if you want to talk about statistics, it is way more likely that a young girl, not a young boy, will be molested.  And by a heterosexual pedophile.


----------



## musicman (Oct 25, 2004)

MissileMan said:
			
		

> I got to the link ok, thanks.  I will concede that 25 - 40 % of molestations are of the homosexual variety.  But...those numbers also include girls being molested by older women, I didn't really see an estimate of what portion that might be. And...
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Well, the number of girls molested by older women actually descends into relative statistical insignificance - but even if that weren't the case, what's the difference? The issue here is, after all, homosexuality.

I'm sorry if I'm seeming thickheaded here, but I really don't see where the 7 to 1 ratio has any bearing on this simple fact: Homosexuals comprise 2-3% of the population, and yet commit 25-40% of child molestations. Ergo, the statistical probability that  homosexuals - relative to their sheer numbers -  will molest children, is staggering. That, it seems to me, is the only logical inference that can be drawn. I honestly don't understand what the molester to victim ratio has to do with anything - unless you're inferring that fewer homosexual child molesters - relative to the homosexual population in general - perpetrate proportionately more molestations than do heterosexual child molesters;i.e., homosexual child molesters - by virtue of their homosexuality - become  some sort of super-predator. I can scarcely believe that.

And, of course, you're right about young girls being more likely to be molested by heterosexual pedophiles. Heterosexuals comprise 97-98% of the population. By that yardstick alone, the discrepancy between male and female victims would run closer to an average which reflects that fact. It does not. Something else is in play here. Speaking charitably, 3 out of 10 molestations are carried out by a tiny minority of the population. I really don't know how else to explain it.


----------



## MissileMan (Oct 25, 2004)

musicman said:
			
		

> unless you're inferring that fewer homosexual child molesters - relative to the homosexual population in general - perpetrate proportionately more molestations than do heterosexual child molesters;i.e., homosexual child molesters - by virtue of their homosexuality - become  some sort of super-predator. I can scarcely believe that.



That is exactly what the studies suggested.  According to their research, a homosexual pedophile molests as many as 7 times more victims as does a heterosexual pedophile.

I think it is also important to make a distinction between a homosexual, and a male pedophile who is attracted to boys, just as there is a difference between heterosexual males and heterosexual pedophiles who are attracted to young girls.


----------



## dmp (Oct 25, 2004)

MissileMan said:
			
		

> I think it is also important to make a distinction between a homosexual, and a male pedophile who is attracted to boys, just as there is a difference between heterosexual males and heterosexual pedophiles who are attracted to young girls.




uh...if he's attracted to boys, or sex with boys, he's a homosexual.

Homosexual IS as homosexual does.


----------



## MissileMan (Oct 25, 2004)

-=d=- said:
			
		

> uh...if he's attracted to boys, or sex with boys, he's a homosexual.
> 
> Homosexual IS as homosexual does.



Uh, if he's attracted to boys, or sex with boys, he's a pedophile!  

Why are you so quick to condemn all homosexuals for the actions of a few pedophiles?  I don't see you claiming that all heterosexuals are child molesters because some monsters are attracted to little girls.  You are very similar to WJ in tactics....you just have a different target.  The hatred that you exude is at least as disgusting as anything that 2 homosexuals can do to each other.


----------



## dmp (Oct 25, 2004)

MissileMan said:
			
		

> Uh, if he's attracted to boys, or sex with boys, he's a pedophile!



...and a homosexual.


----------



## dmp (Oct 25, 2004)

MissileMan said:
			
		

> Why are you so quick to condemn all homosexuals for the actions of a few pedophiles?  I don't see you claiming that all heterosexuals are child molesters because some monsters are attracted to little girls.  You are very similar to WJ in tactics....you just have a different target.  The hatred that you exude is at least as disgusting as anything that 2 homosexuals can do to each other.




You don't see me claiming all homosexuals are pedophiles, either.  Again, please check out hooked on Phonics - I've supplied the link many times.

Nobody can read what I've typed and conclude I hate 'homosexual people'.  

I hate 'homosexuality' the same as I hate 'murder' or 'lying' etc.


----------



## musicman (Oct 26, 2004)

MissileMan said:
			
		

> That is exactly what the studies suggested.  According to their research, a homosexual pedophile molests as many as 7 times more victims as does a heterosexual pedophile.
> 
> I think it is also important to make a distinction between a homosexual, and a male pedophile who is attracted to boys, just as there is a difference between heterosexual males and heterosexual pedophiles who are attracted to young girls.





Sorry to have been so long in answering. Trust me - the life of a long-suffering Cincinnati Bengals fan has so few rewards...

Well, it would appear that one study simply states that, while homosexuals comprise 2-3% of the population, they commit 25-40% of child molestations.

Another study doesn't dispute that number, but explains it by demonstrating that a homosexual pedophile is SEVEN TIMES MORE PROLIFIC - 700% AS DANGEROUS - as a heterosexual child molester.

I don't think either finding is particularly good news for those trying to portray homosexuality as just another lifestyle - no better or worse than any other.


----------



## MissileMan (Oct 26, 2004)

musicman said:
			
		

> Sorry to have been so long in answering. Trust me - the life of a long-suffering Cincinnati Bengals fan has so few rewards...
> 
> Well, it would appear that one study simply states that, while homosexuals comprise 2-3% of the population, they commit 25-40% of child molestations.
> 
> Another study doesn't dispute that number, but explains it by demonstrating that a homosexual pedophile is SEVEN TIMES MORE PROLIFIC - 700% AS DANGEROUS - as a heterosexual child molester.



I won't dispute any of that, especially he part about the Bengals.



			
				musicman said:
			
		

> I don't think either finding is particularly good news for those trying to portray homosexuality as just another lifestyle - no better or worse than any other.



However, when you consider all of the numbers, homosexual pedophiles make up around 6-8% of all the pedophiles out there.  And I still don't think it's right to equate a homosexual pedophile with a homosexual who is attracted to other adult men, anymore than you can say that heterosexuality leads to the molestation of little girls.


----------



## musicman (Oct 26, 2004)

MissileMan said:
			
		

> I won't dispute any of that, especially he part about the Bengals.
> 
> 
> 
> However, when you consider all of the numbers, homosexual pedophiles make up around 6-8% of all the pedophiles out there.  And I still don't think it's right to equate a homosexual pedophile with a homosexual who is attracted to other adult men, anymore than you can say that heterosexuality leads to the molestation of little girls.





But, the disparity is GARGANTUAN - no matter which finding you accept. How do you explain it?


----------



## musicman (Oct 26, 2004)

MissileMan said:
			
		

> And I still don't think it's right to equate a homosexual pedophile with a homosexual who is attracted to other adult men, anymore than you can say that heterosexuality leads to the molestation of little girls.





Actually, heterosexuality - in the strictest interpretation of the word - DOES lead to the molestation of little girls. The DIRECT cause of the assault is that particular male's sex drive. The attack would never take place otherwise. However, it is the sex drive of a male (I'd never call a sick fuck like this a MAN) who has allowed his lust to take precedence over EVERYTHING - decency, concern for others, simple human mercy toward those weaker(physically) than himself, and rules of civilized conduct. Only a creature this depraved could look at a child and get HOT.

But, when you introduce homosexuality into the equation, you must accept that either, 

A.) Child molestations occur with exponentially more frequency across the board, or, 

B.) Accepting that "A" is true, explain it by admitting that those homosexuals who DO molest children are SEVEN TIMES more rapacious.

I don't think either scenario speaks well for homosexuality.


----------



## dmp (Oct 26, 2004)

...I'm counting the minutes until the bs comment is made:

"It's not about sex, it's about control (of the victim)"..

:vomit:

it IS about sex...about urges unrestrained.


----------



## musicman (Oct 26, 2004)

-=d=- said:
			
		

> ...I'm counting the minutes until the bs comment is made:
> 
> "It's not about sex, it's about control (of the victim)"..
> 
> ...





Absolutely, 100% right. Man, by his nature, is utterly depraved. If one would understand human nature, he needs only to observe a small child. It's all about "what feels good, what tastes good, and what's going to make me happy in the next thirty seconds of my life". Some human beings manage, eventually, to triumph over their essential nature. We used to call it, "growing up".


----------



## dmp (Oct 26, 2004)

musicman said:
			
		

> Absolutely, 100% right. Man, by his nature, is utterly depraved. If one would understand human nature, he needs only to observe a small child. It's all about "what feels good, what tastes good, and what's going to make me happy in the next thirty seconds of my life". Some human beings manage, eventually, to triumph over their essential nature. We used to call it, "growing up".




Part of the problem imo, is the likes of Dr. Spock and his 'don't make a child unhappy' bullcrap.    Our society lives, breathes, and worships Hedonism. 

:-/

If something FEELS good, it by default IS good.


----------



## musicman (Oct 26, 2004)

-=d=- said:
			
		

> Part of the problem imo, is the likes of Dr. Spock and his 'don't make a child unhappy' bullcrap.    Our society lives, breathes, and worships Hedonism.
> 
> :-/
> 
> If something FEELS good, it by default IS good.





And, conversely - if something makes you feel bad (e.g., guilty or ashamed), it is, by definition, bad. To hell with learning and the (sometimes painful) opportunity for growth. You don't need it. You are, after all, perfect. You are the center of the universe.


----------



## dmp (Oct 26, 2004)

musicman said:
			
		

> And, conversely - if something makes you feel bad (e.g., guilty or ashamed), it is, by definition, bad. To hell with learning and the (sometimes painful) opportunity for growth. You don't need it. You are, after all, perfect. You are the center of the universe.




that concept is being forced on our kids from early ages - such as the whole "nobody loses" games during physical education.


----------



## MissileMan (Oct 26, 2004)

Well, the horse is almost dead, but I'm going to make my point one last time.

Let's leave the lesbians out of the picture all together as their contribution to the molestation rate is negligible.  Approximately 2.8% of the U.S. population are homosexual males.  Approximately 45% of the U.S. population are heterosexual males.  That comes out to 1 homosexual male for every 15 heterosexual males.

