Saving Children From Homosexual Predators: Emperor Trump to Reverse LGBT Adoption Rights Reforms

[elektra]

You asked for evidence and it was provided. Every study comes to the same conclusions that you refuse to believe because they are all contrary to your narrow world view.

Our kids are fine...kids of divorce are fucked up. Worry about them.

Again, show me where I asked for evidence? And again, your link that you posted is not evidence. Either way, quote me, that way you can either prove I am lying now or that you are simply a filthy hateful liar on these boards trolling and flaming the good people who actually share real life accounts on your narrow minded views affect others.

Again, quote me, you can continue your rant, your stammering, your little hissy fit, or quote where I specifically asked for "evidence".

If you could prove I stated what you claim, you would of quoted me from the beginning, but flaming trolls are here to do one thing, flame and troll. Everyone sees you for what you are, despicable.

 

[elektra]

…
“The data suggest that same-sex couples — and this is really preliminary — are more likely to have stable relationships when the legal regime is more supportive of their
relationships,” Wilcox replied.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/06...e-is-marriage/

I was going to play along and take a look at what you "shared", but the link I followed is bad? How is it that you claim to know so much and have all the answers yet intellectually you are very lazy, providing us with bad links? How do you come up with bad links? The obvious answer is you google something that you suppose agrees with you, and simply cut/paste the link as if you won an argument.

Sorry, that don't cut it in the real world. If you expect to be taken seriously, you should be quoting, meaning selectively, not simply cut/paste of entire articles. And then you should offer your own commentary on the relevance of what you quoted. And then you must provide a link that works, according to the message board rules. If I count posts in which you do not link with this last post of yours with links that fail, you have half a dozen bad posts.

There is a reason links fail, the information is bad, and is took down, or the information does not say what the person thought it did when they wrote the article, so they take down the link so they can not be proven wrong. Or it is simply sloppy, irrelevant work.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/06...e-is-marriage/

Not Found
The requested URL was not found on the server. If you entered the URL manually please check your spelling and try again.

Shit happens. Links go bad. Post something that supports your position that gays should not be parents or shut the fuck up.

You cant support your position so you construct a statement that I have not made and demand I defend it.

You really are a total idiot.

You post fake news with bad links, follow that with lies about my comments which you wont quote. Based on the standards you have set for me, you should bow your head in shame, and do as you tell me, and shut up.

You area yotal hypocrite, you cant link your quotes which is a rule. You wont quote me. You lie about what I stated. You then trll me to defend what I did not post.

You can not support your own position so you break the rules and then tell lies.

Everyone who reads this can read all my posts in this thread and then see that you are s filthy liar.

They know they're sick freaks, and they really only have their typical fallback garbage of calling everybody who doesn't blindly endorse their fake studies and claims 'phobes' or' haters' and the like. It's just a fake media campaign, like trying to get the dumbasses to call them 'gay' instead of homosexual fetishists and mentally ill neurotics.

Careful there, gay only refers to homosexual men, lesbians are homosexual woman.

It is really scary that these kind of people are the homosexuals. Very scary, they are first and foremost, crazy nuts. Secondly, they can not comprehend anything that they post nor our replies. Third, they really are filthy disgusting liars. Fourth, they are the bigots, they respond and call everyone names, I have even seen them flame and troll other homosexuals who disagree with them. I seriously think these people need to be committed. It is simply not natural to have so much hate and to see so blindly.

But, then again, who cares, it is simply a bit fun to show how idiotic and non-relevant their "evidence" is, editorials from students or professors, studies of studies, newpaper articles, whatever it is that they post, it is all heresy and non-relevant.

the seawitch's link says exactly that, that the study is limited because it only looked at 3 year old children. Can you imagine basing ones entire argument that babies that are forced into a homosexual lifestyle are perfectly okay with that, basing ones opinion on a study of 3 year old toddlers? Then calling the one study, "evidence". Well, seawitch could not even quote or offer commentary on the study in which to even begin a debate. It is as if they think a Google search is a deck of cards, and they drew the TRUMP card which one the "hand".

they are really idiots that are unwilling to have a discussion, let alone a discussion that follows the USMB rules.

anyhow, have fun with the homosexual flaming trolls in this thread.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You asked for evidence and it was provided. Every study comes to the same conclusions that you refuse to believe because they are all contrary to your narrow world view.

Our kids are fine...kids of divorce are fucked up. Worry about them.

Again, show me where I asked for evidence? And again, your link that you posted is not evidence. Either way, quote me, that way you can either prove I am lying now or that you are simply a filthy hateful liar on these boards trolling and flaming the good people who actually share real life accounts on your narrow minded views affect others.

Again, quote me, you can continue your rant, your stammering, your little hissy fit, or quote where I specifically asked for "evidence".

