If all the gay and paedophile clergymen

[Roomy]

were outed and defrocked do you think there would be many left to preach morality to the faithful?

[5stringJeff]

I think the number of gay/pedophile clergy is about the same number as gay/pedophile in the general population. Which is kind of a sad statement - it should be approaching zero.

[avatar4321]

I think there would be more than enough.

[Bubbalicious]

Gay ≠ Pedophile http://www.freeforum101.com/forum/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif

[5stringJeff]

Gay ≠ Pedophile http://www.freeforum101.com/forum/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif

I know.

[darin]

Gay ≠ Pedophile http://www.freeforum101.com/forum/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif

Obviously. Another obvious factoid:

Priests who Molest Boys = Gay Pedophiles.

[darin]

Gay ≠ Pedophile http://www.freeforum101.com/forum/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif

Obviously. Another obvious factoid:

Priests who Molest Boys = Gay Pedophiles.

[Bubbalicious]

Priests who Molest Boys = Pedophiles

[darin]

Priests who Molest Boys = Pedophiles

GAY pedophiles. Yes. Homosexual Pedophiles.

Homosexuality (Gay) refers to sexual and / or romantic attraction between individuals of the same sex.

Pedophilia, paedophilia or pædophilia (see spelling differences) is the paraphilia of being sexually attracted primarily or exclusively to prepubescent or peripubescent children. A person with this attraction is called a pedophile or paedophile.

Priests who molest boys are Gay/Homosexual Pedophiles.

[5stringJeff]

Priests who Molest Boys = Pedophiles

And if they are male priests molesting boys, then they are also gay, or more accurately, engaging in homosexual behavior.

[TheSage]

I think the number of gay/pedophile clergy is about the same number as gay/pedophile in the general population. Which is kind of a sad statement - it should be approaching zero.



Actually, I bet it's higher amongst priests, because of the free access to young trusting boys.

[Bubbalicious]

And if they are male priests molesting boys, then they are also gay, or more accurately, engaging in homosexual behavior.

Literally engaging in homosexual behavior, yes. But not by necessarily gay men. Pedophilia's its own ballgame.

[darin]

Literally engaging in homosexual behavior, yes. But not by necessarily gay men. Pedophilia's its own ballgame.

Geesh...can't get ANY more clear than has been stated above. Why are you being obtuse?

[OCA]

Priests who Molest Boys = Pedophiles

So a man who molests boys isn't gay? WTF!:dunno:

[Bubbalicious]

Geesh...can't get ANY more clear than has been stated above. Why are you being obtuse?

What? Your last post in this thread? You're wrong.

[OCA]

What? Your last post in this thread? You're wrong.

Bubba your view on this is so void of common sense has to be unfathomable. Why do you insist on apologizing for homosexuals and or homosexual pedophiles/why apologize for the choices they made when in your heart of hearts you know they are wrong?

[darin]

What? Your last post in this thread? You're wrong.

Now you must be joking. Seriously.

Gay/Homosexual = Has sex with members of the same sex.

Gay/Homosexual Pedophile = sex with CHILDREN of the same sex.

Heterosexual Pedophile = sex with children of the OPPOSITE Sex.


2+2=4

[The ClayTaurus]

This is quite possibly the stupidest debate re: homosexuality that's out there.

[OCA]

This is quite possibly the stupidest debate re: homosexuality that's out there.

Why is that?

[The ClayTaurus]

Why is that?Why give a shit? Are their ranks within pedophilia? Is raping a boy worse than raping a girl? You're splitting hairs about the lowest form of people on earth. Fuck 'em all.

[OCA]

Why give a shit? Are their ranks within pedophilia? Is raping a boy worse than raping a girl? You're splitting hairs about the lowest form of people on earth. Fuck 'em all.

Well no, its not worse, both are reprehensible but a man raping a boy is by definition "gay pedophilia", that is the point that is being argued.

[darin]

Why give a shit? Are their ranks within pedophilia? Is raping a boy worse than raping a girl? You're splitting hairs about the lowest form of people on earth. Fuck 'em all.


I think a man raping a boy is worse, if I were forced to classify both acts.

[5stringJeff]

Literally engaging in homosexual behavior, yes. But not by necessarily gay men. Pedophilia's its own ballgame.

As Forrest Gump would say if he were here, gay is as gay does. Participating in homosexual acts is waht defines one as "gay." Participating in pedophiliac (?) acts makes one a pedophile.

[The ClayTaurus]

Well no, its not worse, both are reprehensible but a man raping a boy is by definition "gay pedophilia", that is the point that is being argued.And whether or not you're correct is a stupid debate. That's my point that I'm arguing :)

[The ClayTaurus]

I think a man raping a boy is worse, if I were forced to classify both acts.I'm not forcing.

[darin]

I'm not forcing myself on you


Tease.

[OCA]

And whether or not you're correct is a stupid debate. That's my point that I'm arguing :)

Ok, noted.

[Bubbalicious]

Bubba your view on this is so void of common sense has to be unfathomable. Why do you insist on apologizing for homosexuals and or homosexual pedophiles/why apologize for the choices they made when in your heart of hearts you know they are wrong?

You're making some awfully big assumptions about me there.
I know in my heart of hearts and in my brain of brains that homosexuality's a normal part of life and has no correlation with pedophilia. I read stuff. Credible stuff. Stuff that's unaffiliated with any religious movement. And I know lots of gay people personally. They're just people.

[Bubbalicious]

I think a man raping a boy is worse, if I were forced to classify both acts.

Now YOU'VE got to be kidding me.

[darin]

Now YOU'VE got to be kidding me.

It's quite clear - both acts are horrible. But if one was to prioritize, a Man raping a boy would probably be worse. (shrug). From a mental aspect, both are pretty jacked up; have the potential to REALLY mess up a kid. The 'kicker' is the likelihood of PHYSICAL damage to the boy; it's probably GREATER because the anus was NEVER created to receive such trauma.

If Homosexuals got OUT of the priesthood, the likelihood of a boy getting molested/raped by a priest would drop a LOT. Of course, not that EVERY gay man is a pedophile - I believe it's a percentage for sure however.

:(

[jillian]

It's quite clear - both acts are horrible. But if one was to prioritize, a Man raping a boy would probably be worse. (shrug). From a mental aspect, both are pretty jacked up; have the potential to REALLY mess up a kid. The 'kicker' is the likelihood of PHYSICAL damage to the boy; it's probably GREATER because the anus was NEVER created to receive such trauma.

:(

And girls are never anally violated, right?

[darin]

And girls are never anally violated, right?

Why are you trying to change the topic?

[jillian]

Why are you trying to change the topic?


That *is* the topic of conversation.

Beyond that, if you have a problem with my posts, feel free to pm me.

[darin]

That *is* the topic of conversation.

Beyond that, if you have a problem with my posts, feel free to pm me.


No - it's your logical fallacy.

I said ONE thing. You reply back asking something completely different.

dmp: "Apples are Red"
Jillian: "Because apples cannot be ANY other color?"

See? That's what you're doing.

[jillian]

No - it's your logical fallacy.

I said ONE thing. You reply back asking something completely different.

dmp: "Apples are Red"
Jillian: "Because apples cannot be ANY other color?"

See? That's what you're doing.

Yes, I pointed out that your comment was ridiculous.

[Bubbalicious]

It's quite clear - both acts are horrible. But if one was to prioritize, a Man raping a boy would probably be worse. (shrug). From a mental aspect, both are pretty jacked up; have the potential to REALLY mess up a kid. The 'kicker' is the likelihood of PHYSICAL damage to the boy; it's probably GREATER because the anus was NEVER created to receive such trauma.

If Homosexuals got OUT of the priesthood, the likelihood of a boy getting molested/raped by a priest would drop a LOT. Of course, not that EVERY gay man is a pedophile - I believe it's a percentage for sure however.

:(

Gays are statistically as likely as straights to molest children, percentagewise.

This is Canadian, but it's the least biased thing I could find with a quick google:
http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/rs/rep/2000/rr00-5.html

Also, there are other, easier ways of sexually abusing and raping boys than anally.
Girls aren't intended for that kind of trauma either. It's every bit as bad for them.

[darin]

Yes, I pointed out that your comment was ridiculous.

uh? I didn't MAKE The comment. I said 'anal rape - how boys get raped by men' is likely PHYSICALLY more-destructive than vaginal rape. You somehow concluded I think GIRLS don't get anally raped.

[darin]

Gays are statistically as likely as straights to molest children, percentagewise.

This is Canadian, but it's the least biased thing I could find with a quick google:
http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/rs/rep/2000/rr00-5.html

Also, there are other, easier ways of sexually abusing and raping boys than anally.
Girls aren't intended for that kind of trauma either. It's every bit as bad for them.


One report:


in terms of numbers of children abused per offender, homosexuals abuse with far greater frequency; and boys, research shows, are the much-preferred target. (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27431)

Another


Writing in The Advocate, a magazine for homosexuals, Carl Maves agreed. “How many gay men, I wonder, would have missed out on a valuable, liberating experience – one that initiated them into their sexuality – if it weren’t for so-called molestation?” he said (http://www.afajournal.org/archives/23060000011.asp)

Op-Ed


...A man who molests a pre-teen or teenage boy is engaging in homosexual behavior. To say that he is a "pedophile" and not a homosexual is thoroughly dishonest. (http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=279)

Op-Ed using Cited Sources for Data:


The evidence indicates that homosexual men molest boys at rates grossly disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls. (http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS02E3)

General Homosexual Information:

http://www.jefflindsay.com/gays.html

[OCA]

One report:



Another



Op-Ed



Op-Ed using Cited Sources for Data:



General Homosexual Information:

http://www.jefflindsay.com/gays.html

Holy cow! Very in depth analysis. Bravo dmp!

Must have to be a degenerate to be queer, much as I thought anyway.

[Bubbalicious]

Christ, man, are you seriously trying to site world net daily, the american family association, and traditionalvalues.org as unbiases sources of information?
Why don't I just site something from GLAAD or alternet or christianssuck.org?

[Nienna]

Christ, man, are you seriously trying to site world net daily, the american family association, and traditionalvalues.org as unbiases sources of information?
Why don't I just site something from GLAAD or alternet or christianssuck.org?

Seems as if (in an earlier comment you made) that religious organizations are incapable of presenting factual data, simply bc they are religious.

[Missileman]

One report:



Another



Op-Ed



Op-Ed using Cited Sources for Data:



General Homosexual Information:

http://www.jefflindsay.com/gays.html

in terms of numbers of children abused per offender, homosexuals abuse with far greater frequency; and boys, research shows, are the much-preferred target.

Pay close attention to what this link doesn't say. It doesn't say that pedophiles are more prevalent among homosexuals than heterosexuals. The intent of the wording of the statistic is to mislead people into believing that though.

[OCA]

Seems as if (in an earlier comment you made) that religious organizations are incapable of presenting factual data, simply bc they are religious.

Yes, anything with religious affiliation is tainted, didn't you know that? As if they are incapable of independent thought.

Hell I link to the centers for disease control and the liberal whacks here dispute those figures! Unbelievable!

[Bubbalicious]

Seems as if (in an earlier comment you made) that religious organizations are incapable of presenting factual data, simply bc they are religious.

They have a bias. A strong one in many cases.
And there are unbiased sources for psychiatric and crime statistics studies available.
So you're saying if someone posts traditionalvalues.org as a source and I counter that with something from glaad.org, it's a wash?
Or is it that the religious source is credible but the gay advocacy source isn't?

[Nienna]

They have a bias. A strong one in many cases.
And there are unbiased sources for psychiatric and crime statistics studies available.
So you're saying if someone posts traditionalvalues.org as a source and I counter that with something from glaad.org, it's a wash?
Or is it that the religious source is credible but the gay advocacy source isn't?

I think the information in both sources should be considered, and weighed against other sources, using logic and common sense. But, the info in a religious source isn't necessarily null & void SIMPLY bc the source was religious.

[jillian]

I think the information in both sources should be considered, and weighed against other sources, using logic and common sense. But, the info in a religious source isn't necessarily null & void SIMPLY bc the source was religious.

Religious sources with regard to gays/abortion and I.D. are anti-science and not deserving of equal weight. They are so agenda-driven and bias-filled that they are unreliable. You choose to believe them, that's fine. But they shouldn't be imposed on others nor should others be expected to give them the weight you do. And I don't mean to sound rude to you in saying that. But you commented, so I responded.

And yes, it is null and void, in my estimation.

[darin]

Christ, man, are you seriously trying to site world net daily, the american family association, and traditionalvalues.org as unbiases sources of information?
Why don't I just site something from GLAAD or alternet or christianssuck.org?

The sites I've listed cite the source for their data. Read the links - Their data comes from a myriad of sources; that don't pull stuff out of their butts.

[jillian]

I think the information in both sources should be considered, and weighed against other sources, using logic and common sense. But, the info in a religious source isn't necessarily null & void SIMPLY bc the source was religious.

And I can tell you that if I ever linked to GLAAD, that they'd be on me like white on rice.

