PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Gay Rights Debates
     Pedophilia and Homosexuality
       Gay Adoption

Topic Jump
Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

To the Gay and Pro-Gay idiots that insist gays and bi men do not molest children at a disproportionate rate, I will present irrifutable peer review sources to back me up. None of you can refute this. And for ONE real heterosexuals DO NOT sexually molest other males. If a man has a sexual interest in another male however slight (even if 99.9% of their attraction is for women) they AREN'T straight! A straight person is 100% attracted to the opposite sex. As for Kinsey, he was a FRUAD!!! Alfred C. Kinsey hired child molesters on his staff, and had children as young as six months old, sexually manipulated by adults to determine whether they are capable of ejaculations or not. Kinsey was a criminal as far as I am concerned for this alone! Moreover, his samples were unrepresentative of the general American population, and left out blacks,  and relied heavily on mental patients, ex-cons, and sexual deviants. Of course someone locked away in jail with no contact with women, is more likely to have a homosexual experience, than the general population. And the 10% figure was of people who have had exclusive homosexual relations NOT people with homosexual orientation. A virgin who went to jail and has never had an opportunity to have sex with a woman, falls into this category.

According to the New York Post's July 30, 2001 edition, entitled "Secret Shame of Our Schools:
Sexual Abuse Of Students Runs Rampant" by reporter Douglas montero, 117 cases of 212 children being sexually abused by teachers was studied. Of these 212 42 were boy victims molested by men. That is, nearly 20% of the offending teachers were homosexuals. Being that gays make up anywhere UP TO 10% of the general population, that means that gays were DISPROPORTINATELY OVER REPRESENTED FOR THEIR NUMBERS in this case. GAYS SHOULD NOT TEACH CHILDREN!!!!

In 1997 Dr. Stephen Rubin of Whitman College conducted a ten-state study of sexual abuse cases involving high school teachers. He studied 199 cases. Of these, 122 male teachers had molested girls, while 14 female teachers had molested boys. He also discovered that 59 male teachers had molested boys, and four female teachers had molested girls. In other words, NEARLY 30 PERCENT OF THOSE CHILD MOLESTATION CASES INVOLVED HOMOSEXUALS AND BISEXUALS. Also, as usual Lesbians had the GROSSLY lower molestation rate than homosexual and bisexual males, heterosexual males, and heterosexual females. This shows GAY AND BI MEN ARE A THREAT TO OUR CHILDREN!!!!

In 1985 The Los Angeles Times did a study of 2,628 adults across the US. Of these, 27% of the women and 16% of the men had been sexually molested as children. Seven percent of the girls and 93% of the men were abused by adults of the same sex. Which means 7% of the men were abused by females and 93% of the girls by men. So again, heterosexual and homosexual men did most of the molestations, and women over all had a negligible contribution to the molestation cases. And since women are over 50% of the population, women (Lesbian and Straight alike) are VERY underrepresented amongst child molesters. And when we break down the molestation rates between homosexuals (and for all intents of purposes, bisexuals will be included as homosexual) and heterosexuals (also note, bisexuals also are included in the heterosexual sample too no doubt) we can see, even with bisexuals, heterosexuals molest at a much LOWER RATE for their numbers in the population, to homosexuals. Taking this altogether, we can see nearly 40% of the molestations were done by homosexuals!

In 1984, a Vermont Survey of 161 adolescents who were sex offenders found that of these 35 identified themselves as homosexual. That's 22% of the sample! [Wasserman, J. "Adolescent Sex Offenders-Vermont, 1984" Journal American Medical Association, 1985; 255:181-2) In 1991, of the 100 child molesters at the Massachusetts Treatment Center for Sexually Dangerous Persons, a third were heterosexual, a third BISEXUAL, and a third HOMOSEXUAL. [Dr. Raymond Knight, "Differential Prevalence of Personality Disorders in Rapists and Child Molesters, "Eastern Psychological Association Conference, New York, April 12, 1991] Dr. Freund and Heasman of the Clark Institute of Psychiatry in Toronto reviewed two studies on child molesters and calculated that 34% and 32% of the sex offenders were homosexual. In many of the cases these doctors had handled, 36% of the the child molesters were homosexuals. [Freund, K. "Pedophilia and Heterosexuality vs Homosexuality," Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 1984; 10:193-200] The Journal of Sex Research found that one third of convicted child molesters had victimized boys. Archives of Sexual Behaviour did a study on 260 Peodphiles. They were divided into three groups; Heterosexual, Bisexual, and Homosexual. Of these, 152 were Heterosexuals (they were only attracted to girls), 43 were bisexual (were attracted to both girls and boys), and 65 were homosexual (were only attracted to boys). That means 25% of these Pedophiles were exclusively homosexual, and 41% were both homosexual and bisexual. THAT'S ALARMING!!!! These animals SHOULD NOT be let near kids!!!! Say NO to Gay Adoption! A study of convicted Pedophiles in Canada in the peer-reviewed Journal of Interpersonal Violence, found that 30% of the adult males engaged in homosexual acts with adult males. [Marshall, W.L., et al. "Early Onset and Deviant Sexuality in Child Molesters," Journal of Interpersonal Violence 6 (1991):323-336]  Also of Canadians inprisoned for Peodphilia, a 1991 report revealed that 91% of the convicted Pedophiles of non-familial boys admitted to no lifetime sexual contact other than homosexual. [Ibid, p. 323] Remember, the other 9% would UNDOUPTEDLY include men sexually attracted to BOTH sexes!

And these are all PEER reviewed studies. How can you ARGUE against these? And there is MORE! In 1995 the homosexuality magazine "Guide" published a pro-Pedophilia article. It stated and I quote:

"We must listen to our prophets. Instead of fearing being labelled pedophiles, we must PROUDLY PROCLAIM that sex is good, INCLUDING children's sexuality...Surounded by pious moralists with deadening anti-sexual rules, we must be shameless rulebreakers, demonstrating our allegiance to a higher concept of love. WE MUST DO IT FOR THE CHILDREN'S SAKE."

End of quote. And I am JUST getting started. You must feel EMBARRASSED Homo!!! I am exposing you people for the animals and beasts you really are!!!! Gay Community News in 1979 published a "Statement to the Gay Liberation Movement on the Issue of Man/Boy Love," which challenged the gay movement t return to a vision of sexual liberation. It argued that "the ultimate goal of gay liberation is the achievement of sexual freedom for all-not just equal rights for 'lesbian and gay men,' but also freedom of sexual expression for young people AND CHILDREN." In 1985 NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association) was admitted as a member in New York's council of Lesbian and Gay Organizations as wekk as the International Gay Association (now known as the International Lesbian and Gay Association or ILGA). ILGA in the mid-1990's was expelled from the UN for allowing Pedophile associations like NAMBLA membership in it organization. In April 2000 because ILGA "did not document that it had purged pedophile groups" it was denied readmittance to the UN body. Also, well respected homosexual poet, Allen Ginsburg, was a MEMBER of NAMBLA and regularily advocated sex with children. Why no one likes talking about this aspect of his life?

Also Gay Literature ABOUNDS with Pedophilia themes. The Gay Men's Press fiction bestseller list contains Pedophile themes. These include:

* Some Boys: Describes sex with young boys by an adult.

* For a Lost Soldier: Describes a sexual relationship between a soldier and an 11 year old BOY during World War II.

* A Good Start, Considering: Yet another story of sex between an adult male and an 11 year old boy.


The USA's largest gay publisher "Alyson Publications", which distributes "Daddy's Roommate" and other popular homosexual books, also promotes child molestation. Here are an example of some:

* Pedophilia: The Radical Case, which contains information on how to have sex with young boys.

* The Age Taboo, proclaims "Boy-lovers....are not child molesters. The child abusers are...
...parents who force their staid morality onto the young people in their custody."

Also, the Journal of Homosexuality, viewed as the premier "mainstream" English-language publication of the gay movement published a series of essays on pedophilia that were eventually published as "Male Inter-Generatio-
nal Intimacy." "Historical, Socio-Psychological," and "Legal Perspectives." These articles blatantly and shamelessly promoted man-boy love as the natural right of homosexuals.  And below is a popular homosexual erotica stories cafe on-line. It's FULL of stories involving the sexual molestation of heterosexual boys. Just look under "Adult Youth" it's fucking sick!

Nifty Erotica Cafe


More evidence homosexuals are naturally inclined to be child molesters. This is why homosexuals and ANYONE with homosexual inclinations should be barred from ANY positions involving children and should be barred from being foster parents, Big Brothers, Boy Scouts, Camp Counselors, and ADOPTIVE PARENTS. And lastly, ANOTHER REASON why Homosexuals that adopt do molest children. The California Department of Social Services found "on numerous occasionas beginning as early as 1994, adults affiliated with GLASS, including staff members, members of the GLASS board of directors and volunteers, sexually abused or molested children who were placed with GLASS." [See Plaintiff's Complaint at 3, In re Gay & Lesbian Adolescent Soc. Serv. Ind. v.(hereinafter Plaintiff's Complaint)(At least five Southern California Counties contracted GLASS to receive troubled children which resulted in GLASS receiving federal, state, and county funding)] The department of Social Services found that Teresa DCrescenzo [founder of GLASS and executive director at the time of the incidences] aware of the allegations of molestation, determined staff conduct not to be inappropriate." [Billingsley, K.L., Gay Agency Probed for Child Abuse, WASH. Times, June 23, 1996, at B1] To this day not ONE staff member of GLASS has been charged for child molestation by the state! So we can see, allowing gays to adopt boys or placing boys with gay foster parents is an unwise choice. And don't get me started about one gay foster parent (I do not have the source handy with me, but I could post it later) who EXCLUSIVELY requested boys to take care of, and molested many of them. One boy he sodomized and forcefully fellated and said "I know you like this and want to be gay."

In short, homosexuals SHOULD NOT be allowed to adopt or hold positions as caregivers. Here are the facts you idiots cannot refute them! I want one of you yahoo Homos or pro-Homo spineless liberal sell outs, to refute these! These are all peer-reviewed studies and official newspaper articles. And the newspapers are liberal and pro-gay, don't give me any "it's the media" nonesense. Fact remains, homosexuality and Pedophilia is linked. END OF STORY!!!
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 6:51 PM on January 16, 2003 | IP
AlexanderTheGreat

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i think you are secretly gay


-------
Alex
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 8:51 PM on January 16, 2003 | IP
mrmazet

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from AlexanderTheGreat at 8:51 PM on January 16, 2003 :
i think you are secretly gay


I saw on the forum index that you were the last one to post, and I thought that I would see a long post explaining why each point was wrong. When I saw your comment I laughed.

chuckle chuckle.
 


Posts: 122 | Posted: 9:45 PM on January 16, 2003 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well guest, I congratulate you. finally you give us sources. Time to hit you with sources of my own. But before I do that, some words on my dear friend Dr. Kinsey. First off, generally the Texas Supreme Court does not cite criminals as part of its documentation, so I must admit to skepticality on your claims of how evil he was. Second, according to the world book encyclopedia, Kinsey was one of the first and most important sex researchers, and many  of the claims against him can be  traced back to-guess who- conservative organizations who thought he was immoral. I stand by his figures.

Now on to specific points. First the connection between homosexuality and molestation.
In 1978 psychologist Nicholas Groth screened 175 men who had been convicted in Massachusetts of sexual molestation of children and referred by a court for psychological evaluation. He found not a single gay man in this sample. His conclusion? That straight men were more of a molestation risk than gays. In the same year, researcher David Newton reviewed the scientific literature and found no reason to believe that anything other than a "random connection" existed between homosexual orientation and child molestation.
In 1988, renowned sex researcher Kurt Freund at the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry in Toronto studied two groups of paid volunteers and found that gay men responded no more to male child stimuli than heterosexual men responded to female child stimuli.[6] He later described as a "myth" the notion that gay men are more likely than straight men to be child molesters.
In 1992, alarmed over claims made during a campaign for an anti-gay state constitutional amendment in Colorado, two physicians reviewed every case of suspected child molestation evaluated at Children's Hospital in Denver over a one-year period. Of the 269 cases determined to involve molestation by an adult, only two of the perpetrators could be identified as gay or lesbian. The researchers concluded that the risk of child sexual abuse by an identifiably gay or lesbian person was between zero and 3.1%, and that the risk of such abuse by the heterosexual partner of a relative was over 100 times greater. Thus, gays are underpresented regardless of whether you put them at the 10% or 50% level of the populace.
In fact much of the statistics linking gay men with child molestation can be traced back to discredited psychologist Paul Cameron, who operates the Family Research Institute in Colorado Springs, Colorado.[12] Cameron is responsible for many of the right's most bizarre allegations about gays and lesbians, such as that gays constitute 44 percent of sexual mass murderers, that two-thirds of gay men "ingest biologically significant amounts of feces," and that being a gay male takes 30 years off one's life.[13]

But Cameron is hardly a credible source. He was dropped from the American Psychological Association back in 1983 for a violation of its Ethical Principles of Psychologists.[14] And he's been censured by four other professional associations and a federal court

Next comes a key issue that has been contested: who exactly IS considered homosexual. You assert that any male that has an attraction to members of the same sex  is homosexual. Unfortuantly according to Carole Jenny in her book Are Children at Risk for Sexual Abuse by Homosexuals?, (Pediatrics, Vol. 94, No. 1 (1994); see also David Newton, Homosexual Behavior and Child Molestation: A Review of the Evidence, Adolescence, Vol. XIII, No. 49 at 40 (1978) ("A review of the available research on pedophilia provides no basis for associating child molestation with homosexual behavior.")) the proper scientific definition is homosexuality is based on a person attractions TO ADULTS. Pedophilia is put in an entirely different catagory, and thus someone can be heterosexual in the proper sense of the term and still molest children of his own sex. With that fact in mind, your entire case falls, as it is predicated on the now disproved assumption that all men who molest boys are gay when scientifically they are not. Instead we can look toward my statistics that demonstrate that scientific homosexuals are actually less likely to molest children (0-3.1% chance).

