There goes that 'there are no victims in homosexuality' argument...

[mattskramer]

Why?

Please read my previous post again. We should not link a religion with terrorism though quite a few Muslims commit acts of terrorism - for the same reason we should not go after an entire race tough quite a few members of that race commit a disproportionate number of violent crimes. Go after the criminals but don't condemn the entire class due to the acts of a few.

 

[Gunny]

Him being gay had EVERYTHING to do with him molesting a young boy. Nobody is 'born' a rapist...we are shaped by the conditions we find ourselves in; by experiences and environments we are placed in, or choose to place ourselves in. If this guy had been given guidance to help with his conflicting feelings about sexuality, and taught to control impulse urges, perhaps he 'would not' have hurt that boy. The 'well, if it wasn't that boy, it would have just been a girl' argument is rather fucked up - talk about insulting.

Completely agree with you, =d=. The argument is nothing more than homosexuals attempting to distance themselves from sexual deviance ....AS IF .......

 

[OCA]

Ya know...I could give a shit whether someone is gay or straight. I could give a shit if someone says something 'negative' about homo or heterosexuality. However, when some twit insists on engaging in the logical fallacy -=d=- engaged in with his post, in an attempt to sow lies and hatred, it cannot go unremarked.

Attempting to link criminal sexual behavior with the normal expression of homosexuality is one of the hallmarks of internalized, or ego-dystonic, homophobia. This behavior amngst LBG people is an attempt to suppress and repress their desires for same-gender relations and "fit in" with a percieved heterosexual norm.

So, dearie, the only bullshit here is that of -=d=- and his fellow travelers.

Now, how long will it be before 'Turd-Blossom' is indicted?

NORMAL EXPRESSION OF HOMOSEXUALITY?????????????????????????

Reagan should not have let you out of the mental facility back in the 80's. Your wrong on almost every single issue known to man.

 

[007]

NORMAL EXPRESSION OF HOMOSEXUALITY?????????????????????????

Reagan should not have let you out of the mental facility back in the 80's. Your wrong on almost every single issue known to man.

No kidding... pul'it pops in just long enough to drop the oxcymoron of the century. What a moron.

I often have wondered if pulit isn't an inmate in some mental ward with computer priviledges.

 

[Bullypulpit]

NORMAL EXPRESSION OF HOMOSEXUALITY?????????????????????????

Reagan should not have let you out of the mental facility back in the 80's. Your wrong on almost every single issue known to man.

There you go again...Projecting your own frailties and foibles on others. Take your meds and go back to sleep.

 

[Bullypulpit]

No kidding... pul'it pops in just long enough to drop the oxcymoron of the century. What a moron.

I often have wondered if pulit isn't an inmate in some mental ward with computer priviledges.

See my reply to OCA. :teeth:

 

[007]

See my reply to OCA. :teeth:

Lame.

 

[Gem]

Bully Wrote:

Ya know...I could give a shit whether someone is gay or straight.

Just so long as they keep their opinions to themselves if their feelings don't jive with yours.

However, when some twit insists on engaging in the logical fallacy -=d=- engaged in with his post, in an attempt to sow lies and hatred, it cannot go unremarked.

But in the particular thread I was referencing...I didn't take issue with your comments of disagreement regarding the topic...I commented on your smarmy little talking point...one you and others have used here before.

Attempting to link criminal sexual behavior with the normal expression of homosexuality is one of the hallmarks of internalized, or ego-dystonic, homophobia. This behavior amngst LBG people is an attempt to suppress and repress their desires for same-gender relations and "fit in" with a percieved heterosexual norm.

This is bullshit...it is used much like the "The only reason people hate Clinton is because they are jealous he is getting some and they aren't." line that liberals love to screach so much when they are having trouble following along in an actual discussion of Clinton's politics and policies.

As I said before and repeat now...you can disagree the opinions shared here, or you can feel strongly that some here are terribly uninformed and seem to celebrate how brainwashed they are...

However, I would ask that you please stop with the stupid, childish, "You only hate gays cause you secretly want to be one," nonsense. It only serves to make you look like someone who is willing to fall back on school yard taunts when you don't want to actually provide factual evidence to forward the discourse.

So, dearie, the only bullshit here is that of -=d=- and his fellow travelers.

This is your opinion and you are welcome to it...but when you follow up your opinion with an only slightly masked form of, "and by the way...YOU SECRETELY WANNA BE GAY!! HA HA!" Your potentially valid opinion disintegrates into bullshit.

Now, how long will it be before 'Turd-Blossom' is indicted?

And although this was completely off topic...my answer would be: When he is found guilty of a crime.

 

[sitarro]

Homosexuals by definition can't control deviant urges? Explain this one to me please.

And yes, if he were straight I believe he would have attacked a girl. I do not believe the fact he is attracted to the same sex is a factor as to why he rapes. I believe he rapes because he is a rapist. Then, as a rapist, he rapes young boys because he is homosexual. But the fact he is a rapist is paramount to the fact he is homosexual.

Let me guess . . . you're a defense attorney .Do you know what the definition of "is" is?

 

[KarlMarx]

I'm surprised, all this talk about pedophilia and no one seems to have mentioned Catholic priests! Of course, I could be wrong, there are 9 pages of replies, and I may have missed it!

Or perhaps, stigmatizing priests is not as fashionable as it once was?

A neighbor of mine told me that people seemed horrified when she tells them that she sends her children to a Catholic school. Some will ask "aren't you worried after all that happened with those priests?"

Yet, many people don't seem to have a problem with gay teachers, even though many studies suggest that gays seem to be more prone to molesting children. A quick look at ancient history, e.g. the Greeks and Romans, shows that much of the expression of homosexuality throughout the ages has been, euphemistically speaking, "cross generational".

Now, here we have a case of a gay man, who molests a kid and some posters insist on splitting of hairs by claiming that the offender wasn't gay, he was a pedophile instead. I wonder, why priests aren't afforded the same latitude, that the "priests" that molested all those young boys weren't priests, they were pedophiles, and gay ones at that?

Furthermore, many posters (me included) feel that the Catholic Church should have done more to out pedophile priests and turned them over to the authorities. I now will suggest that the gay community at large has to admit that, it too, has a very large pink elephant in the living room that it doesn't want to acknowledge or deal with. That is, many of its members are sexual predators who prey on children, and furthermore, that the onus is on the gay community to out these persons, turn them over to the authorities and disassociate itself from them. I do believe that the majority of gays aren't pedophiles, but at the same time, that the gay community won't admit that it has a problem that it doesn't want to deal with.

If I were a gay man, I'd be concerned and angry, that the gay community isn't admitting to this problem and doing something about it, because, in the long run, ignoring it will only stigmatize the rest of the gay community.

Back to the "Catholic Church should have done more about those pedophile priests" issue. During the 1960s and 1970s, the psychiatric profession believed that pedophilia was a curable disease that could be dealt with using talk therapy. That was an accepted approach to the problem at the time. Many priests who molested children were put in programs that were run by professional psychiatrists and then certified "cured" before turning them back over to the Church with their stamp of approval. So, the psychological profession, also had a hand in this mess (although, strangely enough, you don't hear much about psychiatrists and psychologists being sued or impugned in the papers about it. Isn't that odd? No, actually it isn't, it follows, but that's another can of worms). So actually, the Church probably was doing more about the problem that is now generally admitted, and at the time, it was believed it was dealing with the problem.

It is also becoming very evident that people who molest children continue to do so and pose a grave threat to society, specifically to its children. Yet the law of the land, in its infinite wisdom, sees fit to release pedophiles back into society after 2-5 years. So, after a break of 2-5 years, these individuals are given another chance, not to reform themselves, but to molest yet more children. Yet, the law doesn't want to admit its role in this problem either, that it isn't effectively protecting children from pedophiles when it releases known, convicted offenders back into society when the chances are very high that they will commit the same offenses again.

What is needed for these individuals, is lifetime confinement, in an institution or in a prison without exception. And I hear all the excuses why this should not be done, that the offenders have rights, that there are too many prisons, there are not enough prisons, there is too much money being spent on prisons, that there isn't enough money being spent on prisons, that there aren't enough police or that to undertake such an approach would require a legion of prison guards. Society has a compelling interest to protect its children that supersedes the rights of pedophiles.

Molested children oftentimes grow up to be damaged individuals and a burden on society. They also grow up and repeat the same offenses that they, themselves, suffered. In my opinion, incarcerating/institutionalizing convicted pedophiles for life is a price that society has to be willing to pay in order that assure the safety of children and to break the vicious cycle of pedophilia.

 

[sitarro]

Well, the horse is almost dead, but I'm going to make my point one last time.

Let's leave the lesbians out of the picture all together as their contribution to the molestation rate is negligible. Approximately 2.8% of the U.S. population are homosexual males. Approximately 45% of the U.S. population are heterosexual males. That comes out to 1 homosexual male for every 15 heterosexual males.

Since studies have shown that any one homosexual pedophile will create as many as 7 times more victims than any one heterosexual pedophile, when you crunch the numbers it proves that even though homosexual pedophiles commit 25-40% of the molestations, the actual percentage of pedophiles among homosexuals is no greater than than the percentage of pedophiles among heterosexuals. Based on the 25-40%, for example, homosexual molestations would account for 2-3 out of 8, or 4-6 out of 16, or 5-8(1 homosexual pedophiles worth) out of 20. That gives you a ratio of 1 homosexual pedophile for over 13 heterosexual pedophiles. That is amazingly close to the population ratio and would give rise to the conclusion that a certain percentage of males are going to be pedophiles, whether they are homosexual or not.

I am disturbed and have no theory as to why there is a significant disparity in the voracity of homosexual pedophiles. But it still doesn't change the fact that the premise of the original post was wrong. The boy was molested by a pedophile.

Hate to "screw" up your little math equation missile but are you sure about the statistic you keep quoting about the repeated molestation by homos. Are you actually saying that homo pedophiles are 7 times as sick as hetero pedophiles?

 

[MissileMan]

Now, here we have a case of a gay man, who molests a kid and some posters insist on splitting of hairs by claiming that the offender wasn't gay, he was a pedophile instead. I wonder, why priests aren't afforded the same latitude, that the "priests" that molested all those young boys weren't priests, they were pedophiles, and gay ones at that?

How about for the logical reason that priest isn't a sexual orientation?

Furthermore, many posters (me included) feel that the Catholic Church should have done more to out pedophile priests and turned them over to the authorities. I now will suggest that the gay community at large has to admit that, it too, has a very large pink elephant in the living room that it doesn't want to acknowledge or deal with. That is, many of its members are sexual predators who prey on children, and furthermore, that the onus is on the gay community to out these persons, turn them over to the authorities and disassociate itself from them. I do believe that the majority of gays aren't pedophiles, but at the same time, that the gay community won't admit that it has a problem that it doesn't want to deal with.
If I were a gay man, I'd be concerned and angry, that the gay community isn't admitting to this problem and doing something about it, because, in the long run, ignoring it will only stigmatize the rest of the gay community.

As there are at least 7 times more men who are molesting little girls than men who molest little boys, what about our "pink elephant"? Pedophilia is indeed a serious problem, but you can't blame it on the gays. Until there's an understanding that there is a difference between a pedophile and a homosexual you can't do much to stop the problem because you have your sights on the wrong target.

 

[MissileMan]

Hate to "screw" up your little math equation missile but are you sure about the statistic you keep quoting about the repeated molestation by homos. Are you actually saying that homo pedophiles are 7 times as sick as hetero pedophiles?

That's what the data suggests...that the pedophiles who prefer boys have 7 times as many victims.

 

[sitarro]

I'm surprised, all this talk about pedophilia and no one seems to have mentioned Catholic priests! Of course, I could be wrong, there are 9 pages of replies, and I may have missed it!

Or perhaps, stigmatizing priests is not as fashionable as it once was?

A neighbor of mine told me that people seemed horrified when she tells them that she sends her children to a Catholic school. Some will ask "aren't you worried after all that happened with those priests?"

Yet, many people don't seem to have a problem with gay teachers, even though many studies suggest that gays seem to be more prone to molesting children. A quick look at ancient history, e.g. the Greeks and Romans, shows that much of the expression of homosexuality throughout the ages has been, euphemistically speaking, "cross generational".

Now, here we have a case of a gay man, who molests a kid and some posters insist on splitting of hairs by claiming that the offender wasn't gay, he was a pedophile instead. I wonder, why priests aren't afforded the same latitude, that the "priests" that molested all those young boys weren't priests, they were pedophiles, and gay ones at that?

Furthermore, many posters (me included) feel that the Catholic Church should have done more to out pedophile priests and turned them over to the authorities. I now will suggest that the gay community at large has to admit that, it too, has a very large pink elephant in the living room that it doesn't want to acknowledge or deal with. That is, many of its members are sexual predators who prey on children, and furthermore, that the onus is on the gay community to out these persons, turn them over to the authorities and disassociate itself from them. I do believe that the majority of gays aren't pedophiles, but at the same time, that the gay community won't admit that it has a problem that it doesn't want to deal with.

If I were a gay man, I'd be concerned and angry, that the gay community isn't admitting to this problem and doing something about it, because, in the long run, ignoring it will only stigmatize the rest of the gay community.

Back to the "Catholic Church should have done more about those pedophile priests" issue. During the 1960s and 1970s, the psychiatric profession believed that pedophilia was a curable disease that could be dealt with using talk therapy. That was an accepted approach to the problem at the time. Many priests who molested children were put in programs that were run by professional psychiatrists and then certified "cured" before turning them back over to the Church with their stamp of approval. So, the psychological profession, also had a hand in this mess (although, strangely enough, you don't hear much about psychiatrists and psychologists being sued or impugned in the papers about it. Isn't that odd? No, actually it isn't, it follows, but that's another can of worms). So actually, the Church probably was doing more about the problem that is now generally admitted, and at the time, it was believed it was dealing with the problem.

It is also becoming very evident that people who molest children continue to do so and pose a grave threat to society, specifically to its children. Yet the law of the land, in its infinite wisdom, sees fit to release pedophiles back into society after 2-5 years. So, after a break of 2-5 years, these individuals are given another chance, not to reform themselves, but to molest yet more children. Yet, the law doesn't want to admit its role in this problem either, that it isn't effectively protecting children from pedophiles when it releases known, convicted offenders back into society when the chances are very high that they will commit the same offenses again.

What is needed for these individuals, is lifetime confinement, in an institution or in a prison without exception. And I hear all the excuses why this should not be done, that the offenders have rights, that there are too many prisons, there are not enough prisons, there is too much money being spent on prisons, that there isn't enough money being spent on prisons, that there aren't enough police or that to undertake such an approach would require a legion of prison guards. Society has a compelling interest to protect its children that supersedes the rights of pedophiles.

Molested children oftentimes grow up to be damaged individuals and a burden on society. They also grow up and repeat the same offenses that they, themselves, suffered. In my opinion, incarcerating/institutionalizing convicted pedophiles for life is a price that society has to be willing to pay in order that assure the safety of children and to break the vicious cycle of pedophilia.

Great Post as usual Karl ,
I think we should deposit them in Saudi land for life , let them deal with em or better yet allow the parents of the child to have a minimum of 10 minutes a month with them armed with an aluminum baseball bat , cattle prod or taser . . . their choice.

 

[KarlMarx]

How about for the logical reason that priest isn't a sexual orientation?

How about for the logical reason that the Left has something against the Catholic Church? Yes, you do have something against the church. So in addition to your pedophilia problem, you gays have a religious bigotry problem to boot. So now you have two problems. On the other hand, the Catholic Church doesn't hate you, it reaches out to gays (although it does not condone their lifestyle) and is the largest caregiver of HIV/AIDS victims on the planet.

As there are at least 7 times more men who are molesting little girls than men who molest little boys, what about our "pink elephant"? Pedophilia is indeed a serious problem, but you can't blame it on the gays. Until there's an understanding that there is a difference between a pedophile and a homosexual you can't do much to stop the problem because you have your sights on the wrong target.

So considering that gays are at most 5 percent of the population, they still are more likely to molest children that heterosexuals.

Do the math

Gays = 5% = 1/20 = 0.05

Straights = 95% = 19/20 = 0.95

so if x is the number of children molested by gays and 7x is the number of kids molested by straights

then per capita molestation by gays = x/.05 = 20x (20 kids molested per gay person)

per capita molestation by straights = x/.95 = 1.05x (1.05 kids molested per straight person)

I take it back, you don't have a pink elephant, you have a big red gorilla the size of King Kong in your living room.....

 

[Bullypulpit]

How about for the logical reason that the Left has something against the Catholic Church? Yes, you do have something against the church. So in addition to your pedophilia problem, you gays have a religious bigotry problem to boot. So now you have two problems. On the other hand, the Catholic Church doesn't hate you, it reaches out to gays (although it does not condone their lifestyle) and is the largest caregiver of HIV/AIDS victims on the planet.




So considering that gays are at most 5 percent of the population, they still are more likely to molest children that heterosexuals.

Do the math

Gays = 5% = 1/20 = 0.05

Straights = 95% = 19/20 = 0.95

so if x is the number of children molested by gays and 7x is the number of kids molested by straights

then per capita molestation by gays = x/.05 = 20x (20 kids molested per gay person)

per capita molestation by straights = x/.95 = 1.05x (1.05 kids molested per straight person)

I take it back, you don't have a pink elephant, you have a big red gorilla the size of King Kong in your living room.....

 

[dmp]

www.dosomebasicmath.com

What does not matter is this: If Homosexuals are 5% of the population, 10%, or 1%. The math works - it shows Homosexuals, per capita, are more likely to molest children than heterosexuals.

Spin that...

(shrug).

 

[nakedemperor]

1. If you molest children, and those children happen to be of the same sex as you, you're not necessarily gay, you might be plain insane. You'll find that most that molest little boys molest little girls (too). The number of 'gays' that molest kids is recorded simply because a man molested a boy, which is reductionist and doesn't necessarily mean he is gay. Obviously this is nitpicky, but its just one bulletin.

2. The implication of these numbers is obviously 'there's something wrong with gay people, because look at how many of them molest kids'. I'd posit that a lot of this is due to arrested development and malformed psyches due to the stress and strain of growing up gay. If these psychologically oppressive factors didn't exist in society, I'd bet that the numbers would be pretty even.

Disclaimer: Obviously I'm not trying to say gay molesters aren't to blame for their actions; but they're only human, and this is a very plausible possible reason for the uneven numbers.

 

[GotZoom]

1. If you molest children, and those children happen to be of the same sex as you, you're not necessarily gay, you might be plain insane. You'll find that most that molest little boys molest little girls (too). The number of 'gays' that molest kids is recorded simply because a man molested a boy, which is reductionist and doesn't necessarily mean he is gay. Obviously this is nitpicky, but its just one bulletin.

2. The implication of these numbers is obviously 'there's something wrong with gay people, because look at how many of them molest kids'. I'd posit that a lot of this is due to arrested development and malformed psyches due to the stress and strain of growing up gay. If these psychologically oppressive factors didn't exist in society, I'd bet that the numbers would be pretty even.

Disclaimer: Obviously I'm not trying to say gay molesters aren't to blame for their actions; but they're only human, and this is a very plausible possible reason for the uneven numbers.

So your stance is: The reason gay men molest little boys is because they grew up "stressed" because they were gay? Pressure of not coming out, society frowns upon them, etc.

 

[Annie]

So your stance is: The reason gay men molest little boys is because they grew up "stressed" because they were gay? Pressure of not coming out, society frowns upon them, etc.

In this case, I have to agree with your interpretation. Perhaps NE wants to rethink this?