[Nienna]

Religious sources with regard to gays/abortion and I.D. are anti-science and not deserving of equal weight. They are so agenda-driven and bias-filled that they are unreliable. You choose to believe them, that's fine. But they shouldn't be imposed on others nor should others be expected to give them the weight you do. And I don't mean to sound rude to you in saying that. But you commented, so I responded.

And yes, it is null and void, in my estimation.

Wow... so you really don't think the content should be checked before rejecting a source? Hm. Not very objective.

[jillian]

Wow... so you really don't think the content should be checked before rejecting a source? Hm. Not very objective.

Why would I undertake the effort to check unreliable information when there is unbiased information available? Would be a waste of time for me to do, no?

[Bubbalicious]

I think the information in both sources should be considered, and weighed against other sources, using logic and common sense. But, the info in a religious source isn't necessarily null & void SIMPLY bc the source was religious.

If I go to the trouble of avoiding obviously biased sources, I expect the person I'm talking to to do the same.
And we've been at this "gayness is a sick sickness" topic and these are the only kinds of sources DMP and OCA post. And they claim "ownage" with them and then ignore everything else anyone ever says or posts on the subject.

[OCA]

If I go to the trouble of avoiding obviously biased sources, I expect the person I'm talking to to do the same.
And we've been at this "gayness is a sick sickness" topic and these are the only kinds of sources DMP and OCA post. And they claim "ownage" with them and then ignore everything else anyone ever says or posts on the subject.

Ummmm, the cdc is not a credible source? And please repost all these unbiased links you've linked everyone to, everyone seems to have missed them.

[Bubbalicious]

The sites I've listed cite the source for their data. Read the links - Their data comes from a myriad of sources; that don't pull stuff out of their butts.

Well if the links to their unbiased sources are right there why don't you just site them?

[Nienna]

Why would I undertake the effort to check unreliable information when there is unbiased information available? Would be a waste of time for me to do, no?

Why assume the information without checking? :dunno:

[jillian]

Why assume the information without checking? :dunno:

I already answered that, I think, as did Bubbles

[Bubbalicious]

Ummmm, the cdc is not a credible source? And please repost all these unbiased links you've linked everyone to, everyone seems to have missed them.

I just sited the canadian department of justice and got 'that's one source' and a big load of 'traditional godly family values counsel' bullshit.

[Nienna]

I already answered that, I think, as did Bubbles

Just pointing out that it is circular reasoning. Your bias prevents you from inspecting the information, because it is "obviously" biased.

[OCA]

Why would I undertake the effort to check unreliable information when there is unbiased information available? Would be a waste of time for me to do, no?

So where is this unbiased info you claim? You dissed the cdc link which showed that male to male sex is not the overwhelming cause of AIDS going and then somehow claimed that chicks are the category that is biggest in new AIDS cases....WTF?

[OCA]

I just sited the canadian department of justice and got 'that's one source' and a big load of 'traditional godly family values counsel' bullshit.

Unfortunately you'll have to get me an American source, can you do that?

[jillian]

So where is this unbiased info you claim? You dissed the cdc link which showed that male to male sex is not the overwhelming cause of AIDS going and then somehow claimed that chicks are the category that is biggest in new AIDS cases....WTF?

You did say that. And I pointed out that the CDC only related to cases in the US, not internationally.

[OCA]

Gays are statistically as likely as straights to molest children, percentagewise.

This is Canadian, but it's the least biased thing I could find with a quick google:
http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/rs/rep/2000/rr00-5.html

Also, there are other, easier ways of sexually abusing and raping boys than anally.
Girls aren't intended for that kind of trauma either. It's every bit as bad for them.

You know I saw this earlier and you know I don't want you pm'n anybody so I laid off you cause I know your the sensitive type but uhhh you know this was on the relationship between pedophilia and porn, right?

You've got to be shitting me! HAHAHAHA!

[OCA]

You did say that. And I pointed out that the CDC only related to cases in the US, not internationally.

Uhhh could care less what happens in Africa or Bangkok, were in the good ol'USA honey.

[Bubbalicious]

You know I saw this earlier and you know I don't want you pm'n anybody so I laid off you cause I know your the sensitive type but uhhh you know this was on the relationship between pedophilia and porn, right?

You've got to be shitting me! HAHAHAHA!

The pot said what to the kettle now? You're the one who's head all but explodes any time someone posts an article you disagree with.

Propensity to seek out child pornography has nothing to do with pedophilia. Whatever you say, dear.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Display&itool=abstractplus&dopt=pubmed_pubmed&from_uid=1556756

http://searchjustice.usdoj.gov/search?q=child+sex+abuse+statistics+homosexual+het erosexual&sort=date%3AD%3AL%3Ad1&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=iso-8859-1&oe=UTF-8&client=default_frontend&proxystylesheet=default_frontend&site=default_collection&btnG.x=0&btnG.y=0&btnG=Search

[OCA]

The pot said what to the kettle now? You're the one who's head all but explodes any time someone posts an article you disagree with.

Propensity to seek out child pornography has nothing to do with pedophilia. Whatever you say, dear.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Display&itool=abstractplus&dopt=pubmed_pubmed&from_uid=1556756

http://searchjustice.usdoj.gov/search?q=child+sex+abuse+statistics+homosexual+het erosexual&sort=date%3AD%3AL%3Ad1&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=iso-8859-1&oe=UTF-8&client=default_frontend&proxystylesheet=default_frontend&site=default_collection&btnG.x=0&btnG.y=0&btnG=Search

Are you fucking following along here? JESUS CHRIST we are talking pedophilia and homosexuality specifically male to boy, you are talking porn and pedophilia......get a grip.

Oh and take us to the specific study you are referring to for future reference.

[OCA]

The pot said what to the kettle now? You're the one who's head all but explodes any time someone posts an article you disagree with.

Propensity to seek out child pornography has nothing to do with pedophilia. Whatever you say, dear.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Display&itool=abstractplus&dopt=pubmed_pubmed&from_uid=1556756

http://searchjustice.usdoj.gov/search?q=child+sex+abuse+statistics+homosexual+het erosexual&sort=date%3AD%3AL%3Ad1&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=iso-8859-1&oe=UTF-8&client=default_frontend&proxystylesheet=default_frontend&site=default_collection&btnG.x=0&btnG.y=0&btnG=Search

From first study......"This suggests that the resulting proportion of true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually"

Thanks for the supporting evidence, knew I could count on you!:lmao:

[jillian]

From first study......"This suggests that the resulting proportion of true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually"

Thanks for the supporting evidence, knew I could count on you!:lmao:

A bit dishonest to leave out the next sentence, dear...


This, of course, would not indicate that androphilic males have a greater propensity to offend against children.

Thanks for proving ours....

[OCA]

A bit dishonest to leave out the next sentence, dear...



Thanks for proving ours....

Left out for good reason, pc gobbledlygook.

This researcher has Bill Clinton disease, in one sentence he says 1 thing and in the next he says another.

Do you guys want us to take you seriously?

[darin]

Well if the links to their unbiased sources are right there why don't you just site them?

That's beside the point - way to dodge :)




dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge!

[Gunny]

Priests who Molest Boys = Pedophiles

Why is it that those of you who support gays refuse to accept the fact that gays can be pedophiles, and one abnormality being worse than the other does not negate its existence?

[Gunny]

Literally engaging in homosexual behavior, yes. But not by necessarily gay men. Pedophilia's its own ballgame.

Parrotting the gay lobby? Pedophilia is NOT its own ballgame. The fact that an adult engages in sexual acts with a child does not negate whether or not it involved homosexuality.

[OCA]

Why is it that those of you who support gays refuse to accept the fact that gays can be pedophiles, and one abnormality being worse than the other does not negate its existence?

Because Gunny it blows their points out of the water.

[Gunny]

I think a man raping a boy is worse, if I were forced to classify both acts.

On this, we disagree. I think ANY adult who engages in sex with ANY child should be taken out back and shot through the head.

I DO agree that a man raping a boy means the man is both a pedophile and homosexual, but boy or girl, a life is ruined for some sick pervert's jollies.

[Gunny]

Because Gunny it blows their points out of the water.

Gay lobby brainwashing. Gays have done everything within their power to disassociate themselves from pedophiles. Can't say I blame them. The latter represent nothing but targets to me.

However, so much smoke has been blown, nobody knows WHAT the truth is. Hell, a legit study might just clear gays, but they won't risk that it could show a correlation to try and legitimately distance themselves.

[jillian]

Why is it that those of you who support gays refuse to accept the fact that gays can be pedophiles, and one abnormality being worse than the other does not negate its existence?

I don't think anyone is saying there are no gay pedophiles. What I would respond to is the effort to link homosexuality and pedophilia in order to justify
homophobia. There are homosexual pedophiles and heterosexual pedophiles. I don't think one is any better than the other.

As far as I know, most pedophiles are heterosexual although one of Bubbles' links seems to imply otherwise. What I can say is most of the sex abuse cases I got to watch during my appearances in Family Court involved heterosexuals.

[Gunny]

You're making some awfully big assumptions about me there.
I know in my heart of hearts and in my brain of brains that homosexuality's a normal part of life and has no correlation with pedophilia. I read stuff. Credible stuff. Stuff that's unaffiliated with any religious movement. And I know lots of gay people personally. They're just people.

Then both your heart and brains are questionable. Homosexuality is abnormal.

There is nothing legitimate for you to read. Any info on the topic of a gay - pedophile correlation is written by one extreme or the other.

The fact that you choose to deny what is obvious -- that a man who has sex with a boy is a gay pedophile -- is illogical.

[Gunny]

Religious sources with regard to gays/abortion and I.D. are anti-science and not deserving of equal weight. They are so agenda-driven and bias-filled that they are unreliable. You choose to believe them, that's fine. But they shouldn't be imposed on others nor should others be expected to give them the weight you do. And I don't mean to sound rude to you in saying that. But you commented, so I responded.

And yes, it is null and void, in my estimation.

Absurd.

[Gunny]

Why would I undertake the effort to check unreliable information when there is unbiased information available? Would be a waste of time for me to do, no?

LMAO. There is no unbiased information available on this topic. There's just information available that you choose to agree with and label "unbiased."

[Gunny]

I already answered that, I think, as did Bubbles

Neither answer was acceptable. Just closed-minded dismissiveness.

[OCA]

As far as I know, most pedophiles are heterosexual although one of Bubbles' links seems to imply otherwise.

:lmao: :lmao: Which link was that?:lmao: :lmao:

Dishonesty:no: :no:

[Missileman]

Then both your heart and brains are questionable. Homosexuality is abnormal.

There is nothing legitimate for you to read. Any info on the topic of a gay - pedophile correlation is written by one extreme or the other.

The fact that you choose to deny what is obvious -- that a man who has sex with a boy is a gay pedophile -- is illogical.

I think it's safe to conclude that there is no smoking gun linking homosexuality and pedophilia. Even the studies done by those biased against homosexuals have to present their findings worded in such a way as to mislead. The "homosexuals comprise 2-3% of the population yet account for 25-40% of molestation victims" is a prime example. If there were truly a correlation, the findings would read "homosexuals are only 2-3% of the population, but they account for 25-40% of pedophiles." If the percentage of pedophiles among the homosexual population were significantly higher than their representaion in the general population, I GUARANTEE that statistic would be presented.

[Gunny]

I don't think anyone is saying there are no gay pedophiles. What I would respond to is the effort to link homosexuality and pedophilia in order to justify
homophobia. There are homosexual pedophiles and heterosexual pedophiles. I don't think one is any better than the other.

As far as I know, most pedophiles are heterosexual although one of Bubbles' links seems to imply otherwise. What I can say is most of the sex abuse cases I got to watch during my appearances in Family Court involved heterosexuals.

Your pardner in crime has attempted to disassociate pedophilia with homosexuality. I did not attempt to say one leads to the other or vice-versa. Only that one can be bothm a pedophile and a homosexual.

I really don't care whether pedophiles are homosexual or heterosexual. I've seen so-called statistics that are all over he place ... enough to know we'll likely never see an honest set of numbers.

The correlation is that both are sexually aberrant behavior. However, there's a HUGE difference in my mind between what two consenting adults are doing and a sexual predator screwing up the rest of a child's life.

Pedophiles should be shot. I'm surprised maine isn't all over this. I would be more than willing to violate whatever rights they think they have to remove them from society so that there can't even be a single moment's weakness that causes a lifetime of pain.

Not that I have an opinion on the subject .....:mad:

[Missileman]

:lmao: :lmao: Which link was that?:lmao: :lmao:

Dishonesty:no: :no:

The vast majority of pedophiles ARE heterosexual.

[Gunny]

I think it's safe to conclude that there is no smoking gun linking homosexuality and pedophilia. Even the studies done by those biased against homosexuals have to present their findings worded in such a way as to mislead. The "homosexuals comprise 2-3% of the population yet account for 25-40% of molestation victims" is a prime example. If there were truly a correlation, the findings would read "homosexuals are only 2-3% of the population, but they account for 25-40% of pedophiles." If the percentage of pedophiles among the homosexual population were significantly higher than their representaion in the general population, I GUARANTEE that statistic would be presented.

