Boy Scouts kick out church group

[Disir]

People aren't thinking? Well, maybe not you...

Discrimination is not a family value and you can't bs your way through that. There is no justification for your hatred.

I have never met a family that doesn't discriminate.

I don't care.

If you have something to say then say it. i am not impressed with the one-liners.

 

[GreenBean]

None of which has anything to do with homosexuality, nor do the statistics show that they are more prone to it.

It has everything to do with it - And the statistics of which you are either ignorant of , or wish others to be ignorant of most certainly do indicate that homosexuals are much more prone to Child Molestation. So far as the Power Trip nonsense - it's entirely theoretical. WTFU from your Liberal Induced stupor my friend - "go into the light "

Homosexuals comprise less than 5% of the Population, yet are responsible for 33 to 35% of cases of Child molestation. Good Night

"
Conclusion

The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This is not to argue that homosexual and bisexual men never molest children. But there is no scientific basis for asserting that they are more likely than heterosexual men to do so. And, as explained above, many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children.

Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation

Goodnight.

Good Morning.....

I see you've read or at least glanced at the UC Davis article from Dr.Herek ,which Has long since been debunked . I hope you at least went past the headline .


1. It relies heavily on Semantics - as previously discussed a few posts back, and points out the distinction between Pedophilia and hebephilia in a pathetic effort to rationalize molestation of young boys amd seperate baby boinkers from molestors of those who have been weened off their mothers teats.

2. It cites research from known Gay activists who have long since abandoned Scientific Objectivity in pursuit of a Political Agenda such as Nicholas Groth and Evelyn Hooker

Groth , an adamant Gay apologist never produces results that go contrary to the officially accepted view proposed by the Gay APA. Evelyn Hooker is a disgrace to Science, On Hooker ..

The study, "The adjustment of the male overt homosexual", Hooker administered several standardized personality tests to two sets of men, the first group of 30 was homosexual and heavily screened by the Mattachine Society and the other heterosexual. The whole purpose of the study was to examine the instances of mental instability in homosexuals, However, individuals who showed the slightest signs of mental instability were excluded , it was not a random test and was designed to arrive at predetermined results.

The studies subjects were not randomly selected. on the contrary they were chosen and screened entirely by the Mattachine Society, an organization that Hooker herself admitted in the report had as its stated purpose " the development of a homosexual ethic in order to better integrate the homosexual into society." The heterosexual subjects were obtained from "community organizations" which she refused to divulge. The inadequacy of her methodology was even acknowledged by the Journal that published it.

Hooker concluded her report by offering a set of "admissions" about the limitations of her study. In this section she concedes the possibility that homosexuals are indeed pathological, a point conveniently overlooked by the Gay Activists, but proven out by later and more reliable studies. So even though Dr. Hooker prostituted herself to the Mattachine Society, some element of the scientist had to shine through.
Evelyn Hooker Study Flawed

Nicholas Groth - researcher in the field of sexual abuse of children.
Groth claims that there are two types of child molesters: fixated and regressive. The fixated child molester — the stereotypical pedophile — Groth argues cannot be considered homosexual or heterosexual because "he often finds adults of either sex repulsive" - [Groth fails to cite any numeric statistical value to "Often"] and often molests children of both sexes. Semantics - the molestor is then bi-sexual - which in essence is simply another variety of Gay

Regressive child molesters are generally attracted to other adults, but may "regress" to focusing on children . Groth found that the majority of regressed offenders were heterosexual in their adult relationships. Once again Semantics and lacking in statistical quotes as to the use of the term generally

The use of the terms generally , often, sometimes, occasionally , possibly and other linguistic quirks that are not "absolute" or lacking a numeric or statistical attribute are an indication of speculation without a factual base.

So basically Hooker prostituted Science to the Gay Agenda , and blatantly so - While Groth attempts to hide behind linguistic acrobatics while failing to produce any evidence beyond a distortion of vocabulary .

 

[GreenBean]

What a stupid thread.

I am willing to bet, whom ever posted it, was never even in the BSA. Further more, I am willing to bet, those who think extending scouting rights to gays, have also never participated in the BSA.

When my son first showed an interest in cub scouts, I told him to put it from his mind. Those organizations are paramilitary organizations. Anyone who has studied paramilitary organizations knows that the unofficial camaraderie in these organizations is built by making fun of and hazing it's weakest members. In effect, it compares them disdainfully to "girls" "faggots" and "queers," in the most disparagingly harsh terms while the boys/young men are in the hardest and roughest play/training.