Then you make the allegations of gay groups supporting sex with children. Your allegations fall into three catagories
1) where they are merely advocating "sexual liberation" of children
2) comments that seem to indicate a scientific or literary value rather than pedophilia.
3) where they are actually advocating sex

I'll address these in order.
The first one is quite different than pedophilia. It is acknowledging that minors have sexual feelings too (as a minor I can attest to this) and society should stop repressing these feelings ("you're sick, Johnny, and your going to hell") but rather teach ways to healthly deal with it. I'm sure you disagree with doing that, and that's legitimate, because it is contraversial. But the argument itself is not equivilant to pedophilia. In fact your argument is analogous to what I've heard referring to the U. Minnesota book "Harmful to minors, the peril of protecting children from sex." Many conservative groups (such as the Family research council) call this advocating pedophilia, when in reality the book is merely asking for a change in the way society treats the currently hidden, but still very real presence of sexual feelings and curiousity in children (this isn't to say that two 4th graders are going to have sex, but they will be curious about each others bodies and there own, etc.).
2) your second catagory is more disturbing, b/c it strikes at the heart of free expression and literature. Many books talk about sex between adults and minors, in both a homosexual and heterosexual environment. While we can all agree that the actions depicted are wrong, they are still literary works, and thus I don't feel that you can condemn a whole movement based on non-acted open literature of a few members, just as we dont condemn heterosexuals for the books that detail heterosexual sex with minors. As to the scientific part, the "detailing of how to have sex with a child" seems, to me, to be as likely to be a warning guide (such as: tactics that rapists use to attack women) rather than advocacy. And even if the scientific focus of the work is SOLELY to promote the idea that sex with children is not harmful, I am reluctant to chill scientific inquiry in such a manner that there are certain ideas that scientists "cant" pursue, that are out of bounds per se. The principle of the marketplace of ideas (JS Mill) is that all ideas must be allowed to presented, and then the wrong runs are refuted by the truthful ones. Which is what I believe will happen to those who scientifically claim that sex with children is ok.
3) this is wrong on the gays part, no doubt. But I can give you a dozen areas where conservatives wish to kill gays entirely, or commit other horrific actions against them. Extremists exist on both sides, but the fact is is that we can't judge an entire group on the basis of a few extreme members. Gays get that priviledge just as I don't judge christians solely on the rants of revs. robertson and falwell.

For all of that long posting, your entire case falls based on one simple thing: the definition of homosexuality. EACH AND EVERYONE of your sources you modified to make having sex with members of ones own sex = to homosexuality. A common mistake, and honest I'm sure. But the fact is that is inconsistant with the scientific definition of homosexuality, and thus your entire analysis is nullified.

There you go. One proudly pro-equal rights liberal whose spine remains intact has rebutted you. Thanks for the effort though.


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 10:24 PM on January 16, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Dsadevil wrote:

"But before I do that, some words on my dear friend Dr. Kinsey. First off, generally the Texas Supreme Court does not cite criminals as part of its documentation,"

He's DEAD of COURSE he is not a criminal in the legalistic sense. Kinsey was never tried for his crimes. He was dead by the time it all "surfaced up." But the fact is his research was seriously flawed. He had a VERY unrepresentative sample, a FACT admitted in sex ed class while I was in university. I do have a minor in Psychology BY the WAY. Anyways, during Kinsey's lifetime he conducted LIVE sexual experiments on children ages six months to fifteen. These kids were SEXUALLY MOLESTED by Kinsey "researchers" whom were recruited from ex-cons. According to Dr. Judith According to Reisman, "The Kinsey Report claims at least '317´ pre-adolescents' were sexually experimented upon by 'older adults,' and confirmation of at least 2,035 child experimental subjects were later admitted in 1980 by [assistants] Gebhard and Pomeroy as reported in Ethical Issues in Sex Therapy." The results that "prove" that children are sexually active from birth and naturally homosexual as well as "bisexual" were obtained by perverts who took babies and very young boys and manipulated them sexually until they were able to induce a simulation of an orgasm or at least an acceptance of such repeated stimulation as not repulsive. These crimes against children were used to "prove" the bizarre allegation that children of our race (and presumably other races, but we need be interested only in our own) had sexual instincts (as distinct from recognition of sexual difference) before the onset of puberty and thus were astonishingly different from all other mammals, who become sexually active only when they are sexually mature--a difference inexplicable in terms of biological evolution.

One of the most common myths derived from Kinsey's research is the estimate that 10 percent of the population is homosexual. Until recently this figure has been accepted without question. The overblown 10 percent figure is actually an exaggeration of Kinsey's claim. Kinsey said that 10 percent of males are homosexual for at least three years during a portion of their lives. For females, Kinsey said, the figure was less than five percent. Homosexual activists along with the media repeatedly cited the 10 percent figure and it was generally accepted by the culture.


You continue:

"so I must admit to skepticality on your claims of how evil he was. Second, according to the world book encyclopedia, Kinsey was one of the first and most important sex researchers, and many  of the claims against him can be  traced back to-guess who- conservative organizations who thought he was immoral. I stand by his figures."

Again I stated the facts above to you. Kinsey was a twisted sexual sadist and psychopath. And surely and truly, I doubt the validity of any research conducted before the 1960's. Kinsey was funded by the Rochefellers and the point of his research was not only to transform US sexual mores, but to advance an agenda of eugenics which was the "vogue" during the era he lived. Lastly, 1/5 of the men Kinsey interviewed for his "10% figure" were men from prison. And having homosexual sex for three years does not make one a full blown homosexual. It makes them BIsexual. Also a heterosexual who submits to homosexual abuse by stronger in mates who spends three years in prison without any contact with women, counts into Kinsey's "10% figure." And lastly, men in prison are unrepresentative of the general population. And AGAIN one of my old psychology professors from university who is very liberal and pro-feminist, admitted in class that the Kinsey sample WAS NOT a representative sample.

"In 1978 psychologist Nicholas Groth screened 175 men who had been convicted in Massachusetts of sexual molestation of children and referred by a court for psychological evaluation. He found not a single gay man in this sample. His conclusion? That straight men were more of a molestation risk than gays."

It's only been RECENTLY that we have had an epidemic of homosexual molestation. Not so much because it never existed before, but until recently it was extremely under-reported. Nobody wanted to believe the "nice kind priest", the teacher, or that family friend with a family, would molest a boy. And also, boys did not dare speak for fear of being labelled "fags" by their peers. That's why abuse was held in. Either way all RECENT studies show homosexuals and bisexuals are strongly represented.

" In the same year, researcher David Newton reviewed the scientific literature and found no reason to believe that anything other than a "random connection" existed between homosexual orientation and child molestation."

Well when 1/3 of male Pedophiles are boys, it's homosexual molestation. PERIOD!!!

"In 1988, renowned sex researcher Kurt Freund at the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry in Toronto studied two groups of paid volunteers and found that gay men responded no more to male child stimuli than heterosexual men responded to female child stimuli.[6]"

The Clark Institute probably SPECIALLY SELECTED model homosexuals. I'd like to know whether the the samples were random and/or representative of the gay and straight communities.

" He later described as a "myth" the notion that gay men are more likely than straight men to be child molesters."

Well the figures I produced speak for themselves. Also, how do you explain the FACT that mainstream gay rights organizations approve of pedophile organizations like NAMBLA? And why was NAMBLA allowed to march in most gay rights marches throughout North America up until the 1990's when right wing activists started raising a storm about it?

"In 1992, alarmed over claims made during a campaign for an anti-gay state constitutional amendment in Colorado, two physicians reviewed every case of suspected child molestation evaluated at Children's Hospital in Denver over a one-year period. Of the 269 cases determined to involve molestation by an adult, only two of the perpetrators could be identified as gay or lesbian."

What about bisexuals?

" The researchers concluded that the risk of child sexual abuse by an identifiably gay or lesbian person was between zero and 3.1%, and that the risk of such abuse by the heterosexual partner of a relative was over 100 times greater."

BULLSHIT!!! How do you explain the FACT that boys make up 1/3 of all sexual abuse victims in the US, and that their molesters were mostly MEN? Straight men DO NOT sexually abuse other males!

" Thus, gays are underpresented regardless of whether you put them at the 10% or 50% level of the populace."

WRONG!!! You forget, that just because a person does not "identify" as gay, does not make them straight. A straight man is only attracted to females, and will never under ANY circumstances want to do ANYTHING sexual with another male regardless of age. Which leaves us with the conclusion that the men molesting boys are either gay, bi, or in the closet. No other conclusions can be made!

"In fact much of the statistics linking gay men with child molestation can be traced back to discredited psychologist Paul Cameron, who operates the Family Research Institute in Colorado Springs, Colorado.[12]"

Those statistics I posted came from national newspapers and peer-reviewed journals. Some of them came DIRECTLY from homosexual sources. And this Paul Cameron may have used them, but that does not discredit the studies and sources. ANYONE can use them! If you want to poke holes in my sources, then address the sources THEMSELVES, not whatever yahoo decides to use them. The sources and statistics speak for themselves!

"But Cameron is hardly a credible source. He was dropped from the American Psychological Association back in 1983 for a violation of its Ethical Principles of Psychologists.[14] And he's been censured by four other professional associations and a federal court"

Review my sources AGAIN!!! Did I cite this Paul Cameron? I quoted DIRECTLY from national newspapers, government statistics, and peer-reviewed journals. I also showed you the FACT that the internationally recognized International Lesbian and Gay Association has pedophile organizations under its umbrella. This shows pedophilia is a part of the gay agenda.

"Next comes a key issue that has been contested: who exactly IS considered homosexual. You assert that any male that has an attraction to members of the same sex  is homosexual."

Is homosexual or has homosexual tendencies. Either way, they AREN'T heterosexual. Heterosexuality by definition is anyone attracted EXCLUSIVELY to the opposite sex.

" Unfortuantly according to Carole Jenny in her book Are Children at Risk for Sexual Abuse by Homosexuals?, (Pediatrics, Vol. 94, No. 1 (1994); see also David Newton, Homosexual Behavior and Child Molestation: A Review of the Evidence, Adolescence, Vol. XIII, No. 49 at 40 (1978) ("A review of the available research on pedophilia provides no basis for associating child molestation with homosexual behavior.")) the proper scientific definition is homosexuality is based on a person attractions TO ADULTS."

By that same reasoning then, child molesters like Paul Bernardo aren't really heterosexual, right???? By that definition guys sexually attracted to young girls are not straight ! You stupid idiot!!! Homosexual means attraction to the same gender. PERIOD!!! Age is NOT a factor. While not all Pedophiles are gay, there is overlap between the two. A Pedophile is someone attracted to kids,  a homosexual is someone attracted to males. If a man has no attraction to males, but is attracted to young girls he's straight. And likewise, if a man is not attracted to females, but attracted to young boys, he's homosexual. And if a man is attracted to both girls and boys or both women and boys, he is a bisexual. And all the above are Pedophiles.

" Pedophilia is put in an entirely different catagory, "

Referring to the AGE OF PREFERRENCE of the predator.

"and thus someone can be heterosexual in the proper sense of the term and still molest children of his own sex."

WRONG!!! Heterosexuals DO NOT have attractions to other males. PERIOD!!! Someone who is attracted to adult women and young boys is bisexual. PERIOD!!!

"With that fact in mind, your entire case falls, as it is predicated on the now disproved assumption that all men who molest boys are gay when scientifically they are not."

Homosexual=attraction to same sex. PERIOD!

Stop playing verbal gymnastics. Dance around the issue all you want. If someone has a sexual interest in members of their own gender, they are homosexual. PERIOD!!! Pedophilia is interchangeable with heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality. Sorry to dissappoint you, but gays and bisexuals together molest children at a higher rate than heterosexuals and Lesbians.

"Then you make the allegations of gay groups supporting sex with children. Your allegations fall into three catagories
1) where they are merely advocating "sexual liberation" of children
2) comments that seem to indicate a scientific or literary value rather than pedophilia.
3) where they are actually advocating sex"

You forgot mainstream gay advocacy groups granting EXPLICITELY pedophile organizations membership and recognition. Also, you forgot the late homosexual poet Allen Ginsberg was a member of NAMBLA.

"The first one is quite different than pedophilia. It is acknowledging that minors have sexual feelings too (as a minor I can attest to this) and society should stop repressing these feelings ("you're sick, Johnny, and your going to hell") but rather teach ways to healthly deal with it."