If you could prove I stated what you claim, you would of quoted me from the beginning, but flaming trolls are here to do one thing, flame and troll. Everyone sees you for what you are, despicable.

I can only conclude that you're psychotic. No one here is paying attention to you and certainly not supporting you. Yet your diseased mind thinks they are.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

…
“The data suggest that same-sex couples — and this is really preliminary — are more likely to have stable relationships when the legal regime is more supportive of their
relationships,” Wilcox replied.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/06...e-is-marriage/

I was going to play along and take a look at what you "shared", but the link I followed is bad? How is it that you claim to know so much and have all the answers yet intellectually you are very lazy, providing us with bad links? How do you come up with bad links? The obvious answer is you google something that you suppose agrees with you, and simply cut/paste the link as if you won an argument.

Sorry, that don't cut it in the real world. If you expect to be taken seriously, you should be quoting, meaning selectively, not simply cut/paste of entire articles. And then you should offer your own commentary on the relevance of what you quoted. And then you must provide a link that works, according to the message board rules. If I count posts in which you do not link with this last post of yours with links that fail, you have half a dozen bad posts.

There is a reason links fail, the information is bad, and is took down, or the information does not say what the person thought it did when they wrote the article, so they take down the link so they can not be proven wrong. Or it is simply sloppy, irrelevant work.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/06...e-is-marriage/

Not Found
The requested URL was not found on the server. If you entered the URL manually please check your spelling and try again.

Shit happens. Links go bad. Post something that supports your position that gays should not be parents or shut the fuck up.

You cant support your position so you construct a statement that I have not made and demand I defend it.

You really are a total idiot.

You post fake news with bad links, follow that with lies about my comments which you wont quote. Based on the standards you have set for me, you should bow your head in shame, and do as you tell me, and shut up.

You area yotal hypocrite, you cant link your quotes which is a rule. You wont quote me. You lie about what I stated. You then trll me to defend what I did not post.

You can not support your own position so you break the rules and then tell lies.

Everyone who reads this can read all my posts in this thread and then see that you are s filthy liar.

They know they're sick freaks, and they really only have their typical fallback garbage of calling everybody who doesn't blindly endorse their fake studies and claims 'phobes' or' haters' and the like. It's just a fake media campaign, like trying to get the dumbasses to call them 'gay' instead of homosexual fetishists and mentally ill neurotics.

Careful there, gay only refers to homosexual men, lesbians are homosexual woman.

It is really scary that these kind of people are the homosexuals. Very scary, they are first and foremost, crazy nuts. Secondly, they can not comprehend anything that they post nor our replies. Third, they really are filthy disgusting liars. Fourth, they are the bigots, they respond and call everyone names, I have even seen them flame and troll other homosexuals who disagree with them. I seriously think these people need to be committed. It is simply not natural to have so much hate and to see so blindly.

But, then again, who cares, it is simply a bit fun to show how idiotic and non-relevant their "evidence" is, editorials from students or professors, studies of studies, newpaper articles, whatever it is that they post, it is all heresy and non-relevant.

the seawitch's link says exactly that, that the study is limited because it only looked at 3 year old children. Can you imagine basing ones entire argument that babies that are forced into a homosexual lifestyle are perfectly okay with that, basing ones opinion on a study of 3 year old toddlers? Then calling the one study, "evidence". Well, seawitch could not even quote or offer commentary on the study in which to even begin a debate. It is as if they think a Google search is a deck of cards, and they drew the TRUMP card which one the "hand".

they are really idiots that are unwilling to have a discussion, let alone a discussion that follows the USMB rules.

anyhow, have fun with the homosexual flaming trolls in this thread.

Oh, I stand corrected, There is one other psychotic here that does take your side

 

[elektra]

Oh, I stand corrected, There is one other psychotic here that does take your side

Still can't quote me? That shows you are here to lie, flame, and troll. Well, everyone can see now, that you have lied, you denigrate the other users who respond, you will not quote or link, you do not follow the USMB rules, you spam the thread, and why? Because you can not support your position with facts and intellect.

 

[elektra]

I can only conclude that you're psychotic. No one here is paying attention to you and certainly not supporting you. Yet your diseased mind thinks they are.

well, if you can not quote me, showing where I asked for "evidence", then that makes you a liar, and just about all your posts are simply spam, like this one I have responded to. Trolling, flaming posts, and lying.

I made my point, you spammed the thread to make it disappear, nice tactic, of course you are too stupid to realize how you broke the rules and what you did, that is simply life on the boards.

have a good day, and when you decide to have a discussion, following the rules of the USMB, I may engage, or I may not. I do not have time to respond to a liar, so, shape up or play alone.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You asked for evidence and it was provided. Every study comes to the same conclusions that you refuse to believe because they are all contrary to your narrow world view.