I've been there, I've done it. It's no place for a girly man or a ******. There is quite a legitimate reason they don't want queers, limp wristed lame boys or trannies. They will never make it, and they would be mercilessly picked on. Boy Scouts are military light. Gays might wish to hide themselves or deal with this ordeal in the real military because they are emotionally mature adults and the rewards in the real military are greater, but a good majority of gay or trans young boys would probably commit suicide before making through in the BSA. These adults the discover they are gay only after they are through with scouting and then decide they want to go back should let sleeping dogs lay. They wouldn't be doing any boy any favors.

Folks commenting on discrimination in the BSA clearly have never been there and don't know what they are talking about.

If you don't want your kid to grow up to be a bigot? Don't ever let them join the BSA. Why the gay community would want to have anything to do with the BSA is beyond me. It's completely beyond me. Maybe they have a terrible case of Stockholm Syndrome?

You sir are talking through your ass - and have obviously never been involved in Boy Scouts, you haven't got the foggiest notion of what you're saying. The scouts do not teach militarism -they do encourage comraderie and a code of ethics and conduct that boys are expected to abide by .

A Scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty,
brave, clean, and reverent. I belonged to 2 Troops as a Boy and one as an Adult and in all cases that code of conduct was enforced. It's known as the Scout Law

Scout Oath -

On my honor I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
and to obey the Scout Law; [See the Above]
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake, and morally straight.

If you have an issue with that, then perhaps you should go back to interning for the Taliban

What you just posted was militarism! Silly man.

Likewise, I am not just talking about the "official" activities. I am talking about what went on during "playtime." Or what happened at the jamborees and camp.

If you don't know the history of Scouting, why it teaches what it does, I'll not argue with you. They don't focus on under water basket weaving and quilting sir. Key into what those badges are, then maybe pick up an S.A.S. elite survival training manual. The scouting book is just a dumbed down kids version.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Baden-Powell,_1st_Baron_Baden-Powell

The term "militarism" evokes visions of goose stepping Nazis saluting the Führer and is a very poor analogy . Yes, Baden-Powell was a military man as were most able bodied men of his time ... Yes he incorporated aspects of military organization into the Boy Scouts and yes you can thank Generations of Military men such as Baden Powell for the liberty you posess in being able to vomit your Mindless Liberal Tripe , but then again rabid dogs such as yourself are known to bite the hand that fed it.

Likewise, I am not just talking about the "official" activities. I am talking about what went on during "playtime." Or what happened at the jamborees and camp.

What went on between boys during "playtime" was part of the process of growing up, something you apparently never went through.

What went on between boys and adult perverts who infiltrated the ranks of the BSA was what the Boy SCout organization has put a stop to, and Liberal Socio-Fascists such as yourself are attempting to have the BSA reinstate and endorse .

 

[thebrucebeat]

It has everything to do with it - And the statistics of which you are either ignorant of , or wish others to be ignorant of most certainly do indicate that homosexuals are much more prone to Child Molestation. So far as the Power Trip nonsense - it's entirely theoretical. WTFU from your Liberal Induced stupor my friend - "go into the light "

Homosexuals comprise less than 5% of the Population, yet are responsible for 33 to 35% of cases of Child molestation. Good Night

"
Conclusion

The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This is not to argue that homosexual and bisexual men never molest children. But there is no scientific basis for asserting that they are more likely than heterosexual men to do so. And, as explained above, many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children.

Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation

Goodnight.

Good Morning.....

I see you've read or at least glanced at the UC Davis article from Dr.Herek ,which Has long since been debunked . I hope you at least went past the headline .


1. It relies heavily on Semantics - as previously discussed a few posts back, and points out the distinction between Pedophilia and hebephilia in a pathetic effort to rationalize molestation of young boys amd seperate baby boinkers from molestors of those who have been weened off their mothers teats.

2. It cites research from known Gay activists who have long since abandoned Scientific Objectivity in pursuit of a Political Agenda such as Nicholas Groth and Evelyn Hooker

Groth , an adamant Gay apologist never produces results that go contrary to the officially accepted view proposed by the Gay APA. Evelyn Hooker is a disgrace to Science, On Hooker ..

The study, "The adjustment of the male overt homosexual", Hooker administered several standardized personality tests to two sets of men, the first group of 30 was homosexual and heavily screened by the Mattachine Society and the other heterosexual. The whole purpose of the study was to examine the instances of mental instability in homosexuals, However, individuals who showed the slightest signs of mental instability were excluded , it was not a random test and was designed to arrive at predetermined results.