Minors (those under age 16) are often still developing their sexual identity. It's immoral and WRONG for an adult male to try and seduce them into homosexuality. That's sexual abuse! And why is it gay literature are only encouraging man-boy relationships. Notice that sex between male minors and adult females is NEVER discussed? OBVIOUSLY the agenda is to homosexualize young males NOT to sexually liberate them. If it were, then they'd also talk about heterosexual adolescents being liberated by adult females.


"I'm sure you disagree with doing that, and that's legitimate, because it is contraversial."

I agree with children being taught about sex, and with children dating with age mates of the OPPOSITE SEX! And should a teenage boy and teenage girl decide to have sex, providing them with information on safe-sex. That I agree to. I don't agree with adult males having sex with teenage boys. This is what the gay groups were advocating.

"But the argument itself is not equivilant to pedophilia."

When you are talking about teenages having sex with opposite sex peer mates, you are right. When you throw some 30 year old dude into this, it's sexual molestation. Period!

"but still very real presence of sexual feelings and curiousity in children (this isn't to say that two 4th graders are going to have sex, but they will be curious about each others bodies and there own, etc.)."

I recognize this. In grade three I experimented sexually with an older girl I used to play with. I have nothing against kids "playing doctor" an exploring each other and learning about opposite sex playmates. What I am against is some 30 or 40 year old guy getting involved with the sex play!

"2) your second catagory is more disturbing, b/c it strikes at the heart of free expression and literature. Many books talk about sex between adults and minors, in both a homosexual and heterosexual environment."

This is sexual molestation. PERIOD!!!

" While we can all agree that the actions depicted are wrong, they are still literary works, and thus I don't feel that you can condemn a whole movement based on non-acted open literature of a few members, just as we dont condemn heterosexuals for the books that detail heterosexual sex with minors."

There ARE NO works (at least present) which depict cross-generational heterosexual sex. Name me *ONE* book written in the last fifty years which depicts sex between a grown man and a little girl. Such literature is repulsive to most heterosexuals. You saw what happened to R&B singer R.Kelly for impregnating a 15 year old girl? Cross-generational sex is NOT condoned by heterosexuals. On the other hand at Nifty Erotica Cafe you'll find PLENTY of stories about adult men befriending and sexually abusing adolescents and pre-adolescent boys. It's sick and disgusting! You won't find this in ANY heterosexual erotica websites or booklists, save for certain hidden Pedophile rings that ALWAYS get busted and closed down by the authorities. Because Nifty Erotica Cafe is homosexual, that's why the BLATANTLY pedophile stories are not condemned or ignored!


"And even if the scientific focus of the work is SOLELY to promote the idea that sex with children is not harmful, I am reluctant to chill scientific inquiry in such a manner that there are certain ideas that scientists "cant" pursue, that are out of bounds per se."

Sex with children is RAPE you stupid sick fucker. It's R-A-P-E plain and simple! When some big grown man has sex with a girl or boy, it's ALWAYS harmful, even if some children do not realize it. This "scientific inquiry" is funded by homos eager to get their filthy AIDS infested paws on a young boy's genitals! And notice it only talks about sex between adult men and boys (irrespective of the boys' sexual orientation, which means it thinks a homosexual experience is positive for hetero boys too), and makes no mention about woman-boy sex. OBVIOUSLY the agenda is the homosexualization of children NOT their sexual liberation. If it was about sexual liberation, it would talk about homosexual children with adult males and heterosexual children with adult females.

"The principle of the marketplace of ideas (JS Mill) is that all ideas must be allowed to presented, and then the wrong runs are refuted by the truthful ones."

Sorry, but I believe all hate literature should be banned. Just as no straight book store will publish books or studies encouraging man-girl sex, if gays were REALLY anti-pedo (which they are NOT) they would follow suit with their hetero counterparts. Trust me, if at Coles book store they had a book on men having sex with girls, every Coles book store across the country would be BURNED DOWN by angry mobs. The fact homos tolerate this garbage, shows they are pro-pedophile.

" Which is what I believe will happen to those who scientifically claim that sex with children is ok."

If it was heterosexual, it would not be accepted or condoned by ANY segments of the heterosexual community. Girl-Lovers as heterosexual pedophiles are known are outcasts in the mainstream heterosexual community. Even porno people look down on them. But in the gay community, at worst Boy-lovers are tolerated and at best encouraged. Only when right wing activists start raising storm do Homos start denouncing pedophiles. Meanwhile, gay literature ABOUNDS with pedophile themes. And if homos weren't interested in young boys WHY does cross-generational sex themes flourish in gay literature and erotica? If the interest was not there, stories about it would not exist. It's OBVIOUSLY written because people love to read it. And AGAIN such things do not exist in straight literature because only a NEGLIGIBLE percentage of heterosexual men have an interest in minors.

"3) this is wrong on the gays part, no doubt. But I can give you a dozen areas where conservatives wish to kill gays entirely, or commit other horrific actions against them."

And gays give conservatives REASONS for wanting to exterminate them. Imagine finding out your three year old son was raped by a gay man! I don't advocate the killing of homosexuals, I just believe they should be barred from having any contact with male children or male minors.

" Extremists exist on both sides, but the fact is is that we can't judge an entire group on the basis of a few extreme members."

A few? A LOT!!! The extremists are THE MAINSTREAM of gay culture. AGAIN why do gay organizations accept EXCPLICITELY pedophile organizations? Why does all gay literature and erotica have pedophile themes? It's mainstream!

"For all of that long posting, your entire case falls based on one simple thing: the definition of homosexuality. EACH AND EVERYONE of your sources you modified to make having sex with members of ones own sex = to homosexuality."

Well the molesters aren't heterosexual. And AGAIN your definition makes heterosexual child molesters non-heterosexual by the same logic. Why can't you Homos take responsibility for the problems you cause? Why try an HIDE from what you create? When a man molests girls and only girls, we accept him as a heterosexual. We don't say "he's not straight because he does not have sex with adult women." Either way, homosexuality means sex acts between members of the same gender. PERIOD!!!! If a male and male is involved sexually, it's homosexuality. Pedophilia is merely the AGE of preferrence of the predator NOT the gender preference.

" A common mistake, and honest I'm sure. But the fact is that is inconsistant with the scientific definition of homosexuality, and thus your entire analysis is nullified."

What sceintific definition? Just because homos CONVENIENTLY define homosexuality as sex between two adults, does not make it correct. Well what about gay teenagers having sex? Because they aren't adults, does that mean they aren't gay????  IDIOT!!!!

"There you go. One proudly pro-equal rights liberal whose spine remains intact has rebutted you. Thanks for the effort though."

You've only rebutalled me in your mind. You spineless liberals cannot refute shit!

As for Alexander the Fag:

"i think you are secretly gay"

You want the WHOLE WORLD to be like you, but I am no faggot like you. I only like women. I have a wonderful girlfriend and we have a lovely little 4 year old boy. If any fag so much as touches a hair on his head, I feel sorry for him. That's all I can say!


 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 6:43 PM on January 17, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You go dude! Marry your girlfriend and you'll have 100% of my support.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 7:49 PM on January 17, 2003 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

for a guy with a minor in psych you certainly appear to need to lie down on the couch ("You idiot!" "PERIOD!" "Can't refute SHIT!" incidentally is there a difference between when you capitalize all the letters in one of those words and when you capitalize one?)

Moving on to your rant...er...argument.

Starting with Dr. Kinsey. Nothing I have found on Dr. Kinsey, world book encylopedia or otherwise has mentioned anything you claimed. However, for purposes of moving at least one part of this argument on, I will quote the World Book Encyclopedia article on homosexuality which estimates 1-10% of the population is homosexual. To be fair, we'll split the difference and say its 5%. Fair?

You attack the 1978 study by saying, in essence, that it is old. There is no warrent to suggest that, for some reason, homosexual molestations would take a spike in last 10 years. Your argument that molestations were under reported then is unpersuasive, even if that is true, the molestations would be underreported to the same degree for hetrosexual cases and homosexual cases. So the RATE would remain the same.

Your attack on Dr. Newton hinges on the "Defintion of homosexual argument." I'll get to that momentarily.

Your attack on the Clark Inst. is that "It disagrees with what I believe so it must be wrong" (i'm paraphrasing of course). Give something more than "they just MUST have messed up their methodolgy somewhere (whine)"

"how do you explain the FACT that mainstream gay rights organizations approve of pedophile organizations like NAMBLA?"
the same way I explain christian groups allowing messed up fundies like robertson in their organization. Poor judgment on both parts.

" " The researchers concluded that the risk of child sexual abuse by an identifiably gay or lesbian person was between zero and 3.1%, and that the risk of such abuse by the heterosexual partner of a relative was over 100 times greater." [my quote]

BULLSHIT!!! How do you explain the FACT that boys make up 1/3 of all sexual abuse victims in the US, and that their molesters were mostly MEN? Straight men DO NOT sexually abuse other males!" [your response]

First a note on my quote. the high figure of that range (3.1%) is statistically inline with the mean average of homosexuals in the population (5%). Your response, again, hinges on the question of "what is the definition of a homosexual" Dont worry, we're getting there.

"Those statistics I posted came from national newspapers and peer-reviewed journals. Some of them came DIRECTLY from homosexual sources. And this Paul Cameron may have used them, but that does not discredit the studies and sources. ANYONE can use them! If you want to poke holes in my sources, then address the sources THEMSELVES, not whatever yahoo decides to use them. The sources and statistics speak for themselves!"
Just as you associate much of the pro-homosexual data from folks like Dr. Kinsey, I can associate most of the anti-homosexual data back to Dr. Cameron. The source of the data your papers used was flawed, not the other way around.

And now finally, the moment we've all been waiting for....
"Next comes a key issue that has been contested: who exactly IS considered homosexual. You assert that any male that has an attraction to members of the same sex  is homosexual." [me]

Is homosexual or has homosexual tendencies. Either way, they AREN'T heterosexual. Heterosexuality by definition is anyone attracted EXCLUSIVELY to the opposite sex. [you]

" Unfortuantly according to Carole Jenny in her book Are Children at Risk for Sexual Abuse by Homosexuals?, (Pediatrics, Vol. 94, No. 1 (1994); see also David Newton, Homosexual Behavior and Child Molestation: A Review of the Evidence, Adolescence, Vol. XIII, No. 49 at 40 (1978) ("A review of the available research on pedophilia provides no basis for associating child molestation with homosexual behavior.")) the proper scientific definition is homosexuality is based on a person attractions TO ADULTS." [me]

By that same reasoning then, child molesters like Paul Bernardo aren't really heterosexual, right???? By that definition guys sexually attracted to young girls are not straight ! You stupid idiot!!! Homosexual means attraction to the same gender. PERIOD!!! Age is NOT a factor. While not all Pedophiles are gay, there is overlap between the two. A Pedophile is someone attracted to kids,  a homosexual is someone attracted to males. If a man has no attraction to males, but is attracted to young girls he's straight. And likewise, if a man is not attracted to females, but attracted to young boys, he's homosexual. And if a man is attracted to both girls and boys or both women and boys, he is a bisexual. And all the above are Pedophiles." [you]

Here is the weakest of all your rebuttals, which is quite tragic, as this is really the deciding factor it appears. You assert (with no warrant or support) that these people are just wrong, and you are right. Now tell me why I shouldn't trust the judgment of Drs. Newton and Jenny over yours (the same "you" who feels the need to splice "you stupid idiot" inside each paragraph). Regardless of how desperately you want to believe that you can label someone gay or straight based on their attraction to children, scientists agree this isn't the case. Someones sexual affiliation is based solely on their attraction to adults. To quote you, "PERIOD!" If Paul Bernando is attracted to female adults, he is hetero, regardless of what he does with children. if he is attracted to male adults, he is homo. If he is attracted to kids he's a pedophile. That, my friend, is the scientific definition, and until you counter it with other scientists who argue otherwise, it stands. by the way, according to Webster's New World Dictionary Heterosexual is "of or characterized by sexual desire for those of the opposite sex." No mention of "solely." And before you strike back with "no mention of age either" the age part is a technical, scientific definition. If you can find a technical scientific def. of heterosexuality that adds in "solely" I'd be thrilled to hear it.

"Stop playing verbal gymnastics. Dance around the issue all you want." If you just want to go "lalalala" with your hands over your ears (eyes?) over the scientific terms, then feel free to take your ball and go home. (you are such a crybaby)

"Minors (those under age 16) are often still developing their sexual identity. It's immoral and WRONG for an adult male to try and seduce them into homosexuality. That's sexual abuse! And why is it gay literature are only encouraging man-boy relationships. Notice that sex between male minors and adult females is NEVER discussed? OBVIOUSLY the agenda is to homosexualize young males NOT to sexually liberate them. If it were, then they'd also talk about heterosexual adolescents being liberated by adult females."

Gay literature is not only about man-boy relationships. please. And the reason they emphasize man-man relationships is because it is homosexual literature! if they emphasized man-women relationships, it would be heterosexual literature. That's gotta be the dumbest catch-22 I've ever seen attempted. The desire for sexual liberation (not adult-child relationships) is for all people, but gays, while supporting the general cause, necessarily focus their efforts on their own kind, leaving it to heteros to educate their own. Which is entirely reasonable. Once again, you are drawing arguments out of the air.

