NY activist judges allow same sex marriage

[musicman]

Musicman, what Andy's done is showed you that 3 major (THE major) pyschology and sociology groups have said that Cameron's findings and opinion are not scientific and he is not a legimiate sociologist and psychologist. Moreover, he's shown that an American court of law has stated that Cameron misrepresented data and outright lied-- not in one case or another, but about the exact data you're using to support your ridiculous claims about gays

Wrong. Baker vs. Wade concerned another matter entirely. No pun intended here, NE, but let's try to keep our eye on the ball.

And, for a few thoughts regarding the collective gutlessness of the medical community (and the courts, for that matter) before the PC onslaught, I refer you to posts #212 and #213.

The APA made less-than-adoring speech about liberal causes an ETHICS violation. Dr. Cameron resigned in disgust, and the APA accepted his resignation. Strange (and convenient), isn't it - that they dropped his membership a FULL YEAR LATER, saying that he couldn't resign since he was already under investigation? This is the kind of double-dealing and character assassination that has become synonymous with speaking unpleasant truths.

And that, I reirerate, is what Dr. Cameron has done. NO ONE has refuted his findings. Homosexuals comprise 1% to 3% of the population, yet commit 20% to 40% of child molestations. That's a hard truth. I don't blame you for fighting it.

 

[MissileMan]

Wrong. Baker vs. Wade concerned another matter entirely. No pun intended here, NE, but let's try to keep our eye on the ball.

And, for a few thoughts regarding the collective gutlessness of the medical community (and the courts, for that matter) before the PC onslaught, I refer you to posts #212 and #213.

The APA made less-than-adoring speech about liberal causes an ETHICS violation. Dr. Cameron resigned in disgust, and the APA accepted his resignation. Strange (and convenient), isn't it - that they dropped his membership a FULL YEAR LATER, saying that he couldn't resign since he was already under investigation? This is the kind of double-dealing and character assassination that has become synonymous with speaking unpleasant truths.

And that, I reirerate, is what Dr. Cameron has done. NO ONE has refuted his findings. Homosexuals comprise 1% to 3% of the population, yet commit 20% to 40% of child molestations. That's a hard truth. I don't blame you for fighting it.

Man...you really need to get that scratch fixed. :teeth:

Let's assume that Cameron's numbers are dead on. Do you believe that allowing same-sex civil unioins will cause a massive increase in the numbers of homosexuals?

 

[musicman]

Man...you really need to get that scratch fixed. :teeth:

Let's assume that Cameron's numbers are dead on. Do you believe that allowing same-sex civil unioins will cause a massive increase in the numbers of homosexuals?

LOL! Can't help it, MM! If I don't say "the sky is up" twenty times a day, I've got folks on this board who''ll try to say it goes sideways!

To answer your question - I honestly don't know. I doubt it, though.

 

[MissileMan]

LOL! Can't help it, MM! If I don't say "the sky is up" twenty times a day, I've got folks on this board who''ll try to say it goes sideways!

To answer your question - I honestly don't know. I doubt it, though.

OK, then if the number of homosexuals stays around where it is now, there shouldn't be any increased risk to children because those who would have sex with children are already out there.

I would also suggest that allowing civil unions might even reduce some of the promiscuity and foster a sense of devotion and responsibility and make the practice less dangerous in the long run.

 

[musicman]

OK, then if the number of homosexuals stays around where it is now, there shouldn't be any increased risk to children because those who would have sex with children are already out there.

I would also suggest that allowing civil unions might even reduce some of the promiscuity and foster a sense of devotion and responsibility and make the practice less dangerous in the long run.

It would also mean legitimizing a lifestyle that is demonstrably dangerous to society. Again, let me point out that I'm not saying homosexuality=pedophilia. What I AM saying is that the numbers are enough out of whack to suggest something deeply disturbing about homosexuality - something that society blithely ignores at its peril.

Of course, what we're ultimately talking about here is conferring a right where no right now exists - basically "creating a right". Whose responsibility do you think that should be - the voters (the society which will have to live with the consequences of the decision) or the courts?

