AL gay couple accused of sexual abuse of child

[Delta4Embassy]

Lines are drawn here in Missouri. And here we have mandatory minimums for sex crimes against children. 5-30 years before even considering being eligible for parole. And if the victim was under 12, for aggravated rape (force or threat of force used) it's life without parole.

2. The offense of rape in the first degree or an attempt to commit rape in the first degree is a felony for which the authorized term of imprisonment is life imprisonment or a term of years not less than five years, unless:
(2) The victim is a child less than twelve years of age, in which case the required term of imprisonment is life imprisonment without eligibility for probation or parole until the offender has served not less than thirty years of such sentence or unless the offender has reached the age of seventy-five years and has served at least fifteen years of such sentence, unless such rape in the first degree is described under subdivision (3) of this subsection; or
(3) The victim is a child less than twelve years of age and such rape in the first degree or attempt to commit rape in the first degree was outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible or inhumane, in that it involved torture or depravity of mind, in which case the required term of imprisonment is life imprisonment without eligibility for probation, parole or conditional release.

 

[tinydancer]

Just saw this. Either this guy is a bisexual or he is heterosexual. I cant tell but the moms let him have sex with their minor children.

British Lostprophets rock star jailed 35 years for child abuse - CNN.com

I read about that story a few weeks ago. Was wondering what sentence he would get.

The mothers got sentenced for 14 and 17 years. Beyond shocking.

 

[Asclepias]

Nice.

We live in a sick society, that refuses to draw lines or define morality.

And this is where it lands you.

Not really. No one is really qualified to determine what those lines should be. We all just have to agree on what those lines should be and to date from the time we appeared on earth no one has ever reached a consensus on what constitutes a healthy society.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

I'm not embarassed at all. I posted a lot of good information that completely put the lie to the APA/homo bloc fantasy that homosexual parenting is just as successful as hetero/married parenting.

You were embarassed, but you, like Luser and noomi, are just too stupid to realize it.

Have a good night - work calls....

 

[koshergrl]

How does a child recuperate and heal from this kind of abuse inflicted on him or her (in this case a son) by their own freaking father?

Lost in all this political theatre is this very sad and sobering truth. As a father, this breaks my heart.

Early on in this thread I posted that this is the type of story with this level of depravity, that I'm wishing and hoping that his dad was drugs or an alcoholic or at least possessed by demons just to try to make sense of how could a father could do this?

Sadly, this isn't indicative of a lapse of judgement brought on by substance abuse. People who move in these (porn) circles (except for the poor women and children who are exploited by it) are engaged in a whole lifestyle...the only way to deal with it is to tackle it head on, acknowledge the depravity and shut it down.

Sadly, progressives don't want to do that. They see that as a violation of the *freedom* of those who get off on the degradation of women and children.

 

[koshergrl]

Nice.

We live in a sick society, that refuses to draw lines or define morality.

And this is where it lands you.

Not really. No one is really qualified to determine what those lines should be. We all just have to agree on what those lines should be and to date from the time we appeared on earth no one has ever reached a consensus on what constitutes a healthy society.

Sorry, I don't prescribe to relativism, and I believe we are qualified, as individuals as well as a society, to determine what is right and good, and what is wrong, evil and unhealthy.

 

[koshergrl]

And no, there is no consensus. There are always hold outs for depravity, and there always will be.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

"Do you know what makes a person decent? Fear."
- "Dogma"

Without fear of punishment, people will behave very much like less-evolved animals. Why law and order is so important.

 

[Asclepias]

Nice.

We live in a sick society, that refuses to draw lines or define morality.

And this is where it lands you.

Not really. No one is really qualified to determine what those lines should be. We all just have to agree on what those lines should be and to date from the time we appeared on earth no one has ever reached a consensus on what constitutes a healthy society.

Sorry, I don't prescribe to relativism, and I believe we are qualified, as individuals as well as a society, to determine what is right and good, and what is wrong, evil and unhealthy.

Sorry but I missed the memo that said you were qualified to make judgements on how I should conduct myself. Who put you in charge of such decisions?

 

[koshergrl]

I don't care what you do...except if you try to prevent me from exercising my own rights.

Then I care.

If I choose to pronounce my faith from the middle of the city park, from the street corner, from the sidewalk, at a restaurant, during a stump speech...I have the right to do that.

You do NOT have the right to stop me.

Are we clear?

 

[Asclepias]

I don't care what you do...except if you try to prevent me from exercising my own rights.

Then I care.