"your second catagory is more disturbing, b/c it strikes at the heart of free expression and literature. Many books talk about sex between adults and minors, in both a homosexual and heterosexual environment." [me]

This is sexual molestation. PERIOD!!! [you]

" While we can all agree that the actions depicted are wrong, they are still literary works, and thus I don't feel that you can condemn a whole movement based on non-acted open literature of a few members, just as we dont condemn heterosexuals for the books that detail heterosexual sex with minors." [me]

There ARE NO works (at least present) which depict cross-generational heterosexual sex. Name me *ONE* book written in the last fifty years which depicts sex between a grown man and a little girl. Such literature is repulsive to most heterosexuals. You saw what happened to R&B singer R.Kelly for impregnating a 15 year old girl? Cross-generational sex is NOT condoned by heterosexuals. On the other hand at Nifty Erotica Cafe you'll find PLENTY of stories about adult men befriending and sexually abusing adolescents and pre-adolescent boys. It's sick and disgusting! You won't find this in ANY heterosexual erotica websites or booklists, save for certain hidden Pedophile rings that ALWAYS get busted and closed down by the authorities. Because Nifty Erotica Cafe is homosexual, that's why the BLATANTLY pedophile stories are not condemned or ignored!" [you]

First off. Writing about sex with minors isn't molestation, its free speech. repugnant, disgusting free speech, but free speech all the same. And for the same reason that I don't wish to ban the rants of Robertson and others of his ilk despite the fact that I find it equally disturbing, I don't think you can ban that speech. Second, as to the "what are the hetero cross-gen sex stories?" Although I, apparently unlike my counterpart here, do not search around for stories detailing sex between cross-gen partners, homo or hetero, I do recall a Men's Health story (yes story, it was describing the incident, and not as some evil rape either) between a minor male and adult female. On the internet, in fanfiction forums, you can find thousands of more examples. The reason that NIFTY is ignored is that it is not pictures but writing, and is thus protected as free speech. Kiddie porn rings which exploit real kids are not speech but actions, and are not. That's the reason NIFTY is considered ok.

"Sex with children is RAPE you stupid sick fucker. It's R-A-P-E plain and simple! When some big grown man has sex with a girl or boy, it's ALWAYS harmful, even if some children do not realize it. This "scientific inquiry" is funded by homos eager to get their filthy AIDS infested paws on a young boy's genitals! And notice it only talks about sex between adult men and boys (irrespective of the boys' sexual orientation, which means it thinks a homosexual experience is positive for hetero boys too), and makes no mention about woman-boy sex. OBVIOUSLY the agenda is the homosexualization of children NOT their sexual liberation. If it was about sexual liberation, it would talk about homosexual children with adult males and heterosexual children with adult females."
Once again, prejudice with no evidence to support it. If a scientist proposes the theory that sex with children is not bad, I personally believe that scientist is wrong, but don't believe he should be punished for theorizing. If he acts on the theory and has the sex, then I do. And that's the difference between my standard and yours, you are penalizing thought, I am penalizing action. If you believe that the University of Minnesota is entirely funded by "homos trying to get their aids infested paws on young boys genitals" (which means that, since UM is a state school, the entire state of minnesota is made up of those filthy gay homos), please post the appropriate documentation to prove it. Otherwise, stop ranting and start arguing.

"this [advocating sex with minors] is wrong on the gays part, no doubt. But I can give you a dozen areas where conservatives wish to kill gays entirely, or commit other horrific actions against them." [me]

And gays give conservatives REASONS for wanting to exterminate them. Imagine finding out your three year old son was raped by a gay man! I don't advocate the killing of homosexuals, I just believe they should be barred from having any contact with male children or male minors." [you]

and conservatives give gays reasons for wanting to exterminate THEM. such the christian conservatives who chained that gay guy to a truck and dragged him to death. And the centuries of oppression and death that occured before this "wave of molestation" that you claim didn't start until the ninties. If we are allowed to segregate people based on the principle that any member of any group who has harmed another group should be seperated permanently from them, then I (a Jew) never want to see another christian again. And muslims and christians would have to seperated too. And in reality, if you searched far enough and applied this principle widely enough, then we'd have to segregate the entire world into tiny ethnic ghettos. Now if I was following your traditional pattern of argumentation, this statement would be followed by "You God Damn RACIST!" but I won't, b/c I doubt you are. But I would refer you to a psych ward.

"Sorry, but I believe all hate literature should be banned. Just as no straight book store will publish books or studies encouraging man-girl sex, if gays were REALLY anti-pedo (which they are NOT) they would follow suit with their hetero counterparts. Trust me, if at Coles book store they had a book on men having sex with girls, every Coles book store across the country would be BURNED DOWN by angry mobs. The fact homos tolerate this garbage, shows they are pro-pedophile."
Then you and I disagree, because I do not seek to ban speech merely because I disagree with it. Read J.S. Mill's "On Liberty" and find out why. And I see no difference in the levels of gay and straight hate toleration. Even if gays are more tolerant of cross-gen sex, their moral opposites, fundie christians, are more tolerant of roasting them on stakes. So it evens out.

"When a man molests girls and only girls, we accept him as a heterosexual. We don't say "he's not straight because he does not have sex with adult women."  Too bad. You should. The standard applies  to straights too.

"What sceintific definition? Just because homos CONVENIENTLY define homosexuality as sex between two adults, does not make it correct. Well what about gay teenagers having sex? Because they aren't adults, does that mean they aren't gay????  IDIOT!!!!"
Gays made this definition? curious. I never knew Drs. Newton and Jenny were gay (I especially was unaware that the female Dr. Carole Jenny COULD be gay. How pecuilar). The gay teenagers argument is somewhat interesting. I'd assume that the more accurate scientific def. of homosexuality is desire for sex with same-generaton members of your same sex. (same gen. replacing adults)

"You've only rebutalled me in your mind. You spineless liberals cannot refute shit!"
First of all, the word is "rebutted" (ooh, he can spell too!) Secondly, at this point your entire case hinges on this cliff:
a bunch of statistics that have been countered by my statistics, which are all predicated on a misdefinition of homosexuality that convienantly you CAN'T find any source to support.
Since I win the definitional debate simply because I'm the only one with sources on it ("you idiot" doesn't count as a source), I knock off your statistics, which leaves my statistics unchallenged, which gives my the round. I win!


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 12:46 AM on January 18, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

dsa always wins


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 01:49 AM on January 18, 2003 | IP
Heteroman

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Guest said:

"You go dude! Marry your girlfriend and you'll have 100% of my support."

What do you mean by that? Anyways, I am engaged to my girlfriend if it means anything to you.


To dsadevil:

I refuted your claim homosexuality only refers to adult same-gender sex in a new post. And I also refuted all your other claims too. And also, just because encyclopedias and other liberal media sources do not mention anything about Alfred C. kinsey's sexual absue of children does not mean nothing. Do patriotic American sources mention the fact George Washington owned slaves? Do history books mention the fact Hitler had a corporaphiliac fetish? Fact remains I presented you evidence of Kinsey's sesexual abuse of children subjects. And if you read "Sexuality in the Human Male" (which I did) he even DESCRIBES the reaction of kids to orgasms and he mentions them twitching and violently shaking and having orgasm after orgasm. I am sorry, but kids DO NOT have repeated orgasm by themselves, nor twitch and spasm violently. Someone HAD to have been masturbating them, as the evidence leaked out about Kinsey's study of childhood sexuality clearly shows. And as I said Kinsey's study on adult sexuality comprised of 20% ex-cons, and was NOT a random survey nor was it representative of the US population. For one, he studied a few blacks and did not include their results in his study. That's NOT a representative study. Kinsey manipulated his data to get the results he WANTED.

As for Jenny and Newton, the DICTIONARY and ENCYCLOPEDIA definition of homosexuality is sex or sexual contact between members or persons of the same gender. Homosexuality has to do with GENDER preference NOT age preference. If a Pedophile prefers only boys, and that Pedophile is a MALE, that means that Pedophile is a homosexual or is conducting a HOMOSEXUAL ACT (since both the Pedophile and his victim belong to the SAME gender) on the kid. And 1/3 of all Pedophiles conduct HOMOSEXUAL ACTS on their victims, while only 2/3 of Pedophiles (including those who swing both ways) conduct HETEROSEXUAL ACTS on their victims. This shows, those HOMOSEXUALLY ORIENTATED are grossly more likely to molest a child than heterosexuals. Either way, the dictionary definition is what I go by, which is what the term Homosexual in its Greek roots OBVIOUSLY means!

And lastly go check out Nifty Erotica Cafe. The Pedophile section is big! OBVIOUSLY Pedophilia is tolerated and condoned by gays, since the majority of homosexuals are attracted to minors. Such a thing you will NEVER find in straight literature or erotica, as the idea of man-girl sex only appeals to less than 0.5% of heterosexuals. Nearly all heterosexuals are attracted to women their own age or slightly older or slightly younger. No heterosexual male beats off to the thought of fucking an eleven year old girl. But plenty of homosexuals want to fuck seven year olds. This shows something is WRONG with homosexuals.

As for your comment on racism, don't even go there. Yes I am a hated EVIL white straight male. But my girlfriend is Colombian, and my son is biracial. And I have friends of all races. Race and sexual orientation are two different things. Some black guy (if he is straight) is NOT going to molest my son. Skin color does not determine sexuality. But sexual orientation determines attraction, and gays are attracted to young boys like my son. That's why gays should be segregated from the rest of the population or outright expelled from civilized populations. All my black, Hispanic, and Chinese friends, hate homos. Ironically it's liberal white wankers like yourself that stick up for homos, and it makes me ASHAMED to be white sometimes. And don't think I am ignorant or don't know gays, or any of that mantra. I used to be a liberal brainwashed wanker like yourself while in college, until I had a discussion with a guy I thought was a Homophobic close minded bigot. He told me he was open minded and would "change" his mind about gays if I'd hear him out, and present evidence he was wrong. He gave me books to read, he told me to read the newspapers on the rate of child molestations, and nonetheless I ended up changing my mind when I saw the truth. He opened my eyes up as to how evil and twisted gay people are. Moreover, my girlfriend's brother was sexually molested by a gay teacher at his scool. So I know gays and male children should NOT mix at all.


-------
http://www.accessnow.com/ahwa/graphics/NYC_Flag.jpg
 


Posts: 13 | Posted: 09:35 AM on January 18, 2003 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Oh good, I'm glad you are no longer brainwashed. Its obvious that today you are in perfect control of your facilities. In fact, your spirited argument and story has inspired me to adopt your entire personality! (you idiot...)

Did you see my last post? I stopped quoting Kinsey intentionally, b/c he was relatively irrelevant to the debate at hand, and I wanted to focus on the actual points of contention. The morality of Dr. Kinsey has absolutely no bearing on my points, as they center more on Drs. Newton and Jenny.
Again your attack on them equates a dictionary definition with a scientific definition, which isn't just wrong, its intellectually dishonest on your part. While homosexuality is about gender not age preference, what Newton and Jenny were saying is that if the person is not of your generation, the orientation cannot be determined (as if you are a pedophile, you obviously have a whole nother set of problems). Therefore, the only way to determine someones sexual orientation is by their conduct with adults, and therefore heterosexual adults can do a same-gender act on a kid and still be heterosexual, just a pedophile. And I personally don't think pedophiles in general should be allowed contact with children. But that isn't an argument against homosexuals.
As for the whole NIFTY thing, I doubt that a erotic story ring can be used as an indicator for homosexuals as a whole and their attraction to children. So instead we need to find a scientific study on the matter..hmmm....where can we find of those? Oh RIGHT! the Clarke Inst. study I already QUOTED, which said that their was no evidence to support the claim that homosexuals are more likely to be aroused by children than heterosexuals. Once your argument devolves to hinging on a) the denial of scientific terminology b) the use of an erotic story ring to generalize data on an entire group, I think I can honestly say you are on your last legs.
As to the whole racism deal, note I specifically refrained from calling you racist, and said that I was sure you weren't. But your standard of segregating any groups that have ever harmed each other is a racists dream come true. By the way, didn't whites brutally exploit the natives of S. America when they came over in the 16th century? You are too much of a danger to your fiancee! you need to be seperated immediately!

You may not be a brainwashed liberal anymore, but now you are just a psychopath who is in denial and can't face the facts. What we really need is to have me meet the guy who convinced you about the "truth" on gays. That would be interesting. I am SURE he'd be able to give me more of a fight than you.

Falling: I always win, but they never admit it! Its so annoying!


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 12:13 PM on January 18, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Did you see my last post? I stopped quoting Kinsey intentionally, b/c he was relatively irrelevant to the debate at hand, and I wanted to focus on the actual points of contention."

You did quote Kinsey in stating most people have gay tendencies. I just corrected you and stated Kinsey's 10% figure was on those whom had sex exclusively homosexual with in a three year period. Since 1/5 of Kinsey's subjects came from prison, the figure is VERY unrepresentative and flawed. I just proved he is NOT a good source.

"The morality of Dr. Kinsey has absolutely no bearing on my points, as they center more on Drs. Newton and Jenny."

They are flaming radical liberals. I don't trust them. They simply CONVENIENTLY redifined homosexuality from the DICTIONARY definition of the term, in order to imply homosexual child molesters are really heterosexual.

"Again your attack on them equates a dictionary definition with a scientific definition, which isn't just wrong, its intellectually dishonest on your part. While homosexuality is about gender not age preference, what Newton and Jenny were saying is that if the person is not of your generation, the orientation cannot be determined (as if you are a pedophile, you obviously have a whole nother set of problems)."