It has not been my argument that one leads to the other. Only that a person can be both.

[Grumplestillskin]

One report:

Another

Op-Ed

Op-Ed using Cited Sources for Data:

General Homosexual Information:

http://www.jefflindsay.com/gays.html

Hhhmmm...let's look at the first link from WMD. It quotes a Regent University Study. And who are Regent University? Run by Pat Robertson of course...

http://www.regent.edu/general/about_us/

As America's premier graduate school dedicated to combining quality education with biblical teachings, Regent continues to produce Christian leaders who will make a difference, who will change the world

Nope, no agenda there! :uhoh:

This too is a biased site showing the other side of the coin:

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=1629

The report by Steve Baldwin, entitled "Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement," was first offered to the law review at Stanford University, which declined to publish it.

Baldwin, a former California State Assemblyman who battled his compatriots over the so-called "gay agenda" in California's public schools, now acts as executive director of the Council on National Policy, a virtual 'who's who' of Religious Right and conservative leaders.

Here is the text of his OPINIONATED piece, which is nothing but an anti-gay rant,

http://www.regent.edu/acad/schlaw/academics/lawreview/articles/14_2baldwin.PDF

Sure, he uses citations, but there misleading in that they are not specific enough to see the context of what is being said overall, only that he cherrypicked parts of it. And there is nothing, aboslutely nothing, to substantiate his claim the homos are more likely to be molesters than hetros...Christ, I hope you can do better than this Darin.

[OCA]

The vast majority of pedophiles ARE heterosexual.

Sheer numbers yes, percentage of population that commits no. Homos as a percentage of their community are FAR MORE LIKELY to commit pedophilia.

Nambla *cough* Nambla

[manu1959]

were outed and defrocked do you think there would be many left to preach morality to the faithful?

yes.....

[jillian]

:lmao: :lmao: Which link was that?:lmao: :lmao:

Dishonesty:no: :no:

Don't attribute your own behaviors to me, cookie. I'm not the one who omits the key statement in a study to manipulate the result. :thumb:

I defy you to sit in the child abuse/neglect part in your local family court and tell me that pedophiles are largely gay.

[darin]

Hhhmmm...let's look at the first link from WMD. It quotes a Regent University Study. And who are Regent University? Run by Pat Robertson of course...

http://www.regent.edu/general/about_us/

As America's premier graduate school dedicated to combining quality education with biblical teachings, Regent continues to produce Christian leaders who will make a difference, who will change the world

Nope, no agenda there! :uhoh:

This too is a biased site showing the other side of the coin:

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=1629

The report by Steve Baldwin, entitled "Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement," was first offered to the law review at Stanford University, which declined to publish it.

Baldwin, a former California State Assemblyman who battled his compatriots over the so-called "gay agenda" in California's public schools, now acts as executive director of the Council on National Policy, a virtual 'who's who' of Religious Right and conservative leaders.

Here is the text of his OPINIONATED piece, which is nothing but an anti-gay rant,

http://www.regent.edu/acad/schlaw/academics/lawreview/articles/14_2baldwin.PDF

Sure, he uses citations, but there misleading in that they are not specific enough to see the context of what is being said overall, only that he cherrypicked parts of it. And there is nothing, aboslutely nothing, to substantiate his claim the homos are more likely to be molesters than hetros...Christ, I hope you can do better than this Darin.


You're honestly beyond help.

Hey - get this - this forum is called "debatepolicey.com"

WAIT A minute...I'm a CHRISTIAN, so you shouldn't believe me, right?

You cannot refute the evidence I presented, so you attack the sourse based on your (gasp) BIAS.


wow.

[OCA]

Don't attribute your own behaviors to me, cookie. I'm not the one who omits the key statement in a study to manipulate the result. :thumb:

I defy you to sit in the child abuse/neglect part in your local family court and tell me that pedophiles are largely gay.

Lol she is still hanging her hat on that study ROTFLMFAO!:thumb:

[OCA]

You're honestly beyond help.

Hey - get this - this forum is called "debatepolicey.com"

WAIT A minute...I'm a CHRISTIAN, so you shouldn't believe me, right?

You cannot refute the evidence I presented, so you attack the sourse based on your (gasp) BIAS.


wow.

Yep, Chump's m.o. to a t.

If anything has the slightest stench of religion they dismiss it out of hand and hang their hats on doublespeak links.

[Missileman]

Sheer numbers yes, percentage of population that commits no. Homos as a percentage of their community are FAR MORE LIKELY to commit pedophilia.

Nambla *cough* Nambla

If that's true, I'm sure you can show a link with those numbers, right?

[Bubbalicious]

Are you fucking following along here? JESUS CHRIST we are talking pedophilia and homosexuality specifically male to boy, you are talking porn and pedophilia......get a grip.

Oh and take us to the specific study you are referring to for future reference.

HOLY FUCKING SHIT! You mean to tell me that you think people other than pedophiles would have an interest in child pornography? Did you eat ANYTHING BUT paint chips when you were a kid? Damn!

[Bubbalicious]

1. Then both your heart and brains are questionable. Homosexuality is abnormal.

2. There is nothing legitimate for you to read. Any info on the topic of a gay - pedophile correlation is written by one extreme or the other.

3. The fact that you choose to deny what is obvious -- that a man who has sex with a boy is a gay pedophile -- is illogical.

1. Something can be uncommon and still be normal. Red hair for instance.

2. Studies and statistics from the American Psychiatric Association or the Justice Department are comfortably between the extremes of GLAAD and Mission America.

3. There are men who live heterosexual public lives who secretly prey on boys. But of course gay men can be pedophiles also.

[Grumplestillskin]

You're honestly beyond help.

Hey - get this - this forum is called "debatepolicey.com"

WAIT A minute...I'm a CHRISTIAN, so you shouldn't believe me, right?

You cannot refute the evidence I presented, so you attack the sourse based on your (gasp) BIAS.


wow.

For crying out loud are you dumb? I'm being totally serious here. No flamming, no trolling, it is an honest question. Did you read my whole post, in context with links? Seriously. Did you?

You posted a link called: Pedophilia more common among 'gays'.

So I go to your link. It is from the WND no less. A right wing conservative sight. Cool. Biased, but hey, because it's you, I'll give them the benefit of a doubt. Your quote from the link says : in terms of numbers of children abused per offender, homosexuals abuse with far greater frequency; and boys, research shows, are the much-preferred target.

So I think, "OK, fair enough". Your link also states: Overwhelming evidence supports the belief that homosexuality is a sexual deviancy often accompanied by disorders that have dire consequences for our culture," wrote Steve Baldwin in, "Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement," soon to be published by the Regent University Law Review.

So I check out who the Regent University Law Review and Steve Baldwin are to see if they have an agenda, and sure enough, they do. But hey, I'll still give them the benefit of the doubt. Until I demand - yes DEMAND - evidence that Baldwin back up his piece Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement, which YOU seem to put so much stock and importance into. So I expect, unsurprisingly a study, involving a sample - whether that be 100 people or 100,000 people I don't know, but a sample nevertheless to back up his "in terms of numbers of children abused per offender, homosexuals abuse with far greater frequency; and boys, research shows, are the much-preferred target" comment, only to find GASP, HORROR, AMAZEMENT - he had done NO SUCH THING. All he done is written an op-ed piece. ABSOLUTELY NO evidence to back up his assertion other than cherrypicking other op-ed pieces and data taken out of context - IOW just opining and giving his POV from his experiences.

Then to cap it all off, ole Dazza says to me "You cannot refute the evidence I presented,". Darin, please supply, in detail, the evidence you supplied. You see, there is this little thing you have to do before I refute your evidence. You have to supply it. Take you time. Please show me where you, Mr Baldwin, Pat Robertson, God himself, or the Tooth Fairy supplied one iota or "evidence" that in terms of numbers of children abused per offender, homosexuals abuse with far greater frequency; and boys, research shows, are the much-preferred target. Peer reveiwed samples would be preferred, but lacking that ANYTHING of substance will do. TAKE YOUR TIME...:beer:

As for you being Christian - absolutely I will believe you - if you can provide evidence to back up your assertions other than op-ed pieces. Jaysus fucking Christ, we can all do that...:uhoh:

[Grumplestillskin]

Yep, Chump's m.o. to a t.

If anything has the slightest stench of religion they dismiss it out of hand and hang their hats on doublespeak links.

Nope, Shorty, you got it all wrong - for a change :thumb: . I look as to who has supplied the link, who the link belongs to, check out the reputation/CV of the link provider, and then take an in depth look at what they are saying and how they reached their conclusion. What do you do than offer crummy one liners with nothing to back it up other than a smart mouth and attitude? :wink2:

[OCA]

HOLY FUCKING SHIT! You mean to tell me that you think people other than pedophiles would have an interest in child pornography? Did you eat ANYTHING BUT paint chips when you were a kid? Damn!

You're still not following along Gomer, again we are talking homosexuality and pedophilia, purveyors of child porn and pedophilia=different subject. Do try to follow along from now on.

Oh and that was a nice attempt to put words in my mouth but then again, would somebody expect any less from a lib? No.

[OCA]

Nope, Shorty, you got it all wrong - for a change :thumb: . I look as to who has supplied the link, who the link belongs to, check out the reputation/CV of the link provider, and then take an in depth look at what they are saying and how they reached their conclusion. What do you do than offer crummy one liners with nothing to back it up other than a smart mouth and attitude? :wink2:

Oh Chump, I am a 100% on target in regards to you, looks like others agree too. Look forward to to you dismissing more links out of hand that have anything to do with religion. Your POV has been thouroughly trashed in the various gay threads here but by all means keep banging your head against the proverbial brick wall.:lmao:

[OCA]

If that's true, I'm sure you can show a link with those numbers, right?

Already done it, you search.

[avatar4321]

If that's true, I'm sure you can show a link with those numbers, right?

I don't really care about this argument, but Ive seen them posts these links for you specifically dozens of times. Personally, I don't expect them to do it again when you didnt pay attention the first dozen times.

[OCA]

Already done it, you search.


Wait I did it again....its long but its all right there and unbiased.


http://www.hli.org/homosexuality_not_molestation.pdf

[jillian]

I don't really care about this argument, but Ive seen them posts these links for you specifically dozens of times. Personally, I don't expect them to do it again when you didnt pay attention the first dozen times.

Religious op-eds don't count. Remember?

[OCA]

Religious op-eds don't count. Remember?

Who said they don't, you? Are you the friggin link cop now? And where was there an op-ed posted that was religious? They were studies.

Sorry you hate Christians.:(

[Missileman]

Already done it, you search.

You haven't done it, because not even the most anti-gay biased study has come up with that result. As I stated in another thread, the results of the studies are carefully worded to deliberately MISLEAD the reader into the wrong conclusion.

[jillian]

Who said they don't, you? Are you the friggin link cop now? And where was there an op-ed posted that was religious? They were studies.

Sorry you hate Christians.:(

On the "study" from the religious site, ... what MissileMan said.

As for hating Christians, that's absurd. Let's just not have any pretense that religion is science. Religion is to soothe the soul, not to make "scientific" pronouncements based on dogma.

[darin]

On the "study" from the religious site, ... what MissileMan said.


READ The Op/Ed. The author cites REFERENCES. ;)

[jillian]

READ The Op/Ed. The author cites REFERENCES. ;)

Which were totally refuted. ;)

[jillian]

You know, I'm going to say one thing here. It's clear that we find different things compelling and no one is going to change anyone's mind. And, ultimately, *that's* the reason we can't impose our view of what's correct on other people. And you get to choose to live your life anyway you wish, and homosexuals get to live without being deprived of legal rights to which other couples are entitled.

Seems fair to me.

[darin]

we can't impose our view of what's correct on other people. And you get to choose to live your life anyway you wish, and homosexuals get to live without being deprived of legal rights to which other couples are entitled.

Seems fair to me.

But it's simply NOT reality. We Impose OUR Views on others ALL THE TIME.

Traffic Laws. Divorce Laws. Child Custody Cases....etc..

[jillian]

But it's simply NOT reality. We Impose OUR Views on others ALL THE TIME.

Traffic Laws. Divorce Laws. Child Custody Cases....etc..


That's because in each of those things, other than two consenting adults are involved. If I speed, I endanger others. If someone doesn't pay for child support, his kids and ex (who isn't consenting to that lack of payment) are involved.

Gays having a relationship has not the slightest impact on anyone else.

[darin]

That's because in each of those things, other than two consenting adults are involved. If I speed, I endanger others. If someone doesn't pay for child support, his kids and ex (who isn't consenting to that lack of payment) are involved.

Gays having a relationship has not the slightest impact on anyone else.

Speeding doesn't endanger others. Me driving 140mph down HWY 50 in Nevada would endanger NOBODY but myself. Me driving 30 ina 25 creates no additional danger. Not-paying child support doesn't endanger anyone. It may be an inconvienance, but it doesnt cause real harm. (Btw, Child support? People go to JAIL for not paying...yet, based on the constitution, we're not supposed to be able to be jailed for debts...hrm..).

Gays having a relationship increases health costs, off the top of my head.

