More Gays bad for society

[guyser]

You, no doubt finding suddenly finding yourself without armour, have decided to drop out of this debate and fling mud instead. So be it, but I'm sure it's as transparent to others as it is to me.

No no Francis, you have it wrong...<sigh>....again.

Being without armour is slagging the gays every chance you can, using terms like "fag" every chance you you can , slagging the Hindu religion by using the term "target" to refer to a Bindi , insinuating that homosexuality is pedophilia and are involved in child abuse, and worse telling that to someone on this board who has deep seated emotions pertaining to that .

Oh yes, I fling mud......right.

[newbie]

Please grow up.

Rich, very rich, and pointless to boot. Hope it doesnt scare you

You, no doubt finding suddenly finding yourself without armour, have decided to drop out of this debate and fling mud instead. So be it, but I'm sure it's as transparent to others as it is to me.

And your "grow up" adds to the debate? You seem barely able to dish it out but you can certainly not take any criticism.

[ScottSA]

You, no doubt finding suddenly finding yourself without armour, have decided to drop out of this debate and fling mud instead. So be it, but I'm sure it's as transparent to others as it is to me.

No no Francis, you have it wrong...<sigh>....again.

Being without armour is slagging the gays every chance you can, using terms like "fag" every chance you you can , slagging the Hindu religion by using the term "target" to refer to a Bindi , insinuating that homosexuality is pedophilia and are involved in child abuse, and worse telling that to someone on this board who has deep seated emotions pertaining to that .

Oh yes, I fling mud......right.

I use 'fag' intentionally, to convey a disgust not adequately conveyed by the term 'homosexual', and not even hinted at by the ridiculous term 'gay'. As I told someone else, I don't hide behind euphemisms, and while I may not be quite so up-and-at-em in person, I would certainly not shrink from letting people know how I feel about things. As for the bindi, I refered to it as "painting a bullethole on one's forehead", not as a "target", so get your insults straight. I'm sure it shocked you to the core, given your cursophobia, but I suspect most people saw it for the humor that was intended, and if they didn't, they would do well to de-stick their nether regions and lighten up.

[M.Dancer]

Well, some of them may have heterosexual relationships, but why is this considered "in the closet" when it refers to fags with wives, but an entirely different category of sexuality when it comes to pedophile fags with wives? Why is that not also considered simply as "in the closet"? These are all double standards being foisted on us in an attempt to excuse the fact that a hugely disproportionate number of pedophiles are homosexual in their targeting.

Because they don't have adult homosexual relationships. Closetted gays go out and have sex with grown-ups...And that being said, many pedos don't have much leaning one way or another when it comes to the gender of their victims, as long as they are very young. And even the majority of "single pedophiles, whether their victims are male or female, the defining factor with that group is an abscense of adult sexual relationships.

[cybercoma]

Dancer, please stop. I feel sorry sitting here watching you bash your head into a wall repeatedly.

The facts speak for themselves, as does the ignorance and bigotry that's rampant in this thread.

[Liam]

Maybe some of the local homosexuals could weigh in on this subject and add their unique perspective.

So we are waiting? What do you have to say?

I haven't yet read through the entire thread, so...

What strikes me about this story (as with many instances where the notion of gay indoctrination is at issue) are statements such as this: "Last month, Deputy Education Minister Miroslaw Orzechowski said teachers deemed to be promoting ``homosexual culture'' in schools would be fired, and the ministry announced it would draw up corresponding legislation.

The ministry has not defined what it means by efforts to promote homosexuality and has yet to submit the legislation, according to the parliamentary press office."

Now, what is "homosexual culture"? I'm gay and even I don't know what that means. Let me clarify: I am sure I know what it means "in code" but there is literally no such thing as "gay culture". In code, what he means is that any teacher who promotes the notion that gay people shouldn't be humiliated into hiding themselves or who shouldn't attempt to repress their true selves and marry a nice Polish girl is promoting a subversive and punishiable mindset.