YES IT CAN!!! Very simple NO HETEROSEXUAL IS ATTRACTED TO MALES!!! Period! Only someone with homosexual tendencies will find a male outside of their generation attractive. And what about 20 something year olds that go out with 50 something year olds? Although both are adults, they aren't in the same generation. Are they not homosexual now too?
What about middle aged gay men that specifically desire young gays in their early 20's or who just turned 18? Are they not gay? According to *YOUR* narrowed down definition, they can be 100% straight. But facts are facts, no pure heterosexual has a desire for sex with males, either adult or young. The idea of male-male sex is NATURALLY repulsive to any heterosexual. If an Pedophile lusts after boys, he has Homosexual tendencies. Period!

"Therefore, the only way to determine someones sexual orientation is by their conduct with adults,"

Wrong!!! By the GENDER they lust after. If someone is straight, they will not go after men or boys. And do you know many Boylovers consider themselves "gay" yet have no desire for sex with adult men? NAMBLA is FULL of such types! Since the Boylovers identify themselves as gay, they are gay!

"and therefore heterosexual adults can do a same-gender act on a kid and still be heterosexual, just a pedophile."

Then they AREN'T heterosexual. A heterosexual by definition is someone who has an EXCLUSIVE sexual attraction for members of the opposite sex. Don't play these games, they are FAGS!!! I don't care what their adult relationships are like! If they have a desire to fuck anything aside from a human female, they aren't straight. PERIOD!!!

"And I personally don't think pedophiles in general should be allowed contact with children. But that isn't an argument against homosexuals."

Well homosexuals are more likely to molest children. Pedophile themes abound in gay literature. And gay civil rights groups tolerate pedophile organizations in their ranks. 70-90 percent of priest sexual abuse cases in the Catholic Church, have involved boys. Many of the accused priests including teh notorious Fr. Stanley (a founder of NAMBLA) are admittingly gay! That shows me gays AREN'T to be trusted around children.

"As for the whole NIFTY thing, I doubt that a erotic story ring can be used as an indicator for homosexuals as a whole and their attraction to children."

Of course it can. If homosexuals were not into it, the stories would not have been written. And it's not one or two stories, I am talking about HUNDREDS of stories under the Gay and Bisexual "Adult Youth" sections. Go and SEE for yourself. And the stories are VERY disturbing!

"So instead we need to find a scientific study on the matter..hmmm....where can we find of those? Oh RIGHT! the Clarke Inst. study I already QUOTED, which said that their was no evidence to support the claim that homosexuals are more likely to be aroused by children than heterosexuals."

One institute (heavily influenced by homosexual funding) does not count. Try MANY different sources. Either way, it conflicts with both the Webster and Oxford dictionary definitions which defines it as sex between members of the same gender.

" Once your argument devolves to hinging on a) the denial of scientific terminology b)"

One institute is not scientific. It's just the selective use of two BIASED sources from the SAME liberal institution. Show me more sources!

" the use of an erotic story ring to generalize data on an entire group, I think I can honestly say you are on your last legs."

I can show you more. One doesn't need to look far to find evidence that gays are sexually attracted to minors. I went scowering the internet from gay sources to find evidence that gays were attracted to minors, and sure enough I found what I wanted to see, to validate my beliefs!

"As to the whole racism deal, note I specifically refrained from calling you racist, and said that I was sure you weren't."

Which I am not of course. Other wise, I'd hate my own son. I just hate fags because of what they do to straight people, especially straight children!

" But your standard of segregating any groups that have ever harmed each other is a racists dream come true. By the way, didn't whites brutally exploit the natives of S. America when they came over in the 16th century? You are too much of a danger to your fiancee! you need to be seperated immediately!"

IDIOT!!!! Fact is gays are hurting straight boys NOW! Write now as I write this, somewhere in the world a heterosexual boy is being raped by some homo. Indeed, I'd say millions of heterosexual boys are being raped. And I have an article on sexual abuse in Afganistan for you coming up soon!

"You may not be a brainwashed liberal anymore, but now you are just a psychopath who is in denial and can't face the facts."

You are just a spineless liberal piece of garbage. When some fag rapes your little brother, THEN come back to me and start talking about how good and decent fags are!

"What we really need is to have me meet the guy who convinced you about the "truth" on gays. That would be interesting. I am SURE he'd be able to give me more of a fight than you."

He'll have you weeping! If you are a truth seeker (which I don't think you are" he will change your mind!

"Falling: I always win, but they never admit it! Its so annoying!
"

Only in your mind. Anyone with common sense who isn't a fag or a brainwashed spineless liberal sell out, can see I have clearly won the debate, even BEFORE I started posting my sources.



 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 1:13 PM on January 18, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

no, i think dsa won. and i have common sense.


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 1:17 PM on January 18, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"no, i think dsa won. and i have common sense."

Common sense and liberalism are oxymorons. Dsa has clearly lost!!! Any idiot can see a homosexual act is a homosexual act, and no heterosexual will engage in ANYTHING that has to do with homosexuality!



 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 1:44 PM on January 18, 2003 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The stats I am using now are from the World Book Encylopedia article on Homosexuality "Scientists believe that between 1-10% of the population is homosexual." I split the difference and said it was 5%.

some background on the two good Drs.:
"Dr. Carole Jenny is a Professor of Pediatrics at Brown University School of Medicine. She graduated from the University of Missouri, Dartmouth Medical School and the University of Washington School of Medicine. Dr. Jenny did her pediatric residency at the University of Colorado Affiliated Hospitals and at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. She was a Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholar at the University of Pennsylvania, and received an MBA in Health Care from the Wharton School. Before coming to Providence, she had served on the faculties of the University of Washington and the University of Colorado.

Dr. Jenny directs the Child Protection Program at Hasbro Children’s Hospital, Providence RI. The program offers medical consultation, evaluation and treatment services for children with suspected physical abuse, sexual abuse, failure to thrive, psychological abuse, neglect, medical neglect, and factitious illness. Dr. Jenny is past-Chair of the Section on Child Abuse and Neglect of the American Academy of Pediatrics, and currently serves on the Academy’s Committee on Child Abuse and Neglect. Her research interests include fatal neglect, abusive head trauma, and factitious disorders by proxy. " [source: the New England Conference on Child Sexual Abuse, which accepted Dr. Jenny's conclusions on the homosexual/pedophilia link]

While I am having trouble finding more information on Dr. Newton personally, his book is "Homosexual Behavior and Child Molestation: A Review of the Evidence," Look it up yourself.

However, to make up for that, examine this quote from Hunter College's National Resource Center for Foster Care and Permanancy Planning. "Sexual orientation, whether heterosexual or homosexual, is an adult sexual attraction to other [adults]." and "There is no connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. All legitimate scientific evidence shows that." [Dr. Newton's work was one of the cited works, as was Dr. Jenny, plus others]
Where do you get evidence to support the contention that they are flaming liberals? Is it based on anything else other than that they disagree with you? There is no "convienant" redefining here, just science. I will give some credit on the attack on the "generational test" because that is your strongest rebuttal yet (although it would be better if you would supplement it with an actual scientist). However, as I said earlier, the reason we take children outside of these definitions is they are not fully developed adults, and thus get put in a different catagory. Its the same in law, science, philosophy, etc.. I am missing the "verbal games" I am playing. I am quoting an Ivy League pediatrics professor who was a keynote speaker at a conference on child sexual abuse, for God's sake. You are convienantly calling a scientific definition a "Verbal game" but in reality it is the only proper definition to use in a debate that hinges on the definition of "homosexual." But who knows? maybe if, instead rebutting me with "WRONG!" and instead tried something real (perhaps putting "WRONG" in bold?), you'd have a case.

You say we can use NIFTY as an indicator for the entire homosexual population b.c. "If homosexuals were not into it, the stories would not have been written. And it's not one or two stories, I am talking about HUNDREDS of stories under the Gay and Bisexual "Adult Youth" sections. Go and SEE for yourself. And the stories are VERY disturbing!"
By that same logic, b/c by typing in porn on google I can get millions of sex sites, I can logically conclude that the vast majority want to exploit women and constantly have sex with them. After all, if the demand wasn't there...

"One institute (heavily influenced by homosexual funding) does not count. Try MANY different sources. Either way, it conflicts with both the Webster and Oxford dictionary definitions which defines it as sex between members of the same gender."
For the record, the Clarke Inst. of Psychiatry is a part of and fully funded by the University of Toronto. And its studies didn't conflict with Webster, if you read it again, it said that their was no stronger an attraction in homosexuals to children of the same sex than in heterosexuals to children of the opposite sex. That is irrelevant to the definitional debate above.
"One institute is not scientific. It's just the selective use of two BIASED sources from the SAME liberal institution. Show me more sources!"
Let's see. I have given you Dr. Newton, Dr. Jenny (of Brown University), who was accepted by the NE Conference on Child Abuse, plus Hunter College, which in addition to Dr. Newton and Dr. Jenny, also quoted the American Psychological Assc. to support its contention (incidentally, the APA filed an Amicus Curie brief in the 1996 Supreme court case of Romer v. Evans in which it urges all forms of discriminatory legislation against gays to be removed). Also I quoted the Clarke Inst., which, contrary to your claims of it being a homosexual front job, is a renowned institute operated by the University of Toronto. There ya go, sources that (despite your whines of protestation) are neither homosexual nor flaming liberal. The NEC conclusion I feel is especially telling.

"IDIOT!!!! Fact is gays are hurting straight boys NOW! Write now as I write this, somewhere in the world a heterosexual boy is being raped by some homo. Indeed, I'd say millions of heterosexual boys are being raped. And I have an article on sexual abuse in Afganistan for you coming up soon!"
Some gays are hurting some kids now, sure. Just as Christians and Jews and Muslims are hurting each other now too. Shall we segregate them? In Zimbabwe black mobs are hurting white farmers. Should we break out the ghettos? The race riots in the US (such as the Rodney King riot in LA and more recently the race riot over the police shooting in cincinatti) are still happening. Should we repudiate Brown v. Board of Education? Hardly. I don't believe in collective punishment for the actions of a few.

"You are just a spineless liberal piece of garbage. When some fag rapes your little brother, THEN come back to me and start talking about how good and decent fags are!"
Sure. As soon as a fag rapes my brother, you'll be the first to know. In the mean time, go back to Uncle Rush, you KKK facist (hey, you're right. the ad hominems do feel good!).

As for your friend, again, please bring him along. I am curious to see who your master is.

Finally, are guest and heteroman the same person?


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 2:00 PM on January 18, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"The stats I am using now are from the World Book Encylopedia article on Homosexuality "Scientists believe that between 1-10% of the population is homosexual." I split the difference and said it was 5%."

I will get to that later. I have stats that show the gay AND Lesbian population is no more than 3%. There is evidence or proof that homosexuals together are 10%. Maybe bisexuals and homosexuals are 10% but NOT homosexuals by themselves.

"some background on the two good Drs.:
"Dr. Carole Jenny is a Professor of Pediatrics at Brown University School of Medicine. She graduated from the University of Missouri, Dartmouth Medical School and the University of Washington School of Medicine. Dr. Jenny did her pediatric residency at the University of Colorado Affiliated Hospitals and at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. She was a Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholar at the University of Pennsylvania, and received an MBA in Health Care from the Wharton School. Before coming to Providence, she had served on the faculties of the University of Washington and the University of Colorado."

I don't CARE about their backgrounds. A degree means nothing. They are BIASED leftists interested in catering to political correctness. Academia today is FULL of pro-gay leftsists with an agenda to create a homosexualized society!

"Dr. Jenny directs the Child Protection Program at Hasbro Children’s Hospital, Providence RI. The program offers medical consultation, evaluation and treatment services for children with suspected physical abuse, sexual abuse, failure to thrive, psychological abuse, neglect, medical neglect, and factitious illness. Dr. Jenny is past-Chair of the Section on Child Abuse and Neglect of the American Academy of Pediatrics, and currently serves on the Academy’s Committee on Child Abuse and Neglect. Her research interests include fatal neglect, abusive head trauma, and factitious disorders by proxy. " [source: the New England Conference on Child Sexual Abuse, which accepted Dr. Jenny's conclusions on the homosexual/pedophilia link]"

The Child Protection Agency, the SAME group the DSS belongs to. The SAME group which YANKS children out of the arms of their parents, and forces them to be under the care of gay foster parents. She belongs to an agency which has no regard for children. READ my article on this! She has no MORAL or SCIENTIFIC credibility!

"While I am having trouble finding more information on Dr. Newton personally, his book is "Homosexual Behavior and Child Molestation: A Review of the Evidence," Look it up yourself."

He's a leftist idiot!!!! He's simply a minion of fags, intent on selling out children to child molesters!

"However, to make up for that, examine this quote from Hunter College's National Resource Center for Foster Care and Permanancy Planning. "Sexual orientation, whether heterosexual or homosexual, is an adult sexual attraction to other [adults]." and "There is no connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. All legitimate scientific evidence shows that." [Dr. Newton's work was one of the cited works, as was Dr. Jenny, plus others]"

BULLSHIT!!!! There is a connection to pedophilia with heterosexuality and homosexuality. Pedophilia overlaps with all sexual orientations. Pedophilia is an AGE preference NOT a sexual orientation. There are STRAIGHT pedophiles, BI pedopgiles, and GAY pedophiles. And it just so happens both gay and bis are over-represented amongst pedophiles. I will quote you a study conducted by homosexuals, which shows that 1/3 of white homosexuals have had sex with minors, and up to 73% of homosexual men are attracted to males ages 16-19 years of age AND younger!