[Grumplestillskin]

Oh Chump, I am a 100% on target in regards to you, looks like others agree too. Look forward to to you dismissing more links out of hand that have anything to do with religion. Your POV has been thouroughly trashed in the various gay threads here but by all means keep banging your head against the proverbial brick wall.:lmao:

I didn't dismiss them out of hand because they were religious. In fact, I went out of my way to give them the benefit of the doubt. You are a troll Shorty - you can't even give a decent rebuttal. My POV stands up to scrutiny - yours couldn't stand up to a 1st graders dissertion.

[Grumplestillskin]

Gays having a relationship increases health costs, off the top of my head.


Smokers have health costs, drinkers do, fat people do...and?

[darin]

Smokers have health costs, drinkers do, fat people do...and?

Yup. Exactly.

[OCA]

I didn't dismiss them out of hand because they were religious. In fact, I went out of my way to give them the benefit of the doubt. You are a troll Shorty - you can't even give a decent rebuttal. My POV stands up to scrutiny - yours couldn't stand up to a 1st graders dissertion.

*Yawn*:uhoh:

[OCA]

Smokers have health costs, drinkers do, fat people do...and?

And how many laws and ordinances have been passed to try and curb these things ESPECIALLY smoking? So you are telling me that since there are inherent health risks associated with homosexuality that it should not at least be attempted to curb it like these others you cite?

[Grumplestillskin]

And how many laws and ordinances have been passed to try and curb these things ESPECIALLY smoking? So you are telling me that since there are inherent health risks associated with homosexuality that it should not at least be attempted to curb it like these others you cite?

Still ain't illegal...

[Gunny]

1. Something can be uncommon and still be normal. Red hair for instance.

Speaking of eating paint chips when you were a kid ..... You're making a comparison between a nondominant genetic trait and abnormal behavior.

2. Studies and statistics from the American Psychiatric Association or the Justice Department are comfortably between the extremes of GLAAD and Mission America.

3. There are men who live heterosexual public lives who secretly prey on boys. But of course gay men can be pedophiles also.

What's your point? I have not contended heterosexuals could not also be pedophiles.

[Gunny]

You know, I'm going to say one thing here. It's clear that we find different things compelling and no one is going to change anyone's mind. And, ultimately, *that's* the reason we can't impose our view of what's correct on other people. And you get to choose to live your life anyway you wish, and homosexuals get to live without being deprived of legal rights to which other couples are entitled.

Seems fair to me.

Which legal rights do I have that homosexuals do not?

[Gunny]

That's because in each of those things, other than two consenting adults are involved. If I speed, I endanger others. If someone doesn't pay for child support, his kids and ex (who isn't consenting to that lack of payment) are involved.

Gays having a relationship has not the slightest impact on anyone else.

And you don't think something other than two consenting adults is involved when society/public schools are teaching your children that something that is abnormal is normal?

[avatar4321]

That's because in each of those things, other than two consenting adults are involved. If I speed, I endanger others. If someone doesn't pay for child support, his kids and ex (who isn't consenting to that lack of payment) are involved.

Gays having a relationship has not the slightest impact on anyone else.

So the health costs put onto the back of taxpayers have absolutely no impact on anyone else?

Why are people actually selfish enough to believe that their sexual lives, the very act of creating (or misusing that power), has no effect on other people? Its absurd.

[dirt mcgirt]

Speeding doesn't endanger others. Me driving 140mph down HWY 50 in Nevada would endanger NOBODY but myself. Me driving 30 ina 25 creates no additional danger. Not-paying child support doesn't endanger anyone. It may be an inconvienance, but it doesnt cause real harm. (Btw, Child support? People go to JAIL for not paying...yet, based on the constitution, we're not supposed to be able to be jailed for debts...hrm..).

Gays having a relationship increases health costs, off the top of my head.


And how many laws and ordinances have been passed to try and curb these things ESPECIALLY smoking? So you are telling me that since there are inherent health risks associated with homosexuality that it should not at least be attempted to curb it like these others you cite?


So the health costs put onto the back of taxpayers have absolutely no impact on anyone else?

Why are people actually selfish enough to believe that their sexual lives, the very act of creating (or misusing that power), has no effect on other people? Its absurd.
So what all of you are saying is that you want to enact legislation against homosexuality. You guys sound like conservative Democrats. Peoples' sex lives are their own business. Arguing anything beyond that is imposing your beliefs.

[Pale Rider]

Christ, man, are you seriously trying to site world net daily, the american family association, and traditionalvalues.org as unbiases sources of information?
Why don't I just site something from GLAAD or alternet or christianssuck.org?

So, you're a defender of NAMBLA?

[darin]

So what all of you are saying is that you want to enact legislation against homosexuality. You guys sound like conservative Democrats. Peoples' sex lives are their own business. Arguing anything beyond that is imposing your beliefs.

I'm saying we should enact legistlation against recognizing Homosexual Behaviour as normal, healthy, and wonderful. I'm saying the argument about 'legislating morality' is a fallacious argument at best.

[Grumplestillskin]

I'm saying the argument about 'legislating morality' is a fallacious argument at best.

That is exactly what you are doing...It is your moral standard. Your "normal" argument does not stack up.

[darin]

That is exactly what you are doing...It is your moral standard. Your "normal" argument does not stack up.

I'm saying EVERYBODY inacts their moral standard upon the masses. That's how ALL Laws work. My Argument is bullet-proof. You know it. Homos know it. And the American People know it.

:D

[avatar4321]

I'm saying EVERYBODY inacts their moral standard upon the masses. That's how ALL Laws work. My Argument is bullet-proof. You know it. Homos know it. And the American People know it.

:D

They are trying to pretend they arent imposing their moral standard while they do it

[Pale Rider]

That is exactly what you are doing...It is your moral standard. Your "normal" argument does not stack up.

What are you going to tell us next grump? That it's "normal" for sun NOT to shine?

If you think two men commiting perverted sex acts on each other is "normal", then you're REEEEEEEEEEAAALLY gone man. Gone. Outer limits.

[Grumplestillskin]

I'm saying EVERYBODY inacts their moral standard upon the masses. That's how ALL Laws work. My Argument is bullet-proof. You know it. Homos know it. And the American People know it.

:D

Not all laws are good laws so your argument is far from bulletproof...

[Grumplestillskin]

They are trying to pretend they arent imposing their moral standard while they do it

And you're not either?

[Gunny]

That is exactly what you are doing...It is your moral standard. Your "normal" argument does not stack up.

Sure it does. It stands up in just about every facet of the argument.

And let's not overlook the part where you are trying to legislate YOUR morality. It's a neverending quest to destroy the status quo. It ends with the death of a society/culture.

[avatar4321]

And you're not either?

Im quite honest about my opinions.

[darin]

Not all laws are good laws

That's beside the point now, isn't it?

[Grumplestillskin]

Sure it does. It stands up in just about every facet of the argument.

And let's not overlook the part where you are trying to legislate YOUR morality. It's a neverending quest to destroy the status quo. It ends with the death of a society/culture.

No it does not stand up to argument. I am trying to legislate nothing of the sort. I'm saying, leave others alone if their lifestyle does not affect you. Works for me. And it does nothing of the sort re the death of society or culture...

[musicman]

I think it's safe to conclude that there is no smoking gun linking homosexuality and pedophilia.

I don't know how you arrive at that.


Even the studies done by those biased against homosexuals have to present their findings worded in such a way as to mislead.

That is your entirely subjective and rather bizarre interpretation.


The "homosexuals comprise 2-3% of the population yet account for 25-40% of molestation victims" is a prime example.

How is that designed to mislead anybody? The truth is the truth, Missileman. It is incumbent on each of us to face truth squarely, and draw the conclusions he deems sane and prudent.

Incidentally, Dr. Cameron revised those numbers downward - to 20-40% - in the interest of truth and accuracy.


If there were truly a correlation,

Any sane, prudent person who is not willfully blind can see an alarming correlation between the behaviors of homosexuality and pedophilia.


the findings would read "homosexuals are only 2-3% of the population, but they account for 25-40% of pedophiles."

Nonsense. That changes the meaning entirely. Do you imagine yourself a mindreader? Do you think ordinary people too dim to read and comprehend a simple sentence? Thank God you've arrived, Missileman; please - save us from ourselves!

[jillian]

Any sane, prudent person who is not willfully blind can see an alarming correlation between the behaviors of homosexuality and pedophilia.

Except that isn't what the numbers bear out when put through a scientific analysis.

Welcome aboard, Joe. Good to see you. :beer:

[Missileman]

Nonsense. That changes the meaning entirely. Do you imagine yourself a mindreader? Do you think ordinary people too dim to read and comprehend a simple sentence? Thank God you've arrived, Missileman; please - save us from ourselves!

Someone has to point out the illogical leaps to conclusion that the people who are desperate for ammo against homosexuals make because the need it to be true. We've gone around and around on this topic several times. I'll make it very easy for you to shut me up. Find and link statistics from two studies that show that homosexuals are X percent more likely to engage in pedophilia than heterosexuals. That is the allegation, right?

[KarlMarx]

were outed and defrocked do you think there would be many left to preach morality to the faithful?

Certainly... the percentage of pedophile clergy (priests, ministers, rabbis etc) is lower than in the general population.

I think a better question is, if all the pedophile teachers, social workers, psychologists and psychiatrists were outed and had their respective licenses revoked, would there be any left?

The answer would still be yes, but I think people would be shocked at how many of those there are! I wonder how many people would send their kids to public schools then!

I think if you were to look in the papers you'd notice there are many more incidents of teachers, social workers etc being nabbed for fooling around with young kids than clergy.

[Gunny]

No it does not stand up to argument. I am trying to legislate nothing of the sort. I'm saying, leave others alone if their lifestyle does not affect you. Works for me. And it does nothing of the sort re the death of society or culture...

Dude, biologically, homosexuality is illogical. Naturally, true homosexuals die without procreating. This of course goes against the natural law of procreation and perpetuation of the species. Morally, few societies have accepted homosexual behavior and even fewer have accepted it as normal behavior.

Whether or not it "works for you," it is STILL attempting to legislate YOUR morality.

And yeah, once all moral standards in a society are gone, the society ceases to exist. You can see the beginning of it in our society now. We used to have a common bond and will. It's been suffering the effects of erosion for quite awhile. When that common will is gone, so too will be our current society.

[Grumplestillskin]

Dude, biologically, homosexuality is illogical. Naturally, true homosexuals die without procreating. This of course goes against the natural law of procreation and perpetuation of the species. Morally, few societies have accepted homosexual behavior and even fewer have accepted it as normal behavior.

Whether or not it "works for you," it is STILL attempting to legislate YOUR morality.

And yeah, once all moral standards in a society are gone, the society ceases to exist. You can see the beginning of it in our society now. We used to have a common bond and will. It's been suffering the effects of erosion for quite awhile. When that common will is gone, so too will be our current society.


Going against nature is a fallicious argument. Men fly planes, dive under water. All things we are not designed to do.

I am not trying to legislate anything. Homosexuality has been around since day one. It is nothing new. Same with prostitution. Name one society that has crumbled due to homosexuality or prostitution.

And what are those moral standards? Who gets to decide? what should be the moral compass? Christianity's tenets? Judism? Islam? Mormon? Budhist?

[Grumplestillskin]

I
Incidentally, Dr. Cameron revised those numbers downward - to 20-40% - in the interest of truth and accuracy.

Any sane, prudent person who is not willfully blind can see an alarming correlation between the behaviors of homosexuality and pedophilia.

Shouldn't be too hard to prove. BTW, on two other threads - one here, the other the USMB, I have already shown Cameron's work to be quackery. Bill Bennett no less, has dismissed the findings too...

[darin]

Name one society that has crumbled due to homosexuality or prostitution.


The city of Sodom.

[jillian]

The city of Sodom.

Only if you believe that.

Next thing you'll be saying is that there were no dinosaurs.:uhoh:

[Grumplestillskin]

The city of Sodom.

Apparently. Name one in the last 1000 years...hell, 2000 years. And Sodom and Gomorah were cities, not whole societies....and the stories are allegorical, not fact...

[musicman]

Someone has to point out the illogical leaps to conclusion that the people who are desperate for ammo against homosexuals make because the need it to be true.

If anything, it is your attempts to do everyone's thinking for them that seems illogical and desperate.


We've gone around and around on this topic several times. I'll make it very easy for you to shut me up.

You can talk all you want, my friend - it doesn't bother me a bit. But you're not going to be able to turn down into up, even if you talk all week.


Find and link statistics from two studies that show that homosexuals are X percent more likely to engage in pedophilia than heterosexuals.

Why should I? You haven't refuted the original study! Tell you what - I'll make it easy for YOU. Find me scientific evidence that proves - without attempting to twist and change the meanings of the words "homosexual", or "comprise", or "pedophile", or "percent", or "molestations", or "of" - that Dr. Cameron is wrong when he states that "while homosexuals comprise 1-3% of the population, they account for 20-40% of child molestations".

Let's be clear on this.

1. "Dr. Cameron is a bum and a dirty dog" is not going to help here.