Our kids are fine...kids of divorce are fucked up. Worry about them.

Again, show me where I asked for evidence? And again, your link that you posted is not evidence. Either way, quote me, that way you can either prove I am lying now or that you are simply a filthy hateful liar on these boards trolling and flaming the good people who actually share real life accounts on your narrow minded views affect others.

Again, quote me, you can continue your rant, your stammering, your little hissy fit, or quote where I specifically asked for "evidence".

If you could prove I stated what you claim, you would of quoted me from the beginning, but flaming trolls are here to do one thing, flame and troll. Everyone sees you for what you are, despicable.

OK Dumb fuck. In post 116 I wrote:

Here is a clear example of the lengths to which opponents of same sex marriage, and child rearing by gays will go in order to manipulate data and distort evidence to support their narrow minded and bigoted agenda. If there was a body of credible evidence to show that having gay parents was in any way detrimental to children, this would not be necessary!
Opponents of Same-Sex Marriage Take Bad-for-Children Argument to Court 2.22.14 Selected excerpts follow….the full article can be found at

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/23/u...-bad-for-children-argument-to-court.html?_r=0

and much more. There were about 11 links to support the text which was accompanied by my own commentary . One did not work and you jumped all over it claiming that I provided no likns and that it was fake news. In post 132 you wrote:

A cherry picked cut/paste, that you do not link, which is definately against the USMB rules is not allowed. All quotes must be linked.

Not linking is not proof, it is against the rules, and a very narrow response.

It does not get much more stupid than that! You are indeed psychotic. I can draw no other conclusion.

 

[Syriusly]

You asked for evidence and it was provided. Every study comes to the same conclusions that you refuse to believe because they are all contrary to your narrow world view.

Our kids are fine...kids of divorce are fucked up. Worry about them.

Again, show me where I asked for evidence? And again, your link that you posted is not evidence. Either way, quote me, that way you can either prove I am lying now or that you are simply a filthy hateful liar on these boards trolling and flaming the good people who actually share real life accounts on your narrow minded views affect others.

Again, quote me, you can continue your rant, your stammering, your little hissy fit, or quote where I specifically asked for "evidence".

If you could prove I stated what you claim, you would of quoted me from the beginning, but flaming trolls are here to do one thing, flame and troll. Everyone sees you for what you are, despicable.

OK Dumb fuck. In post 116 I wrote:

Here is a clear example of the lengths to which opponents of same sex marriage, and child rearing by gays will go in order to manipulate data and distort evidence to support their narrow minded and bigoted agenda. If there was a body of credible evidence to show that having gay parents was in any way detrimental to children, this would not be necessary!
Opponents of Same-Sex Marriage Take Bad-for-Children Argument to Court 2.22.14 Selected excerpts follow….the full article can be found at

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/23/u...-bad-for-children-argument-to-court.html?_r=0

and much more. In post 132 you wrote:

A cherry picked cut/paste, that you do not link, which is definately against the USMB rules is not allowed. All quotes must be linked.

Not linking is not proof, it is against the rules, and a very narrow response.

It does not get much more stupid than that! You are indeed psychotic. I can draw no other conclusion.

LOL arguing with Elektra is as productive as spitting in the wind.

It doesn't matter what you say- or what you prove.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You asked for evidence and it was provided. Every study comes to the same conclusions that you refuse to believe because they are all contrary to your narrow world view.

Our kids are fine...kids of divorce are fucked up. Worry about them.

Again, show me where I asked for evidence? And again, your link that you posted is not evidence. Either way, quote me, that way you can either prove I am lying now or that you are simply a filthy hateful liar on these boards trolling and flaming the good people who actually share real life accounts on your narrow minded views affect others.

Again, quote me, you can continue your rant, your stammering, your little hissy fit, or quote where I specifically asked for "evidence".

If you could prove I stated what you claim, you would of quoted me from the beginning, but flaming trolls are here to do one thing, flame and troll. Everyone sees you for what you are, despicable.

OK Dumb fuck. In post 116 I wrote:

Here is a clear example of the lengths to which opponents of same sex marriage, and child rearing by gays will go in order to manipulate data and distort evidence to support their narrow minded and bigoted agenda. If there was a body of credible evidence to show that having gay parents was in any way detrimental to children, this would not be necessary!
Opponents of Same-Sex Marriage Take Bad-for-Children Argument to Court 2.22.14 Selected excerpts follow….the full article can be found at

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/23/u...-bad-for-children-argument-to-court.html?_r=0

and much more. In post 132 you wrote:

A cherry picked cut/paste, that you do not link, which is definately against the USMB rules is not allowed. All quotes must be linked.