"Where do you get evidence to support the contention that they are flaming liberals?"

It's obvious they are! Only a liberal would ABUSE their credentials to redifine homosexuality in THE FACE of pure facts and common sense, which shows you male on male sex (regardless of age) is homosexuality. Since a boy is not a female, it cannot be called heterosexuality. And AGAIN why do you ignore THE FACT many gays and bisexuals pose as straights?

" Is it based on anything else other than that they disagree with you? There is no "convienant" redefining here, just science."

It's NOT science. It's just two scientists using verbal gymnastics. There is NOTHING scientific about it. All they did was nitpick on the fact the majority of homosexual pedophiles are married and have never had sex with adult males, and decided to use adult sexual relations as the litmus test for sexual orientation. But CURRENT evidence shows a significant number of pedophiles that molest boys are single men, and many are involved in homosexual relationships.

"I will give some credit on the attack on the "generational test" because that is your strongest rebuttal yet (although it would be better if you would supplement it with an actual scientist)."

The generanal test tears your whole argument down. Nothing more needs to be said!

"However, as I said earlier, the reason we take children outside of these definitions is they are not fully developed adults, and thus get put in a different catagory. Its the same in law, science, philosophy, etc.. "

And 20 something year olds aren't fully developed middle aged men yet. WHAT'S your point? Fact is a 15 year old is aesthetically and physically much closer to a 20 year old, than the latter is to a 40 year old. The fact 15 year olds can sometimes "pass" for 20 year olds, and 20 year olds can sometimes "pass" for 15 year olds, shows that the line between an adolescent and young adult is blurred. So AGAIN if an 18 year old has a 17 year old boy friend and has never dated anyone that is legally an adult, does that mean he is not gay? By your definition IT DOES!!! Fact is young adults, 30 something year olds, middle aged, and seniors, are all as distinct from each other, as they are from children. So this brings us back to THE FACT if a grown man lusting after a boy is not a fag, that means neither is a 55 year old lusting after a 23 year old, or even an 18 year old lusting after a 17 year old!

"I am missing the "verbal games" I am playing."

You are a liberal, you would not understand! Verbal games is what liberals do best. In other words, a STRAWMAN argument!

"I am quoting an Ivy League pediatrics professor who was a keynote speaker at a conference on child sexual abuse, for God's sake."

The SAME Harvard that has GAY PEER COUNSELORS for new students (straight and gay alike)! The same Harvard that is now a bastion of liberalism!

"You are convienantly calling a scientific definition a "Verbal game" but in reality it is the only proper definition to use in a debate that hinges on the definition of "homosexual.""

I am still waiting for scientific evidence. All I have seen is verbal games. I have seen no gene studies or anything of that matter. All I have seen are statements which defy conventional wisdom!

"For the record, the Clarke Inst. of Psychiatry is a part of and fully funded by the University of Toronto. And its studies didn't conflict with Webster, if you read it again, it said that their was no stronger an attraction in homosexuals to children of the same sex than in heterosexuals to children of the opposite sex."

And the statistics of male on male intergenerational rape shwos OTHERWISE!!! ALso, why is it there are LOTS of chicken hawks that prey on adolescent boys? And I have two studies by gay researchers which shows that at least 1/3 of homosexual men are sexually attracted to young boys.

"Let's see. I have given you Dr. Newton, Dr. Jenny (of Brown University), who was accepted by the NE Conference on Child Abuse, plus Hunter College, which in addition to Dr. Newton and Dr. Jenny, also quoted the American Psychological Assc. to support its contention (incidentally, the APA filed an Amicus Curie brief in the 1996 Supreme court case of Romer v. Evans in which it urges all forms of discriminatory legislation against gays to be removed)."

THERE!!! Pro-gay and LIBERAL!!!! It's OBVIOUS the agenda is to defend fags and influence public perception of them! Your Jenny has AN AGENDA and her work is BIASED!!!

"Also I quoted the Clarke Inst., which, contrary to your claims of it being a homosexual front job, is a renowned institute operated by the University of Toronto."

Universities have pro-gay biases too! The University of Toronto is a bastion of liberalism!


"There ya go, sources that (despite your whines of protestation) are neither homosexual nor flaming liberal. The NEC conclusion I feel is especially telling."

They are pro-gay!

"Some gays are hurting some kids now, sure."

Right now!

"Just as Christians and Jews and Muslims are hurting each other now too."

Not at the rate fags hurt kids!

"Shall we segregate them? In Zimbabwe black mobs are hurting white farmers."

Only nine whites have died up to date. White farmers aren't being killed right now. But before I even finish this sentence a thousand boys have been already molested by a fag somehwere in the world!

"Should we break out the ghettos? The race riots in the US (such as the Rodney King riot in LA and more recently the race riot over the police shooting in cincinatti) are still happening. Should we repudiate Brown v. Board of Education? Hardly. I don't believe in collective punishment for the actions of a few."

But skin color is NOT sexuality! Homosexuality IS a sexuality. Being black or white or Muslim does not define violence. But homosexuality defines sex, which therefore predisposes them to rape kids!

"Sure. As soon as a fag rapes my brother, you'll be the first to know. In the mean time, go back to Uncle Rush, you KKK facist (hey, you're right. the ad hominems do feel good!)."

Stupid liberal idiot!!!!

"As for your friend, again, please bring him along. I am curious to see who your master is."

I don't know where he is. I haven't seen nor talked to him since leaving university in 1994. He went his way, I went mine.

"Finally, are guest and heteroman the same person?"

Yes we are! It's just for some reason I can't get "Heteroman" to consistently show!
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 2:59 PM on January 18, 2003 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm sorry, but at this stage you've lost. You have stopped giving sources. You have stopped giving new arguments. Your sole area of attack is that they are "flaming liberals" and even that is only supported by the fact that they disagree with you. Please. give up while you have a shred of credibilty.

But for traditions sake, I'll keep on rebutting.
You say that gays are no more than 3%. I have no more than 10%. Split the difference between us and we get 6.5%. if we split my figures we get 5%. Take your pick.

Now back to defending the Doctors from your unsubstantiated smear campaign.
Dr. Jenny directs the Child Protection Program at Hasbro Children’s Hospital, Providence RI. You then say that this is the same Child Protection AGENCY that is part of the DSS (whatever that is). but the CPP and the CPA are seperate, which you would know if you were actually reading my arguments, rather than skimming them for lines that prove me to be a liberal bastard. But even beyond that, the American Academy of Pediatrics, of which she chaired the section on child abuse, disagrees that she has no scientific credibilty. As does the NEC on Child Sexual Abuse, which featured her as a speaker. But of course, you're right, because you dislike an organization with a SIMILAR SOUNDING NAME to the one she is part of. Silly me!

"He's [Dr. Newton] a leftist idiot!!!! He's simply a minion of fags, intent on selling out children to child molesters!"
Any evidence to back that up? Please. Show me something else besides the fact that he disagrees with you.

For most of my sources, you resort to the attack "They are evil LIBERALS! DUH!" But with the Hunter College one, you don't even throw that out. You just say "there wrong. I don't have any scientific rebuttal to it. But they're wrong."

"It's obvious they are! Only a liberal would ABUSE their credentials to redifine homosexuality in THE FACE of pure facts and common sense, which shows you male on male sex (regardless of age) is homosexuality. Since a boy is not a female, it cannot be called heterosexuality. And AGAIN why do you ignore THE FACT many gays and bisexuals pose as straights?"
Of course. Only liberals lie. And all liberals, are, of course lying about everything (Richard Nixon is spinning in his grave). Petio Princpii anyone? Only a conservative would, having run out of arguments and destitute of scientific support, throw out a vicious and unsubstantiated smear campaign as you are  trying, and failing, to do.

"But CURRENT evidence shows a significant number of pedophiles that molest boys are single men, and many are involved in homosexual relationships. "
Really? Please give me that evidence if you don't mind.

"Fact is a 15 year old is aesthetically and physically much closer to a 20 year old, than the latter is to a 40 year old."
We aren't dealing with aesthetics here, we are dealing with sexual and emotional maturity. But pedophilia is defined as "desire for sex with children" NOT adolescents. Thus the age drops to 12 and under. And is a 20 year old closer to a 40 year old  in these catagories than he is to a 12 year old? Absolutely. And the law agrees (age of consent laws etc.)

"I am quoting an Ivy League pediatrics professor who was a keynote speaker at a conference on child sexual abuse, for God's sake."[me]

"The SAME Harvard that has GAY PEER COUNSELORS for new students (straight and gay alike)! The same Harvard that is now a bastion of liberalism!" [you]
Once again, are you literate or not? SHE IS A PROFESSOR AT BROWN, NOT HARVARD! And isnt it telling that the most respected college in america, the one that attracts the best and brightest in staff, facility, and students is a bastion of liberalism? Isn't that telling?

"I am still waiting for scientific evidence. All I have seen is verbal games. I have seen no gene studies or anything of that matter. All I have seen are statements which defy conventional wisdom!"
Gene studies? How on earth do genes play into this? They are irrelevant to the debate! And as for defying conventional wisdom, "the earth is round" defied conventional wisdom. That doesn't de facto make it wrong (well maybe to you it does...)

"And the statistics of male on male intergenerational rape shwos OTHERWISE!!! [to the Clark Inst.]  ALso, why is it there are LOTS of chicken hawks that prey on adolescent boys? And I have two studies by gay researchers which shows that at least 1/3 of homosexual men are sexually attracted to young boys."
It doesn't show otherwise if you take into account the proper definition (Which you STILL have yet to adequatly attack, aside from your pathetic effort at a swipe at the scientist's credentials, one you make without any knowledge of them or any support). And once again, if you have these sources, then tell me them! don't just say "I have sources..." McCarthy said "I have sources..." we found out he was lying too.

In attacking my list of sources, you say "THERE!!! Pro-gay and LIBERAL!!!! It's OBVIOUS the agenda is to defend fags and influence public perception of them! Your Jenny has AN AGENDA and her work is BIASED!!!"
What was pro-gay? They came to a pro-gay conclusion, but that doesn't make them pro-gay. It just means the science comes out that way. A child sexual abuse expert, a predominant program dealing with adoption issues, a renowned psychiatry institute, and the nations largest organization of psychiatrists all agree with my assertions. It isn't biased, its the truth.

"Universities have pro-gay biases too! The University of Toronto is a bastion of liberalism!"
They are all pro-gay! its a giant conspiracy, and you alone are defending the truth! save us all! I think we can add paranoia to your list of psychological problems.

Then you go on to claim that gays are harming children at a higher rate than the jew-christian-muslim circle of violence. This I am EXTREMELY doubtful of. Stats?

As to Zimbabwe, you state that only 9 white farmers have been killed. Not many kids have been killed either, we are talking about molestation, about HARMS. And more than 9 white farmers have been HARMED!

"But before I even finish this sentence a thousand boys have been already molested by a fag somehwere in the world!" Stats to back it up?

"But skin color is NOT sexuality! Homosexuality IS a sexuality. Being black or white or Muslim does not define violence. But homosexuality defines sex, which therefore predisposes them to rape kids!"
As I have already shown, no more than heterosexuality predisposes you to rape kids. And with the bible urging homosexuals to be put to death, no more than christians are predisposed to kill homosexuals either.

Now for those of you who are lost, I'll try and review what has been established/argued.
Guest/Heteroman #1: male male intergenerational rapes are at a higher rate than the rate of homosexuals in the population
DSA rebut: the definition of homosexual is based on attraction to adults scientifically. Thus, the rate of homosexuals molesting children is online with estimates.
Guest Rebut: Dictionary def., plus attack on credentials, plus the generation question
DSA defense: dictionary def. is secondary (unrefuted in guest's last post), attack on credentials was based on no info except that scientists disagreed with guest, law defines minors as a seperate catagory, pedophilia deals with kids 12/under, who are more  different emotionally/sexually than a 20 is to a 40 year old. There are, in effect, only three "generations" or "Catagories" to be considered, children, adolescents/teens, and adults, and in any event my definition was the only with scientific sources (unrefuted)
hetero argument #2: Groups like NIFTY show that gays want to screw children
DSA rebuttal: If Nifty is a standard for gays, than the 1000 porn sites out their show straights want to screw everything in sight (unrefuted)
Hetero argument #3: b/c of arguments 1 and 2, gays shouldn't be allowed near children.
DSA rebut: #1 has been proven incorrect via the definitional victory of dsa devil. #2 was dropped by hetero after DSA's rebuttal showing what the standard meant if it was applied across the board. Thus 3, which depends upon 1 and 2 for validity falls too.

DSA argument #1: Definition of homosexual deals with adults (dr. jenny/newton)
hetero rebut: dictionary def, they must be liberal
dsa defense: science takes precedence over dictionary (unrebutted), no proof that they are liberal, and even if they are that doesnt de facto make them wrong.

