If all the gay and paedophile clergymen

[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.

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

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.

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.

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.