2. The concept of the homosexual super-predator is not only irrelevant, but harmful to your case; a behavior which - by its very existence - produces such a monster should be viewed with trepidation by anyone with half a brain. THIS should be "mainstreamed"? THIS should be legitimized?

3. Any of the aforementioned attempts to pervert the language of this 20+ year-old finding will be interpreted as a concession that it remains irrefutable.

Simply put, I need plain, black-and-white proof which states that Dr. Cameron is wrong; something along the lines of "fewer than 20-40% of child molestations are homosexual in nature". It has to be THAT straightforward - THAT clean. If it is one iota less clear than that, any sane, prudent, and unbiased person who is half awake should take it that Dr. Cameron's findings stand.

[darin]

Apparently. Name one in the last 1000 years...hell, 2000 years. And Sodom and Gomorah were cities, not whole societies....and the stories are allegorical, not fact...

The story of Sodom is not fact? Good Lord - next thing you know, you'll be saying the world is flat.

wow.

[5stringJeff]

Apparently. Name one in the last 1000 years...hell, 2000 years. And Sodom and Gomorah were cities, not whole societies....and the stories are allegorical, not fact...

If Sodom and Gomorrah are allegorical (which is not what the context says at all, but we'll roll with it), what could it possibly be allegorical of, except that God holds homosexual behavior in great enough disdain to 'allegorically' destroy societies that allow it?

[Grumplestillskin]

If Sodom and Gomorrah are allegorical (which is not what the context says at all, but we'll roll with it), what could it possibly be allegorical of, except that God holds homosexual behavior in great enough disdain to 'allegorically' destroy societies that allow it?

So, now us non-believers have to believe in a standard of behaviour that a god set? And what makes you think what he did was right?

[Missileman]

Why should I? You haven't refuted the original study! Tell you what - I'll make it easy for YOU. Find me scientific evidence that proves - without attempting to twist and change the meanings of the words "homosexual", or "comprise", or "pedophile", or "percent", or "molestations", or "of" - that Dr. Cameron is wrong when he states that "while homosexuals comprise 1-3% of the population, they account for 20-40% of child molestations".

Let's be clear on this.

1. "Dr. Cameron is a bum and a dirty dog" is not going to help here.

2. The concept of the homosexual super-predator is not only irrelevant, but harmful to your case; a behavior which - by its very existence - produces such a monster should be viewed with trepidation by anyone with half a brain. THIS should be "mainstreamed"? THIS should be legitimized?

3. Any of the aforementioned attempts to pervert the language of this 20+ year-old finding will be interpreted as a concession that it remains irrefutable.

Simply put, I need plain, black-and-white proof which states that Dr. Cameron is wrong; something along the lines of "fewer than 20-40% of child molestations are homosexual in nature". It has to be THAT straightforward - THAT clean. If it is one iota less clear than that, any sane, prudent, and unbiased person who is half awake should take it that Dr. Cameron's findings stand.

For the sake of argument, I'll cop to Cameron's findings being spot on. All you have to do is show how his findings prove that a homosexual is more likely than a heterosexual to engage in pedophilia by x percentage. It has to be THAT straightforward...no inuendo, no supposition, no twisting of the evidence.

[musicman]

For the sake of argument, I'll cop to Cameron's findings being spot on.

Then, technically, we have nothing to argue about.


All you have to do is show how his findings prove that a homosexual is more likely than a heterosexual to engage in pedophilia by x percentage. It has to be THAT straightforward...no inuendo, no supposition, no twisting of the evidence.

I suppose someone who's really into crunching numbers could spit out some fairly reasonable statistical probabilities, but I'm not really about that. If we accept the findings just as they're stated, then people can draw their own commonsense conclusions.

[Grumplestillskin]

Missileman

You shouldn't done that re Cameron for he is far from spot on...

[5stringJeff]

So, now us non-believers have to believe in a standard of behaviour that a god set? And what makes you think what he did was right?

Whether or not you believe God exists has nothing to do with His actual existence.

And the dispensation of the justice of an omnibenevolent, holy God will always be right.

[Grumplestillskin]

Whether or not you believe God exists has nothing to do with His actual existence.

Of course it does. I do not believe he/she exists. :dunno:


And the dispensation of the justice of an omnibenevolent, holy God will always be right.

And if that god did dispense that justice (which I severly doubt being a non-believer - there is no evidence that 1) those cities were struck down 2) or if they were, but a god). That being said, if the world is such a sinful place - far more sinful that thousands of years ago, why doesn't he/she do it all over again? And I reiterate, name a society that has fallen over due to prostitution and homosexuality over the past 2000 years..

[5stringJeff]

Of course it does. I do not believe he/she exists. :dunno:

And I believe that he does. So which of us is right? Either God exists, or He doesn't. If He does exist, I'm right and you are wrong. If He doesn't exist, you are right, and I am wrong. But whether or not someone believes in God doesn't make Him magically appear.


And if that god did dispense that justice (which I severly doubt being a non-believer - there is no evidence that 1) those cities were struck down 2) or if they were, but a god). That being said, if the world is such a sinful place - far more sinful that thousands of years ago, why doesn't he/she do it all over again? And I reiterate, name a society that has fallen over due to prostitution and homosexuality over the past 2000 years..

If God's justice is perfect, then His reasoning to not destroy other cities since Sodom and Gomorrah is also perfect. So why not ask God why He hasn't destroyed any other cities that have tolerated homosexuality like Sodom did?

[Missileman]

I suppose someone who's really into crunching numbers could spit out some fairly reasonable statistical probabilities, but I'm not really about that. If we accept the findings just as they're stated, then people can draw their own commonsense conclusions.

Do you really believe if the studies had shown that a significantly higher percentage of homosexuals engaged in pedophilia that those who were looking for this smoking gun wouldn't publish it? You're kidding, right? It's solid proof that what I said in the first place is accurate. The findings are worded so as to mislead.

[Grumplestillskin]

But whether or not someone believes in God doesn't make Him magically appear.

Never said otherwise


So why not ask God why He hasn't destroyed any other cities that have tolerated homosexuality like Sodom did?

It is impossible to ask something of someone that does not exist...

[Gunny]

Going against nature is a fallicious argument. Men fly planes, dive under water. All things we are not designed to do.

I'd say you are the one with the fallacious argument. A man flying a conveyance/machine built so that it can fly does not go against nature. Man flying under his own locomotion would go against nature, but then, man can't do that can, he?

Likewise man diving under water. A man diving underwater with an apperatus designed to allow him to do so does not go against nature. Man existing underwater without such an apparatus would go against nature. Man doesn't do that either.

I am not trying to legislate anything. Homosexuality has been around since day one. It is nothing new. Same with prostitution. Name one society that has crumbled due to homosexuality or prostitution.

Speaking of fallacious arguments ... when I state that a society will crumble due solely to homosexuality, THEN will I try and defend the statement.

And what are those moral standards? Who gets to decide? what should be the moral compass? Christianity's tenets? Judism? Islam? Mormon? Budhist?

According to you, they should be yours. But you can't imagine why anyone else would believe they should be their own.

[Grumplestillskin]

Gunny

At its most basic, my argument is, and always has been, people should be able to do whatever they like as long as their activities do not harm anybody emotionally or physically as is humanly possible. Two men giving it to each other never has, nor ever will, affect my life.

[musicman]

Do you really believe if the studies had shown that a significantly higher percentage of homosexuals engaged in pedophilia that those who were looking for this smoking gun wouldn't publish it?

I don't know, actually - but it's an entirely irrelevant hypothetical anyway.


You're kidding, right?

Not even a little bit. Dr. Cameron's finding says what it says; all else is subjective conclusion. You are permitted your conclusions; I, mine.


It's solid proof that what I said in the first place is accurate. The findings are worded so as to mislead.

It is proof of nothing. Why don't you re-word the finding in a way that pleases you - without altering its essential facts, of course?

[Gunny]

Gunny

At its most basic, my argument is, and always has been, people should be able to do whatever they like as long as their activities do not harm anybody emotionally or physically as is humanly possible. Two men giving it to each other never has, nor ever will, affect my life.

This isn't about two men giving it to each other in the privacy of their own home.

It's about an agenda trying to force something abnormal as normal on an unwilling society.

Last I bothered to research the topic, something around 80% of the people in the US polled don't care what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home.

That same 80+% believes homosexuality is not normal behavior.

You can take those numbers or leave them. I'm not looking them up.;)

The law currently allows two consenting adults to do as they wish in the privacy of their own home.

I see no reason for a special law that caters solely to an aberrant minority's behavior. THAT is what this is about.

[Grumplestillskin]

Gunny

no, what it is about is marginalising people due to their sexuality so they conform to your POV of the world. That is undemocratic, unfair and totalitarian IMO. They are asking nothing more than you and I can already do due to our sexuality. They are not asking for more than that. And you can pin a tail on it and call it a weasel for all I care, that is what you are doing.

[Gunny]

Gunny

no, what it is about is marginalising people due to their sexuality so they conform to your POV of the world. That is undemocratic, unfair and totalitarian IMO. They are asking nothing more than you and I can already do due to our sexuality. They are not asking for more than that. And you can pin a tail on it and call it a weasel for all I care, that is what you are doing.

They already have every right under the Constitution I do, and then at least one more. I can't squeal hate crime, but they can.

So yeah, they're asking for more.

[Grumplestillskin]

They already have every right under the Constitution I do, and then at least one more. I can't squeal hate crime, but they can.

So yeah, they're asking for more.

They can't marry. So they don't have that right. And don't give me "they can marry women too" crap. That argument is so piss weak I'm surprised some have the balls to post it.

If you bash somebody due to their sexuality, that is a hate crime. And you can squeal hate crime if a homo - or anybody for that matter - beats the crap out of your solely due to the fact you are a hetro. So, no, they are not asking for more than you,

[Gunny]

They can't marry. So they don't have that right. And don't give me "they can marry women too" crap. That argument is so piss weak I'm surprised some have the balls to post it.

It isn't a "piss weak" argument. The fact is, they DO have the right to get married to a person of the opposite sex. What's piss weak is arguing that a law should be forced on the majority that caters solely to an aberrant minority and calling it "fair."

If you bash somebody due to their sexuality, that is a hate crime. And you can squeal hate crime if a homo - or anybody for that matter - beats the crap out of your solely due to the fact you are a hetro. So, no, they are not asking for more than you,

Yeah, well, you and I both know the reality of how far a white Christian male claiming "hate crime" will go.

They're asking for legislation that caters solely to their abnormal sexual behavior. That IS asking for more.

[Grumplestillskin]

It isn't a "piss weak" argument. The fact is, they DO have the right to get married to a person of the opposite sex. What's piss weak is arguing that a law should be forced on the majority that caters solely to an aberrant minority and calling it "fair.

Absolutely it's a piss weak argument because they are not attracted to the opposite sex. That's like a sports store owner only stocking Cubs gear, and you come in as a White Sox fan asking for a shirt and he goes "oh, too bad. Here have some Cubs gear". Totally dishonest argument and vacuous at best.


Yeah, well, you and I both know the reality of how far a white Christian male claiming "hate crime" will go.

If you get beat up, and witnesses testify, that you got beat up due to your sexuality, it is a hate crime. There is no stipulation in the legislation that says it applies to gays only.


They're asking for legislation that caters solely to their abnormal sexual behavior. That IS asking for more.

No, they - and you too - are asking legislators to make it illegal to beat the shit out of somebody due to their sexuality. You could argue, assault is assault and why not use the current statutes. Well, maybe if people didn't beat on gays due to their sexual orientation it wouldn't be an issue. Thing is, there is only one group of people to blame for this type of legisation getting passed in the first place, and it ain't the gays...it's the bigotted dickheads who like kicking the shit out of gays for being gay....

[Missileman]

I don't know, actually - but it's an entirely irrelevant hypothetical anyway.

Really? You and others haven't been arguing that homosexuals are more dangerous to children because they are more likely to be pedophiles?


It is proof of nothing. Why don't you re-word the finding in a way that pleases you - without altering its essential facts, of course?

I don't have to reword it to make it say that it in no way proves a correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia, such is already the case. His study found that 20-40% of PEDOPHILES go after the same gender. His study did NOT find that 20-40% of homosexuals go after children. As I stated, the study gave no figures for this supposed increased propensity, they inferred it, and depended on your imagination and bias to take it from there.

[musicman]

Really? You and others haven't been arguing that homosexuals are more dangerous to children because they are more likely to be pedophiles?

That is the conclusion I draw from Dr. Cameron's findings - and I consider it quite reasonable and rational.


I don't have to reword it to make it say that it in no way proves a correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia, such is already the case. His study found that 20-40% of PEDOPHILES go after the same gender. His study did NOT find that 20-40% of homosexuals go after children. As I stated, the study gave no figures for this supposed increased propensity, they inferred it, and depended on your imagination and bias to take it from there.

Ah, well - some might interpret what you call "imagination and bias" as the application of common sense.