Since studies have shown that any one homosexual pedophile will create as many as 7 times more victims than any one heterosexual pedophile, when you crunch the numbers it proves that even though homosexual pedophiles commit 25-40% of the molestations, the actual percentage of pedophiles among homosexuals is no greater than than the percentage of pedophiles among heterosexuals.  Based on the 25-40%, for example, homosexual molestations would account for 2-3 out of 8, or 4-6 out of 16, or 5-8(1 homosexual pedophiles worth) out of 20. That gives you a ratio of 1 homosexual pedophile for over 13 heterosexual pedophiles.  That is amazingly close to the population ratio and would give rise to the conclusion that a certain percentage of males are going to be pedophiles, whether they are homosexual or not.

I am disturbed and have no theory as to why there is a significant disparity in the voracity of homosexual pedophiles.  But it still doesn't change the fact that the premise of the original post was wrong.  The boy was molested by a pedophile.


----------



## dmp (Oct 26, 2004)

> The boy was molested by a gay pedophile.




Exactly.


----------



## MissileMan (Oct 26, 2004)

-=d=- said:
			
		

> Exactly.



 :blah2:  :blah2:  :blah2: 
Instead of making up your own quotes, why don't you try to refute the numbers?


----------



## dmp (Oct 26, 2004)

MissileMan said:
			
		

> :blah2:  :blah2:  :blah2:
> Instead of making up your own quotes, why don't you try to refute the numbers?




making up my own quotes?? wha?

Because I could show numbers telling you the sky was blue, but you'd find a way to argue the sky is purple.


----------



## MissileMan (Oct 26, 2004)

-=d=- said:
			
		

> making up my own quotes?? wha?
> 
> Because I could show numbers telling you the sky was blue, but you'd find a way to argue the sky is purple.



Nice dodge! :wank:


----------



## dmp (Oct 26, 2004)

MissileMan said:
			
		

> Nice dodge! :wank:




...if that helps you sleep...sure.


----------



## musicman (Oct 27, 2004)

Missile Man:

As I said in post #101, we have a choice between the findings of two scientific studies upon which to base our discussion. We seem to have opted for finding "B". O.K - that's fine.

Having decided that, though, we can't now just throw our hands in the air and say, "Oh, well - they're all just pedophiles". That would constitute a dangerous, willful blindness. We dare not do that - not with numbers like these. We can't blithely separate a molester's sexual preference from his act - remember, his sexual preference (and his depraved unwillingness to control same) is the REASON for his act.

If homosexual child molesters number only one for every thirteen heterosexual monsters, we cannot turn away from the fact that that ONE is committing 25-40% of the offenses! This absolutely says something about homosexuality. This urgently demands the light of day, not hurt feelings and impotent excuses. We have to start asking some tough questions, and we can't turn away in fear and shame from the answers. We do so at our peril.


----------



## dmp (Jul 29, 2005)

...such GREAT Info in this thread...


----------



## archangel (Jul 29, 2005)

MissileMan said:
			
		

> Well, the horse is almost dead, but I'm going to make my point one last time.
> 
> Let's leave the lesbians out of the picture all together as their contribution to the molestation rate is negligible.  Approximately 2.8% of the U.S. population are homosexual males.  Approximately 45% of the U.S. population are heterosexual males.  That comes out to 1 homosexual male for every 15 heterosexual males.
> 
> ...





give it a rest...having been a child porn investigator..I can tell you that out of all the cases I worked...approximately 500...65% were homosexual males...25% were hetrosexual males and the remainder divided between hetro and homo females....and for the most part homosexual pedophiles had a higher ratio of being attorney's and other professionals...maybe this is why the ACLU defends them so voraciously!


----------



## MissileMan (Jul 29, 2005)

archangel said:
			
		

> give it a rest


I believe I already had.  :read:


----------



## Bullypulpit (Jul 29, 2005)

-=d=- said:
			
		

> :-/
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Pedophillia is not the same as homosexuality. Some pedophiles are homosexuals just as some are straight. Get over it. No self-respecting gay man would have anything but scorn, revulsion and contempt for a pedophile.

Your fixation on homosexuality is indicative of very real concerns about your own sexual identitiy. And, in such individuals, the likelyhood of deviant behavior such as pedophilia is far more likely than in healthy straight or gay individuals.


----------



## Gem (Jul 29, 2005)

Bully, you can take issue with much of what was said here.  I know I do.  But please do not fall back on ludicrous talking points and stupid liberal "gotcha" games.

The whole "ooh, you said something even remotely negative about homosexuality...did you know that that means you're a closet homosexual and possibley even a future pedophile yourself???  oooh...gotcha!!!" line is tired and pointless.

There are real arguments and discussions to be had about this topic...falling back on bullshit just demonstrates that you don't have anything real to add...so why bother?


----------



## mattskramer (Jul 30, 2005)

LOL - I thought that the bias displayed by the original message on this thread was extinct. (sigh).  I debated this and debated this and demonstrated the fallacious reasoning, but some people will still hold firm to their biases no matter how offensive and unwarranted they are. I'm not going to dwell on it. 

Oh, I read that a young girl was raped by her father. It wasn't due to him being a rapist.  It was because he was a heterosexual.  There goes that 'there are no victims in heterosexuality' argument. (shakes his head). 

Look.  There is a difference between mosestation/rape and homosexuality just as there is a difference between molestation/rape and heterosexuality. Oh well.  I may as well be talking to a wall.

Oh yeah.  You posted some statistics.  Try researching this: how many children are abused by heterosexual parents vs homosexual parents?  How many adults (women or men) are raped by heterosexuals vs homosexuals?  

Oh well.  It my opinion the focus is wrong.  We should avoid linking sex crimes with sexual orientation. We shouldn't go after the whole of Islam because some Muslims are prone to terrorism.  We shouldn't go after the Whole of the Negro community because Black commit a disproportionate number of violent crimes, and we shouldn't go after the whole of homosexuality because some people who are supposedly homosexuals abuse children.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Jul 30, 2005)

mattskramer said:
			
		

> We should avoid linking sex crimes with sexual orientation.



Why?


----------



## Bullypulpit (Jul 30, 2005)

Gem said:
			
		

> Bully, you can take issue with much of what was said here.  I know I do.  But please do not fall back on ludicrous talking points and stupid liberal "gotcha" games.
> 
> The whole "ooh, you said something even remotely negative about homosexuality...did you know that that means you're a closet homosexual and possibley even a future pedophile yourself???  oooh...gotcha!!!" line is tired and pointless.
> 
> There are real arguments and discussions to be had about this topic...falling back on bullshit just demonstrates that you don't have anything real to add...so why bother?



Ya know...I could give a shit whether someone is gay or straight. I could give a shit if someone says something 'negative' about homo or heterosexuality. However, when some twit insists on engaging in the logical fallacy -=d=- engaged in with his post, in an attempt to sow lies and hatred, it cannot go unremarked. 

Attempting to link criminal sexual behavior with the normal expression of homosexuality is one of the hallmarks of internalized, or ego-dystonic, homophobia. This behavior amngst LBG people is an attempt to suppress and repress their desires for same-gender relations and "fit in" with a percieved heterosexual norm.

So, dearie, the only bullshit here is that of -=d=- and his fellow travelers.

Now, how long will it be before 'Turd-Blossom' is indicted?


----------



## mattskramer (Jul 30, 2005)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Why?



Please read my previous post again.   We should not link a religion with terrorism though quite a few Muslims commit acts of terrorism - for the same reason we should not go after an entire race tough quite a few members of that race commit a disproportionate number of violent crimes.  Go after the criminals but don't condemn the entire class due to the acts of a few.


----------



## Gunny (Jul 30, 2005)

-=d=- said:
			
		

> Him being gay had EVERYTHING to do with him molesting a young boy.  Nobody is 'born' a rapist...we are shaped by the conditions we find ourselves in; by experiences and environments we are placed in, or choose to place ourselves in.  If this guy had been given guidance to help with his conflicting feelings about sexuality, and taught to control impulse urges, perhaps he 'would not' have hurt that boy.   The 'well, if it wasn't that boy, it would have just been a girl' argument is rather fucked up - talk about insulting.



Completely agree with you, =d=.  The argument is nothing more than homosexuals attempting to distance themselves from sexual deviance ....AS IF .......


----------



## OCA (Jul 30, 2005)

Bullypulpit said:
			
		

> Ya know...I could give a shit whether someone is gay or straight. I could give a shit if someone says something 'negative' about homo or heterosexuality. However, when some twit insists on engaging in the logical fallacy -=d=- engaged in with his post, in an attempt to sow lies and hatred, it cannot go unremarked.
> 
> Attempting to link criminal sexual behavior with the normal expression of homosexuality is one of the hallmarks of internalized, or ego-dystonic, homophobia. This behavior amngst LBG people is an attempt to suppress and repress their desires for same-gender relations and "fit in" with a percieved heterosexual norm.
> 
> ...



NORMAL EXPRESSION OF HOMOSEXUALITY?????????????????????????

Reagan should not have let you out of the mental facility back in the 80's. Your wrong on almost every single issue known to man.


----------



## 007 (Jul 30, 2005)

OCA said:
			
		

> *NORMAL EXPRESSION OF HOMOSEXUALITY?????????????????????????  *
> 
> Reagan should not have let you out of the mental facility back in the 80's. Your wrong on almost every single issue known to man.



No kidding... pul'it pops in just long enough to drop the oxcymoron of the century. What a moron.

I often have wondered if pulit isn't an inmate in some mental ward with computer priviledges.


----------



## Bullypulpit (Jul 30, 2005)

OCA said:
			
		

> NORMAL EXPRESSION OF HOMOSEXUALITY?????????????????????????
> 
> Reagan should not have let you out of the mental facility back in the 80's. Your wrong on almost every single issue known to man.



There you go again...Projecting your own frailties and foibles on others. Take your meds and go back to sleep.


----------



## Bullypulpit (Jul 30, 2005)

Pale Rider said:
			
		

> No kidding... pul'it pops in just long enough to drop the oxcymoron of the century. What a moron.
> 
> I often have wondered if pulit isn't an inmate in some mental ward with computer priviledges.