The studies subjects were not randomly selected. on the contrary they were chosen and screened entirely by the Mattachine Society, an organization that Hooker herself admitted in the report had as its stated purpose " the development of a homosexual ethic in order to better integrate the homosexual into society." The heterosexual subjects were obtained from "community organizations" which she refused to divulge. The inadequacy of her methodology was even acknowledged by the Journal that published it.

Hooker concluded her report by offering a set of "admissions" about the limitations of her study. In this section she concedes the possibility that homosexuals are indeed pathological, a point conveniently overlooked by the Gay Activists, but proven out by later and more reliable studies. So even though Dr. Hooker prostituted herself to the Mattachine Society, some element of the scientist had to shine through.
Evelyn Hooker Study Flawed

Nicholas Groth - researcher in the field of sexual abuse of children.
Groth claims that there are two types of child molesters: fixated and regressive. The fixated child molester — the stereotypical pedophile — Groth argues cannot be considered homosexual or heterosexual because "he often finds adults of either sex repulsive" - [Groth fails to cite any numeric statistical value to "Often"] and often molests children of both sexes. Semantics - the molestor is then bi-sexual - which in essence is simply another variety of Gay

Regressive child molesters are generally attracted to other adults, but may "regress" to focusing on children . Groth found that the majority of regressed offenders were heterosexual in their adult relationships. Once again Semantics and lacking in statistical quotes as to the use of the term generally

The use of the terms generally , often, sometimes, occasionally , possibly and other linguistic quirks that are not "absolute" or lacking a numeric or statistical attribute are an indication of speculation without a factual base.

So basically Hooker prostituted Science to the Gay Agenda , and blatantly so - While Groth attempts to hide behind linguistic acrobatics while failing to produce any evidence beyond a distortion of vocabulary .

Male homosexuality, science, and pedophilia

Here's some more.
The reason the first article doesn't go into the specifics of the numbers is because it is a summation of the numerous studies he specifically cites in the article that DO contain such details.
The funniest part of your post is where you call bisexuals "another variety of gay". By definition, wouldn't they have to be another variety of straight, as well?
Your "ick" factor is showing.

 

[GreenBean]

"
Conclusion

The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This is not to argue that homosexual and bisexual men never molest children. But there is no scientific basis for asserting that they are more likely than heterosexual men to do so. And, as explained above, many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children.

Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation

Goodnight.

Good Morning.....

I see you've read or at least glanced at the UC Davis article from Dr.Herek ,which Has long since been debunked . I hope you at least went past the headline .


1. It relies heavily on Semantics - as previously discussed a few posts back, and points out the distinction between Pedophilia and hebephilia in a pathetic effort to rationalize molestation of young boys amd seperate baby boinkers from molestors of those who have been weened off their mothers teats.

2. It cites research from known Gay activists who have long since abandoned Scientific Objectivity in pursuit of a Political Agenda such as Nicholas Groth and Evelyn Hooker

Groth , an adamant Gay apologist never produces results that go contrary to the officially accepted view proposed by the Gay APA. Evelyn Hooker is a disgrace to Science, On Hooker ..

The study, "The adjustment of the male overt homosexual", Hooker administered several standardized personality tests to two sets of men, the first group of 30 was homosexual and heavily screened by the Mattachine Society and the other heterosexual. The whole purpose of the study was to examine the instances of mental instability in homosexuals, However, individuals who showed the slightest signs of mental instability were excluded , it was not a random test and was designed to arrive at predetermined results.

The studies subjects were not randomly selected. on the contrary they were chosen and screened entirely by the Mattachine Society, an organization that Hooker herself admitted in the report had as its stated purpose " the development of a homosexual ethic in order to better integrate the homosexual into society." The heterosexual subjects were obtained from "community organizations" which she refused to divulge. The inadequacy of her methodology was even acknowledged by the Journal that published it.

Hooker concluded her report by offering a set of "admissions" about the limitations of her study. In this section she concedes the possibility that homosexuals are indeed pathological, a point conveniently overlooked by the Gay Activists, but proven out by later and more reliable studies. So even though Dr. Hooker prostituted herself to the Mattachine Society, some element of the scientist had to shine through.
Evelyn Hooker Study Flawed

Nicholas Groth - researcher in the field of sexual abuse of children.
Groth claims that there are two types of child molesters: fixated and regressive. The fixated child molester — the stereotypical pedophile — Groth argues cannot be considered homosexual or heterosexual because "he often finds adults of either sex repulsive" - [Groth fails to cite any numeric statistical value to "Often"] and often molests children of both sexes. Semantics - the molestor is then bi-sexual - which in essence is simply another variety of Gay

Regressive child molesters are generally attracted to other adults, but may "regress" to focusing on children . Groth found that the majority of regressed offenders were heterosexual in their adult relationships. Once again Semantics and lacking in statistical quotes as to the use of the term generally

The use of the terms generally , often, sometimes, occasionally , possibly and other linguistic quirks that are not "absolute" or lacking a numeric or statistical attribute are an indication of speculation without a factual base.