Not linking is not proof, it is against the rules, and a very narrow response.

It does not get much more stupid than that! You are indeed psychotic. I can draw no other conclusion.

LOL arguing with Elektra is as productive as spitting in the wind.

It doesn't matter what you say- or what you prove.

I know but I can't help myself. Just trying to draw out some modicum of rationality. It's hard for me to let someone like him- even knowing that he is some combination of stupid, crazy and a vicious bigot- have the last word. I do believe that he is showing signs of psychological decompensation. I better leave him alone now.

 

[Seawytch]

You asked for evidence and it was provided. Every study comes to the same conclusions that you refuse to believe because they are all contrary to your narrow world view.

Our kids are fine...kids of divorce are fucked up. Worry about them.

Again, show me where I asked for evidence?

Okay...

Of course you can't provide evidence that gays aren't giving adopted children good homes. In fact, all studies show they provide stellar homes.

Yes, we know you are a right wing douche bag. Oh, and it is your bigoted position that doesn't hold up to actual facts.

post your facts

And again, your link that you posted is not evidence.

Uh yeah, it is. It shows there is NO DIFFERENCE in children adopted by straights or gays.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Queer couples should not be allowed to adopt as a rule. However, carefully vetted queer couples would probably be better for a child than some foster parents.

With less than 1% of homosexuals having any kind of long term 'relationship', that's not a large enough number to make it worth the trouble. The high rates of kiddie rapers who are homosexual however does make it worth the trouble to just avoid allowing the mentally ill to adopt children, and the 'Gay Rights' hoax is extremely Pedo Friendly, hardly a demographic that should even be allowed around children at all in the first place.

Frankly almost all 'kiddie rapers' are men. Virtually all.

Going by your logic men shouldn't be allowed to adopt children.

But lesbians- they are of course the safe choice.

I mean if you were actually concerned about the safety of children other than just using the safety of children as an excuse to promote your own bigotry.

And homosexual males are committing far more kiddie rapes relative to their percentage of the population than hetero males are, dumbass; some 30%+ of rapes are committed by a demographic making up at most 3% of the population.. That makes them. Only complete morons and sociopaths would claim they aren't a concern and very high risk group to be allowed around children, not to mention the last major NAMBLA undercover investigation and trials produced clear evidence the gimps also have no problems or inhibitions to molest and rape female children if male children aren't available when they get their 'urges' to commit rape children. Of course you and the other gimp apologists are far more enthralled with being unprincipled fashionistas than any real genuine interest in the issue, so carry on with your gibbering and whining, oh Great Social Justice Warrior.

And by the way, the undercover operatives made it into NAMBLA by the simple expedient of merely calling up a 'gay friendly' travel agency in Los Angeles; wasn't difficult at all for them to get introduced to the pedoes via the 'gay community'.

You are a dangerous liar . It's this type of rhetoric that has gotten gay men killed. And if you actually believe your own bullshit, you have to be either crazy or stupid. Your claim that gay may are committing a disproportionate number of child molestations relative to the straight population only stands up if you believe that there is no difference between gay men who have healthy adult relationships with other adults and those who are fixated on minors, or have regressed for some reason in that regard. In addition, every male who has sex with another male, whether an adult or minor is not a homosexual. I'm going to make an attempt to educate you although I'm not holding out much hope. Mostly I like doing this because even I can stand to learn more and I enjoy picking apart hateful propaganda like yours.

Let's start with your lie about NAMBLA. It was spawned by the early gay rights movement but what is left of it today -and that isn't much - is not a gay organization and has been rejected by gay advocacy groups:

Selected excerpts:

Platform and positions 216.220.97.17 - Google Search

NAMBLA describes itself as a "support group for intergenerational relationships," and uses the slogan "sexual freedom for all." According to the group's web site, its aim is to "support the rights of youth as well as adults to choose the partners with whom they wish to share and enjoy their bodies." Google Search of NAMBLA's IP

You will see that nowhere in this lengthy piece is NAMBLA identified as a gay organization, nor does the organization itself even mention the issue of being gay.

History Brief history of the modern childlove movement

NAMBLA emerged from the tumultuous political atmosphere of the 1970s, particularly from the leftist wing of the Gay Liberation movement which followed the 1969 Stonewall Riots in New York City. Although discussion of gay adult-minor sex did take place, gay rights groups immediately following the Stonewall Riot were more concerned with issues of police harassment, nondiscrimination in employment, health care and other areas.

