Swedish Pentecostal Pastor On Trial For Anti-Gay Hate Speech

[HorhayAtAMD]

While I may not be sure why, it seems that both Horhay and Missile Man have become quiet on the point that 'a few' commit crimes disproportionate to their numbers. Their victims unfortunately are children, which make it sort of difficult to argue that the tendency towards frequency should not get mixed up with the raw numbers of perps.

My argument is more based on my belief that a group cannot be held responsible for the sins of a few and as such, it doesn't really matter if the few have sinned a little, or a lot. Just like I don't think all white men should bear the sins of the Klu Klux Klan, I don't believe that all homosexuals should bear the sins of a tiny group of pedophiles who just happen to be gay. It doesn't matter to me if that tiny group of pedophiles has 1 victim or 100, it does not mean that we can hold the larger group any more responsible. Put another way, if 99.9% of gays never molest children, would their innocence be affected by how many children are victimized by the 0.1%?

Until someone can come up with a statistic that shows that a homosexual is more likely to be a pedophile than heterosexual is, I do not think we need to consider gay strangers as more dangerous around children than straight strangers. The truth is, you should have a healthy amount of distrust for ANY adult when they are going to be alone with your child, whether they are gay or straight.

 

[Annie]

My argument is more based on my belief that a group cannot be held responsible for the sins of a few and as such, it doesn't really matter if the few have sinned a little, or a lot. Just like I don't think all white men should bear the sins of the Klu Klux Klan, I don't believe that all homosexuals should bear the sins of a tiny group of pedophiles who just happen to be gay. It doesn't matter to me if that tiny group of pedophiles has 1 victim or 100, it does not mean that we can hold the larger group any more responsible. Put another way, if 99.9% of gays never molest children, would their innocence be affected by how many children are victimized by the 0.1%?

Until someone can come up with a statistic that shows that a homosexual is more likely to be a pedophile than heterosexual is, I do not think we need to consider gay strangers as more dangerous around children than straight strangers. The truth is, you should have a healthy amount of distrust for ANY adult when they are going to be alone with your child, whether they are gay or straight.

In this case the 'theory' translates to the reality of more victims, under 18.

 

[GotZoom]

The truth is, you should have a healthy amount of distrust for ANY adult when they are going to be alone with your child, whether they are gay or straight.

Something we both agree with. See my post 180.

 

[MissileMan]

Ok, now you are just being prejudiced. There is a hell of a lot of difference between pedophile priests and Catholics in general. Fuck you.

I wasn't saying it to denigrate Catholics. I was trying to make the point that you can't blame the majority for the actions of the minority. But it's funny how you can see the difference between a pedophile priest and normal Catholics but can't see a difference between pedophiles and homosexuals who have no desire to molest children.

 

[musicman]

For the same reason you don't hold everyone in a specific group to blame for the actions of a few among their numbers. Let's take Catholic priests for example. There are a higher percentage of Catholic clergy molesting children than any of the other denominations. The high numbers alone suggest that Catholicism is dangerous to children. Can't you see how this information says something disturbing about Catholics?

But, your "super-predator" attains his status SOLELY BY VIRTUE OF HIS HOMOSEXUALITY, right? The same cannot be said of Catholicism, nor of heterosexual pedophiles.

Moreover, in our sexually supercharged times - our seemingly interminable adolesence, stoked round-the-clock by our perverse culture - it would seem that more of these "super-predators" are finding their way into the priesthood. Parrishes and schools are target-rich environments. It's about homosexuality and child molestation. It has nothing to do with Catholicism; that's a preposterous statement.

 

[Annie]

I wasn't saying it to denigrate Catholics. I was trying to make the point that you can't blame the majority for the actions of the minority. But it's funny how you can see the difference between a pedophile priest and normal Catholics but can't see a difference between pedophiles and homosexuals who have no desire to molest children.

Yes you were. Your analogy does not hold, if you can't see that, I'm sorry. You picked the wrong person to fight with, as I'm pretty open to letting 'live and let live'.