See my reply to OCA. :teeth:


----------



## 007 (Jul 30, 2005)

Bullypulpit said:
			
		

> See my reply to OCA. :teeth:



Lame.


----------



## Gem (Jul 30, 2005)

Bully Wrote:


> Ya know...I could give a shit whether someone is gay or straight.



Just so long as they keep their opinions to themselves if their feelings don't jive with yours.



> However, when some twit insists on engaging in the logical fallacy -=d=- engaged in with his post, in an attempt to sow lies and hatred, it cannot go unremarked.



But in the particular thread I was referencing...I didn't take issue with your comments of disagreement regarding the topic...I commented on your smarmy little talking point...one you and others have used here before.



> Attempting to link criminal sexual behavior with the normal expression of homosexuality is one of the hallmarks of internalized, or ego-dystonic, homophobia. This behavior amngst LBG people is an attempt to suppress and repress their desires for same-gender relations and "fit in" with a percieved heterosexual norm.



This is bullshit...it is used much like the "The only reason people hate Clinton is because they are jealous he is getting some and they aren't." line that liberals love to screach so much when they are having trouble following along in an actual discussion of Clinton's politics and policies.  

As I said before and repeat now...you can disagree the opinions shared here, or you can feel strongly that some here are terribly uninformed and seem to celebrate how brainwashed they are...

However, I would ask that you please stop with the stupid, childish, "You only hate gays cause you secretly want to be one," nonsense.  It only serves to make you look like someone who is willing to fall back on school yard taunts when you don't want to actually provide factual evidence to forward the discourse.



> So, dearie, the only bullshit here is that of -=d=- and his fellow travelers.



This is your opinion and you are welcome to it...but when you follow up your opinion with an only slightly masked form of, "and by the way...YOU SECRETELY WANNA BE GAY!!  HA HA!"  Your potentially valid opinion disintegrates into bullshit.



> Now, how long will it be before 'Turd-Blossom' is indicted?



And although this was completely off topic...my answer would be: When he is found guilty of a crime.


----------



## sitarro (Aug 1, 2005)

MJDuncan1982 said:
			
		

> Homosexuals by definition can't control deviant urges?  Explain this one to me please.
> 
> And yes, if he were straight I believe he would have attacked a girl.  I do not believe the fact he is attracted to the same sex is a factor as to why he rapes.  I believe he rapes because he is a rapist.  Then, as a rapist, he rapes young boys because he is homosexual.  But the fact he is a rapist is paramount to the fact he is homosexual.



Let me guess . . . you're a defense attorney .Do you know what the definition of "is" is?


----------



## KarlMarx (Aug 1, 2005)

I'm surprised, all this talk about pedophilia and no one seems to have mentioned Catholic priests! Of course, I could be wrong, there are 9 pages of replies, and I may have missed it!

Or perhaps, stigmatizing priests is not as fashionable as it once was?

A neighbor of mine told me that people seemed horrified when she tells them that she sends her children to a Catholic school. Some will ask "aren't you worried after all that happened with those priests?"

Yet, many people don't seem to have a problem with gay teachers, even though many studies suggest that gays seem to be more prone to molesting children. A quick look at ancient history, e.g. the Greeks and Romans, shows that much of the expression of homosexuality throughout the ages has been, euphemistically speaking, "cross generational".

Now, here we have a case of a gay man, who molests a  kid and  some posters insist on splitting of hairs by claiming that  the offender wasn't gay, he was a pedophile instead. I wonder, why priests aren't afforded the same latitude, that the  "priests" that molested all those young boys weren't priests, they were pedophiles, and gay ones at that?

Furthermore, many posters (me included) feel that the Catholic Church should have done more to out pedophile priests and turned them over to the authorities. I now will suggest that the gay community at large has to admit that, it too, has a very large pink elephant in the living room that it doesn't want to acknowledge or deal with. That is, many of its members are sexual predators who prey on children, and furthermore, that the onus is on the gay community to out these persons, turn them over to the authorities and disassociate itself from them. I do believe that the majority of gays aren't pedophiles, but at the same time, that the gay community won't admit that it has a problem that it doesn't want to deal with.

If I were a gay man, I'd be concerned and angry, that the gay community isn't admitting to this problem and doing something about it, because, in the long run, ignoring it will only stigmatize the rest of the gay community.

Back to the "Catholic Church should have done more about those pedophile priests" issue. During the 1960s and 1970s, the psychiatric profession believed that pedophilia was a curable disease that could be dealt with using talk therapy. That was an accepted approach to the problem at the time. Many priests who molested children were put in programs that were run by professional psychiatrists and then certified "cured"  before turning them back over to the Church with their stamp of approval. So, the psychological profession, also had a hand in this mess (although, strangely enough, you don't hear much about psychiatrists and psychologists being sued or impugned in the papers about it. Isn't that odd? No, actually it isn't, it follows, but that's another can of worms). So actually, the Church probably was doing more about the problem that is now generally admitted, and at the time, it was believed it was dealing with the problem.

It is also becoming very evident that people who molest children continue to do so and pose a grave threat to society, specifically to its children. Yet the law of the land, in its infinite wisdom, sees fit to release pedophiles back into society after 2-5 years. So, after a break of 2-5 years, these individuals are given another chance, not to reform themselves, but to molest yet more children. Yet, the law doesn't want to admit its role in this problem either, that it isn't effectively protecting children from pedophiles when it releases known, convicted offenders back into society when the chances are very high that they will commit the same offenses again.

What is needed for these individuals, is lifetime confinement, in an institution or in a prison without exception. And I hear all the excuses why this should not be done, that the offenders have rights, that there are too many prisons, there are not enough prisons, there is too much money being spent on prisons, that there isn't enough money being spent on prisons, that there aren't enough police or that to undertake such an approach would require a legion of prison guards. Society has a compelling interest to protect its children that supersedes the rights of pedophiles.

Molested children oftentimes grow up to be damaged individuals and a burden on society. They also grow up and repeat the same offenses that they, themselves, suffered. In my opinion, incarcerating/institutionalizing convicted pedophiles for life is a price that society has to be willing to pay in order that assure the safety of children and to break the vicious cycle of pedophilia.


----------



## sitarro (Aug 1, 2005)

MissileMan said:
			
		

> Well, the horse is almost dead, but I'm going to make my point one last time.
> 
> Let's leave the lesbians out of the picture all together as their contribution to the molestation rate is negligible.  Approximately 2.8% of the U.S. population are homosexual males.  Approximately 45% of the U.S. population are heterosexual males.  That comes out to 1 homosexual male for every 15 heterosexual males.
> 
> ...



Hate to "screw" up your little math equation missile but are you sure about the statistic you keep quoting about the repeated molestation by homos. Are you actually saying that homo pedophiles are 7 times as sick as hetero pedophiles?


----------



## MissileMan (Aug 1, 2005)

KarlMarx said:
			
		

> Now, here we have a case of a gay man, who molests a  kid and  some posters insist on splitting of hairs by claiming that  the offender wasn't gay, he was a pedophile instead. I wonder, why priests aren't afforded the same latitude, that the  "priests" that molested all those young boys weren't priests, they were pedophiles, and gay ones at that?


How about for the logical reason that priest isn't a sexual orientation?



			
				KarlMarx said:
			
		

> Furthermore, many posters (me included) feel that the Catholic Church should have done more to out pedophile priests and turned them over to the authorities. I now will suggest that the gay community at large has to admit that, it too, has a very large pink elephant in the living room that it doesn't want to acknowledge or deal with. That is, many of its members are sexual predators who prey on children, and furthermore, that the onus is on the gay community to out these persons, turn them over to the authorities and disassociate itself from them. I do believe that the majority of gays aren't pedophiles, but at the same time, that the gay community won't admit that it has a problem that it doesn't want to deal with.
> If I were a gay man, I'd be concerned and angry, that the gay community isn't admitting to this problem and doing something about it, because, in the long run, ignoring it will only stigmatize the rest of the gay community.



As there are at least 7 times more men who are molesting little girls than men who molest little boys, what about our "pink elephant"?  Pedophilia is indeed a serious problem, but you can't blame it on the gays.  Until there's an understanding that there is a difference between a pedophile and a homosexual you can't do much to stop the problem because you have your sights on the wrong target.


----------



## MissileMan (Aug 1, 2005)

sitarro said:
			
		

> Hate to "screw" up your little math equation missile but are you sure about the statistic you keep quoting about the repeated molestation by homos. Are you actually saying that homo pedophiles are 7 times as sick as hetero pedophiles?



That's what the data suggests...that the pedophiles who prefer boys have 7 times as many victims.


----------



## sitarro (Aug 1, 2005)

KarlMarx said:
			
		

> I'm surprised, all this talk about pedophilia and no one seems to have mentioned Catholic priests! Of course, I could be wrong, there are 9 pages of replies, and I may have missed it!
> 
> Or perhaps, stigmatizing priests is not as fashionable as it once was?
> 
> ...



Great Post as usual Karl , 
 I think we should deposit them in Saudi land for life , let them deal with em or better yet allow the parents of the child to have a minimum of 10 minutes a month with them armed with an aluminum baseball bat , cattle prod or taser . . . their choice.


----------



## KarlMarx (Aug 1, 2005)

MissileMan said:
			
		

> How about for the logical reason that priest isn't a sexual orientation?


How about for the logical reason that the Left has something against the Catholic Church? Yes, you do have something against the church. So in addition to your pedophilia problem, you gays have a religious bigotry problem to boot. So now you have two problems. On the other hand, the Catholic Church doesn't hate you, it reaches out to gays (although it does not condone their lifestyle) and is the largest caregiver of HIV/AIDS victims on the planet.





> As there are at least 7 times more men who are molesting little girls than men who molest little boys, what about our "pink elephant"?  Pedophilia is indeed a serious problem, but you can't blame it on the gays.  Until there's an understanding that there is a difference between a pedophile and a homosexual you can't do much to stop the problem because you have your sights on the wrong target.