Most of the my arguments were rebuttals to heteros claims. However, b/c hetero is seeking to take an action AGAINST a group of people, to deprive them of the capability to do something (in this case, interact with children), the burden of proof lies on him not me. Since I successfully won the definitional debate, and even without it all we have is competing statistics that don't yield a clear advantage, hetero doesnt meet the burden of proof, and thus loses the round. Also worthy of note are heteros credibilty issues, his constant "you idiots", refusal to attack sources on any grounds except that they might be liberal and they disagree with him, and his constant misidentification of key points (what the clarke inst. said, the organization of Dr. Jenny etc.) cause him to lose credibilty, and mean we must take the rest of his arguments with a grain of salt.


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 5:03 PM on January 18, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

idiotman, open up your mind a little bit. you have so much hatred towards everybody. you hate gays, you hate liberals, and you probably hate blacks too. i wouldnt be surprised. take your ultra-conservative fascist nazi views out of this debate because you are clearly losing and you are not making any sense. you are a very hateful and judgemental person. if you had a descent argument for why gays should not have rights, then you could stay. but you dont. so leave. you nazi.


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 6:25 PM on January 18, 2003 | IP
kelvin90703

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok I now agree with all the anti-gay righters.  Once you have reduced gays to second class citizens, now what?  What comes next?

Do you have a secret ditch somewhere and a bullet in the back in the head for each one ot them?
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 6:38 PM on January 18, 2003 | IP
kelvin90703

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

From the post I have read above, I can conclude homosexuals are dangerous and a menace to society.  So what do you do next?  Concentration camps?  
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 6:40 PM on January 18, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

what are you talking about


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 9:20 PM on January 18, 2003 | IP
mrmazet

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Kelvn, what side are you on and what are you saying? I'm lost.
 


Posts: 122 | Posted: 11:10 PM on January 18, 2003 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I couldn't follow it either. Explaination?


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 12:48 AM on January 19, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wow... look at what I've been missing! If only I could find my password >_<

We shouldn't run around arresting them and executing them on the spot. What we should do is try and not expose children to an environment where they will almost certainly suffer and where they will learn acceptance of what most people think is morally wrong. A child is almost always best in a normal situation, which that kind of living arrangement is not.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 7:46 PM on January 19, 2003 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

almost always suffer? what makes them suffer?
shouldn't be exposed to things that the majority consider immoral? that could include anything from Islam to condoms. All you are arguing is that the majority has the right to discriminate against the minority on the grounds that the majority can also enforce its values on the rest of us, a ludicrious propostion wholly inconsistant with the 1st amendment, marketplace of ideas, right to privacy and minority rights. Plus, even if children are better off in a "normal" family, a conclusion that the APA rejects, the fact is kids in the foster care system don't have the luxury of that choice. We need to get them into families, period, and that includes loving gay families.


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 8:14 PM on January 19, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I could have a ton of studies from the all around the world that say that cats don't exist, but that doesn't make them true.  
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 9:42 PM on January 19, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The fact is that almost every study is biased because of whoever funded it and because of how it was conducted.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 9:46 PM on January 19, 2003 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

to a point. so you gotta go on credentials. And throughness. On both counts I took the debate.


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 11:45 PM on January 19, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i love how conservatives use studies when it fits their agenda but when studies oppose the veracity of their claims, all of a sudden studies lose all legitimacy.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 09:32 AM on January 20, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Dumbass liberal idiot says:

"idiotman, open up your mind a little bit."

I don't need to open up shit. I hate fags and think they all should be cleansed from society! Faggotry is a perversion and is unnatural. THAT'S the bottom line!

" you have so much hatred towards everybody."

I only hate fags and Nazis, and those that promote them. Indeed, fags and Nazis are the same thing. Adolph Hitler was a fag and coprophiliac.

" you hate gays,"

And your point being?

" you hate liberals,"

Becaus ethey are RUINING society with their pro-gay biases, and selling out our children to be raped by fags!

"and you probably hate blacks too."

I have NOTHING against blacks. Like I said before, my wife is South American, my kid is mixed, and I have three friends that are African American. I only hate fags and those that promote them.

"i wouldnt be surprised. take your ultra-conservative fascist nazi views out of this debate because you are clearly losing and you are not making any sense."


I have not lost. I have won. Only biased liberals think they have won. But then again if you bastards get your way, I seriously hope the fags will ESPECIALLY come after *YOUR* children! As it will be liberal idiots like YOU that will NOT be prepared for what is coming. Maybe when your kid comes home crying because their gay teacher rubbed them between their legs and you cannot legally do anything about it because of laws idiots like YOURSELF helped pass, you'll be prepared to listen to people like myself!

"you are a very hateful and judgemental person."

I hate fags because they give me a REASON to hate them!

" if you had a descent argument for why gays should not have rights, then you could stay."


I do have a reason. They molest kids and rape heterosexual men.

"but you dont. so leave. you nazi."

Typical liberal response. Someone doesn't agree with you, you call them a "nazi." Typical liberla fag-lover! If I was a Nazi why would I hang out with Hispanics, Asians, and blacks then? And why is my son biracial? Idiot!
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 12:31 PM on January 20, 2003 | IP
Broker

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I could have some experts with whatever credentials you want telling you something that isn't true, as long as I pay them enough.

I refer to studies, but I do think they are biased. If someone throws a study at me I'll throw one back.


-------
Don't tell me I'm conservative...I know that!
 


Posts: 351 | Posted: 12:42 PM on January 20, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

actually, hitler hated "fags" too and murdered thousands and thousands of them in the holocaust because he wanted to "cleanse them from society". funny, how you used the same exact language he did.


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 1:10 PM on January 20, 2003 | IP
Broker

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Stop the feud between yourselves... it's no way to debate.

Don't hate people, dislike them because of their ways and pray for them. Broker's CHristian thought for the day.


-------
Don't tell me I'm conservative...I know that!
 


Posts: 351 | Posted: 1:19 PM on January 20, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Don't hate people, dislike them because of their ways and pray for them. Broker's CHristian thought for the day."

Let's just say I have a deep dimmering dislike for fags. I am sorry but ANYONE who'd harm kids, I cannot have love for. My heart goes out for the victims fags create everyday. Sorry, but gay people were a mistake. And like all mistakes, they don't belong here. I wouldn't mind them if they were shipped off to some desert island where they can give each other AIDS and they are far away from young boys like my son. I am a father and I fear for my son everyday. I know people who've been molested as kids by gay men. I also know of groneups whom had to room with fags, and woke up in the middle of the night to find their genitals being rubbed. Sorry, but these people are worst than cockroaches and rats. I don't want them around me, and ESPECIALLY around my son!






 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 5:00 PM on January 20, 2003 |
IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"actually, hitler hated "fags" too"

He did not hate all fags, only the effeminate ones. If you were a masculine fag, you were alright. Only the sissified types that talked with lisps were hated. The head of his SS was gay. Indeed, it's a well known fact SS guards used to sodomize their prisoners.

"and murdered thousands and thousands of them in the holocaust because he wanted to "cleanse them from society". funny, how you used the same exact language he did."

Again he was only going after those that acted effeminate. He did not go after all fags. Hitler himself was a homosexual and a corpraphiliac. He even wrote in his Meincomp that he got aroused by people shitting on his head. And the head of his SS was gay. There is PLENTY of evidence that the Nazi movement was FULL of homosexuals! Moreover, Hitler admired Greek culture which was heavily homosexual.



[random] [center]
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 5:05 PM on January 20, 2003 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm curious towards Broker's opinion on who won the debate. Afterall, he isn't an evil liberal by any stretch of the imagination.

Anyway, despite your whines to the contrary, you lost. deal with it. I even showed point by point WHY you lost in my last large post. I don't expect you to change your mind, you have too much fear and hate inside of you. But that's ok, because hopefully I at least showed whoever else who viewed this the two sides of the issue and proved why I'm right. That I can be proud of.

While you seem to have given up on the actual issues, I will address your post-debate whine as well.

"Typical liberal response. Someone doesn't agree with you, you call them a "nazi." Typical liberla fag-lover! If I was a Nazi why would I hang out with Hispanics, Asians, and blacks then? And why is my son biracial? Idiot!"
Kinda like when anyone disagrees with you they are a biased liberal? Oh no of course not! OK so you are an inclusive nazi. Its a step in the right direction I suppose. Or if you really don't like the term "nazi" I suppose we could label you "selectively genocidal" if that suits your fancy more.

"
I have not lost. I have won. Only biased liberals think they have won. But then again if you bastards get your way, I seriously hope the fags will ESPECIALLY come after *YOUR* children! As it will be liberal idiots like YOU that will NOT be prepared for what is coming. Maybe when your kid comes home crying because their gay teacher rubbed them between their legs and you cannot legally do anything about it because of laws idiots like YOURSELF helped pass, you'll be prepared to listen to people like myself!"
Only biased liberals eh? what makes you so sure I am biased? I, when reading the majority opinion in Lawerence v. Texas, was convinced that it was ok to ban homosexual activity. But then I read the dissent, which blew the majority opinion to bits. So I am not biased.
"I don't need to open up shit. I hate fags and think they all should be cleansed from society! Faggotry is a perversion and is unnatural. THAT'S the bottom line!"
Good. let it all out. The men in the white coats are NICE people. They'll help you. You can't prove its a perversion except that it isn't natural, and you can't prove that what is unnatural is bad. Its unnatural for us to be debating online, we should be hunting meat to provide food to our families. I guess we are outside the natural order and should be "cleansed" (a very Nazi, or if you prefer "genocidal" statement to me).

"Let's just say I have a deep dimmering dislike for fags. I am sorry but ANYONE who'd harm kids, I cannot have love for." Ditto. But your hatred goes beyond that to people who never did molest kids, just people you are convinced someday will.

"Greek culture was heavily homosexual." Didn't you quote the greeks as anti-gay before?

"Again he was only going after those that acted effeminate." Oh so there was this "civil war" of the fags. I get it. Seems unlikely though. And besides, to you isn't this a good thing? I mean, at least some of them were dying right?

"Hitler himself was a homosexual "
Dear dear. Eva Braun would be ticked to know.
And besides, Hitler was homosexual? good for him. Those two nuns in Rwanda were christian. Better "cleanse them" too, eh?

Go ahead, heterobaby. Cry in your room about the big bad liberals who just finished off an intellectual smackdown of your prejudices. We'll wait for you to grow up.

Oh and for the record: I had a gay teacher AND principal. He never did anything to anyone at anypoint. So I can talk too.


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 5:54 PM on January 20, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

OBVIOUSLY Broker being a conservative will agree with me, so far as homosexuality=same
sex gender irrespective of age differences, and he will agree that homosexuals are responsible for a gross percentage of child molestations. No conservative on earth will disagree with me on this matter. Only pink Commie bastards eager to turn society upside down and into an anarchaic hell-hole such as YOURSELF will disagree with me! Only a flaming liberal is pro-gay. The scientific definition of homosexual is WEAK!!! The issue is not the victims' sexuality (as most victims of homosexual abuse are heterosexual) but the perpetrator's sexual orientation. And if a Pedophile targets boys, he is gay. END OF STORY!!! The word for homosexuals attracted to adults is "Androphile" NOT homosexual. Both Androphiles and Pedophiles are homosexual. And many so-called Androphiles go for adults with boyish features. That way the fags can deny they are pedophile, and still have a partner that resembles a little boy.

You have only won in your head. Anyone with an OPEN MIND and who seeks TRUTH that reads your articles and mine, will see RIGHT THROUGH you, and will OBVIOUSLY side with me. Any idiot knows the scientific definition is WEAK, STUPID, DOESN'T MAKE SENSE, and is just a COP OUT by homosexuals and their liberal sell out allies to mask the TRUTH that fags are 25 times more likely to molest a boy, than a heterosexual man is to molest a girl.

Nonetheless, I know Broker agrees with me. Only fags and idiot close minded liberals disagree with me!
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 6:34 PM on January 20, 2003 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Obviously Broker will agree with me"
We'll see, I prefer to let him speak for himself.
And I believe that the gay republican representative in congress disagrees with you too. Or at least I'd guess so.
"Only pink Commie bastards eager to turn society upside down and into an anarchaic hell-hole such as YOURSELF will disagree with me!"
OK, I'm not a commie bastard (though I adore the nickname). I despise anarchy. I don't like hell-holes, and to the best of my knowledge I am not pink but a light shade of tan.
"The scientific definition of homosexual is WEAK!!!"
And yet, unrefuted by any scientist you've brought up. So far it seems pretty resilant to me.
"The issue is not the victims' sexuality (as most victims of homosexual abuse are heterosexual) but the perpetrator's sexual orientation." I never claimed otherwise.
"The word for homosexuals attracted to adults is "Androphile" NOT homosexual. Both Androphiles and Pedophiles are homosexual." Point? Nothing resembling that came up. All I said was that the scientific def. of homosexuality only concerns their relationships with and as adults.
"Any idiot knows the scientific definition is WEAK, STUPID, DOESN'T MAKE SENSE, and is just a COP OUT by homosexuals and their liberal sell out allies to mask the TRUTH that fags are 25 times more likely to molest a boy, than a heterosexual man is to molest a girl."
Well sure. Any idiot (such as yourself) knows. Those of us with a functioning brain still are skeptical, prefering to see something to refute it before we abandon it.
And "disagreeing with guest" does not equal "closeminded." Assuming any liberal has to be wrong by default is. Even Broker and I have found common ground before, and while he might oppose homosexuality on other grounds, or while he might agree with you on other grounds, I am confident that looking at the DEBATE objectively, he will come to proper conclusion that I won the debate.