 

[MissileMan]

It would also mean legitimizing a lifestyle that is demonstrably dangerous to society. Again, let me point out that I'm not saying homosexuality=pedophilia. What I AM saying is that the numbers are enough out of whack to suggest something deeply disturbing about homosexuality - something that society blithely ignores at its peril.

Of course, what we're ultimately talking about here is conferring a right where no right now exists - basically "creating a right". Whose responsibility do you think that should be - the voters (the society which will have to live with the consequences of the decision) or the courts?

There needs to be a national referendum because it affects all the states. Put it to a vote, and put it to bed.

 

[musicman]

There needs to be a national referendum because it affects all the states. Put it to a vote, and put it to bed.

Amen and amen.

 

[Johnney]

OK, then if the number of homosexuals stays around where it is now, there shouldn't be any increased risk to children because those who would have sex with children are already out there.

I would also suggest that allowing civil unions might even reduce some of the promiscuity and foster a sense of devotion and responsibility and make the practice less dangerous in the long run.

ok, i gotta ask...
now are you saying because there isnt the proverbial "ring on the finger", thats why there is so much promiscuity in the gay world? they need a ring to get into a commited relation? two homo men cant be completley monogamous relation without a ring?

 

[no1tovote4]

ok, i gotta ask...
now are you saying because there isnt the proverbial "ring on the finger", thats why there is so much promiscuity in the gay world? they need a ring to get into a commited relation? two homo men cant be completley monogamous relation without a ring?

I would think they often are. Just as in most cases it is probably due to age. The guys who lived next door to us when I was a teen were a monogamous gay couple. They were about in their late 30s and appeared to have as close of a relationship as did my parents. Anecdotal evidence maybe, but evidence nonetheless.

I don't know so much about the marriage thing, but I do know it is possible for two homosexual men to have a monogamous relationship.

I personally believe that the Government should keep its nose out of the religious ceremony of marriage and churches should be able to decide on their own who they would marry and who they would not marry.

 

[OCA]

The trouble is that you are trying to lump adult male-on-adult male sex with adult male-on-juvenile male sex and call it all homosexuality. We call adult male-on-juvenile female sex pedophilia, not heterosexuality. You are holding homosexuals to a different standard to further your argument. The only assumption we need to proceed from is that adult-on-juvenile sex is pedophilia, no matter the sex of the offender or victim.

Incorrect, we call that heterosexual pedophilia, male on juvenile male is homosexual pedophilia, this cannot be argued against logically.

Homosexuality is as homosexuality does.

 

[OCA]

There needs to be a national referendum because it affects all the states. Put it to a vote, and put it to bed.

There won't be a national referendum because that is not how its done here but it is going state by state vote and so far its 11-0 for the good guys, soon to be 12-0 since Kansas has it on their ballot for April.

I don't know why we even argue for this, the populace is overwhelmingly against HLCP marriage.

And yes there was a smear campaign against Cameron, who's to say that the judge in the court case wasn't liberally biased as so many judges are nowadays? Anyway there is enough of a precedent of liberal slandering on difficult subjects such as this as to raise suspicion. For instance we know the HLCP leadership pressured the APA financially and socially from removing homosexuality as a mental disorder from their books. This is a fact and who's to say they won't do that type of thing to an individual who dares to speak the truth about a vile lifestyle.

 

[OCA]

Its like slamming my head against a brick wall talking to you OCA.

Here's what I've said twice on this thread, and many other times on others threads, in posts that I know you've read because you've quoted them. Direct quote:



Now, I know you love to misrepresent what I've said, like saying that I argued homosexuality in nature means its ok. When I said the opposite, twice, SPECIFICALLY pointing out that i WASN'T saying the argument that homosexuality is found in nature argues for if it is "right" or "good".

Please, I beg of you, read this post in its entirety so you understand what i'm saying and you don't misquote me aga--OCA? Are you there?

OCA?

Come back!