So basically Hooker prostituted Science to the Gay Agenda , and blatantly so - While Groth attempts to hide behind linguistic acrobatics while failing to produce any evidence beyond a distortion of vocabulary .

Male homosexuality, science, and pedophilia

Here's some more.
The reason the first article doesn't go into the specifics of the numbers is because it is a summation of the numerous studies he specifically cites in the article that DO contain such details.
The funniest part of your post is where you call bisexuals "another variety of gay". By definition, wouldn't they have to be another variety of straight, as well?
Your "ick" factor is showing.

The funniest part of your post is where you call bisexuals "another variety of gay". By definition, wouldn't they have to be another variety of straight, as well?
Your "ick" factor is showing.

Yes they could -so what ? I guess you could say they're only half a ***, or half a hetero. And I think your glass is half empty , but mine is half full .

The reason the first article doesn't go into the specifics of the numbers is because it is a summation of the numerous studies he specifically cites in the article that DO contain such details.

And the link you just posted tends to debunk the first, although i simply don't have the time presently to fully educate you on the follies of your feeble post.

The authors concluded that 2% of the offenders were homosexual. Of course, left unresolved is how accurate the informants were with regard to the hetero-/homosexuality of the offenders. After all, the same informants were presumably unaware of the offenders being pedophilic until the discovery of the offense.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Good Morning.....

I see you've read or at least glanced at the UC Davis article from Dr.Herek ,which Has long since been debunked . I hope you at least went past the headline .


1. It relies heavily on Semantics - as previously discussed a few posts back, and points out the distinction between Pedophilia and hebephilia in a pathetic effort to rationalize molestation of young boys amd seperate baby boinkers from molestors of those who have been weened off their mothers teats.

2. It cites research from known Gay activists who have long since abandoned Scientific Objectivity in pursuit of a Political Agenda such as Nicholas Groth and Evelyn Hooker

Groth , an adamant Gay apologist never produces results that go contrary to the officially accepted view proposed by the Gay APA. Evelyn Hooker is a disgrace to Science, On Hooker ..



Nicholas Groth - researcher in the field of sexual abuse of children.
Groth claims that there are two types of child molesters: fixated and regressive. The fixated child molester — the stereotypical pedophile — Groth argues cannot be considered homosexual or heterosexual because "he often finds adults of either sex repulsive" - [Groth fails to cite any numeric statistical value to "Often"] and often molests children of both sexes. Semantics - the molestor is then bi-sexual - which in essence is simply another variety of Gay

Regressive child molesters are generally attracted to other adults, but may "regress" to focusing on children . Groth found that the majority of regressed offenders were heterosexual in their adult relationships. Once again Semantics and lacking in statistical quotes as to the use of the term generally

The use of the terms generally , often, sometimes, occasionally , possibly and other linguistic quirks that are not "absolute" or lacking a numeric or statistical attribute are an indication of speculation without a factual base.

So basically Hooker prostituted Science to the Gay Agenda , and blatantly so - While Groth attempts to hide behind linguistic acrobatics while failing to produce any evidence beyond a distortion of vocabulary .

Male homosexuality, science, and pedophilia

Here's some more.
The reason the first article doesn't go into the specifics of the numbers is because it is a summation of the numerous studies he specifically cites in the article that DO contain such details.
The funniest part of your post is where you call bisexuals "another variety of gay". By definition, wouldn't they have to be another variety of straight, as well?
Your "ick" factor is showing.

Yes they could -so what ? I guess you could say they're only half a ***, or half a hetero. And I think your glass is half empty , but mine is half full .

The reason the first article doesn't go into the specifics of the numbers is because it is a summation of the numerous studies he specifically cites in the article that DO contain such details.

And the link you just posted tends to debunk the first, although i simply don't have the time presently to fully educate you on the follies of your feeble post.

The authors concluded that 2% of the offenders were homosexual. Of course, left unresolved is how accurate the informants were with regard to the hetero-/homosexuality of the offenders. After all, the same informants were presumably unaware of the offenders being pedophilic until the discovery of the offense.

You didn't have time to read the article if that's what you cherry-picked out of it.
LOL!

 

[GreenBean]

Male homosexuality, science, and pedophilia

Here's some more.
The reason the first article doesn't go into the specifics of the numbers is because it is a summation of the numerous studies he specifically cites in the article that DO contain such details.
The funniest part of your post is where you call bisexuals "another variety of gay". By definition, wouldn't they have to be another variety of straight, as well?
Your "ick" factor is showing.

Yes they could -so what ? I guess you could say they're only half a ***, or half a hetero. And I think your glass is half empty , but mine is half full .



And the link you just posted tends to debunk the first, although i simply don't have the time presently to fully educate you on the follies of your feeble post.

The authors concluded that 2% of the offenders were homosexual. Of course, left unresolved is how accurate the informants were with regard to the hetero-/homosexuality of the offenders. After all, the same informants were presumably unaware of the offenders being pedophilic until the discovery of the offense.

You didn't have time to read the article if that's what you cherry-picked out of it.
LOL!

Yet you still can't offer a logical rebuttal - I read it a while back - primarily tripe and APA sponsored slanted pseudo science . So far as Cherry Picking LMAO - got a mirror ? - when you google 'homosexual pedophile' the first link that comes up is the one you drew from

 

[thebrucebeat]

Yes they could -so what ? I guess you could say they're only half a ***, or half a hetero. And I think your glass is half empty , but mine is half full .



And the link you just posted tends to debunk the first, although i simply don't have the time presently to fully educate you on the follies of your feeble post.

You didn't have time to read the article if that's what you cherry-picked out of it.
LOL!

Yet you still can't offer a logical rebuttal - I read it a while back - primarily tripe and APA sponsored slanted pseudo science . So far as Cherry Picking LMAO - got a mirror ? - when you google 'homosexual pedophile' the first link that comes up is the one you drew from

I think providing citations from accredited academic sources is a wee bit better rebuttal than just flinging whatever accusation comes into your head about posters, or academics or anyone else that simply doesn't find gays "icky".

 

[Avatar4321]

Discrimination is not a family value and you can't bs your way through that. There is no justification for your hatred.

There is no hatred involved. How is protecting youth and promoting values hating anyone? And why is it so unreasonable to expect those teaching the youth to live the values they promote?

To discriminate is to recognize differences. You might think that thinking is bad, but most people don't.

See? There it is again.
the treatment of a person or particular group of people differently, in a way that is worse than the way people are usually treated:
discrimination noun (WORSE TREATMENT) - definition in the American English Dictionary - Cambridge Dictionaries Online

So if a serial killer wants to be a scout master, the boy scouts should not be able to prevent that because otherwise they are treating a person or a particularly group of people (in this case serial killers) differently?

I hate to break this to you but different people are treated differently because by definition they are different. I don't understand why this is a problem for you. Everyone has different needs, wants, desires, flaws, etc. Discerning people recognize this and aren't going to try to treat everyone the same.

The Boy Scouts are trying to promote a value of sexual morality. You may not like this. You may find it to be a ridiculous value. But it's utterly stupid to pretend that they should allow anyone blatantly disregarding this value to a leadership position. It's just plain stupid.

Should the Scouts appoint open Pedophiles to leadership positions? They are a group of people that's treated differently too.

Think for once in your life.

 

[GreenBean]

You didn't have time to read the article if that's what you cherry-picked out of it.
LOL!

Yet you still can't offer a logical rebuttal - I read it a while back - primarily tripe and APA sponsored slanted pseudo science . So far as Cherry Picking LMAO - got a mirror ? - when you google 'homosexual pedophile' the first link that comes up is the one you drew from

I think providing citations from accredited academic sources is a wee bit better rebuttal than just flinging whatever accusation comes into your head about posters, or academics or anyone else that simply doesn't find gays "icky".

Google Nicholas Cummings, Jeffrey Santinover, Charles Socarides, Dr. Rogers Wright, Leona Tyler, Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons and then perhaps you'll be able to debate intelligently on the topic . Your link cited some resources ,but I find it highly unlikely that you have the slightest comprehension of what you linked to - only that it looked good on the surface. BUt unfortunatley my friend beauty is only skin deep , a rose by any other name is still a rose, shit by any other name still smells like dung and so does your argument.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Yet you still can't offer a logical rebuttal - I read it a while back - primarily tripe and APA sponsored slanted pseudo science . So far as Cherry Picking LMAO - got a mirror ? - when you google 'homosexual pedophile' the first link that comes up is the one you drew from

I think providing citations from accredited academic sources is a wee bit better rebuttal than just flinging whatever accusation comes into your head about posters, or academics or anyone else that simply doesn't find gays "icky".