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 8:46 PM on January 20, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

next thing we know, heterobaby is going to want to "cleanse" me and dsa from society and throw us and all the other liberals on some island. heteroman is starting to sound a little like adolph hitler the more he talks. especially that word "cleanse"...

heteroman, you say that the scientific definition of "homosexual" is weak? that is ridiculous. any scientific definition or theory has to be backed up with empirical data. empirical data is data which can be sensed with the five senses. saying that homosexuals are weak is a generalization or a stereotype, not a scientific definition.

dsa has clearly won the debate. even broker will admit that. all heteroman did was call names and say that we should kill all gays or send them to some island or somethin.

btw, where is alexthegreat when you need him? i am sure he would have a lot of fun debating with heteroman on this topic.


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 9:43 PM on January 20, 2003 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think hetero meant the scientific definition I was GIVING was weak (as in a weak argument) (I.E., someones sexual orientation can only be discerned via their attraction to adults).


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 10:52 PM on January 20, 2003 | IP
AlexanderTheGreat

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i haven't posted in a while because 1. i am busy looking for a job (bad economy - got laid off from job as child molester) and 2. i just find this guy annoying. i am always willing to argue with someone who completely disagrees with me (and even with my entire lifestyle), and who i think is wrong, or just plain stupid, as long as that person attempts some measure of intellectual honesty. by that i guess i mean displays some potential to learn, to consider new ideas, to pursue the Truth over personal bias/agenda. i think this guy is just ranting. he'll never change his mind and he has zero interesting to say. it all boils down to the fact that he ignores all facts displayed by experts because he believes they are all a part of the big pinko fag commie liberal conspiracy to rape his kid (who by the way is a case study example of a child who would be better off in ANY other home, even...drum roll please...a gay one, rather than be raised by Mr. KKK). heteroman is a moron, and worse than that, he's an asshole.


-------
Alex
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 4:50 PM on January 21, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i totally agree with you alex. you see, we can agree on certain things


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 11:04 PM on January 21, 2003 | IP
thistownwilleatu

|       |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You say that you hate fags because they rape men and molest children.  Men rape women, so you must hate men.  Heterosexuals molest their children, so you must hate your own.  So you just keep on picking and choosing what you want to see and hear.  But we're through with you.  I hope that I speak  for everyone when I say that I will not even honor youre pathetic "fascist" (nice falling) posts by even reading them, much less in a wasted response.


-------
"The greatest evil is not done in those sordid dens of evil that Dickens loved to paint ... but is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried and minuted) in clear, carpeted, warmed, well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voices." - Thomas Merton

"I thank my God for every remembrance of you." - Paul
 


Posts: 341 | Posted: 02:03 AM on January 24, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from thistownwilleatu at 02:03 AM on January 24, 2003 :
You say that you hate fags because they rape men and molest children.  Men rape women, so you must hate men.  Heterosexuals molest their children, so you must hate your own.  So you just keep on picking and choosing what you want to see and hear.  But we're through with you.  I hope that I speak  for everyone when I say that I will not even honor youre pathetic "fascist" (nice falling) posts by even reading them, much less in a wasted response.



Dumbass bleeding heart liberal drivel. Less than 1% of heterosexual men molest girls you IDIOT!!! On the other hand 25% of fags ADMIT to molesting children! And while heterosexual men do rape women, they do so at a lower rate, than fags when you include all the "harmless" groping fags subject unsuspecting heterosexuals too all the fucking time! You fags may consider groping some strange guy's crotch or grabbing his ass "harmless fun" but we heterosexuals consider it a VIOLATION of our RIGHT to have only WOMEN touch our bodies. Also, in prisons homosexual prison guards rape heterosexual prisoners at an ALARMING rate. Also I have a statistic from San Francisco which shows heterosexual men are raped at a higher rate by gay men, than women are raped by men. If every place in North America was like San Francisco (as with boys and girls) straight men would experience homosexual rape at astronomical levels. Look in Afganistan for instance. Male rape is far more common, than male on female rape. This shows give fags too much freedom, and straight men are in trouble!

Heteroman


STRAIGHT PRIDE, WORLD WIDE [b][color=red]
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 4:51 PM on January 24, 2003 | IP
thistownwilleatu

|       |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Let's just ignore this knuckle dragger from now on.  Do what I did in the 3rd grade and act like hes not there.  No more responding to heteroman's posts.


-------
"The greatest evil is not done in those sordid dens of evil that Dickens loved to paint ... but is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried and minuted) in clear, carpeted, warmed, well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voices." - Thomas Merton

"I thank my God for every remembrance of you." - Paul
 


Posts: 341 | Posted: 7:31 PM on January 24, 2003 | IP
punk_sushi

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I almost find it terribly funny to read heteroman's posts. For some strange reason, it tickles my fancy to take a glance into the mind of such a complete ignoramus.

I'm fairly new to this debate forum, but I've been reading it for a long time, especially those regarding gay rights, and I just wanted to mention that AlexandertheGreat has my complete respect for making the best posts. Ever.
 


Posts: 25 | Posted: 05:09 AM on January 27, 2003 | IP
Muffility-12

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

ok...so let me get this straight (no pun intended)...gay men are child molesting beasts while lesbians are no worse than heteros? uh-huh...well, actually, when you think about it, men loving men and women loving women are kinda the opposite...

You see, a lot of gay kids are afraid to come out to people at school. Instead they turn to older gays and "do stuff". Although I am not homophobic, I wouldn't be surprised if gays (or at least gay men) are more likely to have sex with children than heteros. After all, you never hear of a straight version of NAMBLA.

Blacks are more likely to go to jail than whites. Are all blacks like that? Does that give us a good excuse to be racist? No way. Same thing with gays a pedophilia.

 


Posts: 8 | Posted: 3:33 PM on October 27, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Pedophilia doesn't have anything to do with heterosexuality or homosexuality. Pedophiles go after children because they have control issues...they like the fact that they can control a child. It's about domination not sex. The same can be applied to prison rapes and really any scenerio where you have a person in power that rapes men/women of lower ranks. They do it to prove their screwed up sense of domination.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 02:30 AM on November 4, 2003 | IP
Arinkaios

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Alright, I've only read the top mass posts, mostly, so maybe what I'm going to say has already been said. Well, I'm vexated and tired (it is 2:41 A.M. for me!), so I'll say it anyway. Here goes:

Logic devolves upon three fundaments: deduction, induction, and axiom. Deduction is gathering information about a subject and then, on the basis of that information, drawing basic conclusions as to the subject; i.e., if I found a red sphere and used deduction to judge it, I would note that it was red and spherical and conclude that it was a red sphere. Induction is declaring a point and then proceeding to explain how it must be true; i.e., if I wanted to induce the nature of an obscured subject, I would first make a presumption as to what it was and then try to demonstrate from there why it has to be a blue cube or whatever it was that I presumed it to be. Axiom is a self-proving point, i.e. that 1 = 1 or that existence exists, for example; it corresponds to absolute truth. Axioms are in a way simple fusions of deduction and induction; and a subject cannot be truly understood without starting from the beginning (base axioms applicable to all subjects) and proceeding forth (subsequent deduction and induction, in unison, to determine the connection of non-axiomatic points to the base axioms). A point may be deductively true but inductively false; or inductively true but deductively false; only a point that is true in both ways is correctly connected to base axioms and thus also, in a way, correspondent to absolute truth.

In the argument I am considering, Mr. A-G (as I will call them) says that gay and bisexual men molest male children disproportionately compared to their numbers vis-ŕ-vis straight men who molest female children, and that therefore they pose an inordinate risk, as such, to male children. The first part of Mr. A-G’s argument is itself a point of contention; but presuming it to be true, it is still not definite enough evidence that gay and bisexual men are more prone to pedophilia than straight men. In this mode of presumption, it is deductively true, that is, it is a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence. However, there is no inductive logic holding it together as such. The disproportion is mere coincidence, in other words, not indicative of some inherent tendency towards depravity in gay or bisexual men.

If our belief is in the New Testament, then something of an inductive argument might be fairly made that compliments the deductive argument; but our society does not presume absolutely that the New Testament is true and thus it would be discriminatory to base the relevant laws with regards to gay and bisexual men upon it. And, of course, the same applies to other such articles of faith.

A more grounded inductive argument, not precisely in agreement with Mr. A-G’s but perhaps one he would be willing to positively respond to, is that gay (and to a degree bisexual) men have formed, not altogether, but through majority psyche, a culture of their own, in the same way that most or all ethnicities and so on developed their own cultures. This culture has not yet become civilized enough to fully disavow pedophilia; that is, it is still a barbaric culture. And just as we might note the extensive barbarism in some ethnic culture more generally, for example, while simultaneously noting that not all members of said ethnicity are barbaric in accord and therefore making certain to define their culture, not their personage, as depraved, so too would it be fairer to note that gay male culture, not being a gay or bisexual male, is depraved. Historically, the principal atrocities spawned by a culture take the form of murder and not rape, but the gay male culture is less exactingly defined in life-death terms than it is in terms of sexual repression-permission and thus, its atrocities tend to be sexual (e.g., pedophilic) in nature. Rather than irrational opposition to gay and bisexual men, therefore, persons such as Mr. A-G would be advised to try to civilize gay male culture. My American culture has certainly progressed a lot since the days of slavery and the genocide of American Indians, and other cultures have similarly lifted themselves from wanton savagery (the German culture comes to mind, having mostly exceeded its past massive antisemitic bent); so it is in all likelihood probable that gay male culture can be advanced as such as well.
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 05:46 AM on January 30, 2004 | IP
Arinkaios

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

In addition to all that rambling about logic and so on of mine, I would like to note that the poster who believes in a liberal conspiracy (I don't know their name) seems to be suffering from a paranoid psychosis. According to my psychology book here:

"Unlike the other major psychotic reaction patterns, which may be quite varied, paranoid reactions are marked by one major pathological sympton— persistent delusions. A delusion is a firmly held belief that is maintained by the individual in the face of objective evidence to the contrary and despite lack of any social support. In the paranoid state, the delusions are transient and not well organized into a coherent story. Patients may exhibit hallucinations, but their personalities are otherwise intact. As the pathology progresses, the delusions became more systematized, coherent, and internally logical, while hallucinatory activity [if it has emerged] disappears. This condition is termed paranoia."

Does this seem a fair description, on many levels, of the poster who believes in a liberal conspiracy?

Also: I'm only somewhat hoping that this helps the poster who believes in a liberal conspiracy realize that they are deluded, but it is conceivable that they will merely dismiss this definition of paranoia as part of the supposed liberal conspiracy to advance the cause of child molestation by gay and bisexual men, or whatever it is that they suspect this hypothetical conspiracy of seeking to bring about (perhaps there's more to it; as I said before, I didn't read everything that's been said here and I'm tired). Or they will claim that the evidence shown to them is not objective. I'm guessing one of those two, probably the latter, will be said poster's perception of this.
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 06:09 AM on January 30, 2004 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I, a straight male, have just read this "Gay Rights" sub-forum.  There is so much I have to say, but there just isn't the time.  To start, both sides have provided statistical information to prove their points; this issue can obviously not be resolved in that fashion.  If all actions to provent horrible things from happening were based on statistics, one could almost change anything.  Statistically, teen-age males cause the automobile collisions... The solution of some of the posters here would invariably be to not allow teen-age males to drive.  Mass murders are middle-aged white males... lock them all up.  Sound ridiculous?  That's because it is.  From my understanding of the legal system in the United Sates, one cannot be punished for a crime he or she has not committed.  Guess what?  That is going to be what happens to the NON-CHILD-MOLESTING gays of this country.  It seems to me that some people are arguing that all gays are pedophiles.  Just like the people argue that all Mexicans are illegals, all Blacks are poor and are muggers, etc., these posters are stereotyping AND are willing to conemn a people for it.

Molestation is not the reason the people in this forum hate gays, though they may say otherwise; they fear gays because gays are different, and a book that was written long ago, BY MEN, said to do so.  I am not arguing for or against religion here, my beliefs are my own.  All I am saying is that it is logical to assume that even with "devine intervention," personal prejudices accompanied the scripture.

White people used to fear blacks (and some still do but not as they did in the past).  Were they right in doing so?  In the pre-civil rights United States, an anstonishing amount of whites truely believed that all blacks were at least one of the following: thieves, murderers, rapists, or at the very least good for nothing, worthless, slobs that have no work ethic.  Were they right, I ask you again?  No, of course not.  Most people tend to believe that people who have those types of thoughts are illogical and ignorant.  You must look at the scenario in this fashion... If you stepped out of time and truely looked at the situation with un-biased eyes, what would you see?  Not that I need to answer that rhetorical question, but just in case... You would see that the gays of today are descriminated, UNJUSTLY, like the blacks of the past.

I will agree that most people in the United States today don't accept gays, but I will also point out that most people in Germany during the '20s and '30s didn't accept the Jews as well... Think about that for a while.

To the people who actually think that they will stop gays from having equal rights....
You are not unlike the whites who didn't want blacks have equal rights.  They lost, and invariably, so will you.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 4:27 PM on February 3, 2004 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Jump
Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by:
ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.