If I choose to pronounce my faith from the middle of the city park, from the street corner, from the sidewalk, at a restaurant, during a stump speech...I have the right to do that.

You do NOT have the right to stop me.

Are we clear?

You care very much what I do. You just said you want to draw these imaginary lines and make up codes of conduct. I just asked you who put you in charge of such things because I can tell you that you do not have a right to decide whats best for me. Thats called entitlement and it was not given to you. Does that make sense to you?

 

[koshergrl]

Er..no, I did not say I wanted to draw imaginary lines and codes of conduct.

I simply asserted for you what the law is.

And the law is that I can profess my faith where and when I like.

You, on the other hand, have asserted *imaginary* lines and codes of conduct, with your insistence that I *should* not do that.

Again..I don't give a shit what you do..unless you infringe upon my right to exercise my religion as I see fit. Which is exactly what you are trying to do when YOU tell ME that I SHOULD observe my religion in this way or that way.

In other words, stop accusing me of what you're actively doing. You think I should observe my religion in a particular way...you can think that all you like...but I can, and will, observe my religion as I see fit...and I will talk about it when and where I please...because I have that right.

If you don't like it, you have the right to remove yourself. Unless I'm in your house, which isn't likely.

So, again..if you don't like it, you are free to move.

 

[Asclepias]

Er..no, I did not say I wanted to draw imaginary lines and codes of conduct.

I simply asserted for you what the law is.

And the law is that I can profess my faith where and when I like.

You, on the other hand, have asserted *imaginary* lines and codes of conduct, with your insistence that I *should* not do that.

Again..I don't give a shit what you do..unless you infringe upon my right to exercise my religion as I see fit. Which is exactly what you are trying to do when YOU tell ME that I SHOULD observe my religion in this way or that way.

In other words, stop accusing me of what you're actively doing. You think I should observe my religion in a particular way...you can think that all you like...but I can, and will, observe my religion as I see fit...and I will talk about it when and where I please...because I have that right.

If you don't like it, you have the right to remove yourself. Unless I'm in your house, which isn't likely.

So, again..if you don't like it, you are free to move.

You said this

Sorry, I don't prescribe to relativism, and I believe we are qualified, as individuals as well as a society, to determine what is right and good, and what is wrong, evil and unhealthy.

That has nothing to do with your odd insertion of your right to free speech totally out of the flow of the conversation. Is that a coping mechanism? I simply asked you who gave you this permission to make these determinations for someone else?

 

[koshergrl]

Lol..sorry, reference to another thread, I lost track.

Anyway, I am perfectly capable of determining the difference between right and wrong. ACtually, everybody is capable of it...but many choose not to actually engage in such an activity because they're terrified it will deplete their own enjoyment of whatever it is they enjoy, that they know is depraved.

 

[Asclepias]

Lol..sorry, reference to another thread, I lost track.

Anyway, I am perfectly capable of determining the difference between right and wrong. ACtually, everybody is capable of it...but many choose not to actually engage in such an activity because they're terrified it will deplete their own enjoyment of whatever it is they enjoy, that they know is depraved.

I understand you have an opinion. What I am asking you is why do you think yours is correct for others just because you say so? To me that is disturbing.

 

[Vox]

Attacking methodology is the lazy man's way...lol..

The learned community knows that if your methodology sucks, your study sucks. When you use crap methodology, you are generally being dishonest in your approach. Your little article is cute, but completely beside the point, and nothing but a justification of crap *studies* that present falsehoods as reality...and children are the ones who suffer.

The only time an article, link, or review isn't false if it agrees with your view point. The problem is, you have to post blogs by A Mormon who spent his career trying conversion therapy on homosexuals. Your methodology sucks. Most can see it, sorry you and Vox are ignorant loons, and cannot.
You problem KG, is you became educated on false material. Just imagine what you could have been if you actually opened up your mind to information that wasn't based in lunacy? You are smart, but only to a point. You could go a lot farther if you got over being a bigot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's an opinion piece, ditz. My studies blew the retards out of the water, and that's all they have left.

the retards do not understand the difference between the study and the opinion piece in a newspaper... some can't read the abstract or find other sources if the access is limited

 

[Vox]

you did not provide any peer review, just a BS from some media article.

Perhaps you have different information than I do with regards to this issue?