Google Nicholas Cummings, Jeffrey Santinover, Charles Socarides, Dr. Rogers Wright, Leona Tyler, Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons and then perhaps you'll be able to debate intelligently on the topic . Your link cited some resources ,but I find it highly unlikely that you have the slightest comprehension of what you linked to - only that it looked good on the surface. BUt unfortunatley my friend beauty is only skin deep , a rose by any other name is still a rose, shit by any other name still smells like dung and so does your argument.

So you keep saying.
But never showing.

 

[GreenBean]

I think providing citations from accredited academic sources is a wee bit better rebuttal than just flinging whatever accusation comes into your head about posters, or academics or anyone else that simply doesn't find gays "icky".

Google Nicholas Cummings, Jeffrey Santinover, Charles Socarides, Dr. Rogers Wright, Leona Tyler, Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons and then perhaps you'll be able to debate intelligently on the topic . Your link cited some resources ,but I find it highly unlikely that you have the slightest comprehension of what you linked to - only that it looked good on the surface. BUt unfortunatley my friend beauty is only skin deep , a rose by any other name is still a rose, shit by any other name still smells like dung and so does your argument.

So you keep saying.
But never showing.

xx

The stronger one is invested in the outcome of a scientific endeavor, the more vulnerable is one’s ability to see straight. This is a lesson for the political left as much as it is for the political right, and in few debates are people as strongly invested as in the putative relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia. The present review summarizes the existing literature, highlighting those findings that address claims frequently made by lay audiences and the popular press, regardless of their political stripe. It is unlikely that any critical review will alter the views of those who employ data only for furthering a sociopolitical agenda. For psychologists who pursue accuracy, however, this information may serve to help combat rhetoric with data, rather than with more rhetoric.

Now here's some real fuzzy logic for you from the study you cited ... V

For convenience, the term gay has been used here thus far to refer specifically to homosexual teleiophilia—men with a primary erotic interest in adult males...
colloquial use of the word homosexual refers to homosexual teleiophiles and not homosexual pedophiles. Thus, statements such as “6–8 million boys were abused by age 18 by 1–2 million adult homosexuals” (Walker, 2001) are half truths.

The political right asserts that pedophilia also results from an arrest of normal sexual attraction, notwithstanding the lack of support for this view. This time, however, psychologists largely agree. Many psychologists continue to support, implicitly or explicitly, the belief that pedophilia is indeed an arrest or distortion of otherwise normal, adult-oriented sexual attractions and that resolution of the allegedly underlying issues will return the client to healthier sexual behavior with adult sexual partners.

It is beyond the scope of this review to cover the various correlates associated with the development of erotic interest in males versus females and those associated with erotic interest in adults versus children. ... It is very likely that the data that will most strongly impact the future of the pedophilia/homosexuality debate are likely to be those from neuroscience.

Okay, so I re-read the article I had read a few months back and I fail to see where it mentions what you claim, in fact it somewhat contradicts your assertions on a numberof key points. V As per YOU ...

thebrucebeater: The reason the first article doesn't go into the specifics of the numbers is because it is a summation of the numerous studies he specifically cites in the article that DO contain such details.

So where pray tell are the statistics in this study - care to point them out for me ? Of course not - because they aren't there . And I still sincerely doubt you read the article m and if you did that you understood what you were reading, had you understood it you would not have posted it - it refutes your arguments.

But bruce - I do commend your efforts at not being a hater like me, and remaining politically correct , that's based of course on my assumption that you are a heterosexual , sadly mislead by liberal socio-fascist indoctrination - you aren't [OMG] Gay [ICK] are you ???

 

[thebrucebeat]

Google Nicholas Cummings, Jeffrey Santinover, Charles Socarides, Dr. Rogers Wright, Leona Tyler, Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons and then perhaps you'll be able to debate intelligently on the topic . Your link cited some resources ,but I find it highly unlikely that you have the slightest comprehension of what you linked to - only that it looked good on the surface. BUt unfortunatley my friend beauty is only skin deep , a rose by any other name is still a rose, shit by any other name still smells like dung and so does your argument.

So you keep saying.
But never showing.

xx





Now here's some real fuzzy logic for you from the study you cited ... V

It is beyond the scope of this review to cover the various correlates associated with the development of erotic interest in males versus females and those associated with erotic interest in adults versus children. ... It is very likely that the data that will most strongly impact the future of the pedophilia/homosexuality debate are likely to be those from neuroscience.