The local homosexual has, hereby, weighed in.

[Liam]

Gay is the new black, havent you heard?

Both are quite slimming, let me tell ya,

[Liam]

I had a friend who was gay. He was a member of my church and would sing for the congregation occasionally. He once told me about his gay problem and how he had struggled with it his whole life. It began for him when he was a child. He was a foster kid and would be moved around from home to home. In one home, the mother started doing sexual things to him repeatedly, and he says this is what turned him away from straight relationships with women. This was well before he became a Christian...

A doctor had recently prescribed meds that negated the gay feelings. I know sounds weird, but it's what happened to him...

But Christians who have a relationship with God that influences their lives do not hate Gays nor anyone.

I find the early part of this post quite disturbing. Sorry, but no doctor can prescribe away someone's sexual orientation. If medication exists to change orientation, I am sure there would be some story among right wingers that gay teachers were putting it in the milk at public schools, etc. Orientation simply cannot be medicated away. Sex drive, perhaps, but orientation can only be denied by a willing party. Is it not possible that this church friend might not be 100% honest with you about his "inner demons"? I've heard similar claims by people who swore they no longer desire a drink.

About the claim that Christians don't hate homosexuals -- I agree. The problem is that 95% of the people who claim to possess these Christian values would just as soon see me diminished or, worse, punished in some way. You may be among the 5% of true Christians, but you've got a heck of a lot more enemies within the Christian camp than inside the gay camp.

[Liam]

All of this is fine, but fails to address the rather fundamental question of why, if the object of sexual attraction is merely "youth" and not the gender of said youth, pedophiles prefer one or he other gender, and why of those genders, young boys make up 30% of the victims. Your definitions smack of a politically correct grasping at conceptual straws to excuse the grossly disproportionate number of male pedophiles attracted to male boys. 30% is a figure that would be trumpeting from the cliffs as an obvious correlation in any other subject.

Ask yourself this: how often do you allow your 11 year old female child to attend a scouting camp sleepover supervised by a 35 year old man? Do you let her participate in a town swimming league at the local Y while her male coach, one of the local dads, is in the locker room where she showers and dresses? Now put an 11 year old male son in the same situations. A scouting camping trip? Being coached at the local Y? No brainers.

Parents are more protective of children in cross-sexual situations. We trust our sons with other men and our daughters with other women. The problem is that pedophile males are usually only entrusted with male children. Hence the skewing of numbers.

I think Rue made it pretty clear and your inability to read and understand simply reveals bias against gay people.

[guyser]

I use 'fag' intentionally, to convey a disgust not adequately conveyed by the term 'homosexual', and not even hinted at by the ridiculous term 'gay'.

Kind of like "smalltown redneck homophobes" that live in lower BC? Because as well all know it does have a certain cache to it? Will that be an apt description for someone? Would it be ok to use?

No , I think not. So I wont.

Why then do you have to carry on in such a ridiculous manner using derogatory names to insult people who have every (almost) right you enjoy ?

As I told someone else, I don't hide behind euphemisms, and while I may not be quite so up-and-at-em in person, I would certainly not shrink from letting people know how I feel about things.

In other words, you would not say that to a gay persons face. Well good for you, you have managed to keep all your teeth. But being as confident as you are, go on, call them "fags" to their face. Show them your convictions and how you dont hide behind euphemisms. Oh and while you are at it, call out the "spicks, wops, chinks and niggers " , but only to their face.

Or have you succumbed to the feminization of men that you so eloquently ranted on? Because it is either or.

As for the bindi, I refered to it as "painting a bullethole on one's forehead", not as a "target", so get your insults straight.

Right.....lets use 34 letters that can describe much better than 5 .Makes sense to no one but you.

I'm sure it shocked you to the core, given your cursophobia, but I suspect most people saw it for the humor that was intended, and if they didn't, they would do well to de-stick their nether regions and lighten up.

I suspect most people do not see the humour.