These were desperate days for the fledgling gay rights movement. Even then, the NAMBLA was consider a fringe group within the gay community

Ostracism
Some gay rights groups immediately following "Stonewall Inn", perceived age-of-consent laws as governmental tools to suppress homosexual behavior rather than as the safeguards against the sexual abuse of small children that they claimed to be. In many states that didn't explicitly criminalize homosexual behavior (the sodomy laws), age-of-consent laws were significantly lower for heterosexual couples than for homosexual couples. For example, in the state of Massachusetts, "Lawrence v. Texas", the age of consent for heterosexual couples was as low as 13 (with parental approval) but was 18 for homosexual men.

The relative acceptance or indifference to opposition of the age-of-consent began to change at the same time as accusations that gays were child pornographers and child molesters became common. Judianne Densen-Gerber, founder of the New York drug rehabilitation center Odyssey House, argued that gays were responsible for child pornography. In 1977 former beauty queen Anita Bryant staked a similar position, starting the "Save Our Children" campaign. "The recruitment of our children," she argued, "is absolutely necessary for the survival and growth of homosexuality."

You are dishonestly, or perhaps ignorantly, relying on ancient history by invoking NAMBLA

In 1980 a group called the “Lesbian Caucus – Lesbian Gay Pride March Committee” distributed a hand-out urging women to split from the annual New York City Gay Pride March because the organizing committee had supposedly been dominated by NAMBLA and its supporters. The next year, after some lesbians threatened to picket, the Cornell University gay group Gay PAC (Gay People at Cornell) rescinded its invitation to NAMBLA founder David Thorstad to be the keynote speaker at the annual May Gay Festival. And in the following years, gay rights groups attempted to block NAMBLA’s participation in gay pride parades, prompting Harry Hay to wear a sign proclaiming “NAMBLA walks with me” as he participated in a 1986 gay pride march in Los Angeles.

Thus by the mid-1980s, NAMBLA was virtually alone in its positions and found itself politically isolated. Gay rights organizations, burdened by accusations of child recruitment and child abuse, had abandoned the radicalism of their early years and had "retreat[ed] from the idea of a more inclusive politics," opting instead to appeal more to the mainstream. Support for "groups perceived as being on the fringe of the gay community," such as NAMBLA, vanished in the process. Today almost all gay rights groups disavow any ties to NAMBLA, voice disapproval of its objectives, and attempt to prevent NAMBLA from having a role in gay and lesbian rights events.

Here is more:

Gregory King of the Human Rights Campaign later said that "NAMBLA is not a gay organization ... They are not part of our community and we thoroughly reject their efforts to insinuate that pedophilia is an issue related to gay and lesbian civil rights." NAMBLA responded by claiming that "man/boy love is by definition homosexual," that "man/boy lovers are part of the gay movement and central to gay history and culture," and that "homosexuals denying that it is 'not gay' to be attracted to adolescent boys are just as ludicrous as heterosexuals saying it's 'not heterosexual' to be attracted to adolescent girls."

And more:

In 1994 the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) adopted a "Position Statement Regarding NAMBLA" saying GLAAD "deplores the North American Man Boy Love Association's (NAMBLA) goals, which include advocacy for sex between adult men and boys and the removal of legal protections for children. These goals constitute a form of child abuse and are repugnant to GLAAD." Also in 1994 the Board of Directors of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) adopted a resolution on NAMBLA that said: "NGLTF condemns all abuse of minors, both sexual and any other kind, perpetrated by adults. Accordingly, NGLTF condemns the organizational goals of NAMBLA and any other such organization."

Today

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 at NAMBLA 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.

NAMBLA is identified as a lobby group in Jon Stewart's America: The Book A Citizen's Guide to Democracy Inaction (2004), and is also alluded to on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, often tagged on to an existing lobby group's acronym for the parody.

Gay rights groups opposed to NAMBLA contend that their reason for disavowing NAMBLA has always been their sharing of the general public's disdain for pedophilia and child sexual abuse (as expressed in issues statements). These gay rights groups reject NAMBLA's claims of an analogy between the campaign for gay and lesbian equality and the abolition of age-of-consent laws, and view NAMBLA's rhetoric about "the sexual rights of youth" as a cover for its members' "real agenda".

Now read this and tell me that they are not a bunch of crazy sick fucks. I will tell you that few if any gay men agree with this tripe: Frequently Asked Questions About NAMBLA and Man/Boy Love
To be continued

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Queer couples should not be allowed to adopt as a rule. However, carefully vetted queer couples would probably be better for a child than some foster parents.

With less than 1% of homosexuals having any kind of long term 'relationship', that's not a large enough number to make it worth the trouble. The high rates of kiddie rapers who are homosexual however does make it worth the trouble to just avoid allowing the mentally ill to adopt children, and the 'Gay Rights' hoax is extremely Pedo Friendly, hardly a demographic that should even be allowed around children at all in the first place.

Frankly almost all 'kiddie rapers' are men. Virtually all.