So considering that gays are at most 5 percent of the population, they still are more likely to molest children that heterosexuals.

Do the math

Gays = 5% = 1/20 = 0.05

Straights = 95% = 19/20 = 0.95

so if x is the number of children molested by gays and 7x is the number of kids molested by straights

then per capita molestation by gays = x/.05 = 20x *(20 kids molested per gay person)*

per capita molestation by straights = x/.95 = 1.05x *(1.05 kids molested per straight person)*

 I take it back, you don't have a pink elephant, you have a big red gorilla the size of King Kong in your living room.....


----------



## Bullypulpit (Aug 1, 2005)

KarlMarx said:
			
		

> How about for the logical reason that the Left has something against the Catholic Church? Yes, you do have something against the church. So in addition to your pedophilia problem, you gays have a religious bigotry problem to boot. So now you have two problems. On the other hand, the Catholic Church doesn't hate you, it reaches out to gays (although it does not condone their lifestyle) and is the largest caregiver of HIV/AIDS victims on the planet.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## dmp (Aug 1, 2005)

Bullypulpit said:
			
		

>




www.dosomebasicmath.com

What does not matter is this:  If Homosexuals are 5% of the population, 10%, or 1%.  The math works - it shows Homosexuals, per capita, are more likely to molest children than heterosexuals.

Spin that...

(shrug).


----------



## nakedemperor (Aug 1, 2005)

1. If you molest children, and those children happen to be of the same sex as you, you're not necessarily gay, you might be plain insane. You'll find that most that molest little boys molest little girls (too). The number of 'gays' that molest kids is recorded simply because a man molested a boy, which is reductionist and doesn't necessarily mean he is gay. Obviously this is nitpicky, but its just one bulletin.

2. The implication of these numbers is obviously 'there's something wrong with gay people, because look at how many of them molest kids'. I'd posit that a lot of this is due to arrested development and malformed psyches due to the stress and strain of growing up gay. If these psychologically oppressive factors didn't exist in society, I'd bet that the numbers would be pretty even.

Disclaimer: Obviously I'm not trying to say gay molesters aren't to blame for their actions; but they're only human, and this is a very plausible possible reason for the uneven numbers.


----------



## GotZoom (Aug 1, 2005)

nakedemperor said:
			
		

> 1. If you molest children, and those children happen to be of the same sex as you, you're not necessarily gay, you might be plain insane. You'll find that most that molest little boys molest little girls (too). The number of 'gays' that molest kids is recorded simply because a man molested a boy, which is reductionist and doesn't necessarily mean he is gay. Obviously this is nitpicky, but its just one bulletin.
> 
> 2. The implication of these numbers is obviously 'there's something wrong with gay people, because look at how many of them molest kids'. I'd posit that a lot of this is due to arrested development and malformed psyches due to the stress and strain of growing up gay. If these psychologically oppressive factors didn't exist in society, I'd bet that the numbers would be pretty even.
> 
> Disclaimer: Obviously I'm not trying to say gay molesters aren't to blame for their actions; but they're only human, and this is a very plausible possible reason for the uneven numbers.



So your stance is:  The reason gay men molest little boys is because they grew up "stressed" because they were gay?  Pressure of not coming out, society frowns upon them, etc.


----------



## Annie (Aug 1, 2005)

GotZoom said:
			
		

> So your stance is:  The reason gay men molest little boys is because they grew up "stressed" because they were gay?  Pressure of not coming out, society frowns upon them, etc.



In this case, I have to agree with your interpretation. Perhaps NE wants to rethink this?


----------



## GotZoom (Aug 1, 2005)

Kathianne said:
			
		

> In this case, I have to agree with your interpretation. Perhaps NE wants to rethink this?



I hope so.


----------



## dmp (Aug 1, 2005)

nakedemperor said:
			
		

> 1. If you molest children, and those children happen to be of the same sex as you, you're not necessarily gay, you might be plain insane. You'll find that most that molest little boys molest little girls (too). The number of 'gays' that molest kids is recorded simply because a man molested a boy, which is reductionist and doesn't necessarily mean he is gay. Obviously this is nitpicky, but its just one bulletin.



...but of course that makes one 'gay'.  gay = homosexual. Homosexuality is 'engaging in sex acts with a member of the same gender'.  By default men who molest boys are homoseuxal - or at least enjoy homosexual conduct.



> Disclaimer: Obviously I'm not trying to say gay molesters aren't to blame for their actions; but they're only human, and this is a very plausible possible reason for the uneven numbers.



I believe it's not plausible.


----------



## Said1 (Aug 1, 2005)

nakedemperor said:
			
		

> Disclaimer: Obviously I'm not trying to say gay molesters aren't to blame for their actions; *but they're only human, and this is a very plausible possible reason for the uneven numbers*.



That's pretty twisted. PLEASE elaborate.


----------



## MissileMan (Aug 1, 2005)

KarlMarx said:
			
		

> How about for the logical reason that the Left has something against the Catholic Church? Yes, you do have something against the church. So in addition to your pedophilia problem, you gays have a religious bigotry problem to boot. So now you have two problems. On the other hand, the Catholic Church doesn't hate you, it reaches out to gays (although it does not condone their lifestyle) and is the largest caregiver of HIV/AIDS victims on the planet.


Let's break this down point by point.
!.  You were the one who was trying to equate being a priest with being a homosexual or heterosexual.  I pointed out that your comparison was illogical and you go on some rant about the Catholic church.

2.  I'm not gay, I'm not a liberal, I'm not anti-Catholic.  I do speak out against the religious people who disparage and discriminate against homosexuals because along with their biblical references, there is a tendency to spout pure bullshit, for instance, that homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles.






			
				KarlMarx said:
			
		

> So considering that gays are at most 5 percent of the population, they still are more likely to molest children that heterosexuals.
> 
> Do the math
> 
> ...



Your little formula is cute, but wrong.  It doesn't account for the percentage of molestations that are committed by homopeds vs. heteropeds.  It is a fact, that can be proven with the data available, that the incidence of pedophilia among gays is only slightly higher than it is among heteros.  So the pink elephant and red gorilla are figments of your imagination.


----------



## dmp (Aug 1, 2005)

MissileMan said:
			
		

> Your little formula is cute, but wrong.  It doesn't account for the percentage of molestations that are committed by homopeds vs. heteropeds.  It is a fact, that can be proven with the data available, that the incidence of pedophilia among gays is only slightly higher than it is among heteros.  So the pink elephant and red gorilla are figments of your imagination.




Why do you refuse truth?  The math shows EXACTLY the fact "Homosexuals, as a group, have a MUCH higher rate of child molesters than Heteros, as a group"


----------



## MissileMan (Aug 1, 2005)

-=d=- said:
			
		

> Why do you refuse truth?  The math shows EXACTLY the fact "Homosexuals, as a group, have a MUCH higher rate of child molesters than Heteros, as a group"



Look, it's simple math, no spin, no bullshit.

25-40% of molestation are of the homosexual variety.  Pedophiles of the homosexual variety have 7 times as many victims as heterosexual ones.  When you account for the disparity in the number of victims and divide the 25-40 percent by 7, you get an incidence rate of anywhere from 3 to 10% which is within the range or slightly higher than the incidence of homosexuals within the population.

The bottom line that most here can't seem to grasp is that there is a difference between a homosexual and a pedophile, just as there is a difference between a heterosexual and a pedophile.  This is the same kind of flawed logic that leads people to say most Muslims are terrorists and most liberals are atheists.


----------



## Hobbit (Aug 1, 2005)

MissileMan said:
			
		

> Look, it's simple math, no spin, no bullshit.
> 
> 25-40% of molestation are of the homosexual variety.  *Pedophiles of the homosexual variety have 7 times as many victims as heterosexual ones.*  When you account for the disparity in the number of victims and divide the 25-40 percent by 7, you get an incidence rate of anywhere from 3 to 10% which is within the range or slightly higher than the incidence of homosexuals within the population.
> 
> The bottom line that most here can't seem to grasp is that there is a difference between a homosexual and a pedophile, just as there is a difference between a heterosexual and a pedophile.  This is the same kind of flawed logic that leads people to say most Muslims are terrorists and most liberals are atheists.



So, the homosexual pedophiles are more aggresive?  I still see this as a problem.  I'd also like to see a   to that.

However, *my* opinion as to the source of the problem is probably something everyone can swallow.  Homosexuals are sexual deviants, going aginst normal sexual behavior.  Having crossed that line, it's not as much of a step for them to cross into pedophilia.  Now, just like with pot, there are two schools of thought here.  One group says that legalizing and legitimizing will remove its status as deviant and thus decrease the incident of the behavior leading to more deviant behavior.  The other schools states that this behavior will always be deviant, and that legalization and legitimization will only increase the occurance of the behavior, while failing to diminish its link to other behavior.  I am of the second school, but that's just me.


----------



## MissileMan (Aug 1, 2005)

Hobbit said:
			
		

> So, the homosexual pedophiles are more aggresive?  I still see this as a problem.  I'd also like to see a   to that.


Go back through the thread, the info is there near the beginning.  The info was posted by PR.


----------



## KarlMarx (Aug 1, 2005)

MissileMan said:
			
		

> Look, it's simple math, no spin, no bullshit.
> 
> 25-40% of molestation are of the homosexual variety.  Pedophiles of the homosexual variety have 7 times as many victims as heterosexual ones.  When you account for the disparity in the number of victims and divide the 25-40 percent by 7, you get an incidence rate of anywhere from 3 to 10% which is within the range or slightly higher than the incidence of homosexuals within the population.
> 
> The bottom line that most here can't seem to grasp is that there is a difference between a homosexual and a pedophile, just as there is a difference between a heterosexual and a pedophile.  This is the same kind of flawed logic that leads people to say most Muslims are terrorists and most liberals are atheists.



OK... I stand corrected, I made an error.... here's the correct match


Gays = 5% of the population = 1/20 = 0.05

Straights = 95% of the population = 19/20 = 0.95

so if x is the number of children molested by gays and 7x is the number of kids molested by straights

then per capita molestation by gays = x/.05 = 20x (20 kids molested per gay person)

per capita molestation by straights = 7x/.95 = 7.4x (7.4 kids molested per straight person)

20x/7.4x = 2.7 times 

so the difference is nearly 3:1. Gays still come out way ahead (if that's how you want to consider it).