As for lighten up, insulting people or races on the internet is best left unposted especially when you , by your own admission ..."and while I may not be quite so up-and-at-em in person" are too milquetoast to do so.

(apologies to all the fine Italian, Chinese and Blacks that are perusing this board-please understand in the way I used the terms, I mean no disrespect)

[ScottSA]

I searched but failed to find content. Glad you had a chance to blow some of that self-righteousness off your chest though...it must feel good!

[Rue]

"So straight people molest kids but gays don't? Give me a break. Rue, have you ever heard of a group called NAMBLA? "

Read what I wrote and attempted to explain. Neither "straight" or "gay" people are attracted to adolescents or children. What I said was a healthy homo-sexual is no different then a healthy hetero-sexual, they are attracted to people of the same sex not children or boys.

What the statistics have shown is that when child molesters are caught most describe themselves as hetero-sexual.

I use the proper clinical terms. I would not consider anyone who has sex with children or boys anything other then the terms I used. Calling them straight or gay makes no sense. Their sex is not with an adult or partner of comprable age.

Now let's talk about MABLA which people like you trot out whenever they want to advance the misrepresentation that gays want to f..ck boys.

The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) was a New York City and San Francisco-based unincorporated organization that advocated the legalization of sexual relations between adult males and young boys.

For you to even suggest these people are "gay" again shows your preconception that what they are doing is gay. Its not gay. Its advocating sex between adolescents or pre-public boys and adults.

For you to suggest practising homo-sexuals agree witht his and consider it normal is no different then saying its straight since it is wide-spread in our culture for older men to have sex with girls.

I gave you the clinical term for adults who want to have sex with pubescent or pre-pubescent boys or girls. If you are going to say this group proves gays do this, then you will also have to say the same about straights since we know how many straight men want to f..ck girls and to pay for them. Lolita syndrome exists.

And just to clarify the memebrs of Nambla showed they were not fussy what young gender they were screwing true to form. It was all about getting someone young, asexual in body type...someone with neither male of female features and very little body hair. That is part of the illness.

This organization allegedly has 1,100 members and was part of the International Pedophile and Ghild Emancipation Group.

Several police forces infiltrated it and shut it down.

Now talk to me about pedophiles since I have worked with them and have been in their head.

No they are not gay or straight. What they are, are people who want to have sex with someone much younger then them and preferably someone whose sexual features have not developed.

Their attraction is not based on healthy, equal relations.

Most importantly, pedophiles or the other true classifications of sexual deviants I mentioned, do not see themselves as abnormal.

Now then if you want to suggest all gays are child molesters you will have to do the same with straights.

If you want to find out the difference between a sexual deviant and a gay why don't you go speak to a gay person. What do you think they do all day-sit around visualizing having sex with boys. Talk to a gay person. No they won't touch your pee pee.

Get real.

[Rue]

Parents are more protective of children in cross-sexual situations. We trust our sons with other men and our daughters with other women. The problem is that pedophile males are usually only entrusted with male children. Hence the skewing of numbers.

I think Rue made it pretty clear and your inability to read and understand simply reveals bias against gay people.

Thanks Liam that is precisely the point I was trying to make.

[kuzadd]

"Poland's conservative prime minister rejected European Union criticism Thursday of a proposal to fire teachers for ``homosexual propaganda,'' saying it was not in the interest of society to have more gay people."

How true, don't ya think?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/stor...6589607,00.html

NO!

[ScottSA]

Neither "straight" or "gay" people are attracted to adolescents or children. What I said was a healthy homo-sexual is no different then a healthy hetero-sexual, they are attracted to people of the same sex not children or boys.

What the statistics have shown is that when child molesters are caught most describe themselves as hetero-sexual.

I use the proper clinical terms. I would not consider anyone who has sex with children or boys anything other then the terms I used. Calling them straight or gay makes no sense. Their sex is not with an adult or partner of comprable age.

If one were to abide by "proper clinical" distinctions, then one would have to posit that a man attracted to a 13 year old boy is of a completely different sexuality than a man attracted to a 14 year old boy, and so on for whatever ages of consent exist around the world. Sheer and utter nonsense.