Going by your logic men shouldn't be allowed to adopt children.

But lesbians- they are of course the safe choice.

I mean if you were actually concerned about the safety of children other than just using the safety of children as an excuse to promote your own bigotry.

And homosexual males are committing far more kiddie rapes relative to their percentage of the population than hetero males are, dumbass; some 30%+ of rapes are committed by a demographic making up at most 3% of the population.. That makes them. Only complete morons and sociopaths would claim they aren't a concern and very high risk group to be allowed around children, not to mention the last major NAMBLA undercover investigation and trials produced clear evidence the gimps also have no problems or inhibitions to molest and rape female children if male children aren't available when they get their 'urges' to commit rape children. Of course you and the other gimp apologists are far more enthralled with being unprincipled fashionistas than any real genuine interest in the issue, so carry on with your gibbering and whining, oh Great Social Justice Warrior.

And by the way, the undercover operatives made it into NAMBLA by the simple expedient of merely calling up a 'gay friendly' travel agency in Los Angeles; wasn't difficult at all for them to get introduced to the pedoes via the 'gay community'.

To continue your education, as futile as that my be.....

Members of disliked minority groups are often stereotyped as representing a danger to the majority's most vulnerable members. For example, Jews in the Middle Ages were accused of murdering Christian babies in ritual sacrifices. Black men in the United States were often lynched after being falsely accused of raping White women. ]

In recent years, antigay activists have routinely asserted that gay people are child molesters. This argument was often made in debates about the Boy Scouts of America's policy to exclude gay scouts and scoutmasters. More recently, in the wake of Rep. Mark Foley's resignation from the US House of Representatives in 2006, antigay activists and their supporters seized on the scandal to revive this canard.
read:Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation
Selected Excerpts:

The number of Americans who believe the myth that gay people are child molesters has declined substantially. In a 1970 national survey, more than 70% of respondents agreed with the assertions that "Homosexuals are dangerous as teachers or youth leaders because they try to get sexually involved with children" or that "Homosexuals try to play sexually with children if they cannot get an adult partner."1

By contrast, in a 1999 national poll, the belief that most gay men are likely to molest or abuse children was endorsed by only 19% of heterosexual men and 10% of heterosexual women. Even fewer – 9% of men and 6% of women – regarded most lesbians as child molesters.

Apparently you're a part of the moronic minority( Yes a play on words lifted from the moral majority)

One problem is that none of the studies in this area have obtained data from a probability sample, that is, a sample that can be assumed to be representative of the population of all child molesters. Rather, most research has been conducted only with convicted perpetrators or with pedophiles who sought professional help. Consequently, they may not accurately describe child molesters who have never been caught or have not sought treatment.
A second problem is that the terminology used in this area is often confusing and can even be misleading. We can begin to address that problem by defining some basic terms.
Pedophilia and child molestation are used in different ways, even by professionals.

Pedophilia usually refers to an adult psychological disorder characterized by a preference for prepubescent children as sexual partners; this preference may or may not be acted upon. The term hebephilia is sometimes used to describe adult sexual attractions to adolescents or children who have reached puberty.
Child molestation and child sexual abuse refer to actions, and don't imply a particular psychological makeup or motive on the part of the perpetrator. Not all incidents of child sexual abuse are perpetrated by pedophiles or hebephiles; in some cases, the perpetrator has other motives for his or her
actions and does not manifest an ongoing pattern of sexual attraction to children.

Thus, not all child sexual abuse is perpetrated by pedophiles (or hebephiles) and not all pedophiles and Add to dictionary actually commit abuse. Consequently, it is important to use terminology carefully.
Hopefully, you are beginning to see that the issue is a bit more complicated than your small mind is able or willing to contemplate
Another problem related to terminology arises because sexual abuse of male children by adult men2 is often referred to as "homosexual molestation." The adjective "homosexual" (or "heterosexual" when a man abuses a female child) refers to the victim's gender in relation to that of the perpetrator. Unfortunately, people sometimes mistakenly interpret it as referring to the perpetrator's sexual orientation.

Now we are getting to the crux of the issue. Still with me, or are you watching porn and jerking off, rather than trying to learn something?

As an expert panel of researchers convened by the National Academy of Sciences noted in a 1993 report: "The distinction between homosexual and heterosexual child molesters relies on the premise that male molesters of male victims are homosexual in orientation. Most molesters of boys do not report sexual interest in adult men, however" (National Research Council, 1993, p. 143, citation omitted).

To avoid this confusion, it is preferable to refer to men's sexual abuse of boys with the more accurate label of male-male molestation. Similarly, it is preferable to refer to men's abuse of girls as male-female molestation. These labels are more accurate because they describe the sex of the individuals involved but don't implicitly convey unwarranted assumptions about the perpetrator's sexual orientation.

'

Typologies of

Offenders The distinction between a victim's gender and a perpetrator's sexual orientation is important because many child molesters don't really have an adult sexual orientation. They have never developed the capacity for mature sexual relationships with other adults, either men or women. Instead, their sexual attractions focus on children – boys, girls, or children of both sexes.

There is a lot more but I don't want to overwhelm your limited ability to comprehend this stuff. Try to deal with it.

 

[elektra]

You asked for evidence and it was provided. Every study comes to the same conclusions that you refuse to believe because they are all contrary to your narrow world view.

Our kids are fine...kids of divorce are fucked up. Worry about them.

Again, show me where I asked for evidence?

Okay...

Of course you can't provide evidence that gays aren't giving adopted children good homes. In fact, all studies show they provide stellar homes.

Yes, we know you are a right wing douche bag. Oh, and it is your bigoted position that doesn't hold up to actual facts.

post your facts

And again, your link that you posted is not evidence.

Uh yeah, it is. It shows there is NO DIFFERENCE in children adopted by straights or gays.

see, I did not ask for evidence, just like I stated, if you can not quote and begin to paraphrase what others say, there is no way to know what you are talking about.

The link you provided is not facts or evidence, if you think there is relevance to the discussion, you should quote and add your thoughts. We are not playing cards with google, providing a link does not mean or show you proved the point you are making.

So go ahead, make a point, from your link, it is super lazy simply to post a link and then rant and rave, paraphrasing what I said, poorly.

If that the only way you can "win", you are a loser.

 

[elektra]

You are a dangerous liar . It's this type of rhetoric that has gotten gay men killed. And if you actually believe your own bullshit, you have to be either crazy or stupid.

If rhetoric leads to murder, you should be arrested for your hate and rhetoric.

 

[elektra]

I know but I can't help myself. Just trying to draw out some modicum of rationality. It's hard for me to let someone like him- even knowing that he is some combination of stupid, crazy and a vicious bigot- have the last word. I do believe that he is showing signs of psychological compensation. I better leave him alone now.

Whats wrong, you don't like your agenda challenged, so you must lie and denigrate and ignore all the USMB rules?

As I said, you would not and could not do as I stated, your continued rant about someone you know nothing of proves you are nothing more than a bigot.

In true liberal fashion, the liberal points his finger at those he hates, accusing them of what he is.

You accuse me of being a vicious bigot? Yet that is you, as you have proved.

Crazy? Certainly you cut/paste without commenting and without links is Crazy.

hell, you are not even using the term "psychological compensation", correctly, you mental midget!

that is really funny, trying to be smart, you prove yourself the idiot, go back to your cut/paste, and thanks for not quoting me.

 

[elektra]

You asked for evidence and it was provided. Every study comes to the same conclusions that you refuse to believe because they are all contrary to your narrow world view.

Our kids are fine...kids of divorce are fucked up. Worry about them.

Again, show me where I asked for evidence? And again, your link that you posted is not evidence. Either way, quote me, that way you can either prove I am lying now or that you are simply a filthy hateful liar on these boards trolling and flaming the good people who actually share real life accounts on your narrow minded views affect others.

Again, quote me, you can continue your rant, your stammering, your little hissy fit, or quote where I specifically asked for "evidence".

If you could prove I stated what you claim, you would of quoted me from the beginning, but flaming trolls are here to do one thing, flame and troll. Everyone sees you for what you are, despicable.

OK Dumb fuck. In post 116 I wrote:

Here is a clear example of the lengths to which opponents of same sex marriage, and child rearing by gays will go in order to manipulate data and distort evidence to support their narrow minded and bigoted agenda. If there was a body of credible evidence to show that having gay parents was in any way detrimental to children, this would not be necessary!
Opponents of Same-Sex Marriage Take Bad-for-Children Argument to Court 2.22.14 Selected excerpts follow….the full article can be found at

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/23/u...-bad-for-children-argument-to-court.html?_r=0

and much more. There were about 11 links to support the text which was accompanied by my own commentary . One did not work and you jumped all over it claiming that I provided no likns and that it was fake news. In post 132 you wrote:

A cherry picked cut/paste, that you do not link, which is definately against the USMB rules is not allowed. All quotes must be linked.

Not linking is not proof, it is against the rules, and a very narrow response.

It does not get much more stupid than that! You are indeed psychotic. I can draw no other conclusion.

and where is my comment your replied to?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You asked for evidence and it was provided. Every study comes to the same conclusions that you refuse to believe because they are all contrary to your narrow world view.

Our kids are fine...kids of divorce are fucked up. Worry about them.