[Gunny]

Absolutely it's a piss weak argument because they are not attracted to the opposite sex. That's like a sports store owner only stocking Cubs gear, and you come in as a White Sox fan asking for a shirt and he goes "oh, too bad. Here have some Cubs gear". Totally dishonest argument and vacuous at best.

Incorrect. Whether or not they are attracted to the opposite sex is irrelevant. Marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman. Yet you would force upon an unwilling majority a redefinition to cater to an abnormal minority. THAT is what is dishonest.

If you get beat up, and witnesses testify, that you got beat up due to your sexuality, it is a hate crime. There is no stipulation in the legislation that says it applies to gays only.

Speaking of dishonest arguments .... I'm aware of what the legislation says, and I am aware of how it is applied.

No, they - and you too - are asking legislators to make it illegal to beat the shit out of somebody due to their sexuality. You could argue, assault is assault and why not use the current statutes. Well, maybe if people didn't beat on gays due to their sexual orientation it wouldn't be an issue. Thing is, there is only one group of people to blame for this type of legisation getting passed in the first place, and it ain't the gays...it's the bigotted dickheads who like kicking the shit out of gays for being gay....

It's still special legislation that offers special protection for those select groups accepted as being victims of hate.

And no, I am not asking legislators to make it illegal to beat the shit out of somebody due to their sexual orientation. It's already illegal to beat the shit out of someone. That should cover it. Special penalties for those found guilty of beating the shit out of someone is discriminating against those who just get the shit beat out of them on general principle.

[Missileman]

Ah, well - some might interpret what you call "imagination and bias" as the application of common sense.

Common sense tells me that they could easily quantify this alleged increased propensity. Common sense tells me that they don't because it doesn't exist or it's negligible.

[musicman]

Common sense tells me that they could easily quantify this alleged increased propensity. Common sense tells me that they don't because it doesn't exist or it's negligible.

It is certainly your privilege to draw - from a given set of facts - whatever conclusions seem prudent and sensible to you. You live a little dangerously, for my taste.

[CockySOB]

I don't have to reword it to make it say that it in no way proves a correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia, such is already the case. His study found that 20-40% of PEDOPHILES go after the same gender. His study did NOT find that 20-40% of homosexuals go after children. As I stated, the study gave no figures for this supposed increased propensity, they inferred it, and depended on your imagination and bias to take it from there.

First, I don't personally believe pedophilia and homosexuality are related. I haven't seen any conclusive evidence to support that association.

Now with that said, if 5% of the population is homosexual and 95% heterosexual, then a 20-40% figure for pedophiles who are homosexual would indicate that a greater percentage of homosexuals are pedophiles than are heterosexuals. Again, I'm not at all convinced the two are related.

[Missileman]

First, I don't personally believe pedophilia and homosexuality are related. I haven't seen any conclusive evidence to support that association.

Now with that said, if 5% of the population is homosexual and 95% heterosexual, then a 20-40% figure for pedophiles who are homosexual would indicate that a greater percentage of homosexuals are pedophiles than are heterosexuals. Again, I'm not at all convinced the two are related.

I don't consider pedophiles a subset of adults who are attracted to other adults whether it's same or opposite gender, so I disagree with your statement. The data indicates that a higher percentage of pedophiles are homosexual, nothing more. If the opposite were true, as in your statement, THAT would show a correlation between the two.

[jillian]

The story of Sodom is not fact? Good Lord - next thing you know, you'll be saying the world is flat.

wow.

It isn't fact. The bible is allegory intended to teach moral lessons. Not a history book, although some of the events and people were real.

[CockySOB]

I don't consider pedophiles a subset of adults who are attracted to other adults whether it's same or opposite gender, so I disagree with your statement. The data indicates that a higher percentage of pedophiles are homosexual, nothing more. If the opposite were true, as in your statement, THAT would show a correlation between the two.

Disagree or not, this is probably the basis for those who do consider the study to support the idea. As I said originally, I don't think pedophilia and homosexuality are related.

[OCA]

Really? You and others haven't been arguing that homosexuals are more dangerous to children because they are more likely to be pedophiles?



I don't have to reword it to make it say that it in no way proves a correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia, such is already the case. His study found that 20-40% of PEDOPHILES go after the same gender. His study did NOT find that 20-40% of homosexuals go after children. As I stated, the study gave no figures for this supposed increased propensity, they inferred it, and depended on your imagination and bias to take it from there.

Same sex pedophilia is homosexual pedophilia.

[Missileman]

Same sex pedophilia is homosexual pedophilia.

I've never said otherwise. Opposite gender pedophilia is heterosexual pedophilia. Do you consider yourself a member of the same sexual orientation as a man who molests a three-year-old girl?

[darin]

I've never said otherwise. Opposite gender pedophilia is heterosexual pedophilia. Do you consider yourself a member of the same sexual orientation as a man who molests a three-year-old girl?

Of course - it's just that there are very-few/NONE heterosexual groups lobbying to make their mental illness legal. Normal people never say shit like "That person is a pedaphile NOT a heterosexual"

[Missileman]

Of course - it's just that there are very-few/NONE heterosexual groups lobbying to make their mental illness legal. Normal people never say shit like "That person is a pedaphile NOT a heterosexual"

What you almost never see is the term heterosexual pedophile thrown about.

I make a distinction between pedophiles and non-pedophiles. I see lot's of people arguing that there's a relation between homosexuality and pedophilia. They are obviously two totally different things if you is consider one cureable and the other not.

[musicman]

What you almost never see is the term heterosexual pedophile thrown about.

I make a distinction between pedophiles and non-pedophiles. I see lot's of people arguing that there's a relation between homosexuality and pedophilia. They are obviously two totally different things if you is consider one cureable and the other not.

Now that we've established that the views you and I - respectively - are advancing represent the subjective conclusions each of us has drawn from Dr. Cameron's findings, I feel that we have some basis for discussion. And, to think - it only took us three years of arguing!

My conclusions: Up until the more weak-kneed of our cultural institutions began trembling, and acquiescing to the barbaric, intolerant shout-downs of sixties radicalism, homosexuality was defined as a perversion. If we accept that perversions do not cease to be perversions, simply because an entity like the APA has gone limp in the face of political pressure, a connection between homosexuality and pedophilia does not seem so far-fetched.

It is entirely plausible that - having gone as far down perversion's path as homosexuality - it is not such a drastic leap to pedophilia. This is not to say that it happens with all - or even most - homosexuals. But, you have to admit that Dr. Cameron's findings suggest something disturbing about homosexuality - something that society ignores, in the name of political correctness, at its peril.

[Pale Rider]

First, I don't personally believe pedophilia and homosexuality are related. I haven't seen any conclusive evidence to support that association.





Study shows link between homosexuality and pedophilia



By Interim Staff
A new study by Dr. Timothy J. Dailey and the Washington D.C.-based Family Research Council recently confirmed what police and psychiatrists have known for decades: a definitive link exists between male homosexuality and pedophilia.

The report entitled Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse, shows that while homosexual men make up less than three per cent of the adult male population, they commit a disproportionate number (one third or more) of child sexual molestations. Dailey's report is being sent to parents, youth groups, school administrators, Catholic bishops, and religious organizations.

Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse presents a number of controversial findings. The first is that a significant percentage of child sexual abuse victims are boys. The second finding of Dailey's report contradicts the "inaccurate but widely accepted claims of sex researcher Alfred Kinsey" that homosexuals comprise at least 10 per cent of the population. Based upon a study of three large data sets, the General Social Survey, the National Health and Social Life Survey, and the U.S. Census, "a recent study in demography estimates the number of exclusive male homosexuals in the general population at 2.5 per cent, and the number of exclusive lesbians at 1.4 per cent," writes Dailey.

The FRC study also demonstrates, with a wealth of anecdotal evidence, that pedophile themes can be found throughout "mainstream" gay literature, including fiction anthologies such as: The Penguin Book on International Gay Writing, The Gay Canon: What Every Gay Man Should Read, and A History of Gay Literature:The Male Tradition. Interestingly, the late gay Beat poet Allen Ginsberg was a pedophile, and wrote articles for publications associated with the North American Man-Boy Love Association. "I reread Collected Poems and Ginsberg's two subsequent collections, surprised by the pattern of reference to anal intercourse and to pederasty that emerged," writes Dailey.

According to Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse, pedophiles have long existed as a subculture within the gay rights movement. Dailey quotes David Thorstad, a homosexual activist and founding member of NAMBLA, to demonstrate that by 1985, pedophilia had gained acceptance within the homosexual movement, as it was in that year that NAMBLA was admitted as a member in New York's council of Lesbian and Gay Organizations and the International Gay Association. In the words of Jim Kepner, at one time the curator of the International Gay and Lesbian Archives in Los Angeles: "A point I've been trying to make is that if we reject the boylovers in our midst today, we'd better stop waving the banner of the ancient Greeks, of Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, Oscar Wilde, Walt Whitman, Horatio Alger, and Shakespeare. We'd better stop claiming them as part of our history unless we are broadening our concept of what it means to be gay."

The link between homosexuality and pedophilia is rejected by many mainstream research groups, which have even begun to view pedophilia in value-neutral terms. The American Psychiatric Association removed pedophilia from its list of sexual perversions in 1994, while in 1999 the American Psychological Association published a report, "A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples," which "claimed child sexual abuse could be harmless and beneficial," according to a 1999 WorldNetDaily column by noted researcher Dr. Judith Reisman.

"None of this is news in the sense that this information (the link between pedophilia and homosexuality) was fundamentally proven a long time ago," Canada Family Action head Brian Rushfeldt told The Interim, "but I'm glad to see the FRC reiterating it, especially at a time when the Catholic church is struggling with the pedophile priest issue."

Rushfeldt stresses that pedophiles come in both homosexual and heterosexual forms, but there are differences between the two that need to be understood. "Do you treat the cocaine addict the same way you treat the alcoholic? If a priest abuses young boys, that's a homosexual act, and we have to recognize it as such if we want to help him."

Asked why the link exists in the first place, Rushfeldt, a former addiction counsellor, says part of the answer lies in the availability of sex. "Sex addicts generally need instant gratification. They have a very low threshold for delaying gratification, and it's much easier to manipulate a young boy into having sex than it is to manipulate another man." He adds that homosexual pedophilia is influenced by other factors as well.

"There's a distinct quality about male homosexuality that gay men tend to be attracted to young, good-looking guys. Another part of pedophilia's appeal is the power the pedophile feels in manipulating the boy. It's a combination of things."

http://www.theinterim.com/2002/sept/02study.html

[jillian]

http://www.theinterim.com/2002/sept/02study.html

From lifesite.net??? Same ole same ole ......... :uhoh:

[CockySOB]

Pale,

I know there are studies which support both sides of the argument. The problem is that there is no definitive proof one way or the other. I do appreciate the link though.

[Missileman]

My conclusions: Up until the more weak-kneed of our cultural institutions began trembling, and acquiescing to the barbaric, intolerant shout-downs of sixties radicalism, homosexuality was defined as a perversion. If we accept that perversions do not cease to be perversions, simply because an entity like the APA has gone limp in the face of political pressure, a connection between homosexuality and pedophilia does not seem so far-fetched.

It was actually deemed a mental disease, not a perversion, and was removed from the list of mental diseases based on a scientific study, not because of political pressure. Pedophilia is however still listed as a mental disease by the APA.


It is entirely plausible that - having gone as far down perversion's path as homosexuality - it is not such a drastic leap to pedophilia. This is not to say that it happens with all - or even most - homosexuals. But, you have to admit that Dr. Cameron's findings suggest something disturbing about homosexuality - something that society ignores, in the name of political correctness, at its peril.

Since the vast majority of pedophiles are heterosexual, the plausibility of your one perversion leading to another theory is highly diminished.

Wasn't Dr. Cameron's study called into question by his peers? Dismissed as crap even?

[musicman]

It was actually deemed a mental disease, not a perversion, and was removed from the list of mental diseases based on a scientific study, not because of political pressure.

No - it was political pressure of the same type and magnitude that caused the APA to quail before abortion rights activists. Most of our cultural institutions proved essentially gutless - caving without a fight - in the face of sixties radicalism (which, of course, grew up to become modern American liberalism).


Pedophilia is however still listed as a mental disease by the APA.

My, that's big of them. And, of course, their courage and integrity over the years makes their pronouncement on a given matter the last word on any question in MY mind...

Pedophilia is considered sexual perversion by the public at large, irrespective of the terminolgy APA stalwarts have assigned it this week.


Since the vast majority of pedophiles are heterosexual, the plausibility of your one perversion leading to another theory is highly diminished.

Your logic is flawed here. In the first place, heterosexuality is not - never has been - and never conceivably could be called a perversion. Second - 97% of the population committing 80% of molestations (speaking generously, BTW) provides some satisfactory justification/explanation to you?


Wasn't Dr. Cameron's study called into question by his peers? Dismissed as crap even?

Dr. Cameron was pilloried by many of his peers - not surprising, since his findings exposed them as weaklings, cowards, and worse. And, a later study in which he took part was found to have employed flawed methdology - an honest mistake which he freely admitted. However, the finding of which you and I speak has never been refuted.