 

[musicman]

Put another way, if 99.9% of gays never molest children, would their innocence be affected by how many children are victimized by the 0.1%?

If he is prolific SOLELY BY VIRTUE OF HIS HOMOSEXUALITY, then the behavior is disturbing, and must be examined in the light of day. To try to sweep it under the rug constitutes dangerous, willful blindness.

 

[HorhayAtAMD]

Very good, Horhay - straight out of the PC handbook! Any statement which does not reflect liberal socialist dogma is - by definition - demonization.

Hillary would be SO proud...

Hehe, okay.

It's interesting - the way you worded that. Actually, I believe that society must protect itself from behaviors which are demonstrably harmful to it. Homosexuality certainly qualifies. Society can stop by halting the legitimization - indeed, the GLORIFICATION - of this perversion.

Homosexuals are victims in this, too. I don't hate them.

When you say "homosexuality certainly qualifies [as harmful to society]" are you talking about pedophilia or homosexuality? Pedophiles, whether gay or straight, are harmful to society. Violence, whether committed by men or women, is harmful to society. Even if you could show that homosexuals were more likely to be pedophiles (which you haven't), don't confuse the characteristics of the group with the negative behaviour. Homosexuality isn't harmful to society, pedophilia is.

Anyway, I can see that this discussion about statistics is boiling down to a difference of opinion. You aren't demonizing homosexuals, you just think they all need to be cured of their disease, regardless of whether they are pedophiles or not. Against that belief, I have no reply since it really is an opinion, no better or worse than mine which is that homosexuals don't need to be cured of their sexuality any more than brunettes need to be cured of their hair colour. I have my opinion because I've personally known too many homosexuals who are happy, healthy, monogomous, trustworthy, and great contributors to society to believe that they are victims of their sexuality. I trust that you have as many reasons for your opinion too.

 

[MissileMan]

But, your "super-predator" attains his status SOLELY BY VIRTUE OF HIS HOMOSEXUALITY, right? The same cannot be said of Catholicism, nor of heterosexual pedophiles.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

Moreover, in our sexually supercharged times - our seemingly interminable adolesence, stoked round-the-clock by our perverse culture - it would seem that more of these "super-predators" are finding their way into the priesthood. Parrishes and schools are target-rich environments. It's about homosexuality and child molestation. It has nothing to do with Catholicism; that's a preposterous statement.

I'm not trying to turn the thread into a Catholic priest bashing party. I do however need to stick with the priest analogy to answer your question.

Firstly, the Catholic priests who are molesting children are using their status as priests to gain access to and hold sway over their victims. They are a small subset(molesters) of a subset(priests) of the set(Catholics). It is ridiculous to make a claim that priests or Catholics should be held in poor regard based on the actions of the molesters. It is equally ridiculous to claim that children are at higher risk around Catholics or Catholic priests because of the presence of the subset(molesters).

Homosexual pedophiles are a small subset(molesters) of a subset(homosexuals) of the set(men). You need only substitute the items from the previous sentence into the paragraph above to reach a reasonable conclusion.

 

[archangel]

This argument can go on until the "Cows come Home"...the simple fact remains... it can be reduced to a simple "Blue Collar" work ethic...try plumbing 101...when ya mate a male to male or female to female...well... y'all... the pipe will leak...so the efficientcy of the seal is broken...the only true seal is male to female to insure a seal that will not leak...is this clear enough for all the pervs who continue with this rediculous dialog?

 

[MissileMan]

Yes you were. Your analogy does not hold, if you can't see that, I'm sorry. You picked the wrong person to fight with, as I'm pretty open to letting 'live and let live'.

Believe what you wish, my intent was not to offend. If it did, I'm sorry. You argued earlier that homosexual couples should be a venue of last resort when it comes to adoption. I believe you made this argument based on the belief that homosexual pedophiles are more dangerous than heterosexual pedophiles and therefore homosexuals in general can't be trusted with children. What I was trying to say was that I don't see anyone making the argument that Catholics aren't fit to adopt based on the actions of the pedophile priests, so why should it be an acceptable argument against non-molesting homosexuals?

 

[Said1]

This argument can go on until the "Cows come Home"...the simple fact remains... it can be reduced to a simple "Blue Collar" work ethic...try plumbing 101...when ya mate a male to male or female to female...well... y'all... the pipe will leak...so the efficientcy of the seal is broken...the only true seal is male to female to insure a seal that will not leak...is this clear enough for all the pervs who continue with this rediculous dialog?

What about a stopped sink - plundger, draino or both.

 

[musicman]

I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

Homosexual pedophiles are a small subset(molesters)

But - by your own account - they are an astronomically more prolific subset - SOLELY on the basis that they are:

of a subset(homosexuals)

YOUR words, MM. Your research. Quite simply, it points to something disturbing about homosexuality.

 

[Said1]

For the same reason you don't hold everyone in a specific group to blame for the actions of a few among their numbers. Let's take Catholic priests for example. There are a higher percentage of Catholic clergy molesting children than any of the other denominations. The high numbers alone suggest that Catholicism is dangerous to children. Can't you see how this information says something disturbing about Catholics?

So the above is sarcasm?

 

[HorhayAtAMD]

This argument can go on until the "Cows come Home"...the simple fact remains... it can be reduced to a simple "Blue Collar" work ethic...try plumbing 101...when ya mate a male to male or female to female...well... y'all... the pipe will leak...so the efficientcy of the seal is broken...the only true seal is male to female to insure a seal that will not leak...is this clear enough for all the pervs who continue with this rediculous dialog?

Of course homosexuality isn't ideal, humans would die out quickly if that was the case. The question is, do gays need to be cured of their "disease" or should they be given the same opportunities as straights to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? No one is talking about glorifying homosexuality or somehow saying it is "better" than heterosexuality.

 

[MissileMan]

But - by your own account - they are an astronomically more prolific subset - SOLELY on the basis that they are:



YOUR words, MM. Your research. Quite simply, it points to something disturbing about homosexuality.

I actually wrote subset(pedophiles) first, but changed it because it would have opened another can of worms. My personal opinion is that pedophiles are in their own disgusting subspecies whether they go after boys or girls and should be counted separate from those who want an adult-to-adult relationship.

 

[MissileMan]

So the above is sarcasm?

Yes, that's why I placed the sarcasm smiley at the end!

 

[musicman]

I actually wrote subset(pedophiles) first, but changed it because it would have opened another can of worms. My personal opinion is that pedophiles are in their own disgusting subspecies whether they go after boys or girls and should be counted separate from those who want an adult-to-adult relationship.

Ah, but that would prove an all-too-convenient designation for those who would defend homosexuality by absolving it of responsibility. Wouldn't work, either; subtracting a molester's sexual preference from his act, you willfully ignore his primary motivation - for the sake of a desired, predetermined outcome.

 

[archangel]

Of course homosexuality isn't ideal, humans would die out quickly if that was the case. The question is, do gays need to be cured of their "disease" or should they be given the same opportunities as straights to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? No one is talking about glorifying homosexuality or somehow saying it is "better" than heterosexuality.

I as well as most... if not all others... would probably guess... most if not all hetrosexuals...could care less what ya do in the privacy of your 'private' bedroom...what ya do in front of me and my kids will get your ass kicked...clear enough?

 

[MissileMan]

Ah, but that would prove an all-too-convenient designation for those who would defend homosexuality by absolving it of responsibility. Wouldn't work, either; subtracting a molester's sexual preference from his act, you willfully ignore his primary motivation - for the sake of a desired, predetermined outcome.

And I see an all-too-convenient designation for those who would smear homosexuality. I guess that's why we've been arguing.

I have read studies where they haven't been able to determine if the mechanism that causes an attraction to children increases the likelyhood of an attraction to males, or if it's the other way around.