Again, show me where I asked for evidence? And again, your link that you posted is not evidence. Either way, quote me, that way you can either prove I am lying now or that you are simply a filthy hateful liar on these boards trolling and flaming the good people who actually share real life accounts on your narrow minded views affect others.

Again, quote me, you can continue your rant, your stammering, your little hissy fit, or quote where I specifically asked for "evidence".

If you could prove I stated what you claim, you would of quoted me from the beginning, but flaming trolls are here to do one thing, flame and troll. Everyone sees you for what you are, despicable.

OK Dumb fuck. In post 116 I wrote:

Here is a clear example of the lengths to which opponents of same sex marriage, and child rearing by gays will go in order to manipulate data and distort evidence to support their narrow minded and bigoted agenda. If there was a body of credible evidence to show that having gay parents was in any way detrimental to children, this would not be necessary!
Opponents of Same-Sex Marriage Take Bad-for-Children Argument to Court 2.22.14 Selected excerpts follow….the full article can be found at

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/23/u...-bad-for-children-argument-to-court.html?_r=0

and much more. There were about 11 links to support the text which was accompanied by my own commentary . One did not work and you jumped all over it claiming that I provided no likns and that it was fake news. In post 132 you wrote:

A cherry picked cut/paste, that you do not link, which is definately against the USMB rules is not allowed. All quotes must be linked.

Not linking is not proof, it is against the rules, and a very narrow response.

It does not get much more stupid than that! You are indeed psychotic. I can draw no other conclusion.

and where is my comment your replied to?

Get out of my face you crazy fuck!!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[elektra]

OK Dumb fuck. In post 116 I wrote:

In post 132 you wrote:

A cherry picked cut/paste, that you do not link, which is definately against the USMB rules is not allowed. All quotes must be linked.

Not linking is not proof, it is against the rules, and a very narrow response.

It does not get much more stupid than that! You are indeed psychotic. I can draw no other conclusion.

Speaking of stupid, you are very stupid, why are you not using the "permalink" to refer to your posts? You have to be called to task, to link your posts, now I have to teach you about the "permalink", click in the top right corner of your message you imbecile! That post # you went back to see, actually is a link! It is funny with the Imbeciles call people stupid. Really funny.

Saving Children From Homosexual Predators: Emperor Trump to Reverse LGBT Adoption Rights Reforms

 

[elektra]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/23/u...-bad-for-children-argument-to-court.html?_r=0

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/23/u...-bad-for-children-argument-to-court.html?_r=0

Gay marriage ruling moves Michigan forward

Account Suspended

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/06...e-is-marriage/

Okay you big dummy, I understand you call others stupid, because that is what you are, you replied to my post where I clearly stated nobody ever posts "studies", by linking to NEWSPAPER articles which are not studies! Thank you for proving my point. This is your evidence, a NEWSPAPER article!

2 broken links! 3 newspaper articles! And the dumbass stupid imbecile. "TheProgressivePatriot", states that he/she has provided EVIDENCE! And proved me wrong? When I say nobody will post a study!

TheProgressivePatriot, your broken links, your newpaper articles, are not studies and are not evidence. You posted evidence, no fool, you proved yourself an imbecile, hell, you can not even link your own comments! You refer to your post as #116? Not as, Saving Children From Homosexual Predators: Emperor Trump to Reverse LGBT Adoption Rights Reforms

MORON!

 

[Seawytch]

You asked for evidence and it was provided. Every study comes to the same conclusions that you refuse to believe because they are all contrary to your narrow world view.

Our kids are fine...kids of divorce are fucked up. Worry about them.

Again, show me where I asked for evidence?

Okay...

Of course you can't provide evidence that gays aren't giving adopted children good homes. In fact, all studies show they provide stellar homes.

Yes, we know you are a right wing douche bag. Oh, and it is your bigoted position that doesn't hold up to actual facts.

post your facts

And again, your link that you posted is not evidence.

Uh yeah, it is. It shows there is NO DIFFERENCE in children adopted by straights or gays.

see, I did not ask for evidence, just like I stated, if you can not quote and begin to paraphrase what others say, there is no way to know what you are talking about.

proof
pro͞of/
noun

1. 1.
   evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.
   synonyms: evidence, verification, corroboration, authentication, confirmation, certification, documentation, validation, attestation, substantiation
   "proof of ownership"

The link you provided is not facts or evidence, if you think there is relevance to the discussion, you should quote and add your thoughts. We are not playing cards with google, providing a link does not mean or show you proved the point you are making.

So go ahead, make a point, from your link, it is super lazy simply to post a link and then rant and rave, paraphrasing what I said, poorly.

If that the only way you can "win", you are a loser.

The link I provided gave you the proof you demanded. You're deflecting from it because it destroys your bigoted argument.