[Missileman]

No - it was political pressure of the same type and magnitude that caused the APA to quail before abortion rights activists. Most of our cultural institutions proved essentially gutless - caving without a fight - in the face of sixties radicalism (which, of course, grew up to become modern American liberalism).

I've seen the opinion expressed by you and others, even expressed by the anti-gay sites, but have seen no evidence that anything of the sort occurred. Do you have any?



My, that's big of them. And, of course, their courage and integrity over the years makes their pronouncement on a given matter the last word on any question in MY mind...

Pedophilia is considered sexual perversion by the public at large, irrespective of the terminolgy APA stalwarts have assigned it this week.

So you don't think pedophilia is a mental disease?




Your logic is flawed here. In the first place, heterosexuality is not - never has been - and never conceivably could be called a perversion. Second - 97% of the population committing 80% of molestations (speaking generously, BTW) provides some satisfactory justification/explanation to you?

It's YOUR contention that the perversion of homosexuality leads to the perversion of pedophilia. Since at least 60% (I'm feeling generous too) of molestations are committed by heterosexuals, and seeing how you've determined that heterosexuality is never a perversion, what perversion IS it that leads heterosexuals down the path to pedophilia?



Dr. Cameron was pilloried by many of his peers - not surprising, since his findings exposed them as weaklings, cowards, and worse. And, a later study in which he took part was found to have employed flawed methdology - an honest mistake which he freely admitted. However, the finding of which you and I speak has never been refuted.

Anything other than your opinion to back this up too? Let me put it another way. If while doing a background check on your personal physician, you found that he had been censured by the AMA for intentional misrepresentation of tests to successfully complete a drug trial, would you take his word as gospel that there's nothing wrong with you? Would you accept his word if his wife said you could trust him? Would you ever again step foot into one of his examination rooms?

[musicman]

I've seen the opinion expressed by you and others, even expressed by the anti-gay sites, but have seen no evidence that anything of the sort occurred. Do you have any?

America - 1967

America - 2007

Didja ever wonder whahoppa? Didja? Huh?


So you don't think pedophilia is a mental disease?

A crass, infantile, knee-jerk deflection - the kind of thing I'd expect from a college kid, still woozy from his daily indoctrination - or a lawyer or politician, fresh from a day of doing what lawyers and politicians do. Certainly beneath you, Missileman.

You know that the terms are not mutually exclusive.


It's YOUR contention that the perversion of homosexuality leads to the perversion of pedophilia. Since at least 60% (I'm feeling generous too) of molestations are committed by heterosexuals, and seeing how you've determined that heterosexuality is never a perversion, what perversion IS it that leads heterosexuals down the path to pedophilia?

99% of the population is represented in 60% of a given perversion, while 1% account for 40% of those offenses. This tells me something, MM. That 1% is standing a little closer to the fire; they're starting from further down perversion's path.


Anything other than your opinion to back this up too? Let me put it another way. If while doing a background check on your personal physician, you found that he had been censured by the AMA for intentional misrepresentation of tests to successfully complete a drug trial, would you take his word as gospel that there's nothing wrong with you? Would you accept his word if his wife said you could trust him? Would you ever again step foot into one of his examination rooms?

There is profuse documentation of Dr. Cameron's dealings with the APA in the dense jungle of information out there; you and I have unearthed it many times in our discussions. Allow me to refresh your memory a bit:

It is easy enough to track down the fact that Dr. Cameron was dismissed from the APA. What takes a bit more digging is that this "dismissal" came a full year after Cameron resigned in disgust - citing the APA's cowardice in the face of political pressure from pro-abortion and pro-homosexuality groups, seeking legitimization. "You can't quit - you're FIRED!" doesn't exactly constitute disgrace - and loses even more OOMPH after that first year or so has passed...

[Pale Rider]

Pale,

I know there are studies which support both sides of the argument. The problem is that there is no definitive proof one way or the other. I do appreciate the link though.

I think the devil is in the details. Facts do point to there being a connection.

Proof? It makes me shake my head every time I hear someone on the board talk about proof. We, meaning anyone here, can post the best proof there is to be had, and opposing people will just dismiss it as worthless, biased, propaganda. So even with proof, people here are going to believe what they want.

I don't know how people got so split on the various facets of homosexuality, but they are. There are us that realize that homosexuality is unnatural. As unnatural as racing the Daytona 500 in an 18 wheeler running in the wrong direction. It ain't right. But I'll be damned, there's someone that's going to try and tell me that another man ramming his pole up another man's back hole IS natural. I can't hardly believe that someone saying that REALLY believes themself. I sometimes get the impression they're saying it out of sheer defiance, just to oppose the conservative belief, and no other reason.

[Missileman]

America - 1967

America - 2007

Didja ever wonder whahoppa? Didja? Huh?

All fluff and no substance...where's the beef?




A crass, infantile, knee-jerk deflection - the kind of thing I'd expect from a college kid, still woozy from his daily indoctrination - or a lawyer or politician, fresh from a day of doing what lawyers and politicians do. Certainly beneath you, Missileman.

You know that the terms are not mutually exclusive.

Actually, I'm trying to determine if you believe the APA in regards to pedophilia. You've already established that you don't believe them in regards to homosexuality. It doesn't make sense that you would trust them on one matter and not another.



99% of the population is represented in 60% of a given perversion, while 1% account for 40% of those offenses. This tells me something, MM. That 1% is standing a little closer to the fire; they're starting from further down perversion's path.

To paraphrase your argument then, and feel free to tell me if I get it wrong, with homosexuals, pedophilia is a natural(anti-pun intended) progression in perversion and with heterosexuals, it just happens.




There is profuse documentation of Dr. Cameron's dealings with the APA in the dense jungle of information out there; you and I have unearthed it many times in our discussions. Allow me to refresh your memory a bit:

It is easy enough to track down the fact that Dr. Cameron was dismissed from the APA. What takes a bit more digging is that this "dismissal" came a full year after Cameron resigned in disgust - citing the APA's cowardice in the face of political pressure from pro-abortion and pro-homosexuality groups, seeking legitimization. "You can't quit - you're FIRED!" doesn't exactly constitute disgrace - and loses even more OOMPH after that first year or so has passed...

Read this: http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,010.htm

AND for good measure, check this out. http://www.geocities.com/ninure/cameron.html
WARNING! You are not going to like what you read.

[musicman]

All fluff and no substance...where's the beef?

The "beef" is all around you - in every aspect of your life that is touched by popular culture - a culture which, as anyone with eyes in his head will attest, was lost long ago to hateful sixties radicalism, and its bastard child, modern American liberalism.

But, we've already established that you will not see the truth.


Actually, I'm trying to determine if you believe the APA in regards to pedophilia. You've already established that you don't believe them in regards to homosexuality. It doesn't make sense that you would trust them on one matter and not another.

Ah - so we're going to continue with your deliberately obtuse charade. That's fine; just so I know what the game is, and who's playing.


To paraphrase your argument then, and feel free to tell me if I get it wrong, with homosexuals, pedophilia is a natural(anti-pun intended) progression in perversion and with heterosexuals, it just happens.

You won't see any truth that upsets you; why, then, would I expect you to be able to read, comprehiend, and recount the words I've written? Enjoy your willful blindness, Missileman - you're obviously attatched to it.


Read this: http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,010.htm

Thank you. This article bears out every word I've said. Dr. Cameron is relentlessly savaged by those of his peers whom he has exposed as weak whores. He resigned in disgust from the APA, who then, pathetically, concocted to retroactively fire and disgrace him. And, for all the noise, no one - NO ONE - has been able to refute his principal finding - his damning indictment of liberal doublethink - his horrible, inescapable truth:

While homosexuals comprise only 1-3% of the population, they account for 20-40% of child molestations.

If my field of endeavor - my worldview - my whole reason for being - was based on a lie, I'd fear and loathe Dr. Cameron, too.

[Missileman]

The "beef" is all around you - in every aspect of your life that is touched by popular culture - a culture which, as anyone with eyes in his head will attest, was lost long ago to hateful sixties radicalism, and its bastard child, modern American liberalism.

But, we've already established that you will not see the truth.

I asked you for evidence that supports your allegation that the APA's decision was based on political pressure and not scientific evidence. So far, nothing but opinion has been offered.




Ah - so we're going to continue with your deliberately obtuse charade. That's fine; just so I know what the game is, and who's playing.

No, it's a serious question. Do you believe the APA when they classify pedophilia as a mental disease? A simple yes or no will suffice.



You won't see any truth that upsets you; why, then, would I expect you to be able to read, comprehiend, and recount the words I've written? Enjoy your willful blindness, Missileman - you're obviously attatched to it.

Does your not correcting my paraphrasing mean that I got it right? Why the continued reluctance to give straight answers?




Thank you. This article bears out every word I've said. Dr. Cameron is relentlessly savaged by those of his peers whom he has exposed as weak whores. He resigned in disgust from the APA, who then, pathetically, concocted to retroactively fire and disgrace him. And, for all the noise, no one - NO ONE - has been able to refute his principal finding - his damning indictment of liberal doublethink - his horrible, inescapable truth:

While homosexuals comprise only 1-3% of the population, they account for 20-40% of child molestations.

If my field of endeavor - my worldview - my whole reason for being - was based on a lie, I'd fear and loathe Dr. Cameron, too.

If you believe that either of those articles bolstered Cameron's opinions, you're off your nut. Cameron was under investigation for ethics violations when he offered his resignation on Nov 7. According to the links, it is the policy of the APA to NOT accept resignations during an investigation. He was booted on Dec 2, when he wouldn't cooperate with the investigation.

[musicman]

I asked you for evidence that supports your allegation that the APA's decision was based on political pressure and not scientific evidence. So far, nothing but opinion has been offered.

Upon what scientific evidence did the APA decide that, yesterday, homosexuality was sexually deviant behavior (or, mental illnesss) - today, it's not?


No, it's a serious question. Do you believe the APA when they classify pedophilia as a mental disease? A simple yes or no will suffice.

How many times do I have to answer you? I've already stated that the terms "mental illness" and "sexual perversion" are not mutually exclusive. I think that a pedophile certainly is mentally ill.


Does your not correcting my paraphrasing mean that I got it right? Why the continued reluctance to give straight answers?

I'm trying to give straight answers - you just won't hear me. Man can descend into sexual perversion because he is - by his nature - flawed; imperfect; non-perfectible. It is excruciatingly obvious to all but the willfully blind that - having gone part of the way down the path of his innate depravity - it becomes easier to travel further.


If you believe that either of those articles bolstered Cameron's opinions, you're off your nut. Cameron was under investigation for ethics violations when he offered his resignation on Nov 7. According to the links, it is the policy of the APA to NOT accept resignations during an investigation. He was booted on Dec 2, when he wouldn't cooperate with the investigation.

This is the APA's story, told retroactively. And, it still does nothing to refute his finding. He has told the truth, Missileman - the damning, inescapable truth.

[musicman]

If you believe that either of those articles bolstered Cameron's opinions, you're off your nut. Cameron was under investigation for ethics violations when he offered his resignation on Nov 7. According to the links, it is the policy of the APA to NOT accept resignations during an investigation. He was booted on Dec 2, when he wouldn't cooperate with the investigation.

Nov. 7, 1982.

Dec. 2, 1983.

This is the type of intellectual dishonesty that characterizes the war on Dr. Cameron. I'm surprised and disappointed , Missileman.

[musicman]

If anything underlines Dr. Paul Cameron's courage and integrity, it is the ferocity and lack of character displayed by those who seek to silence and discredit him. I'm surprised he hasn't taken a bullet.

[Missileman]

Upon what scientific evidence did the APA decide that, yesterday, homosexuality was sexually deviant behavior (or, mental illnesss) - today, it's not?

The study performed by Evelyn Hooker was a driving force behind the APA's decision


How many times do I have to answer you? I've already stated that the terms "mental illness" and "sexual perversion" are not mutually exclusive. I think that a pedophile certainly is mentally ill.

This isn't about illness vs. perversion, it's about the willy-nilly way you decide which information from which sources you find credible or incredible. The APA can be depended on to accurately determine that pedophilia is a mental disease, but according to you are full of shit when they determine that homosexuality is not.



I'm trying to give straight answers - you just won't hear me. Man can descend into sexual perversion because he is - by his nature - flawed; imperfect; non-perfectible. It is excruciatingly obvious to all but the willfully blind that - having gone part of the way down the path of his innate depravity - it becomes easier to travel further.

This still doesn't explain the supposed different routes to pedophilia between homosexuals and heterosexuals that you would have us all believe.



This is the APA's story, told retroactively. And, it still does nothing to refute his finding. He has told the truth, Missileman - the damning, inescapable truth.

According to who? Cameron?

Did you even read those links?

[Missileman]

Nov. 7, 1982.

Dec. 2, 1983.

This is the type of intellectual dishonesty that characterizes the war on Dr. Cameron. I'm surprised and disappointed , Missileman.

Links please, because reading the links I posted leads me to believe both occurred in '83.

[TheSage]

Literally engaging in homosexual behavior, yes. But not by necessarily gay men. Pedophilia's its own ballgame.

Dude, gay pedophilia is gay.

[musicman]

Links please, because reading the links I posted leads me to believe both occurred in '83.

Which makes my point in either case. I accept that it was an honest mistake on your part. But, you were MISLED. Link will follow.

[musicman]

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_APA-rebuttal.html

[Abbey Marie]

Hooray, Musicman is here!! Can we get Starla to come on down too? :beer:

[Missileman]

Which makes my point in either case. I accept that it was an honest mistake on your part. But, you were MISLED. Link will follow.

Let's say that it was 1982, how does that alter the fact that he was under investigation for ethics violations, accused by no less than 6 other pychiatrists/pychologists for misrepresenting the findings of their studies in his own work? Should we pretend that it never happened, that he was never under investigation?

[musicman]

Let's say that it was 1982, how does that alter the fact that he was under investigation for ethics violations, accused by no less than 6 other pychiatrists/pychologists for misrepresenting the findings of their studies in his own work? Should we pretend that it never happened, that he was never under investigation?

Missileman - buddy - you have, by your own admission, been misled by your own sources. I have said all along that - in the absence of any factual refutation of Dr. Cameron's findings, his detractors resort to the only weapons they have left: dishonesty, chicanery, and misrepresentation. Now, YOU YOURSELF are victimized by their double-tongued jabber. Why don't you drop this now? I'm getting embarrased FOR you.

To recap:

Although homosexuals comprise only 1-3% of the population, they account for 20-40% of child molestations. This finding has stood for 25 years, in the face of everything that liars, weaklings and whores have thrown at it. That's because it's the truth.

[Missileman]

Missileman - buddy - you have, by your own admission, been misled by your own sources. I have said all along that - in the absence of any factual refutation of Dr. Cameron's findings, his detractors resort to the only weapons they have left: dishonesty, chicanery, and misrepresentation. Now, YOU YOURSELF are victimized by their double-tongued jabber. Why don't you drop this now? I'm getting embarrased FOR you.

To recap:

Although homosexuals comprise only 1-3% of the population, they account for 20-40% of child molestations. This finding has stood for 25 years, in the face of everything that liars, weaklings and whores have thrown at it. That's because it's the truth.

Misled about what, the timing of his resignation and the APA's censure? Is that your best defense about his being under investigation for ethics violations? Is that your only defense to accusations by several of his peers that he was misrepresenting the data from their studies? Is that REALLY the best you can offer?

Cameron's conclusions are questionable at best, outright fraud at worst. Don't you think that all these negative reports about his methods, admitted anti-homosexual agenda, and bias say something disturbing about his credibility? I find it laughable that you continue to quote the findings of someone covered in a blanket of doubt. I realize that you're motivated to do so because he spouts exactly what you want to hear and have to believe. The only one who should feel embarrassed is you for continuing to cling to this intellectually dishonest argument proffered by an obviously dishonest researcher. A researcher who by the way has PROVEN himself willing to PUBLICLY LIE to further his position.

[musicman]

King Arthur: "Your arm is off!"

The Black Knight: "No it isn't - it's just a flesh wound...".

[Missileman]

King Arthur: "Your arm is off!"

The Black Knight: "No it isn't - it's just a flesh wound...".

Surprise, surprise...another vegan response. Cameron would be so proud!

[Sitarro]

Gee, I wonder what the homosexual lobbiest on the board were saying about Foley a couple of months ago....... hypocritical asswipes. I know that there weren't any Conservatives I know making excuses for that pile of shit, they all wanted him out.
Barney Frank lets a male prostitution business be run out of his house and the leftist trip all over themselves to defend his sore ass. It's really quite comical. Let me get this straight(pun intended), if Barney Frank has a relationship with an eighteen year old page it's ok, he's being a good homosexual. If the page is 17 years 350 days old, Barney is a pedophile, right? :lmao: :cuckoo:

[theHawk]

Does anyone actually know the number of priests that have been accused of molestation and the number of priests there are?

[Abbey Marie]

O/T, but Musicman, your Avatar brought back nice memories of my older brother's Slingerland drums. Are they still being made?

[musicman]

O/T, but Musicman, your Avatar brought back nice memories of my older brother's Slingerland drums. Are they still being made?

Sure are, Abbey - after some very hard times, that had them slapping the Sling badge on some quite unremarkable imports. Dark days, they were. But Gibson Guitars took them over in the late nineties, and they're making beautiful kits again - at the old Baldwin plant in Conway, Arkansas. VERY expensive!

I bought a set new in 1982 - maybe some of the last fine Slingerlands to come out of Niles, Illinois, before the bottom fell out. I still got 'em, and still treasure 'em!

[Powerman]

GAY pedophiles. Yes. Homosexual Pedophiles.

Homosexuality (Gay) refers to sexual and / or romantic attraction between individuals of the same sex.

Pedophilia, paedophilia or pædophilia (see spelling differences) is the paraphilia of being sexually attracted primarily or exclusively to prepubescent or peripubescent children. A person with this attraction is called a pedophile or paedophile.

Priests who molest boys are Gay/Homosexual Pedophiles.

dmp I think you're trying to equate adult sexual behavior with pedophile sexual behavior

I'm not so sure it's as easy as saying that the actions are homo or hetero

I know it sounds crazy, but hear me out. I personally don't think (and I wouldn't know because I'm obviously not a pedophile) that pedophiles really care much about gender for one simple reason: the people they are molesting are not sexually developed. Is molesting an 8 year old girl really that much different than an 8 year old boy? I don't think so. And I'd be willing to bet that anyone sick enough to molest either one isn't all that concerned with gender.

I could be COMPLETELY wrong in this assumption, but that's just my take.

Also I've seen far too many people try to equate homosexuals with pedophiles and I think it's completely ridiculous. I know you weren't trying to do that, which was obviously stated by your comments in the thread. Just sayin

[avatar4321]

Gee, I wonder what the homosexual lobbiest on the board were saying about Foley a couple of months ago....... hypocritical asswipes. I know that there weren't any Conservatives I know making excuses for that pile of shit, they all wanted him out.
Barney Frank lets a male prostitution business be run out of his house and the leftist trip all over themselves to defend his sore ass. It's really quite comical. Let me get this straight(pun intended), if Barney Frank has a relationship with an eighteen year old page it's ok, he's being a good homosexual. If the page is 17 years 350 days old, Barney is a pedophile, right? :lmao: :cuckoo:

The messed up thing is Foley was never even alleged to have had sex with any of these boys. And these "boys" were old enough to legally consent if he had.

That, of course, doesn't make his actions any less disturbed. I still would have wanted him to resign. But the left was accusing him of things that werent even alleged as if he was guilty of it. and it made me sick.

[CockySOB]

The messed up thing is Foley was never even alleged to have had sex with any of these boys. And these "boys" were old enough to legally consent if he had.

That, of course, doesn't make his actions any less disturbed. I still would have wanted him to resign. But the left was accusing him of things that werent even alleged as if he was guilty of it. and it made me sick.

Bugged me as well. Foley did some inappropriate things which I wanted him to resign for, but last I checked nothing he did was illegal. Not that such things matter to the left who want to make mountains out of mole hills.

[lily]

Cocky.....the stories have changed so much, that who knows anymore how old the boys were. The fact that he was the chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children, should have told him right then, he was doing something wrong.

[CockySOB]

Cocky.....the stories have changed so much, that who knows anymore how old the boys were. The fact that he was the chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children, should have told him right then, he was doing something wrong.

Were criminal charges ever filed?

[GW in Ohio]

We need to distinguish between gay priests (who cares?) and pedophile priests (criminals who should be prosecuted).

I make no distinction between gay priests and heterosexual priests who engage in sexual activity. I couldn't care less about this. The rule that Catholic priests must be celibate is stupid. I won't even say it's outdated because it never made any sense.

The Catholic Church has brought all this on itself with the celibacy rule. Maybe we still would have had pedophile priests without the celibacy thing, I don't know. But those members of the church hierarchy who protected these pedophiles and shifted them from post to post so they could prey on children in a different location are as criminally culpable as the pedophiles themselves.

I'd like to see a few of these archbishops and cardinals marched off in handcuffs for their role in this shameful business.

[Gunny]

We need to distinguish between gay priests (who cares?) and pedophile priests (criminals who should be prosecuted).

I make no distinction between gay priests and heterosexual priests who engage in sexual activity. I couldn't care less about this. The rule that Catholic priests must be celibate is stupid. I won't even say it's outdated because it never made any sense.

The Catholic Church has brought all this on itself with the celibacy rule. Maybe we still would have had pedophile priests without the celibacy thing, I don't know. But those members of the church hierarchy who protected these pedophiles and shifted them from post to post so they could prey on children in a different location are as criminally culpable as the pedophiles themselves.

I'd like to see a few of these archbishops and cardinals marched off in handcuffs for their role in this shameful business.

A priest who preys on children that are the same gender as he is, is a gay pedophile. I can see why the gays have tried to distance themselves as best they could from pedophiles, but a fact is a fact.

The fact that the crime against humanity is pedophilia and pedophiles should be shot dead where found, does not negate the homosexuality of a man sexually abusing a male child.

[GW in Ohio]

Gunny: If I say pedophiles are lower than caterpillar poop and no punishment is too good for them, but gays (who are not pedophiles) are okay guys, would you agree with me?

[Gunny]

Gunny: If I say pedophiles are lower than caterpillar poop and no punishment is too good for them, but gays (who are not pedophiles) are okay guys, would you agree with me?

Nope. What I will say and agree upon is this ....

Pedophiles are aren't even worthy of being considered "caterpillar Poop." They are predators that destroy lives before they get started. That makes them targets, IMO.

Homosexuality is not illegal. What two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is none of my business.

I will not agree that homosexuality is either normal or "okay."

However, what I keep seeing is the pro-homo bunch doing their level-best to deny that a male pedophile who preys on male children is a homosexual as well as a pedophile. Again, the severity of the crime of pedophilia does not negate the homosexuality.

[Nuc]

We need to distinguish between gay priests (who cares?) and pedophile priests (criminals who should be prosecuted).


Who cares about gay priests? Maybe the Church cares because it's against their religion.

[lily]

Were criminal charges ever filed?

Do criminal charges have to be filed in order for someone to know they did something wrong? I don't think it will be from lack of trying.......or the fact that Foley knew just how to get away with it, since he's the one who wrote the law.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/04/AR2006100402002.html


Although the Justice Department's inquiry is still defined as a preliminary
investigation, the demand to preserve records and other moves by Justice
investigators significantly increase the likelihood that prosecutors will
soon open a full criminal investigation and bring the case before a grand
jury, several officials said.

<snip>

On other fronts, the Justice Department and the FBI are preparing to use
administrative subpoenas to obtain subscriber information for the e-mail
accounts at the heart of the case, according to law enforcement officials.
Authorities said their job will be made more difficult because providers
such as AOL do not keep records of instant messages, the real-time text chat
used in the sexually explicit exchanges Foley is accused of engaging in.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.sptimes.com/2006/10/04/Worldandnation/Foley_likely_to_face_.shtml
Foley likely to face criminal charges, legal experts say
As investigators look into the former congressman's actions, he could find
himself ensnared by laws he actually helped write.
By CARRIE WEIMAR
Published October 4, 2006



There's little doubt Mark Foley was morally wrong when he used the Internet
to send sexually explicit messages to teenage boys. Now legal experts are
saying he probably violated the law as well.

As facts emerge in the investigation into the former congressman, the
possibility of criminal charges - both state and federal - grows, said
Douglas A. Berman, a law professor at Ohio State University.

"Foley's hasty retreat from the House of Representatives suggests that this
is just the tip of a pretty sordid iceberg," Berman said.

While Internet sex crimes are a relatively new area of the law, the fear of
online predators has sparked a flurry of state and federal laws in the past
few years - some of them written by Foley himself as co-chairman for a
National Center for Missing & Exploited Children caucus.

[CockySOB]

As I said Lily, "Foley did some inappropriate things which I wanted him to resign for, but last I checked nothing he did was illegal. Not that such things matter to the left who want to make mountains out of mole hills."

First item, if his actions were illegal, then he would have been (or might still be) brought up on criminal charges as appropriate.

Second item, his actions were inappropriate IMHO. As such I support him resigning his seat in Congress.

As to the rest of your cited article's speculation: it all sounds rather Nifong-esque. I read a lot of "probably" and "likely" yet nothing of substance to indicate criminal activity. Despicable? Yes. Inappropriate? Hell yes. But unless the authorities have evidence that he committed inappropriate conduct to a minor, there is nothing to charge him with. (BTW, IIRC, one of the pages was 16 when Foley was IM'ing him. If charges are proffered, I expect that it will revolve around Foley's conduct with a minor.)

[lily]

Cocky........as usual I think we're both agreeing, but for different reasons.

[5stringJeff]

Who cares about gay priests? Maybe the Church cares because it's against their religion.

Quit trying to make sense.

:)

[CockySOB]

Cocky........as usual I think we're both agreeing, but for different reasons.

Perhaps. But matters not how a man comes to that place, as long as he makes it there.

BTW, does this mean you're embracing conservatism finally? ;)