Further, if the gender of the victim is of no consequence relative to the youth of the victim, then one would suppose that the gender of the victim wouldn't matter to the pedophile, and I would hazard a guess that it does matter very much. If you are familiar with the "clinical" terms, then you must also be familiar with the statistics surrounding the gender of the victims of pedophiles...am I wrong?

Finally, the self description of the pedophile as "heterosexual" is like pointing to the self-description of 90% of the inmates of penitentiaries as "innocent" and taking it at face value. Here we have a criminal who has been caught doing something he knows is wrong, and trying desperately to normalize himself as much as possible under the circumstances. Of COURSE he's going to claim that he's straight. How many queers in the closet admit to being homosexuals? A pedophile is by definition in the closet.

These are arbitrary clinical arrangements of sexuality for no other discernable reason than to whitewash the fact that a hugely disproportionate percentage of pedophiles are attracted to the same sex and are thus homosexuals. If a man is attracted to a peepee, he is a homosexual.

[M.Dancer]

man attracted to a 13 year old boy is of a completely different sexuality than a man attracted to a 14 year old boy,

I was once attarcted to a 24 year old woman. Now she is 39 and I'm still attracted to her

....the man who is attracted to the 13 year old, or 14 year old, will not be attracted to them when they are 19 or 20.

...and that's the point you willingly and stubbornly fail to grasp.

What they seek is is not a normal relationship that matures and evolves...they want soley young children, and it really matter not to them if the 12 year old is a girl or a boy.

[Rue]

Here I got you some stuff. Let’s deal with the myth of homo-sexuals being pedophiles head on.

James. M. Cantor at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto is on public record as having stated there is no scientific evidence that suggests homosexuals are more likely to be attracted to boys or children.

We know in response to an anti-gay constitutional amendment advanced in Colorado in 1992 two doctors reviewed all cases of suspected child molestation at Children’s Hospital in Denver over a one year period and of 269 cases where there was molestation of a child by an adult, 2 of these molesters were identified as “gay”. In their study they found the chance of a gay molesting a child as no more then 3.1% but with straights, 100 times greater.

We also know in 1988, Kurt Freund of the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry, Toronto did sex research in which he analyzed two groups and found that gay men did not respond any differently to male child stimuli then straight men.

According to the most well known pedophile statistics from the U.S. National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System it would appear 90,000 children are sexually abusedt each year of which 80 percent of the victims being being girls.

Of the remaining 20 percent only a small fraction of these crimes was identified as being committed by “gays” .

Let us also be clear. A human’s sexual feelings or attraction to an adult, whether that attraction is classified as straight, gay or bi, is a completely separate distinct psychological phenomena then sexual attraction to a child. They are not the same.

Where the confusion arises is that a minority of pedophiles can also be attracted to adults but even if this is the case which is quite rare, these two different attractions operate independently they are not the same. Two separate processes are going on.

It is also a fact that statistics show that the majority of child molestations is perpetrated by men who are not necessarily sexually attracted to children-what is happening is they turn to sexual interactions with children under some sort of stress induced phenonema that triggers off these feelings.

This is often confused with the predator pedophile one of different types of pedophiles but which gets all the attention. Not all pedophiles prey. Some may never have the opportunity or access to act out on their desires and will not seek it out.

What we see on this series of posts is some writing in describing pedophilia as homosexual but here is the point-whether the act of molesting a child is described as same sex or opposite sex it may define the gender of the parties characterize the relationship between the offender's and the victim's genders, but it DOES NOT

identify the actual perpetrator’s preference when it comes to adults and to equate the two as the same, i.e., if they molest boys then they are attracted to men, is just not the case.

As stated earlier it is rare to have a child molester also be sexually attracted to adults and when it does happen from the statistics that are available these molesters are describing themselves as straight most of the time.

Bottom line is this-someone who wants sex with a child or young adult is not straight or gay. Their sexual attraction is not to adults so they can't be called that. It is really that simple.

Where this debate is coming from today that pedophiles are gay is from identifiable Christian psychologists who feel homo-sexuality is a sin and can be cured.

Now there was at one point some people in the American Psychological Association who tried to raise the suggestion that not all relationships between adults and children were damaging or more accurately put that the sexual relationship didn't do the damage the reaction to it by peers and family did, but such reasoning was soon challenged and dismissed but that had nothing to do with gays or straights.

I know its difficult for some to believe a homo-sexual pedophile is not a homo-sexual but that is no different then me sating a hetero-sexual pedophile is a hetero-sexual. Its a misuse of the word to describe the gender of the victim and the offender.

Police prefer to define pedophiles in regards to whether they are predators and actively looking for victims or the passive pedophile who is not actively looking but none-the-less with the right stress or set of conditions might do it.

Since it appears 80% of child sex victims appear female and to be molested by men which parallels what most police detectives would tell you is their take on it-we should not confuse that fact.

More to the point no healthy gay or straight adult would condone or support such behaviour.

[sharkman]

Read what I wrote and attempted to explain. Neither "straight" or "gay" people are attracted to adolescents or children. What I said was a healthy homo-sexual is no different then a healthy hetero-sexual, they are attracted to people of the same sex not children or boys.

What the statistics have shown is that when child molesters are caught most describe themselves as hetero-sexual.

I use the proper clinical terms. I would not consider anyone who has sex with children or boys anything other then the terms I used. Calling them straight or gay makes no sense. Their sex is not with an adult or partner of comprable age.

Lets step back a minute and look at the big picutre. It is very politically incorrect to find anything negative about gays in the medical community or anywhere else. They have been given the Midas touch. So every sexual deviance is approached with this bias.

If a healthy gay is attracted to adults, then an unhealthy gay could be attracted to boys. To merely use the description these obviously sick people choose to describe themselves - heterosexual - is kin to asking the patient to figure out what desease they have. Their diseased minds are not to be trusted simply because their descriptions are helpful to gay culture.

As far as Nambla goes, if you think they didn't care what the sex is of the young person, then why did they call themselves, North American Man Boy Love Association? And if you think they are shut down, try again. They just went underground.

At any rate, I am not suggesting that all gays are child molestors, only the ones who have sex with kids of the same sex.

Your last comment was very telling, for you suggested that to find out the difference between a sexual deviant and a gay, I only need to speak with a gay. Not a molestor.

Get it through your head, gays are capable of molestation just as straights are. The game the medical community is playing with names and terms won't change that.

[guyser]

As far as Nambla goes, if you think they didn't care what the sex is of the young person, then why did they call themselves, North American Man Boy Love Association? And if you think they are shut down, try again. They just went underground.

They are smaller than the KKK and many other stupid groups. In no way is the gay community supportive to that group.

At any rate, I am not suggesting that all gays are child molestors, only the ones who have sex with kids of the same sex.

I believe Rue spelled that out. Those having sex w kids are pedophiles.

Get it through your head, gays are capable of molestation just as straights are. The game the medical community is playing with names and terms won't change that.

No one is suggesting that any group does not have problems within it. No one has , no one will.

The medical community is not playing games with anyone. Peoples lives are at stake. Why would they play games. Perhaps the Med community is not saying what you want them to say?

[ScottSA]

Here I got you some stuff. Let’s deal with the myth of homo-sexuals being pedophiles head on.

James. M. Cantor at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto is on public record as having stated there is no scientific evidence that suggests homosexuals are more likely to be attracted to boys or children.

We know in response to an anti-gay constitutional amendment advanced in Colorado in 1992 two doctors reviewed all cases of suspected child molestation at Children’s Hospital in Denver over a one year period and of 269 cases where there was molestation of a child by an adult, 2 of these molesters were identified as “gay”. In their study they found the chance of a gay molesting a child as no more then 3.1% but with straights, 100 times greater.

We also know in 1988, Kurt Freund of the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry, Toronto did sex research in which he analyzed two groups and found that gay men did not respond any differently to male child stimuli then straight men.

None of this is at all surprising, because it all begins from the sterilized premise that homosexuality and heterosexuality are defined as sexual preferences between adults...a completely arbitrary definition.

Let us also be clear. A human’s sexual feelings or attraction to an adult, whether that attraction is classified as straight, gay or bi, is a completely separate distinct psychological phenomena then sexual attraction to a child. They are not the same.

Where the confusion arises is that a minority of pedophiles can also be attracted to adults but even if this is the case which is quite rare, these two different attractions operate independently they are not the same. Two separate processes are going on.[/quote

Why? This is a completely arbitrary claim, and no more valid than if I claimed the opposite is true.

What we see on this series of posts is some writing in describing pedophilia as homosexual but here is the point-whether the act of molesting a child is described as same sex or opposite sex it may define the gender of the parties characterize the relationship between the offender's and the victim's genders, but it DOES NOT

identify the actual perpetrator’s preference when it comes to adults and to equate the two as the same, i.e., if they molest boys then they are attracted to men, is just not the case.

But again, that is irrelevant. If the youth of the victim were the sole or even predominant characteristic of this alleged category of sexuality, then the gender would not matter a whit. It makes no difference whether the perp defines himself and "gay" or "straight", or martian. If he is a man who prefers male victims, he is a homosexual pedophile. This is not "confusion" on my part, it is the application of logic to a completely arbitrary pronouncement.

Bottom line is this-someone who wants sex with a child or young adult is not straight or gay. Their sexual attraction is not to adults so they can't be called that. It is really that simple.

No, what is simple is that you make this arbitrary claim that homo and hetero sexuality only applies to adults, and expect it to be accepted on the grounds that you make it. It has no more psychological validity to it than the old claim by the various psychology bodies that homosexuality is a disease, or the later claim that it wasn't. Those claims and the one you are making now were entirely driven by politics and painted with a very lame veneer of science to lend them credibility of sorts.

Now there was at one point some people in the American Psychological Association who tried to raise the suggestion that not all relationships between adults and children were damaging or more accurately put that the sexual relationship didn't do the damage the reaction to it by peers and family did, but such reasoning was soon challenged and dismissed but that had nothing to do with gays or straights.

This is a case in point of politics driven "science".

I know its difficult for some to believe a homo-sexual pedophile is not a homo-sexual but that is no different then me sating a hetero-sexual pedophile is a hetero-sexual. Its a misuse of the word to describe the gender of the victim and the offender.

According to your definition, this is true, but that's like me claiming that green is a color except in the case of pine trees, in which case it is a hue, and cannot therefore be considered a color. It's simply defining the issue away by using arbitrary definitions.

[Rue]

"They (gays) have been given the Midas touch."

The above is your subjective generalization and bias as to gays,.

"So every sexual deviance is approached with this bias."

You then make the irrational conclusion that since others do not share the above bias you have, based on a subjective generalization of yours, it makes people bias towards the issue of sexual deviance. This of course makes no sense what-so-ever. The fact that I do not make subjective negative generalizations about gays and define them as sexually deviant doesn't make me bias, in fact all it does is evidence your biases and in particular your bias that gays are sexually deviant and are given preferential treatment by not being referred to as deviants.

"If a healthy gay is attracted to adults, then an unhealthy gay could be attracted to boys."

Using that logic an unhealthy straight could be attracted to girls. The problem is the above comment shows you refuse to acknopwledge that the attraction of an adult to a boy is not homo-sexual behaviour. There are specific clinical designations for it. The fact that you choose to ignore the psychiatric manual classifications and continue to repeat the completely incorrect statement that being attracted to a boy is homo-sexual behaviour, simply repeats your refusal to distinguish between a pedophole and homo-sexual and insist they be called the same thing.

"To merely use the description these obviously sick people choose to describe themselves - heterosexual - is kin to asking the patient to figure out what desease they have. "

You of course completely missed the point. Using your arguement of course, these pedophiles may call themselves straight, but they are homo-sexuals anyways. No that is not what I said and that is not what I explained. These pedophiles when they do have sex with adults describe themselves as straight. They are not describing their activities or preference with children.

People like you who insist that when a pedophile has sex with the same sex its homo-sexual and no different then the sex homo-sexual adults have. What I have stated is that describing sex between an adult and a child as hetero-sexual or homo-sexual to refer to whether the gender of the molester is the same as the gender of the victim is not accurate and is a use of the terms heter-sexual and homo-sexual.

Whatr you are trying to do is say a person who has sex with a child of the same sex is a homo-sexual. No they are not. They are no more a homo-sexual then an adult who molests a girl is a hetero-sexual. They are pedophiles.

"Their diseased minds are not to be trusted simply because their descriptions are helpful to gay culture."

Now you have shown once again not only could you not understand what I said, but keep coming back to this entrenched bias that pedophiles are gays.

"As far as Nambla goes, if you think they didn't care what the sex is of the young person, then why did they call themselves, North American Man Boy Love Association?"

They called themselves a lot of things not just that name. You clearly do not know who they are. I do. I worked with 10 of these so called members. They were pedophiles. They would have had sex with any male or female who looked asexual, i.e., no hair, ambiguous features.

"And if you think they are shut down, try again. They just went underground."

Of course they went underground. There is a world wide network of pedophiles who interact and are incited by child pronography on the web sites and in world wide prostitution rings of children particularly in third world countries. Your point?

"At any rate, I am not suggesting that all gays are child molestors, only the ones who have sex with kids of the same sex."

That is precisely the point. So if you want to use the term homo-sexual incorrectly to describe pedophiles who have sex with children of the same sex, continue to do so. However I will challenge you just as I would if you said men who have sex with girls are hetero-sexuals. They are not and you are using the terms incorrectly and the use of the terms incorrectly simply fuel and justify the incorrect stereotype that gays are pedophiles.

"Your last comment was very telling, for you suggested that to find out the difference between a sexual deviant and a gay, I only need to speak with a gay. Not a molestor. Get it through your head, gays are capable of molestation just as straights are."

No you get it through your head, that calling pedophiles hetero-sexual or homo-sexual is incorrect and you keep repeating it because you deliberately ignore the proper terminology because you have a preconceived bias that gays are pedophiles are the same.

"The game the medical community is playing with names and terms won't change that."

It is not a game. The fact that the medical community properly defines these behaviours and you wish to ignore them and make up your own terms because they are more compatible with your personal prejudices against gays is the game.

Perhaps you should ask yourself why you are so fixated in insisting gays are pedophiles and then dismissing the medical community as playing games.

I would also like to know what your medical qualifications are to dismiss the medical community as playing games because they don't classify sexual deviancy the way you do.

Wait don't tell me...God told you...the Bible told you right?

[Rue]

"According to your definition, this is true, but that's like me claiming that green is a color except in the case of pine trees, in which case it is a hue, and cannot therefore be considered a color. It's simply defining the issue away by using arbitrary definitions."

Just to clarify-These are not my definitions. They come from the DVSM psychiatic manual and what both the American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association and their counterparts in Canada, the UK, New Zealand, Australia, and South Africa all agree on.

More to the point it is you not these associations making the arbitrary designation that if a pedophile molests someone of the same sex, you will use the same term as someone who has same sex with adults.

If these associations were being arbitrary they wouldn't take the time to carefully distinguish the terms so that people like you would not use them incorrectly and encourage the stereotype that homo-sexuals and pedophiles share the same sexual behaviour because the gender of their preference is the same. Being sexually attracted to a boy is not the same as being sexually attracted to a man. You are confusing the fact that the gender is the same. The gender being the same is not what defines it as deviant by the medical community. What defines it as deviant is when an adult has sex with a child.

You also ignored again the most salient feature of pedophilia probably because it doesn't fit into your pedophiles are gays theory-and that is these so called gay pedophiles when given access and opportunity will molest girls as well. The notion that a pedophile will only have sex with boys because he is a homo-sexual pedophile is not true. You are trying to create a phenomena that does not exist. Pedophiles will not restrict their molestation of children to just one sex. That is absolute b.s. If they have its because of opportunity and access and not preference. A pedophile doesn't say-gee I will only molest boys never girls. They molest what is available and what they look for is an asexual or ambiguous physical body that doesn't threaten them with any overt sexual features. What they are attracted to is the asexual appearance of their victim. They are attracted to boys precisely because their features are ambiguous, they are not pronounced, they are similiar in either girls or boys-they are attracted to this asexuality precisely because they can't handle their own self-hatred-they don't want to be reminded of their own bodies. Take a look at Michael Jackson. Most of his victims appear to be boys but he did molest girls. The alleged preference for boys was not a homo-sexual pathology. It has nothing to do with being attracted to the male body. He would recoil at pubic hair or muscular features or a large penis. He wants to be reminded of himself when he was a child.

I speak from the experience of getting in these peoples' heads. They are no more gay then. The thing that attracts them to boys is precisely what makes them not gay. They couldn't handle the gay world of developed male bodies. It would make them impotent and probably panic.

Try read the literature and find out the difference in the pathologies of cosnensual adult same sex to the pathologies of adult to child sex. The equivalent gender of the

victim and offender is a classification you use not what the psychiatric and psychological worlds use because the very mechacnisms and reasons for arousal and desire are completely different. You are simply saying since they both are red, they must be the same. They aren't. Two things can have the colour red and be completely different. Its that colour read you are using arbitrarily to make them the same, not me.

That said, if you are worried about homo-sexuals recruiting and molesting children I again repeat, there is far more likelihood of hetero-sexuals doing that. More to the point people who molest children very rarely have sex with adults and when they do its 90% of the time straight men who have molested girls. However most pedophiles fail to have any intimacy with adults. They can't. They are unable. When we get into the pathology of someone who screws children and adults its a very are phenomena and then its usually inter-related to all kinds of other personality disorders.

[sharkman]

Rue, ain't you been busy! But it looks like we haven't convinced each other of anything. You speak of my bias, but aren't you gay? Or am I mixing you up with another, perhaps cybercoma. At any rate we all have biases and so does the medical community, since it is full of people.

I was going to thank you for keeping it mostly polite until at the end(unlike your previous post to me where you referenced my peepee) you played the religion card. It's funny how those on the pro gay side just can't keep themselves from name calling or taunts. It belittles your argument, so I won't bother you on this thread anymore lest it provoke you further.

[guyser]

I was going to thank you for keeping it mostly polite until at the end(unlike your previous post to me where you referenced my peepee) you played the religion card. It's funny how those on the pro gay side just can't keep themselves from name calling or taunts. It belittles your argument, so I won't bother you on this thread anymore lest it provoke you further.

Its funny how those on the anti-gay side just can't keep themselves from trusting or believing the Doctors, in peer reviewed reports, agreeing on terms and where they apply vis a vis the gay or pedophile debate.

Rue obviously has worked with and among these pedophile monsters, studied the terms and the proper application of names for them.

And not necessarily you sharkman, but others have rebutted rediculous notions about this. Rue set them straight, to no avail.

Sad but not surprising

[sharkman]

Its funny how those on the anti-gay side just can't keep themselves from trusting or believing the Doctors, in peer reviewed reports, agreeing on terms and where they apply vis a vis the gay or pedophile debate.

Rue obviously has worked with and among these pedophile monsters, studied the terms and the proper application of names for them.

And not necessarily you sharkman, but others have rebutted rediculous notions about this. Rue set them straight, to no avail.

Sad but not surprising

Your first sentence infers that anti-gays trust doctors in peer reviewed reports. I don't think you meant that.