Jump to content

Homosexuality is an anomaly


Leafless

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 922
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I think SSM encourages paedophilia.
Homosexuals are responsible for a much larger percentage of child abuse, on a proportional basis, than heterosexuals.

http://www.preservemarriage.ca/eng/links.htm

"Huh? How does SSM do that?"

http://www.hatecrime.org/subpages/hatespee...elycameron.html

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/...ity/ho0075.html

"I didn't see any relevant support in the link you provided to support your claim that "Homosexuals are responsible for a much larger percentage of child abuse". Care to be specific?"

http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/one-a.php

These links only took about five minutes to find through google. The first two talk a little bit about child sexual abuse statistics:

http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/ncfv-cnivf/fami...sxagrsex_e.html

See the section about "The Abuser". No mention of sexual orientation.

http://www.darkness2light.org/KnowAbout/statistics_2.asp

Again no mention of sexual orientation.

But here's the link everyone really wants...

http://www.internationalorder.org/scandal_response.html

Here is the executive summary of the paper:

Executive Summary

In response to the scandal involving former Congressman Mark Foley, a number of conservative religious groups have claimed that homosexuals pose a substantially greater risk of committing sexual abuse against children than heterosexuals, and have issued papers citing a number of scientific studies to support these claims. However, when one examines the studies cited in these papers, one finds that the religious right has engaged in some serious distortion of the works of others. The scientists who authored the studies made no such claim about homosexuals posing a greater threat to children, and in fact in many cases argued the opposite.

In addition, many in the religious right have employed a version of the “slippery slope” argument, charging that the gay rights movement has led inevitably to tolerance for pedophilia by eroding all traditional norms of sexual behavior. However, the “slippery slope” argument is based on the false premise that the protection of children from sexual activity is a long-standing part of the Judeo-Christian ethic, which has only recently come under assault as a result of the gay rights movement. In fact, throughout most of history, the Judeo-Christian tradition tolerated and even approved of sexual relations between adult males and girls of twelve years of age or even younger. The contemporary taboo against sex between adults and minors developed only in the late nineteenth century, as societies became increasingly committed to the ideals of individual rights and personal autonomy, which led to concern about the possibility of coercion and exploitation in adult-minor relationships.

In summary, there is no evidence that homosexuals are any more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In other words what right does the government of Canada have to entrench constitutionally the interest of basically 'special interest groups' to overide the rights of all other Canadians. All Canadians including these 'special interest groups' ALL HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS', so it is not a matter of any group being denied rights.

The end result will be that these groups whether they are relating to Quebec, Aboriginals or gay interest groups, could be seen as renegades (lacking principles or no principles) by all other Canadians with undeserved special status that could actually worsen relations between Canadians and these 'special interest groups'.

This should indicate that if the feds agree that for instance Quebec requires special assistance, help them in their own province. Don't try to force all other Canadian provinces to succumb to the demands of Quebec and give them special privileges that affect English Canadians and other provinces.

The same condition applies for gays with the first requirement being that all Canadians should be given the opportunity to decide if this gay rights including SSM is a legitimate cause. Gays already have the same rights as any other Canadian, prior to SSM which IMO is not a legitimate issue initially.

The same thing should apply to Aboriginals having the same rights as everyone else, outside of the land issue which is separate.

These rights pertaining to 'special interest groups' have been for the most part, nothing more than a Liberal invention designed to win votes and to establish what amounts to a 'transfer of power' from English Canada to Quebec.

Those of you who do not belief for whatever reason in referendums on major decisions affecting ALL Canadians, should think twice.

I think that you have failed to show how (for example) Quebec has any special privileges that affect anyone anywhere else in the country. This post generally seems to me that you are saying when a group that you disagree with asks for equal rights then they are imposing themselves onto other people in this country. And yet here is the real problem with your argument:

When homosexuals ask for same-sex marriage the only people it affects are the homosexuals who choose to get married. It has no impact on anyone else. But when you ask for same-sex marriage to be banned, that is an enforcement of certain beliefs held by certain (i.e. not all) Christian denominations, then that enforcement would directly impact other peoples' lives.

Justifying your position by saying that homosexuals are a special interest group that is imposing its beliefs on everyone else is not logical since same-sex marriage does not impose itself on anyone and yet your argument does impose itself on others.