The big red gorilla is still there, but he's the size of a house, now.


----------



## MissileMan (Aug 1, 2005)

KarlMarx said:
			
		

> OK... I stand corrected, I made an error.... here's the correct match
> 
> 
> Gays = 5% of the population = 1/20 = 0.05
> ...



Your figures would be correct IF, the number of victims were split 50/50.  The fact is that only 1 in 4 are victims of homopeds which coincidently is your same 3:1 ratio, except in the opposite direction.


----------



## mattskramer (Aug 1, 2005)

I have 2 words for you: So what?!?  Let's assume, for the sake of argument that there is a  correlation  between homosexuality and child molestation. Are we to send all homosexuals to "treatment camps" to be "cured" whether they want to go or not? 

If and when they are converted to heterosexuality, will their treatment prevent them form molesting female children?  What about the peaceful and contented homosexual who do not engage in child molestation?  It has been argued that people who buy pornographic magazines engage in abusive behavior to a greater degree than do those who don't buy porn.  Therefore, are we to outlaw pornography? 

I think that we should punish/treat the real criminals (child molesters and rapists) and not punish the non-criminal (the non-abusive homosexual).


----------



## KarlMarx (Aug 1, 2005)

MissileMan said:
			
		

> Your figures would be correct IF, the number of victims were split 50/50.  The fact is that only 1 in 4 are victims of homopeds which coincidently is your same 3:1 ratio, except in the opposite direction.



No, the calculations are correct if you assume that heterosexuals molest 7 times the number of children as gays.

The per capita rate is the issue here.

As for the "so what" question asked by MattsKramer, no I am not suggesting that we herd all gays into concentration camps. What I did say in a previous post is this.... if the Catholic Church has had its feet held to the fire because of pedophile priests, then in all fairness, so should the gay community and the justice system.

Two facts are making themselves clear....

a) There is a higher possibility that gays molest children. The gay community should address the issue of pedophiles in their midst and clean house. Instead of bashing the Church, the gay leadership should be taking steps to out those in its midst who are known pedophiles (and they do know who many of them are). However, the gay community sees bashing the Church as serving the agenda of the gay movement. That is pretty short sighted. This strategy will eventually backfire and the gays will be in the same position as the Church was, trying to defend themselves against stigmatization and explaining themselves.
b) Molesters are not curable, and should be confined to institutions or jails for the remainder of their lives. This is not to punish them as much as it is to protect children. 

The protection of children's welfare should supersede the rights of pedophiles and the protection of gays. That should be a given. It isn't gay bashing to present the facts then act on them. If the gay community has this problem then it is up to them, and society at large to do something about it. Instead it's just Politics and Political Correctness as usual. Nero fiddles and Rome burns...


----------



## MissileMan (Aug 1, 2005)

KarlMarx said:
			
		

> No, the calculations are correct if you assume that heterosexuals molest 7 times the number of children as gays.
> 
> The per capita rate is the issue here.
> 
> ...



Noone is saying that pedophilia isn't a problem that needs to be addressed.  Your continued insistence that the incidence of pedophilia is significantly higher among homosexuals than among heterosexuals, even when presented with irrefutable numbers to the contrary, is an indication that you are more concerned with trying to put homosexuality in a bad light than actually addressing the problem of pedophilia.  If you want to talk about staggering numbers, how about the fact that 75% of molestations are adult males molesting little girls.  The even bigger number that you and others keep ignoring is that 100% of molestations are committed by pedophiles.


----------



## KarlMarx (Aug 2, 2005)

MissileMan said:
			
		

> Noone is saying that pedophilia isn't a problem that needs to be addressed.  Your continued insistence that the incidence of pedophilia is significantly higher among homosexuals than among heterosexuals, even when presented with irrefutable numbers to the contrary, is an indication that you are more concerned with trying to put homosexuality in a bad light than actually addressing the problem of pedophilia.  If you want to talk about staggering numbers, how about the fact that 75% of molestations are adult males molesting little girls.  The even bigger number that you and others keep ignoring is that 100% of molestations are committed by pedophiles.


MM - I am not denying that the majority of molestations are caused by straights. However, you are the one who stated that heterosexuals molested 7 times more children than gays.  I simply used a known fact that gays are, at most, 5% of the population, then did the math. I'm not "insisting" anything. No matter how you bend it, the numbers are there, a gay person is 2.7 times more likely to molest a child than a straight person. Whether you wish to call them "pedophiles", "gays", or "martians from outer space" is totally irrelevant. The "irrefutable" part is the math.

Statistics damn the homosexual lifestyle, not me. I can also cite numbers from the CDC (i.e. Centers for Disease Control) that show, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that most cases of HIV/AIDS in this country are suffered by gay/bisexual men and intravenous drug abusers. I am simply stating a fact.

As for your accusation that I am ignoring the fact that all molestations are caused by pedophiles, what do you think I meant when I posted that convicted *pedophiles* should be incarcerated or institutionalized for life? Are you under the delusion that I was talking about gays only? I didn't post "we should incarcerate gays for life", I didn't post "we should incarcerate gay pedophiles for life", what part of "pedophile" did you misinterpret as "gay pedophiles" or "gays in general"?

This is the problem with you liberals, when presented with facts, you perseverate, you deny, you spin, you manufacture increasing warped and twisted definitions and engage in subterfuge and sophistry to prove your points. All the time, you corkscrew yourselves right into the ground.


----------



## MissileMan (Aug 2, 2005)

KarlMarx said:
			
		

> MM - I am not denying that the majority of molestations are caused by straights. However, you are the one who stated that heterosexuals molested 7 times more children than gays.  I simply used a known fact that gays are, at most, 5% of the population, then did the math. I'm not "insisting" anything. No matter how you bend it, the numbers are there, a gay person is 2.7 times more likely to molest a child than a straight person. Whether you wish to call them "pedophiles", "gays", or "martians from outer space" is totally irrelevant. The "irrefutable" part is the math.



One last time, because you are still using the wrong figures.  Among pedophiles, the males who molest boys will have 7 times the number of victims as males who molest girls.  The 25% of the male on boy molestations are being perpetrated by 1/7 the number of pedophiles.  Out of 100 victims, 3.6 male on boy pedophiles would account for the 25%, with the remaining 75 male on girl molestation committed by 75 pedophiles.  This comes out to 4.8% of the pedophiles are male on boy.



			
				KarlMarx said:
			
		

> As for your accusation that I am ignoring the fact that all molestations are caused by pedophiles, what do you think I meant when I posted that convicted *pedophiles* should be incarcerated or institutionalized for life? Are you under the delusion that I was talking about gays only? I didn't post "we should incarcerate gays for life", I didn't post "we should incarcerate gay pedophiles for life", what part of "pedophile" did you misinterpret as "gay pedophiles" or "gays in general"?



Until you are willing to admit a distinction between homosexual and pedophile, you are ignoring facts. Gay pedophiles are separate from "normal" homosexuals. 



			
				KarlMarx said:
			
		

> This is the problem with you liberals, when presented with facts, you perseverate, you deny, you spin, you manufacture increasing warped and twisted definitions and engage in subterfuge and sophistry to prove your points. All the time, you corkscrew yourselves right into the ground.


Same old crap...can't refute an argument, call someone a liberal.  BORING!


----------



## mattskramer (Aug 2, 2005)

KarlMarx said:
			
		

> Two facts are making themselves clear....
> 
> a) There is a higher possibility that gays molest children. The gay community should address the issue of pedophiles in their midst and clean house. Instead of bashing the Church, the gay leadership should be taking steps to out those in its midst who are known pedophiles (and they do know who many of them are). However, the gay community sees bashing the Church as serving the agenda of the gay movement. That is pretty short sighted. This strategy will eventually backfire and the gays will be in the same position as the Church was, trying to defend themselves against stigmatization and explaining themselves.
> b) Molesters are not curable, and should be confined to institutions or jails for the remainder of their lives. This is not to punish them as much as it is to protect children.
> ...



Fair enough.  I agree with your (b) paragraph. Molesters should be locked up.  I disagree with part of your (a) paragraph. I doubt that homosexuals know who many of the child molesters are.  I think that people (homosexuals or heterosexuals) would report on child molesters (homosexual or heterosexual) if such molesters are discovered.


----------



## KarlMarx (Aug 2, 2005)

MissileMan said:
			
		

> One last time, because you are still using the wrong figures.  Among pedophiles, the males who molest boys will have 7 times the number of victims as males who molest girls.  The 25% of the male on boy molestations are being perpetrated by 1/7 the number of pedophiles.  Out of 100 victims, 3.6 male on boy pedophiles would account for the 25%, with the remaining 75 male on girl molestation committed by 75 pedophiles.  This comes out to 4.8% of the pedophiles are male on boy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



At this point of the discussion, the following rule applies....

_Never argue with a fool. Others may not be able to tell the difference_.

I've finished arguing.....


----------



## Hobbit (Aug 2, 2005)

KarlMarx said:
			
		

> At this point of the discussion, the following rule applies....
> 
> _Never argue with a fool. Others may not be able to tell the difference_.
> 
> I've finished arguing.....



Read my sig.  Not the part about video games, the other part.


----------



## MissileMan (Aug 3, 2005)

KarlMarx said:
			
		

> At this point of the discussion, the following rule applies....
> 
> _Never argue with a fool. Others may not be able to tell the difference_.



Thanks for the advice, but I don't think your are a fool, only a poor mathmetician.  Come back when working with numbers bigger than ten doesn't involve taking off your shoes and I'll try to explain it again.


----------



## archangel (Aug 3, 2005)

MissileMan said:
			
		

> Thanks for the advice, but I don't think your are a fool, only a poor mathmetician.  Come back when working with numbers bigger than ten doesn't involve taking off your shoes and I'll try to explain it again.