Okay, so I re-read the article I had read a few months back and I fail to see where it mentions what you claim, in fact it somewhat contradicts your assertions on a numberof key points. V As per YOU ...

thebrucebeater: The reason the first article doesn't go into the specifics of the numbers is because it is a summation of the numerous studies he specifically cites in the article that DO contain such details.

So where pray tell are the statistics in this study - care to point them out for me ? Of course not - because they aren't there . And I still sincerely doubt you read the article m and if you did that you understood what you were reading, had you understood it you would not have posted it - it refutes your arguments.

You are simply demonstrably wrong, and the articles prove that conclusively.
If you honestly think they don't, then you are incapable of understanding what you are reading, and I'm talking to just a dug in simpleton, so what's the point?
Haters gonna hate.

 

[GreenBean]

So you keep saying.
But never showing.

xx





Now here's some real fuzzy logic for you from the study you cited ... V









Okay, so I re-read the article I had read a few months back and I fail to see where it mentions what you claim, in fact it somewhat contradicts your assertions on a numberof key points. V As per YOU ...

thebrucebeater: The reason the first article doesn't go into the specifics of the numbers is because it is a summation of the numerous studies he specifically cites in the article that DO contain such details.

So where pray tell are the statistics in this study - care to point them out for me ? Of course not - because they aren't there . And I still sincerely doubt you read the article m and if you did that you understood what you were reading, had you understood it you would not have posted it - it refutes your arguments.

You are simply demonstrably wrong, and the articles prove that conclusively.
If you honestly think they don't, then you are incapable of understanding what you are reading, and I'm talking to just a dug in simpleton, so what's the point?
Haters gonna hate.

You are simply demonstrably wrong

Poppycock -Prove it

If you honestly think they don't, then you are incapable of understanding what you are reading

See above post - I pretty much layed the whole article out for you and skewered your assertion .

so what's the point? Haters gonna hate.

Homosexual propaganda has been around for many years, the spark that ignited their present day stranglehold however was a brilliant book **After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays ..

This powerfully persuasive, perverse and popular book within the gay community presents an impassioned plea, a call to arms if you will for homosexual activists to implement an aggressive, concerted and organized campaign to mold public perceptions. The book further lays out a blueprint, a methodology that has been rigidly implemented and enforced over the past 2 decades . Their rationalization for launching such a campaign is that people who do not agree with, or adhere to the Gay Agenda are "bigots, haters, or ignorants". ...

Discourage anti-gay harassment by linking and calling all those that have opposing opinions to latent homosexuality (i.e., call people homophobic) (page 227) ..haters

It is acceptable to call people "Homophobic" or "Haters" if they do not agree 100% with the gay agenda views, opinions, or behavior. (page 23)
Gay and Lesbian Media influences

So far as the last question - I posted to you - Are you Gay ? I think you are , though I am wrong once in a blue moon. Judging by your response it tends to indicate you're a *** [See: Gay people are immature.]

 

[thebrucebeat]

xx





Now here's some real fuzzy logic for you from the study you cited ... V









Okay, so I re-read the article I had read a few months back and I fail to see where it mentions what you claim, in fact it somewhat contradicts your assertions on a numberof key points. V As per YOU ...



So where pray tell are the statistics in this study - care to point them out for me ? Of course not - because they aren't there . And I still sincerely doubt you read the article m and if you did that you understood what you were reading, had you understood it you would not have posted it - it refutes your arguments.

You are simply demonstrably wrong, and the articles prove that conclusively.
If you honestly think they don't, then you are incapable of understanding what you are reading, and I'm talking to just a dug in simpleton, so what's the point?
Haters gonna hate.

Poppycock -Prove it

See above post - I pretty much layed the whole article out for you and skewered your assertion .

so what's the point? Haters gonna hate.

Homosexual propaganda has been around for many years, the spark that ignited their present day stranglehold however was a brilliant book **After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays ..

This powerfully persuasive, perverse and popular book within the gay community presents an impassioned plea, a call to arms if you will for homosexual activists to implement an aggressive, concerted and organized campaign to mold public perceptions. The book further lays out a blueprint, a methodology that has been rigidly implemented and enforced over the past 2 decades . Their rationalization for launching such a campaign is that people who do not agree with, or adhere to the Gay Agenda are "bigots, haters, or ignorants". ...

Discourage anti-gay harassment by linking and calling all those that have opposing opinions to latent homosexuality (i.e., call people homophobic) (page 227) ..haters

It is acceptable to call people "Homophobic" or "Haters" if they do not agree 100% with the gay agenda views, opinions, or behavior. (page 23)
Gay and Lesbian Media influences

So far as the last question - I posted to you - Are you Gay ? I think you are , though I am wrong once in a blue moon. Judging by your response it tends to indicate you're a *** [See: Gay people are immature.]