As for your last point about referendums: who decides what is a major issue that affects all Canadians? It is impractical to have a referendum on everything. Should we have referendums on what issues should be taken to referendum? We do have elections, and in those elections the parties tell you what they want to do for the next five years. We elect our government to lead the country, not to check with us every five minutes in a national referendum for every minor detail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In other words what right does the government of Canada have to entrench constitutionally the interest of basically 'special interest groups' to overide the rights of all other Canadians.

Can you give me an example of the rights of a "special interest group" overriding the rights of all other Canadians?

All Canadians including these 'special interest groups' ALL HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS', so it is not a matter of any group being denied rights.
then I gather you agree that gays should be able to get married?
The same condition applies for gays with the first requirement being that all Canadians should be given the opportunity to decide if this gay rights including SSM is a legitimate cause.

Since when are rights decided by referendums? Could we have a referendum on the question of whether Catholics should just fuck off?

Gays already have the same rights as any other Canadian,

Then you support same sex marriage?

prior to SSM

oh. You mean *except* for same sex marriage. But why?

which IMO is not a legitimate issue initially.

Oh. Because you say so.

<_<

-k

Gays do have the right to get married, like the rest of heterosexual Canadians, not to each other being the same sex. This was never determined by Canadians if this special interest group 'gays' have the right to supersede perceived rights concerning the status of the majority.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Your views of having a referendum on the question 'Catholics should just fuck off' clearly shows your arrogance towards religion in general. This might not be your fault entirely to be so arrogant, perhaps you were born this way. I think gays should be told by government loud and clear 'to fuck off with their ridiculous perverse demands' without a referendum.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

You seem unable to understand I am voicing my opinion on SSM. It is not only I, but all Canadians that should be given their right to establish the criteria on whether the special interest of gays should constitute any kind of right to be written into the constitution especially considered under 'equality rights'. You also fail to understand gays already had the same rights prior to SSM as all other Canadians.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gays do have the right to get married, like the rest of heterosexual Canadians, not to each other being the same sex. This was never determined by Canadians if this special interest group 'gays' have the right to supersede perceived rights concerning the status of the majority.

How does SSM "supersede majority rights" or indeed, affect you personally in any way, shape or form?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think SSM encourages paedophilia.

Homosexuals are responsible for a much larger percentage of child abuse, on a proportional basis, than heterosexuals.

http://www.preservemarriage.ca/eng/links.htm

"Huh? How does SSM do that?"

http://www.hatecrime.org/subpages/hatespee...elycameron.html

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/...ity/ho0075.html

"I didn't see any relevant support in the link you provided to support your claim that "Homosexuals are responsible for a much larger percentage of child abuse". Care to be specific?"

http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/one-a.php

These links only took about five minutes to find through google. The first two talk a little bit about child sexual abuse statistics:

http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/ncfv-cnivf/fami...sxagrsex_e.html

See the section about "The Abuser". No mention of sexual orientation.

http://www.darkness2light.org/KnowAbout/statistics_2.asp

Again no mention of sexual orientation.

But here's the link everyone really wants...

http://www.internationalorder.org/scandal_response.html

Here is the executive summary of the paper:

Executive Summary

In response to the scandal involving former Congressman Mark Foley, a number of conservative religious groups have claimed that homosexuals pose a substantially greater risk of committing sexual abuse against children than heterosexuals, and have issued papers citing a number of scientific studies to support these claims. However, when one examines the studies cited in these papers, one finds that the religious right has engaged in some serious distortion of the works of others. The scientists who authored the studies made no such claim about homosexuals posing a greater threat to children, and in fact in many cases argued the opposite.

In addition, many in the religious right have employed a version of the “slippery slope” argument, charging that the gay rights movement has led inevitably to tolerance for pedophilia by eroding all traditional norms of sexual behavior. However, the “slippery slope” argument is based on the false premise that the protection of children from sexual activity is a long-standing part of the Judeo-Christian ethic, which has only recently come under assault as a result of the gay rights movement. In fact, throughout most of history, the Judeo-Christian tradition tolerated and even approved of sexual relations between adult males and girls of twelve years of age or even younger. The contemporary taboo against sex between adults and minors developed only in the late nineteenth century, as societies became increasingly committed to the ideals of individual rights and personal autonomy, which led to concern about the possibility of coercion and exploitation in adult-minor relationships.

In summary, there is no evidence that homosexuals are any more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals.

You ask me to provide links to prove what I am talking about then turn around and provide you own.

No doubt there are an abundance of links promoting homosexual culture and lifestyle.

We all know and realize, articles containing criticism of gays are being removed from the net as perceived hate propaganda.

Canada is proving over and over again what a banana republic it really is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that you have failed to show how (for example) Quebec has any special privileges that affect anyone anywhere else in the country. This post generally seems to me that you are saying when a group that you disagree with asks for equal rights then they are imposing themselves onto other people in this country. And yet here is the real problem with your argument:

When homosexuals ask for same-sex marriage the only people it affects are the homosexuals who choose to get married. It has no impact on anyone else. But when you ask for same-sex marriage to be banned, that is an enforcement of certain beliefs held by certain (i.e. not all) Christian denominations, then that enforcement would directly impact other peoples' lives.

Justifying your position by saying that homosexuals are a special interest group that is imposing its beliefs on everyone else is not logical since same-sex marriage does not impose itself on anyone and yet your argument does impose itself on others.

As for your last point about referendums: who decides what is a major issue that affects all Canadians? It is impractical to have a referendum on everything. Should we have referendums on what issues should be taken to referendum? We do have elections, and in those elections the parties tell you what they want to do for the next five years. We elect our government to lead the country, not to check with us every five minutes in a national referendum for every minor detail.

If you do not believe Quebec has benefited greatly with their 'special interest' catered to and made law in 'Charter of Rights and Freedoms', especially the section prescribed to 'official languages', I am sorry to say is out to lunch.

------------------------------------

You seem to think SSM does not affect anyone. Your WRONG. The legal ramifications of SSM affect all Canadians in financially supporting homosexual ideologies and lifestyles, even down to the public funding of gay parades. This also includes legal cost pertaining to legally supporting and defending homosexuals issues that are directly related or associated with SSM or their lifestyles. This also has a negative affect on reducing the impact religion per se has on the country, that could cause many Canadians to lose faith in religion and turn to crime oriented diversities.

----------------------------------

All important issues relating to referendums could be tacked on every federal election, resulting in little cost to society. But again, you fail to acknowledge the importance that the government does not have the right to 'bulldoze' what it sees as 'rights' when all along they are accommodating the concerns of special interest groups.

Canadians have every right in the world to override such a biased determination made by unauthorized government initially.

-------------------------------------

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gays do have the right to get married, like the rest of heterosexual Canadians, not to each other being the same sex. This was never determined by Canadians if this special interest group 'gays' have the right to supersede perceived rights concerning the status of the majority.

How does it "supersede" your rights if gays are allowed to marry?

Your views of having a referendum on the question 'Catholics should just fuck off' clearly shows your arrogance towards religion in general. This might not be your fault entirely to be so arrogant, perhaps you were born this way. I think gays should be told by government loud and clear 'to fuck off with their ridiculous perverse demands' without a referendum.

I was trying to illustrate the point that rights are not determined by popular votes.

If rights can be given or taken away by referendums, then there *could* be a referendum on banning Catholicism.

Should Catholics' right to practice their religion depend on how people vote?

Of course not. Catholics have the right to practice their religion because our country guarantees it, not because it's popular.

You're comfortable with the idea of referendums because white anglophones are still the majority in this country. If you lived in a place like Quebec or Toronto or Vancouver where white anglophones weren't the majority, you'd be a lot less comfortable with the idea of your rights depending on whether they're popular or not.

-k

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem to think SSM does not affect anyone. Your WRONG. The legal ramifications of SSM affect all Canadians in financially supporting homosexual ideologies and lifestyles, even down to the public funding of gay parades.

What do gay pride parades have to do with SSM?

This also includes legal cost pertaining to legally supporting and defending homosexuals issues that are directly related or associated with SSM or their lifestyles.

Such as?

This also has a negative affect on reducing the impact religion per se has on the country, that could cause many Canadians to lose faith in religion and turn to crime oriented diversities.

How? Me, I think a decreased role for religion in the public sphere is a good thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're comfortable with the idea of referendums because white anglophones are still the majority in this country. If you lived in a place like Quebec or Toronto or Vancouver where white anglophones weren't the majority, you'd be a lot less comfortable with the idea of your rights depending on whether they're popular or not.

-k

Now your talking like they do in Quebec where they think French is the majority language. It would be if they were a SEPARATE ENITY or country but their not, they are part of Canada. The fact remains they are part of Canada so any calculation based on language, culture, colour or other identifying characteristic must be calculated relating to ALL citizens of Canada.

It seems you are in agreement with the fact that Canadian families or Canadians that have developed with the country since it's creation should not have the right to be included in any issue that could have a diverse affect on ALL Canadians concerning its beliefs and traditions and customs and laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now your talking like they do in Quebec where they think French is the majority language. It would be if they were a SEPARATE ENITY or country but their not, they are part of Canada. The fact remains they are part of Canada so any calculation based on language, culture, colour or other identifying characteristic must be calculated relating to ALL citizens of Canada.

First: French is the majority language in Quebec. Second: you're basically conceding kimmy's point.

You're comfortable with the idea of referendums because white anglophones are still the majority in this country.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do gay pride parades have to do with SSM?

SSM and gay pride parades are trademarks of the gay lifestyle and both are connected reinforcing the gay legal position pertaining to 'equality rights'.

At present gay pride parades could be funded (and they are in our city) by city taxpayers. The same goes to when government must defend gays from perceived or interpreted hate literature or the feds are put in the position to defend gay rights at PUBLIC EXPENSE.

A single example of this is in parliament itself when many days are devoted to debating 'gay issues and implementation of laws ' including SSM at public expense.

Then if gays are recognized as equal to heterosexuals, textbooks in schools must all be altered to include that fact as well as as promoting the gay lifestyle all at taxpayers expense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SSM and gay pride parades are trademarks of the gay lifestyle and both are connected reinforcing the gay legal position pertaining to 'equality rights'.

At present gay pride parades could be funded (and they are in our city) by city taxpayers. The same goes to when government must defend gays from perceived or interpreted hate literature or the feds are put in the position to defend gay rights at PUBLIC EXPENSE.

A single example of this is in parliament itself when many days are devoted to debating 'gay issues and implementation of laws ' including SSM at public expense.

Then if gays are recognized as equal to heterosexuals, textbooks in schools must all be altered to include that fact as well as as promoting the gay lifestyle all at taxpayers expense.

There are many cultural events other than Pride events that recieve public money. There are many others who benefit from the existence of human righst tribunals. Basically, none of the stuff you cite has much at all to do with the issue of gay marriage. IOW: you still haven't demonstrated how the decision by two people of the same sex to get married affects your life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gays do have the right to get married, like the rest of heterosexual Canadians, not to each other being the same sex.

If they were married to the opposite sex, they wouldn't be gay now would they?

Gay Canadians have the right to enter sham marriages, father a couple of kids by visualizing Brad Pitt on a beach, frustrate their wives by reading Muscle & Fitness or watching Rick Mercer Report instead of getting frisky, and finally run off with their fabulous hairstylist Raoul, leaving a shattered family and confused kids behind them.

That was how they did it in the old days.

Why can't the fags just do things the way they did in the old days? Are they too good for our Canadian traditions?

-k

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear kimmy,

Oh, Kimmy... don't you see? Leafless and his friends only want to support tradition. Now shut yer yap, get in the kitchen and fetch him a beer!
Yes, and don't stub your toe with those bare feet of yours, you know how they swell when you're pregnant!
Why can't the fags just do things the way they did in the old days? Are they too good for our Canadian traditions?
I personally am against 'Pride Parades', I really don't see the point. If we can have parades based on sexual orientation, why can't I organize the "All-Canadian Tit-F*cker's Parade"? (Or, the "I wish my Wife Would Swallow" Parade?)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear kimmy,
Oh, Kimmy... don't you see? Leafless and his friends only want to support tradition. Now shut yer yap, get in the kitchen and fetch him a beer!
Yes, and don't stub your toe with those bare feet of yours, you know how they swell when you're pregnant!
Why can't the fags just do things the way they did in the old days? Are they too good for our Canadian traditions?
I personally am against 'Pride Parades', I really don't see the point. If we can have parades based on sexual orientation, why can't I organize the "All-Canadian Tit-F*cker's Parade"? (Or, the "I wish my Wife Would Swallow" Parade?)

LLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!..............................................

this might be alittle too graphic, but i wish i could have a parade like that too! but the unfortunate

part is only the new things in life get parades, things that are not traditional unless they are festive. also

other "NO SEX FOR YOU!!" people will see it an say very very slowly..."MY DEAR EYE'S THAT NEVER-" i'll leave

the goodins for you, the point is that the NEW things push past the old to be free, supression of this grows the

trend, it's like opra, most people don't like it, but those who do, like it too much.

Oh, Kimmy... don't you see? Leafless and his friends only want to support tradition. Now shut yer yap, get in the kitchen and fetch him a beer! ;)

now about those beers.......... :wub:

(get me one too please...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually I dont think we can conclude Rue that Leafless hates gays. I basically what his posts meant are that he believes it is wrong and unnatural. To believe something is wrong is not hatred. One can like, love, enjoy people who they think are doing wrong. My parents loved me when I did wrong. I may have missed something in his posts. But I dont think he ever said gays should be denied jobs, or food, or should be victims of a Holocaust as you afore mentioned. Maybe he does harbour hatred. But I don't think we can conclude that from anything he has said. Also, I believe that simply believing homosexuality is a sin is not bigotry or hatred. Whether you agree with it or not it is a moral standard according to this mans faith. Having this moral standard does not mean one should go out and mete out punishments for those who do not comply. Zen Buddhists do not punish meat-eaters. Hindus don't punish hamburger eaters. Do you understand? Believing something is sinful is not always hatred.

I am going to be very serious now. I appreciate my tonque in cheek responses were not appreciated.

It is one thing to say you are against same sex marriage on religious grounds. That I would agree stated in such a context does not necessarily mean anything more then a religious disagreement based on faith. Most gays I know can undestand why some people feel it is against their religion to condone same sex marriages.

That is not the issue. I think for me, and maybe it is just me when I see someone equate being gay with "viciousness" its more then just them stating a moral disagreement, now its hatred. It was the

decision to repeat the phrase "viciousness" and call it wise I consider hate mongering.

Look I respect any fundamentalist or conservative Christian's beliefs. I respect those of conservative Muslims and Jews and Sikhs Hindus as well. I completely disagree with all of them when they claim homosexuality is something immoral. Is that a faith arguement. Maybe. It turns into hate monegring though when we go past faith and use disparaging remarks. Now I was probably wrong to be tonque in cheek but when you buly gays you should be prepared to take the heat.

That said, I will not direct any further comments directly to Leafless but I will say this and I will come back with some neutral data on it. I am dead serious when I say when people raise sexuality as an issue but do it in a way that promotes anger or hatred or name calling against someone because of their sexual lifestyle, it does call for us asking - why the hatred? As I said before, its one thing to condemn pedophiles or rapists. These are people who use violence, and power imbalances to abuse and control people. However two consenting gay adults hurt no one and to say they have not the same rights as any other humans to me is not a faith issue anymore-we are not just talking about what should be done inside a church, we are talking about public laws -so its not a faith issue anymore, its a human rights issue and the last time I looked gays under the Charter of Rights, have equal rights to straights.

Now if you want to talk about gays without referring to them as vicious or anomalies, I will be glad to do the same. I do find it hippocritical of my fellow Jews, and Christians and Muslims and Sikhs and Hindus and anyone else who thinks their religion defines gays as evil or people who need codemnation.

To use any faith to justify or intellectualize discrimination and condemnation is b.s.-that is of course my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you can see how its possible for someone to believe that homosexuality is not morally correct and not be a hate monger? You admit this possibility Rue? It seems to me that you just did, and I appreciate that very much. Good point, I dont think people become gay out of viciousness. Even though we stand on opposite sides of the morality of this, I dont think gay people are vicious or renegades. My personal belief it is an illness, weakness though I dont think this has to be taken as an insult because I think most people are ill in some way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But even if being gay is immoral, we don't always outlaw that which is immoral according to the Christian Bible. I, for one, would love to see "Christian" moralists who claim gay marriage needs to be banned through a Constitutional amendment at least be consistent by working tirelessly to similarly outlaw gambling, adultery, divorce, and the collecting of interest on loans. Surely, these evils are as much a threat to stable and healthy families as two men getting a joint Home Depot charge card?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But even if being gay is immoral, we don't always outlaw that which is immoral according to the Christian Bible. I, for one, would love to see "Christian" moralists who claim gay marriage needs to be banned through a Constitutional amendment at least be consistent by working tirelessly to similarly outlaw gambling, adultery, divorce, and the collecting of interest on loans. Surely, these evils are as much a threat to stable and healthy families as two men getting a joint Home Depot charge card?

nope, i see gayness as gay. disgusting. but hell, they like it so... who cares! as long as i'm not involved...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again under the pretense of discussing same sex marriage and whether it should be recognized in law, we have seen a sub-text come out that has nothing to do with a faith based or religious moral arguement but

a misrepresentation of gays as people and by that I specifically mean the arguement and statements that

gays are more likely to be pedophiles and that gay marriages endanger children.

First off let me state I have a Master's in Applied Psychology and am a lawyer who has worked twenty years with children and adults who have been sexually molested, raped, abused in families and institutions of all kinds. My work has consisted of being a civil litigation mediator, insurance claims investigator of sexual abuse crimes and crisis counselor(volunteer). So please understand I do not come to this subject likely.

What I and most people who have worked in the social services and legal systems know is that the term pedophile if it is correctly used, describes a psycho-social disorder characteristic of an adult who has a sexual preference for prepubsecent children. This adult would NOT be attracted to either gender sexually, if they were an adult. So to refer to a pedophile as a gay pedophile or a straight pedophile is quite frankly not correct, Pedophiles simply molest or have an attraction to children. The gender is not material to their

actions -it is whether they gain access to children. Many pedophiles do not act out their urges and spend many years on the inter-net or with magazines. Why some cross the line and go on to molest children as opposed to remaining passive and keeping it in the closest as an unacted out fetish we do not know other then to say accessability seems to be the key. Some pedophiles seem to be far more predatory then others.

There is a lot we do not know about pedophiles. There are many theories as to whether particular hormonal and chemical imabalances add or subtract from the condition and there are numerous theories on

children that are molested who go on to be child molesters themselves.

What we have seen in the last while is an attempt by people who argue against same sex marriage to suggest gays are pedophiles or have a higher tendency to be pedophiles and some how gay marriages will encourage pedophilia.

To start with, the statistics on same sex spouses who have children have categorically shown that same sex spouses' children do not become gay because their parents are and by watching them it influences them to become gay. If anything what it has shown is gay parents are more likely to encourage their children to be

straight not gay or straight, if that is what their children are.

There are conflicting reports as to the corelation between pedophilia and homo-sexuality. For example, a report by Holmes and Slap in the 1998 Journal of the American Medical Association reported that adolsecent boys molested by adults were 7 times more likely to identify themselves as bi-sexual or gay. a 1994 study by Jenny, Roesler and Poyer found that 98% of men who abused children self-identified themselves as

hetero-sexual. One article fromt he Nebraska Medical Journal made a finding that gays were 8 to 12 times more likely to molest children however that study now is under question as to how it was determined the pedophiles studied were determined as gay as opposed to simply being pedophiles. A study by Freund and Watson in the 192 Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy indicated gays were 3 x more likely to have sex with children. Those reports that do indicate gays are more likely to have sex with children which are often quoted by fundamentalist religious groups opposed to same sex marriage are not the majority of articles or studies on the subject.

Again the major problem with sayingh pedophiles are gay because they molest children of the same sex is that this is incorrect terminology since for the pedophile to also be gay he would also have to be having regular sexual relationships with adults of the same sex. What studies do clearly show is that pedophiles will not and do not have sex adults of either gender once they are adult so to call them gay or straight is absurd. There psycho-sexual disorder is neither gay nor straight.

There is absolutely no literature or studies that prove consenting adults of the same gender encourage or engage in pedophilia or make it possible.

In fact since it is estimated gays are about 3% of the population-it means the law of average alone would tell you that the vast majority of pedophiles come from the remaining 97% and that is why most pedophiles when asked identify themselves as straight.

What we do know from working with pedophiles is that they are neither straight nor gay. The key is their attraction to children and they may have preferences for one gender or the other but usually a child molester if given accessability to a child molests-they don't get hung up on the gender.

Now think about it logically. How do two adults who want to be married and live a momogamous relationship in any way contribute to this psycho-sexual disorder? It makes no sense. There is no causal connection between the two phenomena.

I think where the confusion comes from is that when someone decides that gays are vicious or immoral or evil, it then is not much of a leap of faith to then try find something to justify they are in fact evil. Christians used to say Jews were evil because they killed Christ and were condemned until they attoned for their sins.

With gays, it seems to be able to justify the condemnation instead of accusing them of killing Christ they are protrayed as child molesters. It is a process where people are de-humanized or demonized and given negative attributes to justify hating them.

The vast majority of leaders in gay communities and their associations are stronly opposed to sex with children and most community centres dealing with molested children have some very talented crisis counselors some of whom are gay and do not molest children simply because they are gay.

There is a stereotype that because gays are more likely to be sympathetic to sex outside marriage that they promote free sex and therefore any kind of sex. This is absolute b.s.

What we do know is that pedophiles tend to come from environments where they were themselves molested by adults or come from environments where they were traumatized or humiliated and at a certain stage in their psychological, emotional and sexual development they become arrested, or frozen or stuck, and do not move on.

A classic pedophile is someone like Michael Jackson. They do not indentify sexually with adults of either gender and when given the ability usually remain quite asexual and child-like even as adults.

The kind of vicious sexual predators like John Wayne Gacy would have killed and molested children of either gender. Some predators also kill and rape the elderly or small women, or certain kinds of people-predators who use sex to molest can be pedophile or other variations where they use sex as a violent expression of power.

What we also know is that homo-sexuality that arises in institutions such as prisons or churches, comes about when sex is repressed. If you take away normal healthy ways to express sex, the repessed sexual drive comes out in an alternative manner. In prisons this means men rape or have sex with other men, but still consider themselves straight and when they leave prison revert back to being straight not gay.

Clergymen who engage in same sex molestation do so not because of gender preference but simply because of accessability, so for example in the Catholic Church, it would be easier for a Priest to be alone with boys then girls.

What we have seen with clergy who become child molesters is that they have deep psycho-sexual issues and often go into the church in an attempt to use the church as an agent to repress their urges.

The longer they stay in these churches, the more likely the sex drive is expressed through aberated behaviour and often what we have seen is child molestation of same sex children simply because children have been segregated by sex making one gender more accessible.

What we also know is that any institution or group or gang can serve as an agent to not just repress sexuality but make it more likely to be twisted and come out indirectly through deviant forms of expression.

It is ironic but the same conservative religions that preach the kind of sexual morality that defines sex as dirty and evil and in need of control are the same kind of religions precisely because of that kind of

cognitive process, to that unintentionally fuel or incite pedophilia, and other sexual deviancy by depicting sex as dirty and to be repressed.

I urge anyone for themselves to go on the internet and educate themselves that pedophilia is not homo-sexuality and to equate the two as being one in the same is just not true.

I would also state from my perspective-repressing sexual urges only leads to problems. As well using sex as a tool to express violence of any kind, or in a relationship where there is a power imbalance, is a problem.

The key is whether there is a power imbalance and/or violence. We know any sex that is violent or abuses power whether it is straight or gay is problematic. Straught or gay sex when done without violence or power imbalance, and that is between CONSENTING adults was not of concern to me in the years I worked with sexual molesters or predators precisely because it hurts no one and breaks no laws. Morality I find absurd considering most of the men that I encountered who were arrested for prostitution or beating their wives or molesting their children almost always claimed to be good religious moral people.

If you don't believe me ask any cop or rape crisis counselor or social worker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for that write up. Very informative!
I am a conservative who fully supports gay rights, that there should be tolerance,a live and let live attitude. I do however have one question. Civil Unions sure, but why the insistence on marriage, which according to Christian Theology is a union between a man and a woman? Homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible.Does anybody who opposes homosexual behaviour automatically become a bigot because they believe the Bible?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,714
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    wopsas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...