We question the process by which this paper was submitted, reviewed, and accepted for publication. The paper was received by the journal on February 1, 2012. A revision was received on February 29, and the paper was accepted on March 12. This suggests that the peer review process and substantive revisions occurred within a period of just five weeks. According to the peer review policy of the Social Science Research website hosted by Elsevier, the first step of the review process is an initial manuscript evaluation by the editor. Once deemed to meet minimum criteria, at least 2 experts are secured for a peer review. The website states that, “Typically manuscripts are reviewed within 2-3 months of submission but substantially longer review times are not uncommon” and that “Revised manuscripts are usually returned to the initial referees upon receipt.” Clearly, Dr. Regnerus’ paper was returned to him very quickly, because he had time to revise the manuscript and get it back to the journal by February 29th. Further, it appears that a second substantive peer review may not have occurred as the paper was accepted just two weeks after the revision was submitted.


Scientists Rebuke Publication of Study on LGBT Parenting | Psychology Today

except they did not REBUKE anything.it is still a MEDIA article, not a peer reviewed STUDY>

 

[Vox]

Witherspoon Institute - News - The Austin Chronicle[/url]

oh, this "rebuttal" is just a typical butthurt cry. from the newspaper

children of homosexual parents differ from the children of lesbian parents, and they differ from children from standard heterosexual parents.
they have some similarities with children from the single parents homes.

Regnerus study[

In 2012, the Witherspoon Institute drew public attention for having funded a controversial study—called the "New Family Structures Study" (NFSS)—concerning LGBT parenting, conducted by Mark Regnerus, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Texas at Austin. The study was later declared to be flawed in an audit conducted by the publisher of the study, Social Science Research, and was criticized by major professional scientific institutions and associations, as well as other sociologists at the University of Texas. In a brief to the United States Supreme Court, the American Sociological Association formally condemned the NFSS for being invalid. The University of Texas conducted an inquiry into the publication and declined to conduct a personal investigation stating that ordinary errors are not considered personal misconduct.[22] Documents from the University of Texas at Austin show that Regnerus, who was provided with talking points by the Institute, requested payment authorizations, for assistance in data analysis, to William Bradford Wilcox, associate professor of sociology at the University of Virginia, a member of the James Madison Society at Princeton University, the director of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia, and fellow (at that time) of the Witherspoon Institute. William Bradford Wilcox no longer appears on the official website for the Witherspoon Institute.[citation needed] Although the Witherspoon funding was part of the controversy, these documents show direct involvement in the study by the Witherspoon Institute. The methodology of the study has received criticism and defense.

In 2012, Darren Sherkat, professor of sociology at Southern Illinois University and a member of the editorial board of Social Science Research was asked by the journal's editor to audit the peer-review process that led to publication of the Regnerus study, for which Regnerus received $700,000 from the Witherspoon Institute and $60,000 from another conservative think tank. His conclusions were published in the November 2012 issue[29] of Social Science Research. In an interview with the Southern Poverty Law Center, Sherkat described the study as being "deeply methodologically flawed and a peer-review process that failed to identify significant problems." Sherkat also found that the study was riddled with technical flaws:

The key measure of gay and lesbian parenting is simply a farce. The study includes a retrospective question asking if people knew if their mother or father had a “romantic” relationship with someone of the same sex when the respondent was under age 18. This measure is problematic on many levels. Regnerus admits that just two of his respondents were actually raised by a same-sex couple, though I doubt that he can even know that, given his limited data. Since only two respondents were actually raised in gay or lesbian households, this study has absolutely nothing to say about gay parenting outcomes. Indeed, because it is a non-random sample, this study has nothing to say about anything.
Sherkat concluded that Regnerus, a conservative evangelical Christian, had "disgraced" himself by drawing misleading conclusions from poor research:
When we talk about Regnerus, I completely dismiss the study. It’s over. He has been disgraced. All of the prominent people in the field know what he did and why he did it. And most of them know that he knew better. Some of them think that he’s also stupid and an ideologue. I know better. I know that he’s a smart guy and that he did this on purpose, and that it was bad, and that it was substandard.

Witherspoon Institute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oh, now WIKIPEDIA is supposed to be the last straw

you clearly are in the luissa-noomi cohort.
they will agree with you and your "knowledge"

 

[Vox]

Was KG owned in this thread and I missed it?

Darn. LOL

Obviously you didn't read the thread.

No surprises there.

You got embarrassed in this thread. If you chose to NOT acknowledge that, it's fine by me.

I don't go around trying to fix stupid.

the only ones who got embarrassed and owned are the ignorants like you, luissa, asclepias and noomi.

that bunch are ignoramuses and known ones.

you looked a bit more educated.

BEFORE.

 

[koshergrl]

oh no, wiki debunked a study.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA