Mark Foley, pedophile slimebag, resigns

[Hababi]

Most of you, at least here in the states, have probably heard about this, but I figured I'd post a thread about it. If you're unaware of the story, read it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Foley

Of course everyone will talk about how Foley was a republican, but the real story here is just another example of the link between homosexuality and pedophilia.

[semi]

i know a guy called mark foley =o.
edit: phew thats not him no.

[WhoDidTheElf]

OMG Republicans = child molesters!!!!11!!!11one!

Good riddance, people like him don't need to be representing the public.

[PerpetualBurn]

the real story here is just another example of the link between homosexuality and pedophilia.

The problem with this statement is that it's a lie.

[Futue te Ipsum]

I'd rather link republicanism with homosexuality.

Not because of whether it's true or not, but because I want to.

[Hababi]

The problem with this statement is that it's a lie.


Erm it's not. Every gay representative has a disgraceful record in one way or another, from Barney Frank's gay prostitution ring (likely employing minors), to Foley's pedophilia. You'd think sooner or later you crazy liberals would notice this.

[peeted]

that's hardly enough evidence to support such a stupid claim.

[Hababi]

that's hardly enough evidence to support such a stupid claim.

Sure it is. Cases like this are endemic of the hedonism and depravity of the gay lifestyle. I would never vote for a homosexual; no one should. Heck, even their literature uplifts hedonism and depravity--IE A Home at the End of the World, by the worst novelist in the world, Michael Cunningham.

[Jude]

Erm it's not. Every gay representative has a disgraceful record in one way or another,

LOL I'm not really sure if you're being serious here, but I've never known you to act like Voluminous Flush.

[Hababi]

LOL I'm not really sure if you're being serious here, but I've never known you to act like Voluminous Flush.

Oh I'm dead serious. Another example of what you can expect when you vote for a gay politician:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry_Studds
"Studds is remembered chiefly for his role in the Congressional page sex scandal in 1983, when he and Representative Dan Crane were censured by the House of Representatives for separate sexual relationships with a minor – in Studds's case, a 1973 relationship with a 17-year-old male congressional page."

Voting for a gay politician is asking for a sex scandal, most certainly involving a minor.

[EinzingerIsGod]

So are you saying that homosexuals are inherently child molestors, or that homosexual politicians are? Because either way that's a ridiculous claim.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

serenity:

'I'm not homophobic. I just have an intense and irrational hatred of gays'

[Jude]

Oh I'm dead serious. Another example of what you can expect when you vote for a gay politician:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry_Studds
"Studds is remembered chiefly for his role in the Congressional page sex scandal in 1983, when he and Representative Dan Crane were censured by the House of Representatives for separate sexual relationships with a minor – in Studds's case, a 1973 relationship with a 17-year-old male congressional page."

Voting for a gay politician is asking for a sex scandal, most certainly involving a minor.
So you're essentially saying that all gays are pedophiles? Or is it just gay politicians?

[Erik6387]

I'm sure STRAIGHT politicians have had run-ins with pedophelia as well. Does that mean voting in a straight politician guarantees a pedophelia scandal as well?

[John Paul Harrison]

Voting for a gay politician is asking for a sex scandal, most certainly involving a minor.

This is pure gold.

[Eliminator]

Everybody quick, get a sex change before those damn homosexuals come for us.

[peeted]

16 and 17 year olds is hardley pedophilia any way, bit strange yes but there not children.

[griftadan]

am i the only one who doesn't give a **** about sex scandals?

[neal_672]

I think the real question is does anyone really need another repeat debate of everyone vs Serenity on the subjest of homosexuality.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

16 and 17 year olds is hardley pedophilia any way, bit strange yes but there not children.well yeah

it's pushing it to claim that this supports any link between homosexuality and paedophilia. could it possibly be that bdr is desperate to back up another of his pet obsessions?

[AmericanWeiner]

I think the real question is does anyone really need another repeat debate of everyone* vs Serenity on the subjest of homosexuality.

*reality

[Hababi]

So you're essentially saying that all gays are pedophiles? Or is it just gay politicians?


Not all gays are pedophiles (obviously), but a significant percentage are, conspicuously higher than with heterosexuals, and the lifestyle lends itself to such reprehensible activity. That's what happens when you cave into deviant desires: other deviancies just start piling on. Pedophilia. Nymphomania. Drug addiction. Sadism. Masochism. Etc. all higher with homosexuals.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

bdr is a silly bigot bigot bigot

[Hababi]

bdr is a silly bigot bigot bigot

Pointing out facts doesn't make you a bigot. I don't hate gay people; I just realize the truth about deviant lifestyles.

[Jude]

Not all gays are pedophiles (obviously), but a significant percentage are, conspicuously higher than with heterosexuals,

lololololololol proofplz

and the lifestyle lends itself to such reprehensible activity.
I fail to see how that connection works.

That's what happens when you cave into deviant desires: other deviancies just start piling on. Pedophilia. Nymphomania. Drug addiction. Sadism. Masochism. Etc. all higher with homosexuals.
Again you a) don't have any proof that gays do this stuff more and b) are essentially making stuff up, not to mention heaping moral judgements on certain sexual tendencies which occur among everyone and are not remotely similar to pedophilia.

[neal_672]

I believe that we've had the conversation about the definition of the word deviant before, it doesn't mean anything negative, the Oxford English Dictionary states it as being "diverging from usual behaviour". Tell me how that is negative? Plenty of people diverge from the norm, i can think of lots, hell i daresay we could lump Jesus in there under that definition.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

Pointing out facts doesn't make you a bigot. I don't hate gay people; I just realize the truth about deviant lifestyles.http://www.sputnikmusic.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13355192&postcount=12

and, apparently it's paedophilic to **** 16 year olds

[neal_672]

*reality

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Hababi]

I believe that we've had the conversation about the definition of the word deviant before, it doesn't mean anything negative, the Oxford English Dictionary states it as being "diverging from usual behaviour". Tell me how that is negative? Plenty of people diverge from the norm, i can think of lots, hell i daresay we could lump Jesus in there under that definition.


When it has to do with sexual lifestyle, it is dangerous...

Unless you think necrophilia is acceptable :o


and, apparently it's paedophilic to **** 16 year olds


When you're 52 years old, yes. Also, the kid was 15 when he started.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

When you're 52 years old, yes. no. it depends on the other person's age

[Hababi]

no. it depends on the other person's age

Yup. And when the person is under the age of 17, it's called pedophilia. The boy was 15 when Foley started stalking him. That makes him a gay pedophile.

[neal_672]

When it has to do with sexual lifestyle, it is dangerous...

Unless you think necrophilia is acceptable :o





Way to completely twist what i was saying. Are you saying Homosexuality is comparable to Necrophilia? Nobody is saying that Necrophilia is acceptable, but using the word deviant can describe any number of actions, there is a line between deviant and wrong, most non-bigots believe that homosexuality falls firmly in the acceptable side.

I notice you completely ignored the point about Jesus by the way, do you, or do you not agree, using the accepted Oxford English definition of "deviant", that Jesus could have been classes as a deviant.

EDIT: Moreover, does this mean that if it's not to do with sexuality it is automaticall not dangerous? Would you say the deviancy of say, White Nationalism is not dangerous?

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

Yup. And when the person is under the age of 17, it's called pedophilia.
um no

Pedophilia or paedophilia (see spelling differences) is the paraphilia of being sexually attracted primarily or exclusively to prepubescent or peripubescent children. Persons with this attraction are called pedophiles.

[The Violent Warrior]

zerokewl what do you have against gays? tell us plainly


...lol

[Jude]

Unless you think necrophilia is acceptable :o



Why is it unacceptable?

[VomitStainedCretin]

Unless you think necrophilia is acceptable :o

Mmmm, Necrophilia... :cool:

Seriously though, people like Serenity would vote for mandatory lobotamies to save the human race from itself. He probably thinks incest is a healthy way of maintaining the purity of the Aryan Race.

[beso negro]

He [foley] introduced a bill in 2002 to outlaw websites featuring sexually suggestive images of preteen children, saying that "these websites are nothing more than a fix for pedophiles."

Must have been a cover up.

But seriously, if Foley wants to have sex with 16 year old boys, and it is consensual, I really don't have a problem with it.

[Futue te Ipsum]

I think it's more the case that paedophiles are increasingly likely to be bisexual/ gay than it is that gay/ bisexuals are likely to become paedophiles : /

[The Violent Warrior]

zerokewl, the gay lifestyle is hedonistic and depraved how? are all gay lifestyles the same? is the act of inserting the male fallice into the anal orifice (of another male) in and of itself, hedonistic and depraved?

seriously

[spitfirejunky]

"Do I make you a little horny?"

:lol::lol::lol:

This guy's toast.

[Hababi]

This thread only picks up steam when I'm in my 20th argument about homosexuality :(

Not to duck questions...but I've just been through that so many times that it's kinda tiresome to debate the same points again :o

I will, however, post a tidy little summary of the (recent) history of gay scandals in Congress:

Rep. Fred Richmond (D-N.Y.)
In April 1978, Richmond was arrested in Washington for soliciting sex from a 16-year-old boy. Richmond apologized for his actions, conceding he "made bad judgments involving my private life." In spite of a Democratic primary opponent's attempts to cash in on the headlines, Richmond easily won renomination and reelection. But his career came to an end four years later when, after pleading guilty to possession of marijuana and tax evasion – and amid allegations that he had his staff procure cocaine for him – he resigned his seat.

Rep. Jon Hinson (R-Miss.)
On Aug. 8, 1980, during his first reelection bid, Hinson stunned everyone by announcing that in 1976 he had been accused of committing an obscene act at a gay haunt in Virginia. Hinson, married and a strong conservative, added that in 1977 he had survived a fire in a gay D.C. movie theater. He was making the disclosure, he said, because he needed to clear his conscience. But he denied he was a homosexual and refused GOP demands that he resign. Hinson won reelection in a three-way race, with 39 percent of the vote. But three months later, he was arrested on charges of attempted oral sodomy in the restroom of a House office building. He resigned his seat on April 13, 1981.

Rep. Robert Bauman (R-Md.)
On Oct. 3, 1980, Bauman, a leading "pro-family" conservative, pleaded innocent to a charge that he committed oral sodomy on a teenage boy in Washington. Married and the father of four, Bauman conceded that he had been an alcoholic but had been seeking treatment. The news came as a shock to voters of the rural, conservative district, and he lost to a Democrat in November.

Reps. Dan Crane (R-Ill.) and Gerry Studds (D-Mass.)
The House ethics committee on July 14, 1983, announced that Crane and Studds had sexual relationships with teenage congressional pages – Crane with a 17-year-old female in 1980, Studds with a 17-year-old male in 1973. Both admitted the charges that same day, and Studds acknowledged he was gay. The committee voted to reprimand the two, but a back-bench Georgia Republican named Newt Gingrich argued that they should be expelled. The full House voted on July 20 instead to censure the two, the first time that ever happened for sexual misconduct. Crane, married and the father of six, was tearful in his apology to the House, while Studds refused to apologize. Crane's conservative district voted him out in 1984, while the voters in Studds's more liberal district were more forgiving. Studds won reelection in 1984 with 56 percent of the vote, and continued to win until he retired in 1996.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.)
In response to a story in the Aug. 25, 1989, Washington Times, Frank confirmed that he hired Steve Gobie, a male prostitute, in 1985 to live with and work for him in his D.C. apartment. But Frank, who is gay, said Frank campaign button he fired Gobie in 1987 when he learned he was using the apartment to run a prostitution service. The Boston Globe, among others, called on Frank to resign, but he refused. On July 19, 1990, the ethics committee recommended Frank be reprimanded because he "reflected discredit upon the House" by using his congressional office to fix 33 of Gobie's parking tickets. Attempts to expel or censure Frank failed; instead the House voted 408-18 to reprimand him. The fury in Washington was not shared in Frank's district, where he won reelection in 1990 with 66 percent of the vote, and has won by larger margins ever since.

And now Foley.

[sweboy]

Not all gays are pedophiles (obviously), but a significant percentage are, conspicuously higher than with heterosexuals,

Source or lies.

[Avalanche.]

Yup. And when the person is under the age of 17, it's called pedophilia. The boy was 15 when Foley started stalking him. That makes him a gay pedophile.
Shall I fetch the musket?

Omg a straight politician who had a sex scandal with someone significantly younger than he was.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewinsky_scandal

[Hababi]

Shall I fetch the musket?

Omg a straight politician who had a sex scandal with someone significantly younger than he was.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewinsky_scandal

Lewinsky was also a consenting adult who knew exactly what she was doing.

Sweboy: I've posted them before and I can't go find it now :o

[Avalanche.]

Yeah, because 16-17 years old don't know what they're doing. Right?

[Hababi]

Yeah, because 16-17 years old don't know what they're doing. Right?

So you're honestly comparing an underaged child (and as a 21 year old, I can classify them as such :cool: ) with a 25 year old? A 15 year old (particularly males, who tend to mature slower than females) lacks the emotional maturity to be able to be involved with an adult. Particularly a predatory gay male.

[Avalanche.]

I'm saying a 15 year old isn't clueless and I find your demonization of homosexuals offensive.

[Erik6387]

For as many gay politicians that have been caught for pedophelia, do some research...I'm sure far more straight politicians have been caught because they are thought to be a vast majority (But who really knows?). Let us not forget that many people see gay people as less human and are more likely to try to find other things "wrong" with them..

[Jude]

zero please provide a full list of every gay politician ever so that everyone can see how ludicrous it is that you're taking five of them and making a broad generalization, OK?

[The Violent Warrior]

So you're honestly comparing an underaged child (and as a 21 year old, I can classify them as such :cool: ) with a 25 year old? A 15 year old (particularly males, who tend to mature slower than females) lacks the emotional maturity to be able to be involved with an adult. Particularly a predatory gay male.

Im still trying to figure out what you are implying about gay males.

[Hababi]

zero please provide a full list of every gay politician ever so that everyone can see how ludicrous it is that you're taking five of them and making a broad generalization, OK?

To my knowledge, Pimpin' Barney is the only openly gay member of congress (not counting Fiddlin' Foley). Who knows, maybe there's more of 'em in the closet, but if history is any indication, they'll be prowling for young males soon enough, so we'll know who they are.

You do see that gays have a rather, erm, ignomineous record in Congress, right?

[SantaDuJuan]

Question, is pedophilla really homosexuality?

Because most pedophiles are attracted to the young body or mental state of a child. A homosexaul is attracted to people there age, or atleast grown.

I mean was that one teacher in Florida who did that student of hers and now has children with him. Is she still a pedophile? She fell in love with a child. Is she not a heterosexual?

[Imagination]

You do see that gays have a rather, erm, ignomineous record in Congress, right?
*ignominious

Yes, so do straights.

[Futue te Ipsum]

I always get reminded of spiral hacking into your account when you talk about gays.

It was quite well done, really :/

[Shadius]

I think it's more the case that paedophiles are increasingly likely to be bisexual/ gay than it is that gay/ bisexuals are likely to become paedophiles : /

I think you hit the nail on the head.

Regardless, the only point here is that politicians have a wealthy/stressful lifestyle, and are open to privilages and corruption, whether sexually financially, whatever.

It seems to me that the guys you mentioned who commited these offences were in the closet and didn't "know" they were gay because they obviously had families and were living a lie so to speak. This added pressure, plus that of a politicians lifestyle can lend itself to other hedonistic desires, okay, these people are conflicted and have problems.

So why wouldn't you vote for an openly gay politician then? It dosn't seem like the openly gay politicians are in breach of anything. They have less stress in their lives, they don't have to pretend that they love their wife in that way and satisfy their lifestyle that they're clearly not happy with.

And the fact is, you'll never know if someone is in the closet and has a family, unless it's really ****ing obvious, so there's nothing you can do about it. These people may be more predisposed towards being paedophilic.

On the other hand, I have a FAR greater disgust for someone who would want to have sex with a 7 year old, or a 12 year old, than I do someone who would want to have sex with a 16 year old. The difference is pretty great, that said, 50 year olds who have sex with 20-30 year olds is almost as bad as with 16 year olds really. Shows people have problems, but I wouldn't say it was necesserally paedophilia. It's hard to judge based soully on ages.

[Give me Beer]

I find it funny all those gays were staunch conservatives and denied being gay too.

[semi]

Question, is pedophilla really homosexuality?
She fell in love with a child. Is she not a heterosexual?
what? whoever said it was? she is hetrosexual but a pedophile. no-one ever said they were the same thing.

[Surgicalgod]

serenity:

'I'm not homophobic. I just have an intense and irrational hatred of gays'

lol :smash:

[sweboy]

Sweboy: I've posted them before and I can't go find it now :o

Ok lies.

And please note that being attracted to a sexually mature 16-17-year old is not pedophilia just because the legal age in the US is 18.

[Meatplow]

interesting debate, however i don't totally agree with you

I have known and had many friends who were gay. Many of them were purely about homosexual sex, and if this is what you call the 'deviant lifestyle' well they were a part of it. It seems the major attraction to it with most people, but i don't think this accounts for the majority.

I knew many of them that were just about love for each other as well, and this is a LOT different. There is a big step between having a solid relationship and pure f*cking. Most gays are just normal people with similar sets of moral values except for that they like other guys.

[Hababi]

Serenity, I've got no idea why you're pro-Casey when you're so clearly Rick Santorum in disguise.


:lol: I am not!

And Casey is a staunch Roman Catholic; he's more diplomatic about his views than me (if I was in his position, I probably would be too), but I think he basically see's the same thing. Most people without blinders on do.


I think it's more the case that paedophiles are increasingly likely to be bisexual/ gay than it is that gay/ bisexuals are likely to become paedophiles : /


What came first the chicken or the egg?

Seriously, I don't see any way where you can say homosexuality came as a result of pedophilia. Neither followed the other; they came with each other. Homosexuality and Pedophilia are just linked together.

[PerpetualBurn]

A lot of men molest a lot of prepubescent girls.

Idiot.

[Hababi]

A lot of men molest a lot of prepubescent girls.

Idiot.

Hmmm you managed to completely dodge all the real points and include a flame in the same post. Which is basically what I expected :smash:

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

but, serenity, pretty much all your examples are void because they are not examples of paedophilia

so you don't really have a point

[Hababi]

Not really, no. I don't really know how to prove otherwise, except to note that your examples in cases like this simply ignore paedophiles that are heterosexual, and that this case isn't an example of paedophilia. It's distasteful, but a 15 year old isn't prepubescent. Let's get terminology straight here.

ped·o·phile (pd-fl, pd-) Pronunciation Key Audio pronunciation of "pedophile" [P]
n.

An adult who is sexually attracted to a child or children.

A 15 year old is a child, just barely into high school. They still are under their parents rule. They may not enter into legal contracts.

Oh, to expand on Santorum: I disagree with him on environmental issues, taxation issues, immigration issues. I agree with him on some social issues though.

[AmericanWeiner]

A child (plural: children) is a young human. Depending on context it may mean someone who is not yet an adult, or someone who has not yet reached puberty (someone who is prepubescent).

The context when reffering to children in psychological cases is the latter.

[Hababi]

A 15 year old is still a child emotionally and in terms of maturity, regardless of what you 15 year olds want to believe :lol:

[Jude]

Regardless of what a child is you still have yet to provide any kind of objective evidence that pedophilia and homosexuality are linked. Mentioning a few high-profile cases of gay pedophiles does not constitute evidence.

[AmericanWeiner]

A 15 year old is still a child emotionally and in terms of maturity, regardless of what you 15 year olds want to believe :lol:

No they aren't. They're adolescent. Go learn your stages of development.

[VomitStainedCretin]

Its funny how Serenity is so certain about his bigot theory in such a childish, black-&-white morality manner.

[AmericanWeiner]

Its funny how Serenity is so certain about his bigot theory in such a childish, black-&-white morality manner.

He's like the bowflex of debators...for us casuals, we can use him to stretch our repetoire of arguements, but it's nothing so serious that we actually have to do research.

[Hababi]

An essay on adult sex offenders in the book Sexual Offending Against Children reported:"It is widely believed that the vast majority of sexual abuse is perpetrated by males and that female sex offenders only account for a tiny proportion of offences. Indeed, with 3,000 adult male sex offenders in prison in England and Wales at any one time, the corresponding figure for female sex offenders is 12!"[1]

· Kee MacFarlane, et al., writing in Sexual Abuse of Young Children: Evaluation and Treatment report:"The large majority of sexual perpetrators appear to be males (Herman and Hirschman, 1981; Lindholm and Willey, 1983)."[2]

· A report by the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children states: "In both clinical and non-clinical samples, the vast majority of offenders are male."[3]

· A study in the Journal of Sex Research states that "pedophilia does not exist, or is extremely rare, in women."[4]
A Significant Percentage of Child Sexual Abuse Victims are Boys

· According to the Journal of Child Psychiatry: "It was commonly believed fifteen years ago that girls were abused in excess of boys in a ratio of about 9 to 1, but contemporary studies now indicate that the ratio of girls to boys abused has narrowed remarkably. . . . The majority of community studies suggest a . . . ratio . . . in the order of 2 to 4 girls to 1 boy."[5] Another study found that "some authors now believe that boys may be sexually abused as commonly as girls (Groth, 1978; O'Brien, 1980)."[6]

· A study of 457 male sex offenders against children in Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy found that "approximately one-third of these sexual offenders directed their sexual activity against males."[7]
Sexual Abuse of Boys is Underreported

The actual percentage of child sexual abuse victims who are boys very likely exceeds the above estimates. Many researchers echo the view of the Journal of Child Psychiatry study, which refers to the "under-reporting of the incidence and prevalence of sexual abuse in boys."[8]

· Dr. Robert Johnson, in Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality, reports: "The vast majority of cases of male sexual molestation is not reported. As a result, these young men keep both the incidents and their feelings to themselves."[9]

· The Department of Justice report on child sexual exploitation explains why the percentage of boy victims is underestimated: "Adolescent boy victims are highly likely to deny certain types of sexual activity. . . . They are embarrassed and ashamed of their behavior and rightfully believe that society will not understand their victimization. . . . No matter what the investigator does, most adolescent boys will deny they were victims."[10]

· The Journal of Child Psychiatry adds: "Boys are usually encultured into an ethos where self-reliance, independence and sexual prowess are valued, while showing hurt or homosexuality are denigrated. . . . This may lead to powerful repression or deletion of the experience, with failure to report."[11]

Citations:
1. Dawn Fisher, "Adult Sex Offenders: Who are They? Why and How Do They Do It?" in Tony Morrison, et al., eds., Sexual Offending Against Children (London: Routledge, 1994), p. 11.
2. Kee MacFarlane, et al., Sexual Abuse of Young Children: Evaluation and Treatment (New York: The Guilford Press, 1986), p. 9.
3. John Briere, et al.,eds., The APSAC Handbook on Child Maltreatment (Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, 1996), pp. 52, 53.
4. Kurt Freund, et al., "Pedophilia and Heterosexuality vs. Homosexuality," Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 10 (Fall 1984): 198; See also Freund, K, and Watson, R. J., "The Proportions of Heterosexual and Homosexual Paedophiles among Sex Offenders against Children: an Exploratory Study," Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 18 (1992): 34.
5. Bill Watkins and Arnon Bentovim, "The Sexual Abuse of Male Children and Adolescents: A Review of Current Research," Journal of Child Psychiatry 33 (1992); in Byrgen Finkelman, Sexual Abuse (New York: Garland Publishing, 1995), p. 300.
6. MacFarlane, p. 9.
7. Kurt Freund, et al., "Pedophilia and Heterosexuality vs. Homosexuality," Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 10 (1984): 197. "The proportional prevalence of offenders against male children in this group of 457 offenders against children was 36 percent." See also, Kurt Freund, et al., "Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, and Erotic Age Preference," "Approximately one-third of these individuals had victimized boys and two-thirds had victimized girls. This finding is consistent with the proportions reported in two earlier studies," p. 107.
8. Watkins and Bentovim, p. 315.
9. Robert L. Johnson, "Long-term Effects of Sexual Abuse in Boys," Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality (September 1988): 38.
10. "Understanding and Investigating Child Sexual Exploitation," (U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 1997), p. 12.
11. Watkins and Bentovim, p. 302.

[AmericanWeiner]

To be honest, I only read a couple of sentences there that REMOTELY linked homosexuality with paedophilia, and even what was there was sparse.

For instance-

· A study of 457 male sex offenders against children in Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy found that "approximately one-third of these sexual offenders directed their sexual activity against males."[7]
Sexual Abuse of Boys is Underreported

This doesn't suggest that 1/3 of the 457 male sex offenders were homosexual , just that in one possibly limited instance they directed their attention at a male child. It's entirely possible that there were factors other than sexual attraction (hey, who would believe that? Oh right, Serenity) at play here, and homosexuality only applies to the subject's sexuality, not the gender against which they apply their desire for power and sadism.

[Rise Me Up]

Erm it's not. Every gay representative has a disgraceful record in one way or another, from Barney Frank's gay prostitution ring (likely employing minors), to Foley's pedophilia. You'd think sooner or later you crazy liberals would notice this.

You honestly believe there is a link between homosexuality and being a pedophile? That's dumb.

[Hababi]

To be honest, I only read a couple of sentences there that REMOTELY linked homosexuality with paedophilia, and even what was there was sparse.

For instance-



This doesn't suggest that 1/3 of the 457 male sex offenders were homosexual , just that in one possibly limited instance they directed their attention at a male child. It's entirely possible that there were factors other than sexual attraction (hey, who would believe that? Oh right, Serenity) at play here, and homosexuality only applies to the subject's sexuality, not the gender against which they apply their desire for power and sadism.

:lol: Mmmm hmmm let's face it, you're going to try to spin whatever scientific findings there are to suit your agenda. You asked for proof, you got it. I don't care how you're going to try to spin it, you're wrong.

[Futue te Ipsum]

An essay on adult sex offenders in the book Sexual Offending Against Children reported:"It is widely believed that the vast majority of sexual abuse is perpetrated by males and that female sex offenders only account for a tiny proportion of offences. Indeed, with 3,000 adult male sex offenders in prison in England and Wales at any one time, the corresponding figure for female sex offenders is 12!"[1]That settles it. We should only elect women.

[Hababi]

No, just not gay men. Or lesbians. Or any other sexual deviants. I don't want to be represented by deviants.

[neal_672]

No, just not gay men. Or lesbians. Or any other sexual deviants. I don't want to be represented by deviants.

Could you point out a gay man to me if they weren't open about it?

Of course not, don't be stupid.

EDIT: And will you please stop using the word deviant in the wrong context.

[Illmatic]

Sure it is. Cases like this are endemic of the hedonism and depravity of the gay lifestyle. I would never vote for a homosexual; no one should. Heck, even their literature uplifts hedonism and depravity--IE A Home at the End of the World, by the worst novelist in the world, Michael Cunningham.

that means I can link white people to depraved, sick, murder, right?

how many minority serial killers are there?

man I'm already afraid to walk down the street. You never know when a white guy is gonna skin you alive and eat your intestines.

[Hababi]

Could you point out a gay man to me if they weren't open about it?


No, thus when someone is openly deviant, they don't warrant being voted for.

[neal_672]

No, thus when someone is openly deviant, they don't warrant being voted for.

Is it not then possible that you at some point may end up for someone who is at a later date revealed as a "deviant"?

[Hababi]

Is it not then possible that you at some point may end up for someone who is at a later date revealed as a "deviant"?


Yes, just as it's possible that I could vote for someone that would turn out to be an embezzler. At that point, I will stop voting for that politician.

[Futue te Ipsum]

No, just not gay men. Or lesbians. Or any other sexual deviants. I don't want to be represented by deviants.But your own sources showed that women cause a small minority of sexual offenses...

[Hababi]

But your own sources showed that women cause a small minority of sexual offenses...


Yeah but there's plenty of other reasons why lesbians shouldn't be elected, too.

Basically, the only appropriate choice are heterosexual Christians.:thumb:

[Light Fantastic]

Preferably willing to die for jesus.

[neal_672]

Yeah but there's plenty of other reasons why lesbians shouldn't be elected, too.

Basically, the only appropriate choice are heterosexual Christians.:thumb:

So you would vote against someone with better policies based purely on the fact they're gay/lesbian/non-Christian/god knows else what that you don't like? Even if the Christian had horrible policies on various matters?

[Hababi]

Preferably willing to die for jesus.

Only if it involves homicide bombing your house :evil: :D


So you would vote against someone with better policies based purely on the fact they're gay/lesbian/non-Christian/god knows else what that you don't like? Even if the Christian had horrible policies on various matters?

If it was between a gay man and a Christian whose policies I didn't like, I'd write in a third party candidate. Same with a lesbian, an athiest, agnostic etc.

[Light Fantastic]

My house isn't an abortion clinic sorry.

[Hababi]

My house isn't an abortion clinic sorry.


Too bad, that would've made things easier on us all :(

[Light Fantastic]

Apart from the local rape victims.

[Hababi]

At this stage I feel compelled to point out that you've just ruled out former Presidents such as Thomas Jefferson


Good riddance. TJ was a pervert, a hypocrite, and an overrated blowbag who is far from one of our best presidents and far from significant in the creation of the government as we know it (he was fornicating in France).


, James Madison,


If Madison wasn't a Christian, then why did he authorize government funded programs to disperse Bibles?


Abraham Lincoln

No big issue. There were other men who would've done a better job. Lincoln is overrated.


and George Washington

There's nothing conclusive to say Washington wasn't a Christian.


(four Presidents who are generally regarded as being rather good at the job).


Teddy Roosevelt and FDR were superior to Lincoln, Jefferson and Madison.

Black people commit a higher percentage of violent crimes in the United States than you'd expect given how many people in the US are black. Does this mean that you wouldn't vote for Barack Obama or Harold Ford?

I like Harold Ford. The causation is the culture and socioeconomic situation, not the color. I wouldn't vote for a thug or a poverty pimp like Al Sharpton.

[LittlePound]

At this stage I feel compelled to point out that you've just ruled out former Presidents such as Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Abraham Lincoln and George Washington (four Presidents who are generally regarded as being rather good at the job). And that's just from the United States, let alone all the other countries that have coped with electing politicians that aren't Christians or even homosexuals! Black people commit a higher percentage of violent crimes in the United States than you'd expect given how many people in the US are black. Does this mean that you wouldn't vote for Barack Obama or Harold Ford?

i know it's kind of off topic, and i don't really agree with serenity, but with this being said it reminded me of something. Serenity wouldn't have voted for those great presidents if he were alive in those times becuase of his particular political beliefs....but...how many great presidents/leaders have been rules out of the equation becuase they were aborted?
just as a side note, we think of the great slaughters done by Hitler and Stalin are evil and inhumane, but what most people fail to realize is that we've killed countless more then both of those two combined in abortions...JUST IN AMERICA! If they were the inhumane evil people that we see them as today, what's that say about us?

[Skydive_Stu]

what's that say about us?

That we value women's rights to choose.

[LittlePound]

That Hitler committed mass murder on a phenomenal scale and thankfully that since abortions have mostly been carried out on foetuses before they are viable, that human life hasn't been taken. But you know, totally off topic and things.
I wont' get into the whole argument of whether or not the babies were alive or not, but i will say, regardless if they were alive or aborted, somewhere in the 25,000,000+ that have been aborted since 1973 there were great leaders/potentially great presidents....and we didn't allow it.

[Hababi]

Well he managed to pretty much double the size of the United States courtesy of the Louisiana Purchase,

He didn't do that; credit Napoleon and the secretary of state. In fact, TJ nearly didn't ok the deal, in spite of the overwhelming sense of it. Any other president would've made the purchase and with much less deliberation.


outlaw the purchase of slaves from Africa

Because he wanted to help the slave trade here in the States! :lol:


and was one of the men that defined the dominant idea of individual liberty within American politics.


Yeah but it was that other guy's definition that took hold in America and shaped things.


I really don't know how you can call Thomas Jefferson "far from significant" in creating the US government.


Oh he had some significance in bad ways: His virginia resolution laid the groundwork for the south to claim legal right to secede.



If he did that, then it's in total contradiction to what he said at numerous stages throughout his career.


I think what he said has been misinterpreted over time.


OK, but there are people who'd do a better job in every election, in the abstract. Lincoln is overrated, but would being a Christian have inherently made him a better President? If so, why?


He could've easier avoided a crippling depression, or at least ameleorated it.

But beyond the abstract, he was a lousy leader. Indecissive and irresolute.

Would you vote for a Jehovah's Witness?


Washington is more disputable, but there are certainly strong arguments saying that he was a deist, rather than a Christian. He certainly professed no strong faith in Jesus.


Sure, but plenty of leaders have kept the specifics of their faith private. Washington was a very private man.





All of this is getting off the point though. What in their beliefs made them unfit for office?


With Lincoln, it was also his homosexuality.


I'd dispute FDR,


:eek: You're disputing the New Deal icon? Geez oh man. Look at his leadership in WW2--it far outshines Lincoln's. FDR was a good wartime president.


Christian Presidents include the current incumbent, Warren Harding and James Buchanan. Would you vote for those three over Jefferson and Lincoln?


Buchanon was a homosexual; Harding was a serial filanderer. Both unfit.


So why does religious belief matter so much?


Because I want a candidate who most understands the truth of our universe.

[LittlePound]

actually, 25,000,000+ is a huge understatement to the actually number from which i pulled from my source http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/abortionstats.html

and if they are in no fit state to look after the child they shouldn't be having sex which could possibly bring about a child. Regardless, adoption is always better than abortion.

[Hababi]

do you support life imprisonment for any or all of the mothers who have abortions, the doctors who perform them or the judges that ruled on and have since largely affirmed Roe vs Wade?


Sounds good to me. Remove non violent drug offenders and lock up the selfish beasts and money grubbing doctors who perpetrate a great evil on America.

[neal_672]

and if they are in no fit state to look after the child they shouldn't be having sex which could possibly bring about a child. Regardless, adoption is always better than abortion.

Rape?

Broken contraception?

There are more than enough reasons for unplanned pregnancy that cannot be prevented.

[Light Fantastic]

You forget that contraception is unnecessary because you shouldn't be having such relations outside of marriage.

[LittlePound]

Serious question. If you think that abortion=murder (which is logical, since you'd describe foetuses as being alive), do you support life imprisonment for any or all of the mothers who have abortions, the doctors who perform them or the judges that ruled on and have since largely affirmed Roe vs Wade? Sure, among aborted foetuses there would have been some that would have done great things with their lives. Some would have been murderers and rapists as well. Some of them may even have grown up to become terrorists. It's one of these hypotheticals that is meaningless because you can use it to "prove" whatever you want, and I'd far rather focus on people that actually are born and are denied the chance to fulfil their potential because of their circumstances.
I don't support life imprisonment for anyone. It costs too much to just let them rot away and i'm much more for rehabilitation than i am punishment. But yes, i do see the doctors and mothers who allow it to be done as partakers in a murder. But since God forgives them i try to find it in myself to forgive them too.

[neal_672]

Sounds good to me. Remove non violent drug offenders and lock up the selfish beasts and money grubbing doctors who perpetrate a great evil on America.

*cries with frustration*

I struggle to believe that you actually mean this. I mean really, lock up DOCTORS who among performing abortions also render a great service to America, and release Drug Dealers? Come on man, get a grip on reality.

[neal_672]

You forget that contraception is unnecessary because you shouldn't be having such relations outside of marriage.

Ah of course, how foolish of me :rolleyes:

[Hababi]

I struggle to believe that you actually mean this. I mean really, lock up DOCTORS who among performing abortions also render a great service to America, and release Drug Dealers? Come on man, get a grip on reality.


I didn't say release major drug dealers and drug runners, who are invariably involved in violent activity; someone selling weed out of their pickup truck doesn't belong in prison.

[LittlePound]

Rape?

Broken contraception?

There are more than enough reasons for unplanned pregnancy that cannot be prevented.

i think rape is the only situation in which abortion should be allowed, but even in that case i'm against it. Putting hte child up for adoption is still better than killing the baby and giving him/her no chance at life.
About the contraception, i'm not sure where i stand on the use of it, but....if you're doing the deed you to need "man" up and take responsabilities for your actions. If your actions cuase for a kid to be born, you need to accept that and do your best to be a loving parent to that child.

[neal_672]

I didn't say release major drug dealers and drug runners, who are invariably involved in violent activity; someone selling weed out of their pickup truck doesn't belong in prison.

No, i agree they shouldn't, but replacing them with Doctors?

[Light Fantastic]

Removing doctors means more people dying that might have been good leaders.

[neal_672]

i think rape is the only situation in which abortion should be allowed, but even in that case i'm against it. Putting hte child up for adoption is still better than killing the baby and giving him/her no chance at life.


Psychologically it can affect the parent a ridiculous amount, it's about more than the welfare of the child, the mother would have to know that they would have left a blueprint of her rape on the world, a fusing of her and her assaulter. As you can imagine it's not something that they're likely to want.

Just out of curiousity, why are you unsure on the use of contraception? Are you Catholic?

[LittlePound]

I'm a Christian, that answer should suffice. I do not tie myself to any specific denomination because they only seperate the body of Christ and God wills that the church be unified.
Also, the reason i'm unsure about where i stand on contraception is becuase i just have never really searched the bible to find out where i should stand on such an issue. I don't plan to use it, and i'm not married yet (which means no sex for me) so it's really not that big of an issue that i feel pressing on me to find the right answer for yet. If my wife decides she wants to use it, then it'll become an issue i'll look for an answer about.

[Hababi]

but replacing them with Doctors?


Only those who would persist in performing abortions after the ban would take place.

Also, can you say, "Cheap national health care"? They'd be working for free! :evil: :D

Give them this situation: You work, in a halfway house situation, for 10-20 years, as a doctor, for a low salary, then you get to be free.

There, I killed two birds with one stone. Rep me.

[Hababi]

While Jefferson was clearly wrong on slavery (i.e he had slaves and it's morally repugnant to do that),


Not just had slaves, he raped them. He was morally bankrupt.


banning any part of it was a good start. His motives may have been not what mine would be, but banning the import of slaves from Africa was a good thing, even if done for the wrong reasons.

Keyword: wrong reason. That invalidates praise.




Not really. He had to deal with half the country leaving, generals who weren't helpful and arguably treasonous in some cases and criticism from extreme abolitionists, southerners and leading Democrats. He had quite possibly the single biggest challenge of any US President.


The General's weren't given time to be helpful--he never let them get fully situated. They made one mistake and he canned them.

The Union's victory was obvious from the start; a good president wouldn't have seen the war last that long. The Union had vastly superior resources and numbers. FDR had a much greater challenge, starting with the great depression and culminating with WW2.


Depending on who he was running against, perhaps. although his opponent would have to be crazy.


Ahaha so you let the religious beliefs of an individual affect your voting decisions?


But your analogy is flawed. Atheists, deists and agnostics are capable of agreeing with you on the issues. Devout Jehovah's witnesses, by definition pretty much cannot agree with me on issues that I care about.


Depends the issues :p

(Well, actually JW's don't vote or run in elections, but let's just ignore that fact for these purposes)


Interesting point, but he was married with children. There's no hard evidence that he was a homosexual, although he may have been attracted to men.


I think there's much more evidence to suggest he was a homosexual than Lincoln. IE him living with another reputedly homosexual man for several years, him being a lifelong bachelor, etc. There's little doubt in my mind that he was gay.


Lincoln suspended habeas corpus at a time when the country was falling apart (although he was still wrong to do so). FDR interned Japanese-Americans. I'd still rank FDR highly, but his centralisation of executive power isn't something that I like.


Neither were good situations, but the Japanese had it better off in FDR's camps than people arrested by Lincoln, without habeas corpus.



Well, Bush isn't gay or a philanderer. So again, Bush or Jefferson/Lincoln?

Bush. Lincoln would bungle the war on terrorism far worse and Jefferson would rape captured Muslim women.


Or what's left of it considering that we're meant to be talking about Foley being a paedophile, and we're off on FDR, deism and homosexuality. :-/


Otherwise the thread would just die.

[Jude]

Zero you are insane. This thread is conclusive.

[Hababi]

Although the evidence is strong (but, I believe, not incontrovertible) that he had sex with slaves, I don't think that there's absolute proof that he raped them. It's possible that he allowed them to withold consent, and in the absence of solid evidence otherwise, I give him the benefit of the doubt.

I don't :p I don't see where there can really be consent in the context of an owner/slave situation.



I disagree completely on this. Bush's immigration plan is something that I broadly agree with, and his support for it is largely based around pleasing pro-business Republicans and luring Hispanic voters.


Bush has been Hispanic friendly his entire career; I think one can make a persuasive argument that he genuinely desires to help Hispanics. He did pro Hispanic ventures even when it wasn't politically profitable.


My support for it is for other reasons. I'd rather he thought like I did, but I'd take his actions and give him credit for them as he's doing the right thing.


By doing so, TJ allowed the slave trade to become even more profitable, giving stronger voices to pro slavery factions. So it could've even been worse, in the long run.



Bull****. He put up with McLellan for ages and let him fight the war like he wanted. If a general acted like McLellan did today then he'd end up in jail for treason.


Look at how he handled some of the others.


The Union had greater resources, but the South didn't want to compromise, and a harsh victory gained by overwhelming force could have led to far greater problems. Simply smashing the South (bearing in mind that this was a civil war) and calling it a day wouldn't have solved the problem like it was finally solved.


That's what they ended up doing with Grant--they don't call him Unconditional Surrender Grant for nothing :p And after Lincoln was assasinated, the radical reconstructionists had their way. So, I don't think things would've been any worse. Making them better was to the credit of Rutherford Hayes, our most underrated president, not Lincoln.


No. Look, if you were an atheist and believed that 144,000 people out of the billions who have lived would be saved somehow and that everyone else wouldn't be, I wouldn't vote for you. If you were a Christian or a Jew who shared my political views (and they do exist), then I'd vote for you even if you had an atheist running against them. I don't care what people running for office base their beliefs on so much as I care about what their beliefs are.


Well that holds true for me too :p



He wasn't a lifelong batchelor...he was married and had kids. He was deeply in love with another woman whose name escapes me when he was younger as well.


:confused: You should check your facts on this. He was engaged, but his fiance broke off the engagement and committed suicide, probably after finding out that he was gay.


FDR detained far more, at a time of less national urgency.


In hindsight that's the case. But had he not done something, it might've become urgent, as vigulante violence might've set in. His actions might've actually saved Japanese lives.



*shrug*

OK then. Disappointing and really quite strange, but there we go.

Out of those three, I think Bush is the best wartime president. Because I think the other two were lousy, too

[neal_672]

:confused: You should check your facts on this. He was engaged, but his fiance broke off the engagement and committed suicide, probably after finding out that he was gay.

How to jump to conclusions, lesson 1 :rolleyes:

[Hababi]

hehe the gay mafia was only too anxious to claim Lincoln was one of them, but they sure don't want Buchanon.

[Hababi]

So why did you say that the only appropriate choice was a heterosexual Christian?


I don't care whether they're Catholic, Protestant, etc. just what they believe, as opposed to how they came to that belief. That's what I was getting at.

And, Buchanon never married. You're confusing your presidents:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Buchanon

[Hababi]

Ah, OK. Although you're still saying that they have to be Christian whereas I'm not.

Well of course :smoke:



I missed that we'd somehow started talking about Buchanan. :-/ I don't know enough about his sexual orientation to really say anything about it though, although he was a lousy President regardless of whether he was gay or not.

Aha so that's the point of confusion :p

Lincoln, I believe, was bisexual. The guy he was lodging with at one point wrote a letter in which he gave an extremely homoerotic description of Abe's thighs.

Of course, I think all gays are bisexual. I just think Lincoln leaned moreso one way during much of his life, whereas Buchanon leaned moreso the other way.

[EinzingerIsGod]

Just to toss in an argument on the idea that homosexuals are bad politicians...

If memory serves me right I want to say about 1.5% of males (roughly) are gay. That would mean that a decent amount of politicians throughout history were more than likely gay as well and did plenty of great things regardless of their sexuality.

[EinzingerIsGod]

Of course, I think all gays are bisexual.

This isn't the case.

[Electronic Wolf]

Leave the homosexuals alone, Serena.

[Jude]

Of course, I think all gays are bisexual.

LOL because of course the idea that maybe they are just naturally attracted to their sex isn't compatible with your beliefs and must therefore be discarded despite all evidence to the contrary.

[Electronic Wolf]

He's one of those "everything I believe is truth" types.

[lfantwister]

Of course, I think all gays are bisexual.
Didn't we have a discussion a while back about how you didn't believe bisexual people existed? :wtf:

[Zesty Mordant]

This thread only picks up steam when I'm in my 20th argument about homosexuality :(

Not to duck questions...but I've just been through that so many times that it's kinda tiresome to debate the same points again :o

I will, however, post a tidy little summary of the (recent) history of gay scandals in Congress:

Rep. Fred Richmond (D-N.Y.)
In April 1978, Richmond was arrested in Washington for soliciting sex from a 16-year-old boy. Richmond apologized for his actions, conceding he "made bad judgments involving my private life." In spite of a Democratic primary opponent's attempts to cash in on the headlines, Richmond easily won renomination and reelection. But his career came to an end four years later when, after pleading guilty to possession of marijuana and tax evasion – and amid allegations that he had his staff procure cocaine for him – he resigned his seat.

Rep. Jon Hinson (R-Miss.)
On Aug. 8, 1980, during his first reelection bid, Hinson stunned everyone by announcing that in 1976 he had been accused of committing an obscene act at a gay haunt in Virginia. Hinson, married and a strong conservative, added that in 1977 he had survived a fire in a gay D.C. movie theater. He was making the disclosure, he said, because he needed to clear his conscience. But he denied he was a homosexual and refused GOP demands that he resign. Hinson won reelection in a three-way race, with 39 percent of the vote. But three months later, he was arrested on charges of attempted oral sodomy in the restroom of a House office building. He resigned his seat on April 13, 1981.

Rep. Robert Bauman (R-Md.)
On Oct. 3, 1980, Bauman, a leading "pro-family" conservative, pleaded innocent to a charge that he committed oral sodomy on a teenage boy in Washington. Married and the father of four, Bauman conceded that he had been an alcoholic but had been seeking treatment. The news came as a shock to voters of the rural, conservative district, and he lost to a Democrat in November.

Reps. Dan Crane (R-Ill.) and Gerry Studds (D-Mass.)
The House ethics committee on July 14, 1983, announced that Crane and Studds had sexual relationships with teenage congressional pages – Crane with a 17-year-old female in 1980, Studds with a 17-year-old male in 1973. Both admitted the charges that same day, and Studds acknowledged he was gay. The committee voted to reprimand the two, but a back-bench Georgia Republican named Newt Gingrich argued that they should be expelled. The full House voted on July 20 instead to censure the two, the first time that ever happened for sexual misconduct. Crane, married and the father of six, was tearful in his apology to the House, while Studds refused to apologize. Crane's conservative district voted him out in 1984, while the voters in Studds's more liberal district were more forgiving. Studds won reelection in 1984 with 56 percent of the vote, and continued to win until he retired in 1996.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.)
In response to a story in the Aug. 25, 1989, Washington Times, Frank confirmed that he hired Steve Gobie, a male prostitute, in 1985 to live with and work for him in his D.C. apartment. But Frank, who is gay, said Frank campaign button he fired Gobie in 1987 when he learned he was using the apartment to run a prostitution service. The Boston Globe, among others, called on Frank to resign, but he refused. On July 19, 1990, the ethics committee recommended Frank be reprimanded because he "reflected discredit upon the House" by using his congressional office to fix 33 of Gobie's parking tickets. Attempts to expel or censure Frank failed; instead the House voted 408-18 to reprimand him. The fury in Washington was not shared in Frank's district, where he won reelection in 1990 with 66 percent of the vote, and has won by larger margins ever since.

And now Foley.

lol, if anything this serves to show that ppl with social beliefs seemingly similar to zero turn out to be gay.

[Electronic Wolf]

Didn't we have a discussion a while back about how you didn't believe bisexual people existed? :wtf:
It makes perfect sense. He wants to believe that homosexuals don't exist.

[Imagination]

Of course, I think all gays are bisexual.

What?

[AmericanWeiner]

Serenity: I'm an aspiring scientist right

That means I care for what empirical evidence shows us, not for the assumptions you think you can make off of it. If the evidence shows me something, then I conclude that it is true only when I have ruled out all other options.

The evidence you presented was hardly conclusive.

[EinzingerIsGod]

Hell it was hardly evidence.

[AmericanWeiner]

It was evidence that favored that males are overrepresented in violent and sexual crimes, and it was also evidence that male children are overrepresented in the distribution of sex among the victims.

however, when you consider that paedophilia is not related to sexual desire, it's related to desire for power, males are actually underrepresented (as it SHOULD be 50%, while it's only ~30%), which leads me to believe that paedophiles actually realize that what they doing is gay and therefore turn to the females instead of the males in a portion of the cases (and when given an option, however open ended).

[Jude]

however, when you consider that paedophilia is not related to sexual desire, it's related to desire for power,

This is an even bigger pile of nonsense than what zero was saying. What evidence do you have for THAT?

[AmericanWeiner]

It comes from the breakdown of what paedophilia actually is. It is, at its most base level, simply an attraction to prepubescent people. However, that isn't a crime. In fact, if the desire is never acted upon, and the desires cause no stress for the person, there is nothing formally out of place about it. Abnormal behavior must cause distress to the individual or others to be considered abnormal, psychologically.

So when we discuss the illegalities of paedophilia, we must therefore be talking about the actions. I suppose I made a slightly incorrect statement here, but there's reasoning to what I said-

A perpetrator of child sexual abuse is, despite all medical definitions, commonly assumed to be a pedophile, and referred to as such; however, there may be other motivations for the crime[19] (such as stress, marital problems, or the unavailability of an adult partner),[32] much as adult rape can have non-sexual reasons. Thus, child sexual abuse alone may or may not be an indicator that its perpetrator is a pedophile; most perpetrators of it are in fact not primarily interested in children

19. ^ a b Barbaree, H. E., and Seto, M. C. (1997). Pedophilia: Assessment and Treatment. Sexual Deviance: Theory, Assessment, and Treatment. 175-193.

33. ^ Lanning, Kenneth (2001). Child Molesters: A Behavioral Analysis (Third Edition). National Center for Missing & Exploited Children.

It's realistic to believe that a majority of child sexual abuse cases (therefore my misnomer of "paedophilia") come from a desire for power, not for sexual release, especially in sadistic cases (child rape, essentially), which are what I was refferring to.

[Jude]

So when we discuss the illegalities of paedophilia, we must therefore be talking about the actions. I suppose I made a slightly incorrect statement here, but there's reasoning to what I said-

It's realistic to believe that a majority of child sexual abuse cases (therefore my misnomer of "paedophilia") come from a desire for power, not for sexual release, especially in sadistic cases (child rape, essentially), which are what I was refferring to.

Um, you still didn't provide any reason to think that pedophiles molest children out of a "desire for power" rather than out of sexual urges. You might as well say the same thing about "normal" rapists. There's no reason to think that.

[AmericanWeiner]

Um, you still didn't provide any reason to think that pedophiles molest children out of a "desire for power" rather than out of sexual urges. You might as well say the same thing about "normal" rapists. There's no reason to think that.

Isn't that the commonly held position about rapists in the science?

http://www.interactivetheatre.org/resc/menwhorape.html

[Jude]

Isn't that the commonly held position about rapists in the science?
Most definitely not, or if it is then I'm putting my faith in dogma instead of science.

[AmericanWeiner]

I'm almost certain that it is, and it's not dogma. It's the commonly held position among scientists. If new evidence turns up I'm sure they'll change their views, but I'm pretty sure that most cases have returned anger, sadism, or desire for power as the primary motive for rape.

I could be mistaken, but that's the only thing I've ever heard.

It seems to me that if primal lust was an issue, it would be much more legally solved by finding someone willing.

[Jude]

I'm almost certain that it is, and it's not dogma. It's the commonly held position among scientists. If new evidence turns up I'm sure they'll change their views, but I'm pretty sure that most cases have returned anger, sadism, or desire for power as the primary motive for rape.
I will believe it when I see some serious, serious evidence.

Otherwise it's just asking me to believe a suspicious and overcomplicated explanation while ignoring a perfectly logical and simpler one.


It seems to me that if primal lust was an issue, it would be much more legally solved by finding someone willing.

Not every man is capable of having consensual sex with a woman he is highly sexually aroused by.

[LittlePound]

It was evidence that favored that males are overrepresented in violent and sexual crimes, and it was also evidence that male children are overrepresented in the distribution of sex among the victims.

however, when you consider that paedophilia is not related to sexual desire, it's related to desire for power, males are actually underrepresented (as it SHOULD be 50%, while it's only ~30%), which leads me to believe that paedophiles actually realize that what they doing is gay and therefore turn to the females instead of the males in a portion of the cases (and when given an option, however open ended).

rape could also be considered a desire for power and not sexual

edit: now that i've read further posts, i realized this is just redundant and has already been said...i guess i agree.
I will believe it when I see some serious, serious evidence.

Otherwise it's just asking me to believe a suspicious and overcomplicated explanation while ignoring a perfectly logical and simpler one.
Ok, if thinking that they do it out of lust is a simpler answer, than why doesn't it work in the case of pedophiles, they could be genuinely attracted to young girls/boys.

[AmericanWeiner]

paedophiles ARE genuinely attracted to young children. That means two things- not all paedophiles act on those desires, and not all those that do abuse or molest children are paedophiles.

[LittlePound]

i know that, but what he was saying is that some of it do it for the desire of power rather than the sexual desire, which i think could be true in some cases, just like it's true in a lot of rape cases.

[Steerpike]

I will believe it when I see some serious, serious evidence.

Otherwise it's just asking me to believe a suspicious and overcomplicated explanation while ignoring a perfectly logical and simpler one.

A ten minute Google search would do that for you. In fact, let me take care of it for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape
There you go. First page of results. Rape is a crime committed out of a desire to control and dominate. There are few things you can do to another human being that are more subjugating and humiliating.

[JohnXDoe]

16 and 17 year olds is hardly pedophilia any way, bit strange yes but there not children.
this is true. i'm more offended by the fact that Foley hit on boys then the fact they were "underage". if he were hitting on 16 or 17 year old girls it would be inappropriate and unethical. but hardly the scandel it is now. the fact he was hitting on boys is what creeps me out more. pedo or no pedo...

i'm also one who believes the age of consent should be dropped to 16. perhaps not without guidelines of some sort. but this "once you are 18 everything changes" crap is complete shi.t. when i was 16 i was having sex with a 22 year old. it was good fun :)
Not all gays are pedophiles (obviously), but a significant percentage are, conspicuously higher than with heterosexual....
this is so not true, Zero. if so why is it almost every news report on adult-child sex/molestation/abduction involve an adult male and a FEMALE victim? i seldom see anything about an adult male victimizing a male child. it happens, sure. but i hear less about it in the general population. maybe if you're a Priest or a Boy Scout leader you have the edge in the news, but thats about it...

[Steerpike]

this is so not true, Zero. if so why is it almost every news report on adult-child sex/molestation/abduction involve an adult male and a FEMALE victim? i seldom see anything about an adult male victimizing a male child. it happens, sure. but i hear less about it in the general population. maybe if you're a Preist or a Boy Scout leader you have the edge in the news, but thats about it...

From the voice of experience, save your breath. When it comes to issues like the truth about homosexuality, Zero has taken extensive vaccinations against truth, and simply does not speak fact.

[Cain]

I think there was once a time where Zero's opinions just looked like another point of view to me.

All I can say is: thank God for education.

[Jude]

A ten minute Google search would do that for you. In fact, let me take care of it for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape
There you go. First page of results. Rape is a crime committed out of a desire to control and dominate. There are few things you can do to another human being that are more subjugating and humiliating.

It makes absolutely no sense to attribute rape to a desire to control and dominate and rule out sexual desire when sexual desire is the most obvious and logical explanation. Men have very powerful sex drives, for biological reasons, and many of their actions are directly or indirectly in pursuit of sex. Why would you then assume that getting sex by force is not out of an urge for sex but for some other, more vague reason?

paedophiles ARE genuinely attracted to young children. That means two things- not all paedophiles act on those desires, and not all those that do abuse or molest children are paedophiles.
And it also means that some pedophiles molest children because they are sexually attracted to them. And given how strong sexual urges are in men, it makes sense to assume this is the motive for most such instances.

i know that, but what he was saying is that some of it do it for the desire of power rather than the sexual desire, which i think could be true in some cases, just like it's true in a lot of rape cases.
Did it ever occur to you that the feeling of power that comes from rape also comes from normal sex? You ever get with a girl and feel pretty good and manly and powerful? This isn't exclusive to rape, it goes with consensual sex as well. Separating these and declaring that men rape women simply because they like to hurt them and not because they sexually desire the women is nonsensical.

And yeah, Zero, your views are still nonsense.

[Steerpike]

It makes absolutely no sense to attribute rape to a desire to control and dominate and rule out sexual desire when sexual desire is the most obvious and logical explanation. Men have very powerful sex drives, for biological reasons, and many of their actions are directly or indirectly in pursuit of sex. Why would you then assume that getting sex by force is not out of an urge for sex but for some other, more vague reason?

How is it vague? It makes perfect sense to me. Saying it's sexual desire may seem obvious, but it doesn't make that much sense when you dig deeper into it.

We live in an era where it's still fairly easy to find an escort service, and even easier to buy toys for self pleasure. If I'm horny and don't have a willing girl next to me, I can jerk off. Problem solved. And that's the case with most of the male population.

However, if you read the case files of a lot of rapists and serial rapists, you'll see that they tend to come from abusive backgrounds and had massive issues with control and power. There are rape victims who have been so thoroughly abused and humiliated, that it takes months, even years before they come forward with their stories. If you had power issues, that sounds to me like a pretty damn effective way of feeding your psychosis.

If you actually look into the psychology behind this issue, it makes sense. It's not vague at all. The only problem here is that you're incorrectly trying to apply Ocham's Razor to a situation in which you don't have all the facts, and do not understand the psychology involved.

And it also means that some pedophiles molest children because they are sexually attracted to them. And given how strong sexual urges are in men, it makes sense to assume this is the motive for most such instances.

So you're taking a handful of instances and turning it into a blanket statement with no exceptions?

Did it ever occur to you that the feeling of power that comes from rape also comes from normal sex?

You still don't get it. We're not talking about being on top or on the bottom. We're talking about the complete physical and emotional domination of another human being.

You ever get with a girl and feel pretty good and manly and powerful? This isn't exclusive to rape, it goes with consensual sex as well.

A feeling of virility is not the same as a pathological desire to dominate. That is what should be obvious.

[Hababi]

And yeah, Zero, your views are still nonsense.


It sure seems like you agree with them :p

(well, outside of the mild hyperbole I used)


We're not talking about being on top or on the bottom. We're talking about the complete physical and emotional domination of another human being.


A power complex is essentially a fetish. A fetish is still directed at those individuals you wish to have sex with. Thus, those heterosexuals who have power complexes and a lack of constraint and morality rape women, and those gay pedophiles that likewise have the power complex and lack of constraint (which all active sexual deviants have, as otherwise they'd seek help for their deviancy) and morality direct it towards children of the same sex, who they want to molest.

Going further, to elaborate: a fetish is anything non sexual that gives one sexual plesure. Think about S&M--it's a fetish based on control, either being controlled or controlling. Rape is just S&M for people lacking self control and a moral compass. Still directed at those they are sexually attracted to.

[Steerpike]

I notice you avoided mentioning the straight pedophiles. Yes, they do exist.

Aside from that, I hardly consider you a person of any authority on the topic of sex.

[Hababi]

I notice you avoided mentioning the straight pedophiles. Yes, they do exist.


Of course they do. But then I would've had to give three examples, and it was much easier to leave it at two :p


Aside from that, I hardly consider you a person of any authority on the topic of sex.


There's plenty of experts on aeronotics who have never flown into space :amaze:

[Cain]

Of course they do. But then I would've had to give three examples, and it was much easier to leave it at two :p

We're so glad your conservatism extends to the amount of forum space you choose to eat up expounding your complete nonsense theories.

There's plenty of experts on aeronotics who have never flown into space :amaze:

The problem with this analogy is that you're not an expert on anything.

[Steerpike]

There's plenty of experts on aeronotics who have never flown into space :amaze:

You don't have to do something to know what it's about. I can't play Nocturne in G minor by Chopin on the piano. But I can read the music and know how it's played.

The reason I say this is because your paradigm of sex is archaic and I seriously doubt you have done all that much research into the subject. As such, your statements don't carry much credibility, if any, in my eyes.

[Hababi]

When I can't even get Cain to respond with 800 words then I'm in trouble :(


The reason I say this is because your paradigm of sex is archaic


Only in some circles :o

If trends continue, in 50 years, there will be a very large Mormon population in America. And Mormons are very conservative about sex. So your ideas will be outdated.

[Steerpike]

Only in some circles :o

If trends continue, in 50 years, there will be a very large Mormon population in America. And Mormons are very conservative about sex. So your ideas will be outdated.

I'm betting that by then I'm either going to be living outside of the country or dead, so it won't make a difference.

Besides, there's a very clear difference between opinions and facts.

[Cain]

When I can't even get Cain to respond with 800 words then I'm in trouble :(


all aboard the six-months-obsolete-jokes train. last stop, serenity, population 1 ignorant, sad man from pennsylvania

[Hababi]

At least back then you actually posted semi worthwhile posts even if they were all tl;dr :(

[Jude]

How is it vague? It makes perfect sense to me. Saying it's sexual desire may seem obvious, but it doesn't make that much sense when you dig deeper into it.
Yes, yes it does.

We live in an era
Rape has been common in all eras of human history.

We live in an era where it's still fairly easy to find an escort service, and even easier to buy toys for self pleasure. If I'm horny and don't have a willing girl next to me, I can jerk off. Problem solved. And that's the case with most of the male population.
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/svfacts.htm
# In 8 out of 10 rape cases, the victim knows the perpetrator (Tjaden and Thoennes 2000).-excerpt from that page. Whether 8 out of 10 is the exact number or not, all the statistics I've heard are pretty close to that.

If anything this would indicate that rape is not simply an attack of uncontrollable sexual desire on a man which he directs at the first available female. Much more likely is that a man is in a situation where he's intensely aroused by a woman and is desperate for sex with her, but she's not having it. This includes date rape, marital rape and other ambiguous situations where both parties aren't consenting. It's not simply a matter of suddenly having the urge to **** and doing it to whoever you come across any more than it's a matter of having an urge to feel like you control someone and arbitrarily deciding to rape someone because of that.


However, if you read the case files of a lot of rapists and serial rapists, you'll see that they tend to come from abusive backgrounds and had massive issues with control and power. There are rape victims who have been so thoroughly abused and humiliated, that it takes months, even years before they come forward with their stories. If you had power issues, that sounds to me like a pretty damn effective way of feeding your psychosis.
This in no way makes a case that rape is some kind of non-sexual control device. It almost sounds like something a nutjob feminist would say...men don't control women's sexuality because they're biologically designed to or it makes sense in terms of controlling offspring, but because they just have some kind of "power and control" issue that they conveniently solve by raping women.

If you actually look into the psychology behind this issue, it makes sense. It's not vague at all. The only problem here is that you're incorrectly trying to apply Ocham's Razor to a situation in which you don't have all the facts, and do not understand the psychology involved.
Regardless of any sense of power, control, etc. that may result from rape, it still makes much more sense to attribute it to male sex drive than to these airy ideas. Why do you think rape is so common in war? Because the soldiers think that raping the enemy women will somehow exert control over the population and thus serve their strategic purposes? No! Because soldiers are horny from being away from home and in a sausagefest for months at a time.
Why do you think a maladjusted man suffering from unrequited lust would force himself on a woman he's obsessed with? Because he's trying to compensate for some kind of childhood abuse? Maybe, but a much more sensible explanation is because he's horny and does not have the proper regard and respect for the woman.


So you're taking a handful of instances and turning it into a blanket statement with no exceptions?
No. The guy I was responding to was actually sort of doing the same thing, but just saying that pedophiles DON'T abuse children because of sexual urges.

You still don't get it. We're not talking about being on top or on the bottom. We're talking about the complete physical and emotional domination of another human being.And I'm saying that it makes no sense to use this as an explanation of why men rape women, or at least that it makes no sense to separate this from the basic biological fact of the male sex drive.

A feeling of virility is not the same as a pathological desire to dominate. That is what should be obvious.

Where does this "pathological desire to dominate" come from? Why is it so inevitably strong that it leads men to force women into sex when they're not even interested in sex? I can offer a simple biological reason why men have powerful sex drives and women are usually more reserved about sex. Do you have an equally clear explanation of this "pathological desire to dominate?"

[Cain]

At least back then you actually posted semi worthwhile posts even if they were all tl;dr :(

Suffice it to say that nothing you post arouses any sort of passion in me anymore for me to even begin to respond with anything "worthwhile," and I have more important things to worry at this point in my life than to say the same thing over and over again to you on an internet forum. You're just not worth the effort anymore. :)

Maybe if you shook things up by adopting a radical liberal response to everything, that would be interesting.

[Hababi]

Yeah but I can't do the whole gimmick different views thing like Tway.


anymore for me to even begin to respond with anything "worthwhile,"


semi geez don't boost your cred :o

[Steerpike]

Here's the major problem with your argument, Jude: you're trying to argue from a strictly biological perspective. Whenever someone brings up the psychological perspective, you go stone deaf.

Every argument I've brought up, you dismiss as "arbitrary," "airy ideals," or whatever other excuse you feel like coming up with. That tells me that you don't get it. I don't think you're even making an attempt to understand what I'm saying.

The stuff I'm talking about is not arbitrary in the least. I don't know why you so stubbornly refuse to even acknowledge that, let alone understand it.

[Scythe404]

but the real story here is just another example of the link between homosexuality and pedophilia.

Yeah, but he's totally a Republican too! I guess we should keep our eyes on John McCain next, right? And didn't Foley have hair? Keep your eyes on all politicians with hair. They may be pedophiles.

[Jude]

Here's the major problem with your argument, Jude: you're trying to argue from a strictly biological perspective. Whenever someone brings up the psychological perspective, you go stone deaf.

Every argument I've brought up, you dismiss as "arbitrary," "airy ideals," or whatever other excuse you feel like coming up with. That tells me that you don't get it. I don't think you're even making an attempt to understand what I'm saying.

The stuff I'm talking about is not arbitrary in the least. I don't know why you so stubbornly refuse to even acknowledge that, let alone understand it.

I'm not ignoring a psychological perspective at all. It's just that there's no need to resort to these notions of urges to dominate or control when there's a much better explanation just sitting right there.

The biological and psychological perspectives are increasingly melding together, anyway.

[Steerpike]

I'm not ignoring a psychological perspective at all. It's just that there's no need to resort to these notions of urges to dominate or control when there's a much better explanation just sitting right there.

The biological and psychological perspectives are increasingly melding together, anyway.

So because your answer is convenient, no one should bother with an analysis from other scientific disciplines?

[Jude]

So because your answer is convenient, no one should bother with an analysis from other scientific disciplines?

I'm not saying that. I'm not even saying this analysis is wrong, just the fact that people try to separate these alleged control issues that rapists allegedly have from the sexual urges that they obviously and undeniably have.

[AmericanWeiner]

Better and easier doesn't always mean it's true!

The problems you're dealing with are extremely complex from a psychological standpoint.

The fact is that normal people can control their sexual desires, and everyone has intense sexual desires from time to time. There's more to sexual contact than that.

Let's take a regular male, for instance. We can get in the shower and pull one out of we just can't control our desires. THAT is the simple solution here. However, rapists go out of their way, and the target is usually specific, not random. This implies that the connection is often personal (like in many murder cases) and that the perpetrator has not taken into account the feelings of the victim. They view them as objects to be forced so that they may "have their way" with them.

It's not untrue that a perpetrator might've fantasized about the victim, but it's likely true that he has a reason, be it jealousy or anger or whatever, to act on these desires in a way that will knowingly cause trauma to the victim. This mindset, where the perpetrator feels that it is ok, at least at the time, to force himself on the victim implies that he feels that he should have what he wants when he wants it, which is a desire for power. Rape is often looked at as "punishment" for not complying.

I'm sorry if I'm not quoting sources, but this is a pretty standard position on this issue. If you want to discuss with any great detail, email a psychologist or something. I'm just a student.

I'm not saying that. I'm not even saying this analysis is wrong, just the fact that people try to separate these alleged control issues that rapists allegedly have from the sexual urges that they obviously and undeniably have.

The problem is that you're not differentiating between the motivation to have sex with a person and the motivation to rape a person. I assure you that they are not entirely the same thing.

[Steerpike]

The problem is that you're not differentiating between the motivation to have sex with a person and the motivation to rape a person. I assure you that they are not entirely the same thing.

You said in two sentences what I took a half-hour to babble. Thank you.

[Jude]

The problem is that you're not differentiating between the motivation to have sex with a person and the motivation to rape a person. I assure you that they are not entirely the same thing.
Perhaps not entirely but the desire to rape someone is essentially the desire to have sex with them, but without the due respect for them and their wishes. It still doesn't make sense to portray rape as some kind of tool of oppression or instrument of anger. There's a difference between rationalizing or justifying rape in someone's minds and setting out to rape someone merely because one knows it will cause trauma.

[AmericanWeiner]

Perhaps not entirely but the desire to rape someone is essentially the desire to have sex with them, but without the due respect for them and their wishes. It still doesn't make sense to portray rape as some kind of tool of oppression or instrument of anger.

In sadistic cases, setting out to cause trauma IS the reason behind it. There's a desire to cause pain in the victim in those cases.

However, consider male victim criminal sodomy- the perpetrator doesn't necessarily need to WANT to have sex with the individual. Chances are, he'd have no intrest in a positive sexual relationship was offered. The motivation is in the demeaning of the victim.

That's a much more extreme form of what you're looking at with rape in many cases.

There's a difference between rationalizing or justifying rape in someone's minds and setting out to rape someone merely because one knows it will cause trauma

I'm not sure what you're saying here- rape isn't rationalized or justified in anyone's mind, unless the perpetrator is some dictator tyrant that believes that women ARE his objects (which probably hasn't always been unknown).

In cases of war rape, it's likely that the point of view at the time was that women were objects to please and serve men. Thus, they were spoils-of-war to be done with as the men wished, regardless of what the women wanted. Thus, rape. That, of course, stems from sexual desire, but there was also the motivation to dominate.

[italic zero]

Mark Foley says

a. Hey guys, I'm an alcoholic
b. Man, I got molested meself

[FA]

I have no problem with him being a homosexual congressman, let alone for being a Republican, but the second that creep starts e-mailing young boys is grotesque. It's obviously a shame on Congress, but I'm glad he resigned...

[Jude]

In sadistic cases, setting out to cause trauma IS the reason behind it. There's a desire to cause pain in the victim in those cases.
I would be willing to bet that cases in which the primary goal is causing pain and not having sex are extremely rare.

However, consider male victim criminal sodomy- the perpetrator doesn't necessarily need to WANT to have sex with the individual. Chances are, he'd have no intrest in a positive sexual relationship was offered. The motivation is in the demeaning of the victim.

I assume you're talking about prison sex. Given that men can't sodomize each other unless sexually aroused, and that it takes a definite effort on the part of the sodomizer to do the sodomizing, I'd say the perpetrator sure seems to want to have the sex.

And a lot of prison sex relationships do grow into somewhat positive relationships.

I'm not sure what you're saying here- rape isn't rationalized or justified in anyone's mind, unless the perpetrator is some dictator tyrant that believes that women ARE his objects (which probably hasn't always been unknown).

Um, most people who commit crimes do rationalize or justify the crime in their mind at some point, even if they later realize what they did was wrong.

In cases of war rape, it's likely that the point of view at the time was that women were objects to please and serve men. Thus, they were spoils-of-war to be done with as the men wished, regardless of what the women wanted. Thus, rape.

DUH. The men aren't raping because they want to hurt the women...they're raping because they want sex and are disregarding the rights and feelings of the women.

That, of course, stems from sexual desire, but there was also the motivation to dominate.
If anything the motivation to dominate is a side effect or afterthought in this case.

[Steerpike]

I would be willing to bet that cases in which the primary goal is causing pain and not having sex are extremely rare.

I assume you're talking about prison sex. Given that men can't sodomize each other unless sexually aroused, and that it takes a definite effort on the part of the sodomizer to do the sodomizing, I'd say the perpetrator sure seems to want to have the sex.

And a lot of prison sex relationships do grow into somewhat positive relationships.

Um, most people who commit crimes do rationalize or justify the crime in their mind at some point, even if they later realize what they did was wrong.

DUH. The men aren't raping because they want to hurt the women...they're raping because they want sex and are disregarding the rights and feelings of the women.

If anything the motivation to dominate is a side effect or afterthought in this case.

How much research have you actually done on this subject?

[LittlePound]

seriously, Jude, if the primary cuase was sexual lust they'd beat off like the rest of lustful boys...it's that simple. But, by raping, they have a feeling of superiority and control, i'm not saying they don't get some sexual gratification out of it, but that's not the reason people rape. It's easy enough to higher a hooker, beat off, or find some drunk chick that you wouldn't have to force yourself on anyone.

[Hababi]

Another thing:

Is it mere consequence that so many gays were molested as children? Purely happenstance that children who are molested end up in some deviant sexual lifestyle or another?

Born gay? Bollocks. Foley's homosexuality came in large part due to his being molested as a child, as is the case with many gays. Unless you believe in rampant coincidences.

Just another illustration that homosexuality is a dangerous deviant lifestyle, often the product of some other ill, and ought to be treated as a disorder, not a virtue.

So basically, gay pedophiles rape children, thereby further perpetuating the bane of homosexuality on society. It just repeats itself through generations.

[LittlePound]

Another thing:

Is it mere consequence that so many gays were molested as children? Purely happenstance that children who are molested end up in some deviant sexual lifestyle or another?
So are a lot of porn addicts. Molestation can cause sexual deviancy.


Born gay? Bollocks. Foley's homosexuality came in large part due to his being molested as a child, as is the case with many gays. Unless you believe in rampant coincidences.
Regardless if they are born gay or not, God has still given them the ability to utilize self control. They can choose to fight the urges, just like any straight male christian should fight the urges to fantisize about women. Also, both Jesus and Paul say that there are some people who are not meant to be married and that they would be better off staying single their entire life, well, though those passages don't directly point to homosexuality i do think that they may fall in that catagory.


Just another illustration that homosexuality is a dangerous deviant lifestyle, often the product of some other ill, and ought to be treated as a disorder, not a virtue.
Yes but it is no reason to discriminate against them running for public office.
Note: Serenity, i'm not really disagreeing with you on the first two comments, just using your post to kind validate my responses, except for the last one.

My advice to you Serenity would be this: Don't be so caught up in the politics of this country. Sure you should vote for who you think is best (which you've said would be heterosexual christians) but seriously....it shouldn't matter to you who wins the election. Jesus said "Seek ye first the kingdom of God", you make sure you are living after God's will and nothing else matters. It doesn't matter if there is a christian president who promotes your belief or a non believing president who supports your belief. Either way, if christians live the way they should, the faith will grow. If you look, some of the times the faith spread the fastest and the most was in times of trouble and persecution. The book of acts speaks about the begining church amidst persecution, and 10 of the 12 original disciples were martyrd (John died naturally, Judas comited suicide). So even if there is a president who hates Christians and persecutes them, the faith can still spread "blessed are those who are persecuted", but also, if their is a good christian leader the faith can spread. It done'st matter who is leader, it all matters on how we live. Don't get so caught up in politics.

[RockAndRoll]

Another thing:

Is it mere consequence that so many gays were molested as children? Purely happenstance that children who are molested end up in some deviant sexual lifestyle or another?

Born gay? Bollocks. Foley's homosexuality came in large part due to his being molested as a child, as is the case with many gays. Unless you believe in rampant coincidences.

Just another illustration that homosexuality is a dangerous deviant lifestyle, often the product of some other ill, and ought to be treated as a disorder, not a virtue.

So basically, gay pedophiles rape children, thereby further perpetuating the bane of homosexuality on society. It just repeats itself through generations.

I was just wondering are you ever going to bother substantiating your wild claims, or do you just inted to keep asserting them as if they were tautologies?

[italic zero]

hehe littlepound is the moderate

[Steerpike]

Born gay? Bollocks.

:rolleyes:

Oi! That's whot you keep sayin', ya rummy lorry. But not a bloomin' one of us ever listens, you notice that? Rubbish!

Off with you, then! Bloody darby. Anyway, you gents fancy a pint?

[Jude]

How much research have you actually done on this subject?

Not much, I'll be honest. But the stuff you're saying is truly against common sense. Rape a non-sexual act? Get out of here.

seriously, Jude, if the primary cuase was sexual lust they'd beat off like the rest of lustful boys...it's that simple. But, by raping, they have a feeling of superiority and control, i'm not saying they don't get some sexual gratification out of it, but that's not the reason people rape. It's easy enough to higher a hooker, beat off, or find some drunk chick that you wouldn't have to force yourself on anyone.
If you're a somewhat twisted individual who's out on a date with a woman and is intensely attracted to her and have the opportunity to force yourself on her and are lacking the moral standards/are "off" in some other way not to do this, then beating off and hookers don't enter into it. Like I said, rapes aren't the result of a sudden overpowering urge just hitting someone out of nowhere and them satisfying it at the first opportunity.

Born gay? Bollocks. Foley's homosexuality came in large part due to his being molested as a child, as is the case with many gays. Unless you believe in rampant coincidences.

Just another illustration that homosexuality is a dangerous deviant lifestyle, often the product of some other ill, and ought to be treated as a disorder, not a virtue.

Let's play "spot the gaping holes in this alleged cause and effect relationship"

Molestation can cause sexual deviancy.
*is sometimes linked to. Not the same thing as causing.

I was just wondering are you ever going to bother substantiating your wild claims, or do you just inted to keep asserting them as if they were tautologies?Pretty much just keep asserting, if the past 10 pages are any guide.

hehe littlepound is the moderateI know wtfcopter?!

[Steerpike]

Not much, I'll be honest. But the stuff you're saying is truly against common sense.

Stop right there. Do not use common sense as an argument. What is "common sense" to one person is bullshit to another person. Like the Bible, at that.

I seriously suggest that you read up on this. There are plenty of scientific journals and records on this you can peruse. Approaching the issue from rape from a purely biological perspective is foolish. If it were that easy to study the cause of crimes, criminology would have capped years ago.

Yes, the four F's of self-preservation still have a massive influence in our behaviour. But we're also complex organisms capable of abstract thought. To think that the Four F's are the answer to everything, free of nuance, free of alternative explanation, and free of complexity is just plain ignorant.

[Hababi]

Catching up on referencing some claims:

The term "homosexual pedophile" was first used in the early 20th century by the Viennese psychiatrist Dr. Richard von Krafft-Ebing, who pioneered the systematic study of sexual deviance. Krafft-Ebing described pedophiles as heterosexually, homosexually or bisexually oriented.[26] This division has been accepted by pedophiles themselves,[27] and is well attested in the literature:

· A study of child molesters in Behavior Research and Therapy found that "a homosexual and a heterosexual subgroup can be delineated among these offenders."[28]

· The Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy published a study on the same topic, which discussed "the proportional prevalences of heterosexual and homosexual pedophilia."[29] The study commented on a study that found that "the percentage of the homosexual pedophiles would be 45.8." Even adjusted downward for exhibitionists, "this would still indicate a much higher percentage (34 percent) of homosexuals among pedophiles than among men who prefer physically mature partners."[30]

· In a review of studies on pedophilia, the Psychiatric Journal of the University of Ottawa concluded: "The findings of previous studies report that pedophiles can be divided into heterosexual and homosexual pedophiles according to their erotic preference. . . . This was confirmed in this recent study."[31] The article classified homosexual pedophilia into three types: the socially inadequate homosexual pedophile, the intrusive homosexual pedophile, and the undifferentiated homosexual pedophile.[32]

· A study of pedophiles in Behavior Research and Therapy concluded: "The second, and perhaps the most important observation we made, is that a homosexual and a heterosexual subgroup can be delineated among these offenders. . . . Categorizing them in this way revealed important differences in the pattern of their sexual preferences."[33]

· The International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology refers to homosexual pedophiles as a "distinct group." The victims of homosexual pedophiles "were more likely to be strangers, that they were more likely to have engaged in paraphiliac behavior separate from that involved in the offence, and that they were more likely to have past convictions for sexual offences. . . . Other studies [showed a] greater risk of reoffending than those who had offended against girls" and that the "recidivism rate for male-victim offenders is approximately twice that for female-victim offenders."[34]

26. Bradford, p.218.
27. "[Pedophiles] can be of either sex or any [sexual] orientation, i.e., homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual." Paedophilia:Some Questions and Answers (London: Paedophilic Informational Exchange, 1978); quoted in Seth L. Goldstein, "Investigating Child Sexual Exploitation:Law Enforcement's Role," FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin 53 (January 1984): 23.
28. W. L. Marshall, et al., "Sexual Offenders against Male Children: Sexual Preferences," Behavior Research and Therapy 26 (March 1988): 390.
29. Freund, "Pedophilia and Heterosexuality vs. Homosexuality," p.194.
30. Ibid., p. 197.
31. Bradford, et al., p. 217.
32. Ibid., pp. 218, 219.
33. Marshall, p. 390.
34. James Bickley and Anthony R. Beech, "Classifying Child Abusers: Its Relevance to Theory and Clinical Practice," International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 45 (2001): 56.

The late "beat" poet Allen Ginsberg illustrates the seamless connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. Many know Ginsberg as an illustrious "out" homosexual poet: fewer are aware that he was also a pedophile.

Biographer Raymond-Jean Frontain refers to Ginsberg's publications in both NAMBLA Bulletin and NAMBLA Journal. He discusses how Ginsberg's biographers failed to discuss his poems that contained pederastic themes:
Although both Shumacher and Barry Miles (Ginsberg's initial biographer) frankly discuss Ginsberg's sexual politics, neither refers to his involvement with the controversial North American Man/Boy Love Association. . . . I reread Collected Poems and Ginsberg's two subsequent collections, surprised by the pattern of references to anal intercourse and to pederasty that emerged.[54]

Ginsberg was one of the first of a growing number of homosexual writers who cater to the fascination with pedophilia in the gay community. Mary Eberstadt, writing in the Weekly Standard, documents how the taboo against sex with children continues to erode--with the impetus coming from homosexual writers.[55]

Revealingly, the examples she provides of pedophilia in current literature come from gay fiction. Eberstadt cites the Village Voice, which states that "Gay fiction is rich with idyllic accounts of 'intergenerational relationships,' as such affairs are respectfully called these days."[56] Other examples of pedophilia-themed gay fiction include:

· In the introduction of the "mainstream" homosexual anthology Penguin Book on International Gay Writing, David Leavitt notes matter-of-factly that "Another 'forbidden' topic from which European writers seem less likely to shrink is the love of older men for young boys." Leavitt praises one book with a pedophilic theme included in the anthology as a "coolly assured narrative [which] compels the reader to imagine the world from a perspective he might ordinarily condemn."[57]

· Several texts included in another anthology, The Gay Canon: Great Books Every Gay Man Should Read, feature scenes of man-boy sex. One such book is praised as "an operatic adventure into the realms of love, personality, ambition and art . . . a pure joy to read." The protagonist is "a pedophile's dream: the mind of a man in the body of a boy."[58] Another novel which includes graphic descriptions of sexual violence against boys is said to "[tear] straight to the heart of one of the greatest sources, community-wide, of 1990's gay angst: What to do with men who love boys?"[59]

· Yet another anthology of homosexual fiction, A History of Gay Literature: The Male Tradition, published by Yale University Press, includes "a longish chapter on 'Boys and Boyhood' which is a seemingly definitive account of pro-pedophile literary works."[60] The author appears more concerned with the feelings and emotions of the man than with his boy victim. He explores the question of "whether or not you regard [having sex with boys] as a way of retreating from life or, on the contrary, as a way of engaging with it at its most honest and least corrupted level."[61]

· A significant percentage of books that have appeared on the Gay Men's Press fiction bestseller list contain pedophilia themes, including:
Some Boys: described as a "memoir of a lover of boys" that "evokes the author's young friends across four decades."[62]
For a Lost Soldier: the story of a sexual relationship between a soldier and an eleven-year-old boy, set during World War II.[63]
A Good Start, Considering: yet another story about an eleven-year-old boy (!) who suffers sexual abuse but is rescued by a teenager who "offers him love and affection"[64]
Terre Haute: billed as "A poetic novel of sexual awakening in the American Midwest, tracing an adolescent's journey from introspection to perilous desire."
Shiva and Arun: the story of two Indian adolescents who "discover early on the joys of sex."
Teardrops on My Drum: barefoot kids in 1920's Liverpool search for "adventure, love and sex."

Why waste my time making me go find the sources? Sheesh I've had to do so twice now, you'd think you'd finally just accept that I am correct and you're wrong :p

[Hababi]

Oh and this is the overflow from the wretched limit on post size:

Pro-pedophilia Publications

Recent years have seen the appearance of publications that lend a scholarly veneer to the fascination with pedophilia in the gay community. Such publications attempt to make the case for "intergenerational intimacy." The nation's largest gay publisher, Alyson Publications, which distributes Daddy's Roommate and other homosexual books that promote homosexuality to children, publishes books advocating man-boy sex, including:

· Paedophilia: The Radical Case, which contains detailed information on how to engage in sexual relations with young boys.[65]

· The Age Taboo, another defense of pedophiliawhich claims: "Boy-lovers . . . are not child molesters. The child abusers are . . . parents who force their staid morality onto the young people in their custody."[66]
The Journal of Homosexuality and Pedophilia

The Journal of Homosexuality is viewed as the premier "mainstream" English-language publication of the gay movement. One prominent editor is John DeCecco, a psychologist at San Francisco State University who also serves on the editorial board of the Dutch pedophile journal Paidika. It is therefore not surprising to see pedophilia promoted on its pages.

In 1990 the Journal of Homosexuality published a series of essays on pedophilia that were eventually published as Male Inter-Generational Intimacy:Historical, Socio-Psychological, and Legal Perspectives, edited by pedophile Edward Brongersma. None of the essays offered any substantive criticism of pedophilia: most blatantly promoted man-boy love as the natural right of homosexuals.

In 1999 Helmut Graupner, wrote an article on pedophilia in the Journal of Homosexuality, in which he claims: "Man/boy and woman/girl relations without doubt are same-sex relations and they do constitute an aspect of gay and lesbian life." Graupner argues that, as such, consensual sexual relations between adult homosexuals and youths as young as fourteen qualifies as a "gay rights issue."[67]

The fascination with pedophilia continues to be a cause of concern even within the gay community. Lesbian columnist Paula Martinac, writing in the homosexual newspaper Washington Blade, states:
[S]ome gay men still maintain that an adult who has same-sex relations with someone under the legal age of consent is on some level doing the kid a favor by helping to bring him or her 'out.' It's not pedophilia, this thinking goes--pedophilia refers only to little kids. Instead, adult-youth sex is viewed as an important aspect of gay culture, with a history dating back to 'Greek love' of ancient times. This romanticized version of adult-youth sexual relations has been a staple of gay literature and has made appearances, too, in gay-themed films.[68]

Martinac adds that "When some gay men venerate adult-youth sex as affirming while simultaneously declaring 'We're not pedophiles,' they send an inconsistent message to society. . . . The lesbian and gay community will never be successful in fighting the pedophile stereotype until we all stop condoning sex with young people."[69]

VICTIM'S TURNED VICTIMIZERS: THE CONSEQUENCES OF HOMOSEXUAL CHILD ABUSE

The steadfast denial of the disturbing ties with pedophilia within the homosexual movement is no purely academic matter. Perhaps the most tragic aspect of the homosexual-pedophile connection is the fact that men who sexually molest boys all too often lead their victims into homosexuality and pedophilia. The evidence indicates that a high percentage of homosexuals and pedophiles were themselves sexually abused as children:

· The Archives of Sexual Behavior reports: "One of the most salient findings of this study is that 46 percent of homosexual men and 22 percent of homosexual women reported having been molested by a person of the same gender. This contrasts to only 7 percent of heterosexual men and 1 percent of heterosexual women reporting having been molested by a person of the same gender."[70]

· A study of 279 homosexual/bisexual men with AIDS and control patients discussed in the Journal of the American Medical Association reported: "More than half of both case and control patients reported a sexual act with a male by age 16 years, approximately 20 percent by age 10 years."[71]

· Noted child sex abuse expert David Finkelhor found that "boys victimized by older men were over four times more likely to be currently engaged in homosexual activity than were non-victims. The finding applied to nearly half the boys who had had such an experience. . . . Further, the adolescents themselves often linked their homosexuality to their sexual victimization experiences."[72]

· A study in the International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology found:"In the case of childhood sexual experiences prior to the age of fourteen, 40 percent (of the pedophile sample) reported that they had engaged 'very often' in sexual activity with an adult, with 28 percent stating that this type of activity had occurred 'sometimes'"[73]

· A National Institute of Justice report states that "the odds that a childhood sexual abuse victim will be arrested as an adult for any sex crime is 4.7 times higher than for people . . . who experienced no victimization as children."[74]

· A Child Abuse and Neglect study found that 59 percent of male child sex offenders had been "victim of contact sexual abuse as a child."[75]



· The Journal of Child Psychiatry noted that "there is a tendency among boy victims to recapitulate their own victimization, only this time with themselves in the role of perpetrator and someone else the victim."[76]

The circle of abuse is the tragic legacy of the attempts by homosexuals to legitimize having sex with boys. For too many boys it is already too late to protect them from those who took advantage of their need for love and attention. All too many later perpetrate the abuse by themselves engaging in the sexual abuse of boys. Only by exposing the lies, insincere denials, and deceptions--including those wrapped in scholastic garb--of those who prey sexually on children, can we hope to build a wall of protection around the helpless children among us.

Mary Eberstadt, "'Pedophilia Chic' Reconsidered" The Weekly Standard 6 (January 8, 2001).
56. Ibid., p. 21.
57. Ibid., p. 22.
58. Ibid.
59. Ibid.
60. Ibid., p. 23.
61. Ibid. Emphasis added by Eberstadt.
62. Ibid., p. 23.
63. Ibid.
64. From the Gay Men's Press website: www.gmppubs.co.uk/cgi-bin/web_store/web_store.cgi
65. Tom O'Carroll, Paedophilia: The Radical Case (Boston:Alyson Publications, 1982).
66. Daniel Tsang, editor, The Age Taboo: Gay Male Sexuality, Power, and Consent (Boston: Alyson Publications ; London : Gay Men's Press, 1981), p. 144.
67. Helmut Graupner, "Love Versus Abuse: Crossgenerational Sexual Relations of Minors: A Gay Rights Issue?" Journal of Homosexuality 37 (1999): 23, 26.
68. Paula Martinac, "Mixed Messages on Pedophilia Need to be Clarified, Unified," Washington Blade (March 15, 2002).
69. Ibid.
70. Marie, E. Tomeo, et al., "Comparative Data of Childhood and Adolescence Molestation in Heterosexual and Homosexual Persons," Archives of Sexual Behavior 30 (2001): 539.
71. Harry W. Haverkos, et al., "The Initiation of Male Homosexual Behavior," The Journal of the American Medical Association 262 (July 28, 1989): 501.
72. Watkins and Bentovim, p. 316.
73. Gary A. Sawle, Jon Kear-Colwell, "Adult Attachment Style and Pedophilia: A Developmental Perspective," International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 45 (February 2001):6.
74. Cathy Spatz Widom, "Victims of Childhood Sexual Abuse - Later Criminal Consequences," Victims of Childhood Sexual Abuse Series:NIJ Research in Brief, (March 1995): 6.
75. Elliott, p. 582.
76. Watkins, p. 319. Watkins mentions several studies confirming that between 19 percent and 61 percent of male sex abusers had previously been sexually abused themselves.


Once again, folks, further proof that everything I have stated is backed up by scientific research.

[Steerpike]

Normally, I would point out the gaping holes in Zero's staggering leaps of logic, utter willing ignorance the presence of cause and effect in terms of the conditions of living in homosexuals compared to heteros (fueled largely by people such as himself), and I would of course ask where this study came from so as to make sure there is no Puritan bias as half his sources tend to have...

But it would all be futile as he would just ignore me and dismiss me as one of the ignorant, unsaved masses destined for hell anyway.

[Hababi]

This isn't a study, it's a report from a collection of studies, compiled by Dr. Timothy J. Dailey

And normally you'd just ignore the body of scientific evidence that contradicts your viewpoint...so, this is normal :p

[Scythe404]

This isn't a study, it's a report from a collection of studies, compiled by Dr. Timothy J. Dailey

And normally you'd just ignore the body of scientific evidence that contradicts your viewpoint...so, this is normal :p

Rape is an act of power. Disgusting, brutal and horrid, but spurned by a pathological need of the attacker needing the feeling of complete and utter domination, compounded by sexual frustration.

Rape and molestation are horrible more for their psychological toll; they make their victims feel powerless and violated. Thus, many of them will grow up seeking to repress these feelings by seeking more power, and many of them may also grow sexually frustrated and thus continue the cycle. The research you provided proved this.

But i could've told you that without the very long wind; hey, i just did! My first thought when reading all that was "Holy crap! People who've gone through an experience of powerlessness grow up to crave power?! I NEVER KNEW THAT!!!!" You can probably tell where the sarcasm entered in. This is High School Psychology at its most mediocre, and still does nothing in the way of proving the inherent link between homosexuality and pedophilia.

Yes, there's a trend, but the gender of the attackers and their victims is irrelevant. If more of these attacks were committed heterosexually, you'd see the cycle occur differently. As it stands, the homosexual nature likely has more to do with societal repression and taboo's, which can aid very greatly in driving already unstable people with said power complexes to look for their 'fun' outside of a normal social realm.

Discard that idea all you want, but take into consideration that many to all of these acts are committed by closeted homosexuals who put on a fallacy of a normal, hetero life (wife, kids, two story in suburbia) to project a certain image to the world. The list of political pedophiles you yourself listed gives credence to these considerations. Very, very rarely are these acts attributed to an outed and comfortable gay person.

[Steerpike]

And normally you'd just ignore the body of scientific evidence that contradicts your viewpoint...so, this is normal :p

It's not the evidence that contradicts me, because I know you can make numbers mean whatever you want them to.

What is (very poorly) attempting to contradict me, is your crackpot, armchair psychologist conjecture.

Discard that idea all you want,

And he will.

[Reaganista]

rape is an assault
attributing special qualties to it is patriarchy

[Cain]

Another thing:

Is it mere consequence that so many gays were molested as children? Purely happenstance that children who are molested end up in some deviant sexual lifestyle or another?

Born gay? Bollocks. Foley's homosexuality came in large part due to his being molested as a child, as is the case with many gays. Unless you believe in rampant coincidences.

The irony here is that you're using nothing but the coincidence to make the judgement that it isn't one.

Just another illustration that homosexuality is a dangerous deviant lifestyle, often the product of some other ill, and ought to be treated as a disorder, not a virtue.

So basically, gay pedophiles rape children, thereby further perpetuating the bane of homosexuality on society. It just repeats itself through generations.

Mark Foley didn't rape anybody. He just wrote a few sexual emails. So basically your point is completely unsupported by the specific events we're discussing.

[Hababi]

If more of these attacks were committed heterosexually, you'd see the cycle occur differently.


But they're not, and that disproves your notion that gender doesn't matter. See my earlier posts of the complex you speak of being analogous to a fetish. It is still based on those who you find sexually attractive.


Very, very rarely are these acts attributed to an outed and comfortable gay person.


Because they live in circles that cover it up. See the extensive references on pedophilia in gay culture and literature.


It's not the evidence that contradicts me, because I know you can make numbers mean whatever you want them to.


:lol: Translation: "I will reject any scientific references you post." kthnx


Mark Foley didn't rape anybody. He just wrote a few sexual emails.


As the instant messages show, he was attempting to set up meetings to rape teenage boys. Typical gay predator.

[Jude]

Stop right there. Do not use common sense as an argument. What is "common sense" to one person is bullshit to another person. Like the Bible, at that.

I seriously suggest that you read up on this. There are plenty of scientific journals and records on this you can peruse. Approaching the issue from rape from a purely biological perspective is foolish. If it were that easy to study the cause of crimes, criminology would have capped years ago.

Yes, the four F's of self-preservation still have a massive influence in our behaviour. But we're also complex organisms capable of abstract thought. To think that the Four F's are the answer to everything, free of nuance, free of alternative explanation, and free of complexity is just plain ignorant.
I can tell this is going nowhere. In any case I'm not denying your perspective has something to it, I'm just insisting that trying to portray this issue as separate from simple sexual urges is ridiculous. To me, it smacks of trying to dehumanize rapists..."They don't have the same normal sexual desires as you or me, they're just USING sex as means to their twisted ends, defined as follows..." see what I mean?

Zero: just give up.

[Scythe404]

WORDS

I was hoping Steerpike wouldn't be so fatally correct. Godsdamm, now i remember why i stopped coming here.

Allow me to elaborate upon my first post in this thread: "Mark Foley has hair! We need to watch out for all politicians with hair. They might be pedophiles!" This is basically what your argument boils down to: 'These pedophiles are gay, so, therefore, it is an inherent trait of homosexuality.' That's about as rational as 'Those thieves are black, so watch out for the rest of those negroes.' But there's no real scientific basis (all of your references have the exact same M.O. as your argument), and every 'reference' you're providing ignores the sociological roots of these problems which have more to do with society's treatment of these people than their biological orientation.

That doesn't excuse their actions, but it also sure as hell doesn't equate their orientations with their perversions. I highly doubt you've ever known a gay person in your life, zero, and there's something here that seems to drive you to attack them at every turn. Oh, right, they're all pedophiles. :rolleyes: When we're interested in 'Flights of Fancy' and 'Random Speculations of the Day,' we'll take a more relevant look into that evidence of yours.

[Steerpike]

Because they live in circles that cover it up. See the extensive references on pedophilia in gay culture and literature.

*sigh* Zero, repeat after me.

"There is no gay conspiracy."

"The people hanging out in Greenwich Village and Chelsea are not out to get me and my family."

"Little Richard is not going to break into my house at night and anally rape me."

[ringworm]

Mark Foley didn't rape anybody. He just wrote a few sexual emails. So basically your point is completely unsupported by the specific events we're discussing.
lol, to think he wasn't eventually going to is moronic and sidestepping Serenity's overwhelming evidence which everyone seems to be in denial about.

I don't link the two together, but some of the quotes are staggering to say the least

[neal_672]

lol, to think he wasn't eventually going to is moronic and sidestepping Serenity's overwhelming evidence which everyone seems to be in denial about.

I don't link the two together, but some of the quotes are staggering to say the least

It pains my soul that you actually agree with what's being said by Serenity... Do you honestly believe he would feel this way if it wasn't for his extreme Christian views?

[PerpetualBurn]

Don't forget his sexual repression.

[Steerpike]

lol, to think he wasn't eventually going to is moronic and sidestepping Serenity's overwhelming evidence which everyone seems to be in denial about.

So you actually believe numbers free of context, qualitative research, and study into cause and effect relationship qualifies as overwhelming evidence?

Get a clue.

[ringworm]

It pains my soul that you actually agree with what's being said by Serenity... Do you honestly believe he would feel this way if it wasn't for his extreme Christian views?
I usually always at least semi-agree with S if not fully agree.

None of the facts he showed earlier had anything to do with Christian beliefs, or did I read something wrong?
So you actually believe numbers free of context, qualitative research, and study into cause and effect relationship qualifies as overwhelming evidence?
It surely can't be ignored, oh yeah, so long it agrees with you guys, it's considered sourcing, when a slightly different opinion comes around, it's just a mis-reperesentation of numbers.

If you'll re-read my post, I don't & have never even thought of linking a pedophile with homosexuality, but after reading S's posts, one has to at least give it a little credibility? That's all I meant

[neal_672]

None of the facts he showed earlier had anything to do with Christian beliefs, or did I read something wrong?



That wasn't the point i was making at all. But the reason he is following up said facts is surely because of his Christian beliefs, if you think otherwise you would have to be stupid. The only bigoted people i have ever met are stupid or fervently Christian. Which're you?

[Steerpike]

one has to at least give it a little credibility?

No I don't. Because Zero is taking a handful of numbers and applying his own warped conjecture.

Do not accuse me of being selective an accepting evidence. What I'm doing is pointing out that conjecture =/= proof. Zero is using nothing but surveys. There is absolutely no qualitative aspect to his "research."

And it astounds me that this very simple concept, one of the cornerstones of modern research, is so elusive to some people.

[spitfirejunky]

With the same reasoning zero concluded that homosexuality causes pedophilia, I can say that heterosexuality causes wife-beating.

[ringworm]

The only bigoted people i have ever met are stupid or fervently Christian.
You need to get out more then.
Having strict or more grounded morals doesn't=Christianity or intelligence.
Which're you?
Neither…
No I don't.
You never do, we already know this.
And normally you'd just ignore the body of scientific evidence that contradicts your viewpoint...so, this is normal :p

[lfantwister]

Born gay? Bollocks. Foley's homosexuality came in large part due to his being molested as a child, as is the case with many gays. Unless you believe in rampant coincidences. Of all of the gay people I know not one was molested or in any way sexually assaulted as a child. And I know quite a few. Child molestation may lead you to assault another child when you're older, but it sure as hell won't "make you gay".

Just another illustration that homosexuality is a dangerous deviant lifestyle, often the product of some other ill, and ought to be treated as a disorder, not a virtue. dangerous? disorder? what are you talking about? It's a personal chioce made by two consenting adults. That's like saying oral sex is bad because it could be dangerous. Oh wait. You probably think it is.

So basically, gay pedophiles rape children, thereby further perpetuating the bane of homosexuality on society. It just repeats itself through generations. LOL i want whatever you're on

Ginsberg was one of the first of a growing number of homosexual writers who cater to the fascination with pedophilia in the gay community. this is not a generalisation at all...

A significant percentage of books that have appeared on the Gay Men's Press fiction bestseller list contain pedophilia themes,
First off, exploring a subject in art does not 1. make it ok, 2. mean that people are automatically accepting it within the culture, 3. have any real relevance to right & wrong. Also, how much is a significant percent? And what is the Gay Men's Press to provide a litmus test for society?

Also, you talk about the scholarly veneer, which most of us know better than to take seriously. It's like citing scientific evidence off of answersingenesis.org. :)

consensual sexual relations between adult homosexuals and youths as young as fourteen does this count as pedophilia? at 14 i was consenting.

So basically trilemma you're off your rocker. Again

[neal_672]

You need to get out more then.
Having strict or more grounded morals doesn't=Christianity or intelligence.



Erm no i get out lots kplzthxbye.

If having "strict" or "grounded" morals requires me to be bigoted i want **** all to do with it, morals is not an excuse for branding an entire group of people as paedophiles, or telling them that they have a "condition". Nor is it an excuse for generally hating on them like Serenity is doing.

If you think that's being moral then i would hate to see what else you get up to.

[Futue te Ipsum]

And normally you'd just ignore the body of scientific evidence that contradicts your viewpoint...so, this is normal :pOf course, you'd know a lot about that... being a creationist.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

The only bigoted people i have ever met are stupid or fervently Christian.what a stupid thing to say

after just getting worked up over crass generalisations

[neal_672]

what a stupid thing to say

after just getting worked up over crass generalisations

The key point there was the only people I (as in me) have ever met, i didn't generalise it to they're the ONLY people who can be, but they are the only people i personally have ever met. But the topic of gays and gay rights doesn;t tend to be the biggest talking point when i meet someone new, so y'know, i may well have done. We can talk pedantics for longer, but it'd hardly be productive in that i hope you understand what i said and why i said it now.

[Hababi]

Of all of the gay people I know not one was molested or in any way sexually assaulted as a child. And I know quite a few.


#1 I bet some of them were and just aren't telling you.
#2 Even if this were the case, what you have is an anecdote attempting to counter multiple scientific studies.



does this count as pedophilia? at 14 i was consenting.


No you weren't.



So basically, I have overwhelmingly proven my point and y'all have ducked. Mm hmmm.

[AmericanWeiner]

sex with a 14 year old is not pedophilia in most cases

it actually stops around 10 or 11, which is when the child reaches adolescence in the average situation

if you don't believe me take psych 101

[italic zero]

Hebephilia is psychologically normal

[AmericanWeiner]

indeeeed

I <3 17yr olds oh noes I'm a pedo


/is 19 and 17>(x/2)+7 where x is a value less than or equal to my age

[Scythe404]

So basically, I have overwhelmingly proven my point and y'all have ducked. Mm hmmm.

And where were your responses to my posts?

#2 Even if this were the case, what you have is an anecdote attempting to counter multiple scientific studies.

Seriously, if you can't recognize the sea of highly viscous irony that you are currently drowning in at this time, I will now not only consider you a bit annoying, but mentally stunted.

At least i got a laugh. :chug:

[Hababi]

Seriously, if you can't recognize the sea of highly viscous irony that you are currently drowning in at this time


There is none, because that one anecdote (combined with multiple others) led me to research the scientific findings, which I posted here as my evidence of the link between homosexuality and pedophilia.


And where were your responses to my posts?


I was set to respond but then there was a loud lightning strike just outside my house, so I shut down the computer (honest truth) :p

[ringworm]

Nor is it an excuse for generally hating on them like Serenity is doing.
Hating?
I simply read a few posts that had strong evidence suggesting a possible link between 2 sets of "traits" (couldn't think of a better word)

You can't lable someone a bigot simply because the evidence is dis-agreeable on a personal level.

So what I mean is, just because it doesn't sit well on your stomache doesn't discredit the possible link of evidence like this, the facts are still there.
Up until today, I have never even thought this up. Even after this, its not like I am going to walk around thinking all gays are molesters, but the data still remains.
Can i be disproven by more data suggesting differently? Yes.
I don't walk around with blinders on to block stuff that disagrees with me.

[Steerpike]

You never do, we already know this.

Okay, now you're just being catty.

#1 I bet some of them were and just aren't telling you.

Zero, how many times do I have to explain to you that there is no gay conspiracy? There are no Fagmasons, there is no Queer-luminati.

#2 Even if this were the case, what you have is an anecdote attempting to counter multiple scientific studies.

Seeing as how you believe in the Bible, you have no room to talk.

So basically, I have overwhelmingly proven my point and y'all have ducked. Mm hmmm.

If you by "proven" you mean "handpicked a bunch of numbers with complete disregard for any sense of context or qualitative research" then sure.

I don't walk around with blinders on to block stuff that disagrees with me.

Perhaps, but you are clearly ignorant to the difference between qualitative and quantitative research and show absolutely no desire to learn the distinction and the significance.

[davo_guitarman]

Most of you, at least here in the states, have probably heard about this, but I figured I'd post a thread about it. If you're unaware of the story, read it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Foley

Of course everyone will talk about how Foley was a republican, but the real story here is just another example of the link between homosexuality and pedophilia.
serves the dork right, one less asshole in command and with privelidges the better.

[Cain]

lol, to think he wasn't eventually going to is moronic and sidestepping Serenity's overwhelming evidence which everyone seems to be in denial about.

Overwhelming evidence of what? A complete failure on Serenity's part to establish a plausable causal link between two personal characteristics relating to sexual preference and orientation? I can't believe you could possibly give one of the stupidest people on this site more credence than the truth of the thing he is poorly attempting to discuss.

[ringworm]

^^No you said Mark Foley didn't rape anybody. He just wrote a few sexual emails.

Both are unacceptable & very strongly suggest, if given a chance, he would act on his urges if given a chance.

So, the fact that he never went any further with his deviant behavior is OK?

[semi]

ringworm i'm going to kill you
someone arrest me for murder plz.

[Cain]

^^No you said Mark Foley didn't rape anybody. He just wrote a few sexual emails.

Yes, and I was exactly right.

Both are unacceptable & very strongly suggest, if given a chance, he would act on his urges if given a chance.

Did I say it was acceptable? I wasn't relativising anything, just making it clear that Zero was conjecturing again, like he always does, because he was extrapolating a judgement about a connection between homosexuality and a genuine sexual deviancy such as pedophilia on the off chance that one politician who was gay MAY have raped a child if given the chance. This is stupid, ignorant, and wrong-headed, just like everything else he posts. He has no credibility for making a point about anything because he doesn't know anything. And here you are, trying to say that we're all just bashing zero because we disagree with him, and yet you're making an assumption about me, claiming I relativized his point to suggest that sending sexual emails to a Congressional page was somehow acceptable, just because you disagree with me. You have really got to work on paying attention to what people actually say, and paying attention to what the facts actually are.

So, the fact that he never went any further with his deviant behavior is OK?

You take what you can get with pedophiles. He's being punished, and thank God he didn't go any farther. Of course it's not okay. It doesn't make what Serenity said any more true, and it doesn't make him any less of a complete fool.

[Cain]

ringworm i'm going to kill you
someone arrest me for murder plz.

Well, that illustrated the point rather well.

[Imagination]

Did I say it was acceptable? I wasn't relativising anything, just making it clear that Zero was conjecturing again, like he always does, because he was extrapolating a judgement about a connection between homosexuality and a genuine sexual deviancy such as pedophilia on the off chance that one politician who was gay MAY have raped a child if given the chance. This is stupid, ignorant, and wrong-headed, just like everything else he posts. He has no credibility for making a point about anything because he doesn't know anything. And here you are, trying to say that we're all just bashing zero because we disagree with him, and yet you're making an assumption about me, claiming I relativized his point to suggest that sending sexual emails to a Congressional page was somehow acceptable, just because you disagree with me. You have really got to work on paying attention to what people actually say, and paying attention to what the facts actually are.


Yes.

[ringworm]

ringworm i'm going to kill you
someone arrest me for murder plz.
"Put em up…Put em up" says the lion :p
You have really got to work on paying attention to what people actually say, and paying attention to what the facts actually are.
oh come on people? :mad:

I merely think some valid points were brought up that get dismissed too quickly just because they are more of a "fundie" viewpoint.

[Imagination]

I merely think some valid points were brought up that get dismissed too quickly just because they are more of a "fundie" viewpoint.
Like?

[ringworm]

uhhh, a few pages back buddy

[Steerpike]

uhhh, a few pages back buddy

Bring up one specific point for us that you thought sounded credible, and I will clearly demnostrate to you why Zero is full of ****.

[Imagination]

uhhh, a few pages back buddy

Idk I didn't see anything "valid."

[ringworm]

Guess there's no point then is there?

[Steerpike]

Guess there's no point then is there?

What, no answer to my challenge?

[ringworm]

Nope…

Besides, you've clearly claimed a victory anyway
I will clearly demnostrate to you why Zero is full of ****.

[Steerpike]

I woudl have thought you'd leap at a chance to try and prove a smug bastard like me wrong.

I've tried explaining why I don't count anything Zero brings up as conclusive proof, but apparently that's not good enough. I need to illustrate.

[Scythe404]

Nope…

Besides, you've clearly claimed a victory anyway

Nice cop out.

Great post Cain.

[spitfirejunky]

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

I'll find more.

[Steerpike]

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

I'll find more.

I know Zero and most of the people who agree with him probably won't read the whole thing, so I'll cut right to the chase.

Science cannot prove a negative. Thus, these studies do not prove that homosexual or bisexual males are no more likely than heterosexual males to molest children. However, each of them failed to prove the alternative hypothesis that homosexual males are more likely than heterosexual men to molest children or to be sexually attracted to children or adolescents.

The truth shall set you free.

One individual has claimed to have data that prove homosexuals to be child molesters at a higher rate than heterosexuals. That person is Paul Cameron. As detailed elsewhere on this site, Cameron's survey data are subject to so many methodological flaws as to be virtually meaningless. Even so, his assertions are often quoted by antigay organizations in their attempts to link homosexuality with child sexual abuse.

That explains a lot.

[AmericanWeiner]

Using the fixated-regressed distinction, Groth and Birnbaum (1978) studied 175 adult males who were convicted in Massachusetts of sexual assault against a child. None of the men had an exclusively homosexual adult sexual orientation. 83 (47%) were classified as "fixated;" 70 others (40%) were classified as regressed adult heterosexuals; the remaining 22 (13%) were classified as regressed adult bisexuals. Of the last group, Groth and Birnbaum observed that "in their adult relationships they engaged in sex on occasion with men as well as with women. However, in no case did this attraction to men exceed their preference for women....There were no men who were primarily sexually attracted to other adult males..." (p.180).

I just found that

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

In yet another approach to studying adult sexual attraction to children, some Canadian researchers observed how homosexual and heterosexual adult men responded to slides of males and females of various ages (child, pubescent, and mature adult). All of the research subjects were first screened to ensure that they preferred physically mature sexual partners. In some of the slides shown to subjects, the model was clothed; in others, he or she was nude. The slides were accompanied by audio recordings. The recordings paired with the nude models described an imaginary sexual interaction between the model and the subject. The recordings paired with the pictures of clothed models described the model engaging in neutral activities (e.g., swimming). To measure sexual arousal, changes in the subjects' penis volume were monitored while they watched the slides and listened to the audiotapes. The researchers found that homosexual males responded no more to male children than heterosexual males responded to female children (Freund et al., 1989).

What this means is that if your average homosexual male has a tendency to screw with young boys, your average heterosexual male has a tendency to screw with young girls.

[ringworm]

Nice cop out.
lol, cop out?
First of all, Mr. I didn't contribute anything to the thread except a sly put down, I am not the one who even brought this whole Gay= Pedophilia OK.

I merely read a HUGE page of data presented to the forum and stated, even though I do not walk around assuming a gay person is a Pedophile, it was intriguing to say the least. Not wanting to go back & source material that has already been posted to debate someone who has already drawn their conclusion is not copping out.
I've tried explaining why I don't count anything Zero brings up as conclusive proof, but apparently that's not good enough. I need to illustrate.
OK, why didn't you do it back on page 10?
I didn't see anyone quote a single piece of his data & try prove anything other than HE was bigoted.
I know Zero and most of the people who agree with him probably won't read the whole thing, so I'll cut right to the chase.
OK, now you're sourcing material with a rainbow at the header & in the URL?

No, of course this wouldn't be biased, lol

Doesn't this sound familiar? Kinda like how everyone treated S's data, biased bull****

Like I have said many times. My argument is not Gay=Pedophilia.

Just how certain peoples viewpoints are handled sometimes.

[Steerpike]

OK, why didn't you do it back on page 10?
I didn't see anyone quote a single piece of his data & try prove anything other than HE was bigoted.

I normally don't even respond to Zero. I've been in this debate with him countless times, and he ignores every single argument I put forward.

OK, now you're sourcing material with a rainbow at the header & in the URL?

That is probably the most asinine thing you've said in this entire thread. Read the whole article yourself and then tell me you think it's biased.

Also, you clearly weren't listening when I tried to explain it before. I'm saying Zero has the bias. I wasn't even aware at the time he was most likely referencing the flawed Cameron studies.

My issue is that Zero only posts numbers. Numbers can mean anything without context. As Mark Twain once said, "There's lies, there's filthy lies, and there's statistics."

Quantifying something isn't enough on its own. There needs to be qualitative research done as well to explain the meaning of the numbers, why they came out the way they did, and so on. However, Zero never does that research. He instead substitutes his own conjecture in place.

Now do you understand?

[ringworm]

Read the whole article yourself and then tell me you think it's biased.

Well, I have. It clearly is the opposite of what started the whole argument.
I do not know what assumptions can be made to a potentially biased source?

I don't really care either way. Hopefully ANY Pedophile will be caught before he acts out, regardless of his sexuality.

You have to see the irony of all the "Fox News" jokes regarding reliable info & then this link is supposed to be taken seriously?

Come on, if this were the other way around, I'd be laughed off the forum for posting an obviously pro-alternate lifestyle source.

[Steerpike]

You have to see the irony of all the "Fox News" jokes regarding reliable info & then this link is supposed to be taken seriously?

Come on, if this were the other way around, I'd be laughed off the forum for posting an obviously pro-alternate lifestyle source.

The difference between that site and Fox News is that you can check the facts.

I find it a little ridiculous that you just assume it's biased because of the word "rainbow." And you'll notice that I never once called Zero's numbers biased. I called him biased and replacing qualitative research with conjecture. How many times do I have to explain it before it sinks in?

[spitfirejunky]

OK, now you're sourcing material with a rainbow at the header & in the URL?

No, of course this wouldn't be biased, lol

It doesn't get much better than this. If you even bothered to do some research on the author, you'll find many of his works have been published and peer-reviewed. But like everyone else, you seem to care about how text is formatted on a webpage than its content.

http://www.exodus.to/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=323#search=%22%22homosexuality%20and%20pedophil ia%22%22

This one's been published by a Jesus site. :amaze:

It's hard to find peer-reviewed sources on this topic since, as you've probably noticed, not many doctors know what he hell they're talking about. I'll keep searching nonetheless.

[ringworm]

u musta have added this after I copied u on the previous post

Now do you understand?
Yes, I understand what you are trying to explain, but can't I just turn that around right back on this data as well?

The difference between that site and Fox News is that you can check the facts.
Well, I didn't mean them (fox) specifically, just the random sources that get thrown around here,
ex. Surgical Gods pro-terrorists links etc.

I find it a little ridiculous that you just assume it's biased because of the word "rainbow."
Well, it IS pretty coincidental
How many times do I have to explain it before it sinks in?
No more, lets drop it before I taint my otherwise perfect record in here… :chug:

[Steerpike]

Yes, I understand what you are trying to explain, but can't I just turn that around right back on this data as well?

The site we showed was peer-reviewed and shows several principles of the psychology of sexuality that are unanimously accepted in the scientific community.

We're not trying to insert any meaning that the page didn't explicitly state. Zero is taking numbers and inserting his own conjecture despite the fact that he has no understanding of psychology, sound research methods, or the science of sexuality.

He insists that those numbers show a direct causal link between homosexuality and pedophilia despite the fact that there is no concrete, peer-reviewed scientific evidence to explicitly prove such a thing.

Well, it IS pretty coincidental

I'm going to take a wild guess and say you don't know that many gay people.

[ringworm]

lol, I know several, I work with a few & have met several along the way I consider good friends. I've even been to a few gay bars to have a good time. (Accompanied by my wife of course) this comment wasn't meant to alert them to my straightness, that was added just so no sneer jokes would come about in here. I could already here Atman making a joke on that.

I don't look at people as gay or straight… just people.

That's why I was getting irrated when people were viewing me as a homo-phobe or anti gay person.

[Steerpike]

lol, I know several, I work with a few & have met several along the way I consider good friends. I've even been to a few gay bars to have a good time. (Accompanied by my wife of course) this comment wasn't meant to alert them to my straightness, that was added just so no sneer jokes would come about in here. I could already here Atman making a joke on that.

I don't look at people as gay or straight… just people.

That's why I was getting irrated when people were viewing me as a homo-phobe or anti gay person.

Well then it surprises me that you think the rainbow just plain means "gay."

Aside from that, the sources that article sites are all peer-reviewed. Which means they got published in the journals because other psychologists were able to test the hypothesis themselves and the results were consistent.

[ringworm]

Well then it surprises me that you think the rainbow just plain means "gay."
well, not much I can say to that. You see the bumper stickers everywhere, one of the clubs here locally is a unicorn jumping through a rainbow, if it's all you see, it's probably going to be all you ever associate it with.

[AmericanWeiner]

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/10/04/bill-oreilly-labels-rep-foley-a-democrat/

[ringworm]

"It's a No Spin Zone Baby" lol

[AmericanWeiner]

yeah FOX knows the truth all bow down

[spitfirejunky]

On a side note, zero's evidence inadvertently proved two things:

1. Homosexuality does not drive pedophilia.

2. Individuals classified as pedophiles do not have the same likelihood to commit sexual crimes.

This is consistent with the fact that pedophilia is not a mental illness, but a sexual orientation.