*sigh*

Nakey you are twisting things. You are in fact arguing that homosexuality is right because of its rare instances in nature. Regardless this is a mute point because even if it is genetic we all know that its wrong and we have self control and the ability to reason between right and wrong. If you are a homosexual genetic defect you'll just have to accept your lot in life and marriage(unless with an opposite sex member) will not be available to you due to your defect. Its a heavy cross to bear but you can do it.

 

[MissileMan]

Incorrect, we call that heterosexual pedophilia, male on juvenile male is homosexual pedophilia, this cannot be argued against logically.

Homosexuality is as homosexuality does.

Which is it? You just argued it both ways!

 

[MissileMan]

ok, i gotta ask...
now are you saying because there isnt the proverbial "ring on the finger", thats why there is so much promiscuity in the gay world? they need a ring to get into a commited relation? two homo men cant be completley monogamous relation without a ring?

There are heterosexuals who live very promiscuous lives until they get married and settle down. I'm saying that in some cases, the legal commitment of a civil union might cause some homosexuals to "settle down".

 

[MissileMan]

Nakey you are twisting things. You are in fact arguing that homosexuality is right because of its rare instances in nature. Regardless this is a mute point because even if it is genetic we all know that its wrong and we have self control and the ability to reason between right and wrong. If you are a homosexual genetic defect you'll just have to accept your lot in life and marriage(unless with an opposite sex member) will not be available to you due to your defect. Its a heavy cross to bear but you can do it.

OCA, that is without any doubt the most bigoted, self righteous, intellectually bankrupt, and imbecillic statement I have ever seen posted on this board.

 

[no1tovote4]

Which is it? You just argued it both ways!

What do you mean he argued it both ways?

What he stated is that when a man has a pedophilic relationship with a boy it is a homosexual relationship as well as being pedophilic. While it is in a different class and a type of perversion it is still a type of homosexual sex.

 

[MissileMan]

What do you mean he argued it both ways?

What he stated is that when a man has a pedophilic relationship with a boy it is a homosexual relationship as well as being pedophilic. While it is in a different class and a type of perversion it is still a type of homosexual sex.

He acknowledged that there was such a thing as homosexual pedophilia, and then insinuated, again, that all homosexuals are pedophilic with the "Homosexuality is as homosexuality does" comment.

 

[no1tovote4]

He acknowledged that there was such a thing as homosexual pedophilia, and then insinuated, again, that all homosexuals are pedophilic with the "Homosexuality is as homosexuality does" comment.

Ah, I got ya.

I couldn't quite get where you were aiming. Clearly not all homosexuals are pedophiles.

 

[Bullypulpit]

In a paper by Kurt Freund(1.), the number of heterosexual vs. homosexual pedophiles was estimated at about 1.44:1. The upshot of this is that heterosexual pedophiles outnumber homosexual pedophiles.

The 1983 ISIS study by Paul Cameron, that many here seem to be fond of quoting to support their arguments against same-gender relationships, has been debunked...repeatedly. For one of the best reports on the study, go here:

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron_survey.html

In this article you will find a detailed list of the flaws in the study's methodology. Particularly of interest is that during the gathering of the data, a newspaper article was released which essentially stateed that Mr. Cameron was out to find "ammunition" to those seeking to ban homosexuality. This article threw a huge monkey wrench into the study, thus rendering its conclusions essentially useless.


Citations:

(1.)<i><b>In search if an etiological model of pedophilia</b></i>, Kurt Freund, at: http://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Library/freund_etiological.htm

 

[musicman]

In a paper by Kurt Freund(1.), the number of heterosexual vs. homosexual pedophiles was estimated at about 1.44:1. The upshot of this is that heterosexual pedophiles outnumber homosexual pedophiles.

]

That's never been in dispute, Bully - nor should it come as any surprise, since heterosexuals comprise the overwhelming majority of the population.

The SHEER NUMBERS are not at issue here - it's a matter of PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION in child molestation statistics.

But you knew that, of course. Like all apologists for the homosexual lifestyle, you seek to muddy up the awkward truth with jargon and blather.