Before you make a total fool of yourself...reevaluate your argument..Karl Marks took the argument beyond simple math as you cited...he took it to the level of statistical analysis...that being the ration of pedophiles in the homosexual community vs the ratio of pedophiles in the hetrosexual community...fact is the ratio is much higher in the homosexual community..they are in fact a extremely lower number in the world population...yet have a much higher rate of pedophiles in relation to their overall numbers..... :spank3:


----------



## Isaac Brock (Aug 3, 2005)

KarlMarx said:
			
		

> MM - I am not denying that the majority of molestations are caused by straights. However, you are the one who stated that heterosexuals molested 7 times more children than gays.  I simply used a known fact that gays are, at most, 5% of the population, then did the math. I'm not "insisting" anything. No matter how you bend it, the numbers are there, a gay person is 2.7 times more likely to molest a child than a straight person. Whether you wish to call them "pedophiles", "gays", or "martians from outer space" is totally irrelevant. The "irrefutable" part is the math.
> 
> Statistics damn the homosexual lifestyle, not me. I can also cite numbers from the CDC (i.e. Centers for Disease Control) that show, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that most cases of HIV/AIDS in this country are suffered by gay/bisexual men and intravenous drug abusers. I am simply stating a fact.
> 
> ...



Fair enough, I think we can all agree that if one compares heterosexuals and homosexuals there at least for now appears to be enough evidence that homoesexuals on a per individual basis have a higher likelihood of pedophillic offenses.  And sure, we'll say 2.7 times more likely.

But what of the vast majority that do not?  I think we can also agree that most homosexuals would like to have absolutely nothing to do with pedophillia, yet the OP suggests that this confirms the connection between homosexuality and pedophilla.

At what point do we sound the alarm, 1.3 times?  1.7 times?  3.0 times?

A gun owner is X times more likely to committ murder than a non-one, do we then draw similar entensions?  Extending the minute to the whole is not only mathematically irrseponsible, but does disservice to an entire segment of the populations, much like the priests and pedophillia scandal, must of which are just as disgusted as the rest of us.


----------



## MissileMan (Aug 3, 2005)

archangel said:
			
		

> Before you make a total fool of yourself...reevaluate your argument..Karl Marks took the argument beyond simple math as you cited...he took it to the level of statistical analysis...that being the ration of pedophiles in the homosexual community vs the ratio of pedophiles in the hetrosexual community...fact is the ratio is much higher in the homosexual community..they are in fact a extremely lower number in the world population...yet have a much higher rate of pedophiles in relation to their overall numbers..... :spank3:



The FACT, that the numbers bear out, when ALL the information is accounted for is that among pedophiles, 5-10 % target boys.  The incidence of homosexuals in the mainstream population is around 5%.  Your statement that the ratio is much higher in the homosexual community is inaccurate based on the numbers, but more importantly because pedophiles are neither homosexual or heterosexual, they are pedophiles. Some pedophiles target children of the same sex, some target the opposite sex, and then others target either, like that monster in Idaho.  None of those scenarios makes pedophilia equal with homosexuality. heterosexuality, or bi-sexuality.  I'm pretty sure you are smart enough to understand the difference between a pedophile and a homosexual.


----------



## OCA (Aug 3, 2005)

MissileMan said:
			
		

> The FACT, that the numbers bear out, when ALL the information is accounted for is that among pedophiles, 5-10 % target boys.  The incidence of homosexuals in the mainstream population is around 5%.  Your statement that the ratio is much higher in the homosexual community is inaccurate based on the numbers, but more importantly because pedophiles are neither homosexual or heterosexual, they are pedophiles. Some pedophiles target children of the same sex, some target the opposite sex, and then others target either, like that monster in Idaho.  None of those scenarios makes pedophilia equal with homosexuality. heterosexuality, or bi-sexuality.  I'm pretty sure you are smart enough to understand the difference between a pedophile and a homosexual.



Missle are you retarded? The population ratio alone with regards to pedophilia in the homosexual population vs the heterosexual population is irrefuteable proof alone that pedophilia runs much higher in the homosexual population than heterosexual.

And yes, if you bone someone of the same sex regardless of age you are queer, this crap about pedophiles are just pedophiles regardless of the sex they are with is bogus psychobabble.


----------



## MissileMan (Aug 3, 2005)

MissileMan said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure you are smart enough to understand the difference between a pedophile and a homosexual.






			
				OCA said:
			
		

> Missle are you retarded? The population ratio alone with regards to pedophilia in the homosexual population vs the heterosexual population is irrefuteable proof alone that pedophilia runs much higher in the homosexual population than heterosexual.
> 
> And yes, if you bone someone of the same sex regardless of age you are queer, this crap about pedophiles are just pedophiles regardless of the sex they are with is bogus psychobabble.



Ok, so I was wrong...you aren't smart enough.


----------



## OCA (Aug 4, 2005)

MissileMan said:
			
		

> Ok, so I was wrong...you aren't smart enough.



Jesus Christ you are fucking stupid, does someone have to wipe your ass for you too?


----------



## archangel (Aug 4, 2005)

MissileMan said:
			
		

> The FACT, that the numbers bear out, when ALL the information is accounted for is that among pedophiles, 5-10 % target boys.  The incidence of homosexuals in the mainstream population is around 5%.  Your statement that the ratio is much higher in the homosexual community is inaccurate based on the numbers, but more importantly because pedophiles are neither homosexual or heterosexual, they are pedophiles. Some pedophiles target children of the same sex, some target the opposite sex, and then others target either, like that monster in Idaho.  None of those scenarios makes pedophilia equal with homosexuality. heterosexuality, or bi-sexuality.  I'm pretty sure you are smart enough to understand the difference between a pedophile and a homosexual.[/QUOTE
> 
> 
> well golly gee Mr.Wizard...as I have stated many times in this forum...I was a investigator of "Child Porn" cases...and what have you done except try to discredit me and others with actual experience in this field?


----------



## MissileMan (Aug 4, 2005)

archangel said:
			
		

> MissileMan said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## MissileMan (Aug 4, 2005)

OCA said:
			
		

> Jesus Christ you are fucking stupid, does someone have to wipe your ass for you too?



It's a myth perpetrated by the religious right to justify the bigotry against homosexuals.  With all the bullshit spin you catch liberals trying to put on political issues, I'm really surprised you can't see this.   I guess it's because you want it to be true so badly.


----------



## no1tovote4 (Aug 5, 2005)

Most little girls who are molested are molested by supposedly "heterosexual" males (if you go by the definition of homosexuality applying here, they are actually pedophiles, different label for different behavior), does that mean that there are victims in heterosexuality too and there is no safe place for any child?


----------



## dmp (Aug 5, 2005)

no1tovote4 said:
			
		

> Most little girls who are molested are molested by supposedly "heterosexual" males (if you go by the definition of homosexuality applying here, they are actually pedophiles, different label for different behavior), does that mean that there are victims in heterosexuality too and there is no safe place for any child?




It means children are victims of sick adults.  Of those sick adults, Homosexuals have 3 times the risk of acting out on their 'desires'.


----------



## KarlMarx (Aug 5, 2005)

MissileMan said:
			
		

> It's a myth perpetrated by the religious right to justify the bigotry against homosexuals.  With all the bullshit spin you catch liberals trying to put on political issues, I'm really surprised you can't see this.   I guess it's because you want it to be true so badly.


I like that "Religious Right" theory....

I'd like to see proof of that "myth" claim.... I'd like to see something that shows

a. Who the religious right is exactly
b. What organizations they run
c. What cases these people or organizations have brought before Federal or State Courts in order to victimize homosexuals
d. What legislation they've forced through to victimize homosexuals
e. What, if any, education programs that they have introduced into our schools to indoctrinate our children to hate homosexuals or become tolerant of bigotry against homosexuals
f. What, if any, television programs, news media, movies etc they have produced to present a bigoted view of homosexuals.


----------



## no1tovote4 (Aug 5, 2005)

-=d=- said:
			
		

> It means children are victims of sick adults.  Of those sick adults, Homosexuals have 3 times the risk of acting out on their 'desires'.



It means that most pedophiles prefer boys.  Once again, by the definition used for "homosexual" here, heterosexuals are as dangerous to the children as homosexuals.  Sick adults with the whole pedophile issue are the problem.

When people speak about victims of homosexuality, they are speaking of relationships between consenting adults, not of the behavior of "sick adults".  There are victims in pedophilia, this is clear, but not in homosexual behavior.  In the psychology books there is a clear line of delineation where pedophiles are not included in normal heterosexual or homosexual behavior as they are attracted to children in an unhealthy manner, not to adults.  The line of delineation is clear, there are victims in pedophilia (whether homosexual or heterosexual), there are victims in non-consentual sex (whether homosexual or heterosexual), there are not victims in homosexual or heterosexual relationships where adults make decisions for themselves with a clear understanding of the consequences.

The argument that responsible adults that are homosexual are more dangerous because of their homosexuality is not a direct logical path.  Those that are pedophiles are pedophiles regardless of whether it is homosexual or heterosexual and often which children they create victims of are more due to proximity and chance than the same sex relation that they may hold.  Saying that no homosexual could be a responsible adult who makes their own choices because a "higher percentage" of pedophiles are homosexual is ridiculous.  Most of the "homosexual" pedophilia are from men who are considered hetrosexual in all other ways, they marry, have children with their wives and until they are found out you would not even know that they were not normal responsible heteros.  They often victimize their own children as well as others because of the pedophilic urges they have outside of their more normal sex life otherwise; more often than not victimizing both sexes of the children rather than specifically working on only one.

One should not use this as a test to see if your children are in more danger with one or the other as there are far more children victimized by these hideously hidden "normal" people than by what may seem to you is the more obvious danger.

Much like those lists of sexual predators you can get from the Cop Shop near you don't keep your children safe at all and give a false sense of security almost all child molesters have not been caught and are still actively hidden they are the most danger, it also will not keep your child safe if they avoid all homosexuals as they are far more likely to be homosexually molested by the next door neighbor who is married and has children, and in all appearance clearly "not" homosexual, than they are by the clearly homosexual couple on the other side of the street.


----------



## dmp (Aug 5, 2005)

no1tovote4 said:
			
		

> It means that most pedophiles prefer boys.  Once again, by the definition used for "homosexual" here, heterosexuals are as dangerous to the children as homosexuals.  Sick adults with the whole pedophile issue are the problem.
> 
> When people speak about victims of homosexuality, they are speaking of relationships between consenting adults, not of the behavior of "sick adults".  There are victims in pedophilia, this is clear, but not in homosexual behavior.  In the psychology books there is a clear line of delineation where pedophiles are not included in normal heterosexual or homosexual behavior as they are attracted to children in an unhealthy manner, not to adults.  The line of delineation is clear, there are victims in pedophilia (whether homosexual or heterosexual), there are victims in non-consentual sex (whether homosexual or heterosexual), there are not victims in homosexual or heterosexual relationships where adults make decisions for themselves with a clear understanding of the consequences.
> 
> ...



I hear, er, read you...but I don't agree...Homosexuals, because they have given in to their lusts/degenerate behavior regarding sex, are more likely to give into their lusts involving children.   

You don't agree with the very premous of my argument - nobody IS a homosexual...A homosexual IS as a homosexual does.   Homosexuals - by their actions, are people who cannot control their lusts/drive to engage in those acts.    Thus, the married father who molests a boy has sexual urges he chooses not to control or seek help for.  If he was NOT attracted to. and preyed upon that boy, the boy would have been spared.


----------



## no1tovote4 (Aug 5, 2005)

The point I am making is that you cannot tell from outward appearance that your child is safe because somebody appears heterosexual to you.  You should not use this as a way to "vet" a babysitter, etc. as it will not make them safer.  It is the guy/girl in the closet that they are most in danger from not from clear and easy to "vet" dangers.

Safety for your child will rely on the tools you give them to avoid these pitfalls.  Do not teach children to obey every adult that they come in contact with because of "respect".  Tell them about the dangers in words they can understand, teach them to talk to you about the things that they are going through and that they will not get in trouble for speaking "bad" about their elders.


----------



## Gunny (Aug 5, 2005)

no1tovote4 said:
			
		

> It means that most pedophiles prefer boys.  Once again, by the definition used for "homosexual" here, heterosexuals are as dangerous to the children as homosexuals.  Sick adults with the whole pedophile issue are the problem.
> 
> When people speak about victims of homosexuality, they are speaking of relationships between consenting adults, not of the behavior of "sick adults".  There are victims in pedophilia, this is clear, but not in homosexual behavior.  In the psychology books there is a clear line of delineation where pedophiles are not included in normal heterosexual or homosexual behavior as they are attracted to children in an unhealthy manner, not to adults.  The line of delineation is clear, there are victims in pedophilia (whether homosexual or heterosexual), there are victims in non-consentual sex (whether homosexual or heterosexual), there are not victims in homosexual or heterosexual relationships where adults make decisions for themselves with a clear understanding of the consequences.
> 
> ...



I have to go with -=d=- on this one.  Once labelled "pedophile," one is not suddenly absolved of all other abnormal behavior.  By law, pedophilia is a crime and homosexuality is not.  Morally, BOTH are abnormal behavior.

I consider dismissing homosexuality as a factor in pedophilia as just a dodge by the gay community and its sympathizers to distance them from the more criminal element in their group.

When one begins to give in to unnatural urges to gain sexual gratification, one has set a trend.  Yet, for some reason, the idea that they would go further is dismissed out of hand.  

To me, there's a logical train of thought to follow that is being ignored in favor of political correctness.


----------



## no1tovote4 (Aug 5, 2005)

GunnyL said:
			
		

> I have to go with -=d=- on this one.  Once labelled "pedophile," one is not suddenly absolved of all other abnormal behavior.  By law, pedophilia is a crime and homosexuality is not.  Morally, BOTH are abnormal behavior.
> 
> I consider dismissing homosexuality as a factor in pedophilia as just a dodge by the gay community and its sympathizers to distance them from the more criminal element in their group.
> 
> ...



Once again, my point is that the safety of your children will not be assured in keeping them from the obvious homosexual.  It will be how you teach your children to inform on how they are treated at a babysitters and whether you teach your children to obey adults at all costs as a means of showing "respect" (I sure wish my parents had not taught ME that one).

Most of those homosexual pedophilia encounters are perpetrated by those *that appear in all other ways to be heterosexual * and therefore "responsible" adults.  They will go to your church, have "loving" families, be strong Christians in positions of trust, their teachers, librarians, the next door neighbor, etc and appear to you in all ways as normal, this is the way in which most of them find their victims.

This should not be the means with which to judge that your children will be safe with an adult.

Teach your children to tell you how they are treated at a babysitter, this is the way that you can be reasonably sure of their safety, not that you avoided homosexuals.


----------



## archangel (Aug 5, 2005)

no1tovote4 said:
			
		

> Once again, my point is that the safety of your children will not be assured in keeping them from the obvious homosexual.  It will be how you teach your children to inform on how they are treated at a babysitters and whether you teach your children to obey adults at all costs as a means of showing "respect" (I sure wish my parents had not taught ME that one).
> 
> Most of those homosexual pedophilia encounters are perpetrated by those *that appear in all other ways to be heterosexual * and therefore "responsible" adults.  They will go to your church, have "loving" families, be strong Christians in positions of trust, their teachers, librarians, the next door neighbor, etc and appear to you in all ways as normal, this is the way in which most of them find their victims.
> 
> ...




so to clarify what =d= and gunny were saying is: Having worked as a Federal Investigator of which 10% of the cases assigned to me were "Child Porn" the remainder were narcotics and high tech munitions export and import..
Of the approximately 500 cases of child porn assigned to me 65% were in fact homosexual males=325...25% were hetrosexual males=125...the remainder were divided between homosexual and hetrosexual females 10%=50.

So taking into consideration the homosexual population is only a estimated 5% of our population I would definetly say they are the biggest offenders...
and for the "Babysitter" comment... it is a moot point as most pedophiles are found in the Legal(attorney) profession as well as the teaching profession and other professions that have access to children away from the parents...I am sure that very few babysitters are homosexual males( non of the cases I was assigned were)...and given the stats I gave... females are in fact the lesser of offenders by a long shot!


----------



## dmp (Aug 5, 2005)

no1tovote4 said:
			
		

> The point I am making is that you cannot tell from outward appearance that your child is safe because somebody appears heterosexual to you.




That is a VERY good point, doug.  However, it doesn't take away from the facts as I believe them...homosexuality is a destructive lifestyle choice - and participating in the lifestyle increases the danger to oneself, and elements of society.


----------



## Gunny (Aug 5, 2005)

no1tovote4 said:
			
		

> *Once again, my point is that the safety of your children will not be assured in keeping them from the obvious homosexual.  It will be how you teach your children to inform on how they are treated at a babysitters and whether you teach your children to obey adults at all costs as a means of showing "respect" * (I sure wish my parents had not taught ME that one).
> 
> Most of those homosexual pedophilia encounters are perpetrated by those *that appear in all other ways to be heterosexual * and therefore "responsible" adults.  They will go to your church, have "loving" families, be strong Christians in positions of trust, their teachers, librarians, the next door neighbor, etc and appear to you in all ways as normal, this is the way in which most of them find their victims.
> 
> ...



I am not saying you do not have a compelling argument.  There ARE notable differences between homosexuals and pedophiles.

My point is that those differences are no reason to dismiss out of hand the similarities.  IF the similarities have no basis but paranoia/fear, then I think a WHOLE LOT is done to conceal nothing, and rather than dismiss that paranoia/fear, feeds it.

IMO, the bigger paranoia resides with those doing their best to cloud any real conclusive numbers on just what percentage of pedophiles are in fact homosexuals.  Although within the realm of possibility, I feel it unlikely that so much effort would made to confuse and deflect if there is nothing to hide.


----------



## HorhayAtAMD (Aug 5, 2005)

GunnyL said:
			
		

> IMO, the bigger paranoia resides with those doing their best to cloud any real conclusive numbers on *just what percentage of pedophiles are in fact homosexuals.*



If trying to decide whether or not you should be worried about the homosexual next door molesting your child, don't you think the more important question is "just what percentage of homosexuals are in fact pedophiles"?

I would hazard a guess that a huge percentage of all pedophilia cases are committed by a male within the extended family so does that mean that a huge percentage of the men in your child's extended family are pedophiles? Of course not! The truth is that a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of all homosexuals are pedophiles, even if a large percentage of pedophiles are homosexual.

In fact, I could even say that you have failed to show cause and effect. You are assuming it is homosexuality that causes pedophilia. What if it is actually pedophilia that increases your chances of being homosexual?


----------



## HorhayAtAMD (Aug 5, 2005)

-=d=- said:
			
		

> I hear, er, read you...but I don't agree...Homosexuals, because they have given in to their lusts/degenerate behavior regarding sex, are more likely to give into their lusts involving children.
> 
> You don't agree with the very premous of my argument - nobody IS a homosexual...A homosexual IS as a homosexual does.   Homosexuals - by their actions, are people who cannot control their lusts/drive to engage in those acts.    Thus, the married father who molests a boy has sexual urges he chooses not to control or seek help for.  If he was NOT attracted to. and preyed upon that boy, the boy would have been spared.



By suggesting that homosexuality is defined by the inability to control your lust for the same sex, you suggest that heterosexuality is defined by the ability to control that lust for the same sex. Do you have feelings of lust for other men? Are you able to control them? If so, congratulations, you are a heterosexual!

Sorry for sounding facetious but I would guess that you, like me, have never really had the urge to sleep with other men. We don't have *any* feelings of lust to control so right there, there is a difference between us and homosexuals. I will agree that giving into those lusts is a lifestyle choice, but *having* them is not. I would also suggest that giving into *any* lustful desire for sex is a bad thing. It is the lust that is bad, not the person you lust for. If I told you that my aunt and my... aunt  didn't have sex for months after they started dating, but my friend had a one night stand last month with some girl he picked up at a bar, who is being lustful and who is being responsible?

In the end, a sexual relationship can be entered responsibly and irresponsibly. To condemn all of homosexuality simply because some large percentage of homosexuals have irresponsible sex without condeming all of heterosexuality for doing *the exact same thing* reeks of hypocrisy to me.


----------



## OCA (Aug 6, 2005)

MissileMan said:
			
		

> It's a myth perpetrated by the religious right to justify the bigotry against homosexuals.  With all the bullshit spin you catch liberals trying to put on political issues, I'm really surprised you can't see this.   I guess it's because you want it to be true so badly.




What spin? YOU CAN'T SPIN STATISTICS UNLESS YOU OUTRIGHT LIE ABOUT THEM. Are you telling me the national institute of health is lying?


----------



## MissileMan (Aug 6, 2005)

OCA said:
			
		

> What spin? YOU CAN'T SPIN STATISTICS UNLESS YOU OUTRIGHT LIE ABOUT THEM. Are you telling me the national institute of health is lying?



You absolutely can spin statistics, as is the case here.  The studies have shown that 25% of pedophilia victims are boys who were molested by men.  Since gays make up only 5% of the population, those opposed to homosexuality have used those 2 figures ALONE to allege that homosexuals are more likely to go after kids.  There is a third factor that was presented by someone on your side of the argument, and one which I have yet seen disputed, that a male pedophile who targets boys will produce 7 times the number of victims as a male who targets females.  Using ALL of the statistics, it comes out that 4.8% of pedophiles are males who target boys.

I have not seen any study to explain why male on boy pedophiles have 7 times the number of victims, but I can think of some reasons, including they may get away with it longer because boys are too embarrassed to report the abuse.

The bottom line is this.  I make a distinction between someone who wants to have sex with an adult and someone who wants to have sex with a child.


----------



## Gunny (Aug 6, 2005)

HorhayAtAMD said:
			
		

> If trying to decide whether or not you should be worried about the homosexual next door molesting your child, don't you think the more important question is "just what percentage of homosexuals are in fact pedophiles"?
> 
> I would hazard a guess that a huge percentage of all pedophilia cases are committed by a male within the extended family so does that mean that a huge percentage of the men in your child's extended family are pedophiles? Of course not! The truth is that a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of all homosexuals are pedophiles, even if a large percentage of pedophiles are homosexual.
> 
> In fact, I could even say that you have failed to show cause and effect. You are assuming it is homosexuality that causes pedophilia. What if it is actually pedophilia that increases your chances of being homosexual?



I merely tossed out a question concerning the statistics, and the motive(s) for clouding the issue.  Cause and effect are nothing but conjecture, EVEN WHEN you turn the argument around (  ), without accurate/unbiased data on which to base them.

I contend that the mediocrity of political correctness has paralyzed any effort to objectively study the issue.  Proponents are so afraid of failure, they will not risk succeeding.

Until such a time as someone runs the BS flag up the pole and calls things as they are, there is little but conjecture and propaganda to go by.


----------



## Destroyed@40 (Feb 15, 2010)

If he wasn't gay...then Davry Chen's life would not have been destroyed.

How do I know...I know because 25 years earlier Richard Dunn had committed the same exact crimes with a 9 year old boy from Massachusetts.  The devastating fact that still looms today is that Richard Dunn committed those crimes on a daily basis for 5 years and never was held accountable for such crimes.  There was no headlines, there were no police and there was no victory for that child.  

If I may, I will tell the story that could have saved Davry's innocence. A failure attributed to an expectation and a trust, that given a chance, pedophelia is a sickness that can be treated and controlled. That all one must do is support and treat the pedophile (as it is thought to be a sickness).

To gain the full perspective of the single-minded and life destroying acts that Richard Dunn was capable of, a detailed profile must be identified. to do so I was acknowledge that I am the boy that was raped, beaten and kidknapped by Richard 25 years before Davry.

I was 1 of 4 children living in a two bedroom apartment with a single mother and an income well below poverty. Richard was introduced to me as a "Big Brother" when my 2 older brothers were killed in a car accident in 1978.  It was belived at the time that Richard  would be able to aide me while I recovered from the loss of my 2 hero's and my two older brothers.  It takes a certain kind of a human being to come into a low income family that had just loss the two eldest boys (16 and 17) to a tragic car accident.  With the skill of a master he positioned himself into the my life and subsequentley raped and beat me on a daily basis.  I was 9 years old.  I had just lost my 2 older brothers.  My mother was dealing with the loss of two children with no support from another parent. Richard would beat me daily and when i would show any sign of running away, he would threaten to kill the rest of my family.  What's a 9 year old "man" supposed to do.  So living a life of confusion and a life of fear for nearly 5 years I finally found the strength to stand up to Richard.  My reward was to be beat, 'hog tied" and placed in a trunk to be brought to what I belived would be my death.  So inside the trunk I wrestled away my restraints and was able to pop the trunk from inside and run away until the police arrived.  Still I was the strong son, I was the popular student and I followed the lie.  Fortunately for me the detectives were insightful and probed the situation.  I finally let it all out...I had been keeping an aweful secret.  I had been living in pure fear and pure shame for almost 5 years.  But I saved my mother. Little did I know that she was always safe but what does a boy know.  he knows he loves his mother, he knows that he lost his heroes, he knows that...well actually he doesn't know much of anything because a mojor part of his developmental years were spent being manipulated, beat and raped.  It's sad to think thats all he knew.

So because I am graphic in my explanations of the past 4 to 5 years it is thought that the sexual encounters were at some level consensual.  Wow!  It truly is a devastating fact to be labeled as a consenting sex partner from the age of 9, but that's how it was reported. Imagine if you will. I had been raped from the age of 9.  Now that I had the guts to stand up to this predator and try to gain freedom, my reward is to be called an active participant.  Almost as devastating as being raped!

The end result being Richard receiving an extremely short sentence and ultimately another opportunity to destroy a life.  For people that have never gone through the being the victim of a predator it is hard to explain.  But this is a level all in its own.  This man stepped in when my brothers died and deceived everyone.  They all thought he was great.  I guess i am a great actor. He literally raped me hundreds of times....he beat me more.  He tried to kidknap me once...my life will never be OK.  I will never be right. At 40 years old I wake up sweating in tears, afraid to roll over in my own bed because I "know" he's there.  My life ended at 9 but Davry's didn'y have to....for all you people who believe there is hope for these people I beg you to listen.  For all you people who belive in the notion that this can be treated, I beg you to listen.  Davry's life could have been saved....all society had to do is use common sense.  There is not a 9 year old in the world that consensual sex....pedophiles "never" recover but worse of all...the VICTIMS never recover. 

My life is a failure....my body just a shell of a human.  There are wrongs in this world that can never be righted...I just told one.  

Please listen....no all homosexuals rape little boys.  It doesn't change the fact, if the pedophile wasn't homosexual then he wouldn't touch little boys.

If this offends some then I say to them...I would love to trade their offense for my devastation.  So tough!  I will NEVER be OK and it becasue a homosexual found a 9 year old boy devastated from losing his brother attractive.  Think about it please.

I apologize for the roughness of this letter as there is a lot of emotion involved here...I am unable to even proof read as these memories are hard even at 40.  

When given the opportunity....save the next Davry. Please


----------



## Father Time (Feb 15, 2010)

Because being attracted to the opposite sex means you will kidnap and murder a child.

Sorry I don't see the connection.

Oh wait there isn't any you just want to exploit this tragedy.

Edit: Gah why was this thread resurrected? If he wasn't gay he wouldn't have gone after boys, so what? It sure as fuck doesn't make any kind of statement about all gays. Wouldn't it be even better if he wasn't a pedophile or a rapist?


----------



## Emma (Feb 15, 2010)

dmp said:


> If the guy wasn't 'gay' - he wouldn't have abducted that boy.    Cause and Effect.  Because the guy enjoyed ramming into the butt of another male, he found a boy to attack.  If the guy did NOT enjoy such behavior, that boy would have been safe.



Dear God, you're stupid.


----------



## California Girl (Feb 15, 2010)

The OP was posted in 2004.


----------



## Emma (Feb 15, 2010)

California Girl said:


> The OP was posted in 2004.



Yeah I noticed that when I googled the case.


----------



## Dr Gregg (Feb 15, 2010)

dmp said:


> :-/
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Oh boy, the idiocy of people. Many molesters are not even gay. But I know, that would require the OP to have a functioning brain and think of all the complexities in life.


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 15, 2010)

OCA said:


> wolvie20m said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



NAMBLA is a right wing boogy man used to label homosexuals as child molesters. Even in its heyday twenty years ago, it was more media hype than substance. Today it is questionable whether NAMBLA even exists



> More recently, media reports have suggested that for practical purposes the group no longer exists and that it consists only of a web site maintained by a few enthusiasts. NAMBLA maintains a web site that shows addresses in New York and San Francisco and a phone contact in New York, and offers publications for sale, including the NAMBLA Bulletin.


----------



## eagleseven (Feb 15, 2010)

Digging up a 4-year-old thread? Someone has a chip on his shoulder...


----------



## bodecea (Feb 16, 2010)

dmp said:


> :-/
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I cannot help but wonder how much you or anyone else would have cared if he'd done it to a girl...as happens MOST of the time.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Feb 16, 2010)

2004? Really? Someone waited that long in order to get the last word in?


Really?


Hoe-leee shit. Guy's got more patience than me.


----------



## Father Time (Feb 17, 2010)

yeah no kidding, when this was posted people were wondering if kerry was going to win the election.

The TC hasn't posted anything since 2007, so let's let this stupid topic die.


----------



## paperview (Feb 17, 2010)

RadiomanATL said:


> 2004? Really? Someone waited that long in order to get the last word in?
> 
> 
> Really?
> ...


----------



## ACG22 (Feb 24, 2010)

The OP uses some... uh, interesting?... logic, but it's not very convincing.  As one poster said, he raped that boy because he is a rapist, not because he's homosexual.  And just about anyone experienced with psych profiles of such criminals knows this.

But hey, when your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.


----------