You proved nothing.
And you don't even realize it.
As to my sexual orientation, what does it matter? Does it change the argument either way? What's the relevance.
I'll leave it an open question so you can condemn yourself with unfounded speculation.

 

[GreenBean]

You are simply demonstrably wrong, and the articles prove that conclusively.
If you honestly think they don't, then you are incapable of understanding what you are reading, and I'm talking to just a dug in simpleton, so what's the point?
Haters gonna hate.

Poppycock -Prove it

See above post - I pretty much layed the whole article out for you and skewered your assertion .

Homosexual propaganda has been around for many years, the spark that ignited their present day stranglehold however was a brilliant book **After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays ..

This powerfully persuasive, perverse and popular book within the gay community presents an impassioned plea, a call to arms if you will for homosexual activists to implement an aggressive, concerted and organized campaign to mold public perceptions. The book further lays out a blueprint, a methodology that has been rigidly implemented and enforced over the past 2 decades . Their rationalization for launching such a campaign is that people who do not agree with, or adhere to the Gay Agenda are "bigots, haters, or ignorants". ...

Discourage anti-gay harassment by linking and calling all those that have opposing opinions to latent homosexuality (i.e., call people homophobic) (page 227) ..haters

It is acceptable to call people "Homophobic" or "Haters" if they do not agree 100% with the gay agenda views, opinions, or behavior. (page 23)
Gay and Lesbian Media influences

So far as the last question - I posted to you - Are you Gay ? I think you are , though I am wrong once in a blue moon. Judging by your response it tends to indicate you're a *** [See: Gay people are immature.]

You proved nothing.
And you don't even realize it.
As to my sexual orientation, what does it matter? Does it change the argument either way? What's the relevance.
I'll leave it an open question so you can condemn yourself with unfounded speculation.

thebrucebeater As to my sexual orientation, what does it matter? Does it change the argument either way?

My initial assumptiom was that you were a normal person - heterosexual .

But as I was able to draw out your anger by destroying all your arguments, and hence your credibility I came to the realization that you were acting pretty Gay. So I'm going to go with either

1.] You are an immature heterosexual mesmerized by socio-fascist liberalism .

2.] You are a Gay , prone to childish, illogical and irrational actions when the right butons are pushed.

I give a 30% possibility of #1 being correct - and a 70% probability of #2 being correct.

thebrucebeater You proved nothing. And you don't even realize it.

If you truly believe that then I'm all ears , lets hear your argument shall we ? This is an open discussion so kindly do chime in with something intelligent .

 

[JakeStarkey]

Greenbean's consensus posts are self serving and foolish.

Pedophiles come in homo and hetero categories.

Children are abused by adult homos and heteroes.

Greenbean demonstrates some latency here that is quite disturbing.

 

[GreenBean]

Greenbean's consensus posts are self serving and foolish.

Pedophiles come in homo and hetero categories.

Children are abused by adult homos and heteroes.

Greenbean demonstrates some latency here that is quite disturbing.

There once was a guy Jake Starkey
Who was frequently full of Malarkey
He spewed his dumb shit
Wherever it fit
And his rants I never did forsee

Yes Jake I do have to agree -I am sometimes pretty childish - I like to write LImericks . I guess that could be construed as Childish and somewhat "Gay" .

Yes Jake - Children are abused by adult homos and heteroes. But on a per capita basis Homosexuals are the most prolific and are responsible for a grossly disproportionate amount of abused and molested kids. Get Over it - It's reality .

There once was a guy called thebrucebeat
Who thought he was cuddly and real sweet
When along came the Bean
Who was vulgar and Mean
And beat poor old bruce into Mince Meat


{jake : all in fun - don't take the limerick personal. bruce ...... oy fahgeddaboutit !}

 

[thebrucebeat]

Greenbean's consensus posts are self serving and foolish.

Pedophiles come in homo and hetero categories.

Children are abused by adult homos and heteroes.

Greenbean demonstrates some latency here that is quite disturbing.

There once was a guy Jake Starkey
Who was frequently full of Malarkey
He spewed his dumb shit
Wherever it fit
And his rants I never did forsee

Yes Jake I do have to agree -I am sometimes pretty childish - I like to write LImericks . I guess that could be construed as Childish and somewhat "Gay" .

Yes Jake - Children are abused by adult homos and heteroes. But on a per capita basis Homosexuals are the most prolific and are responsible for a grossly disproportionate amount of abused and molested kids. Get Over it - It's reality .

There once was a guy called thebrucebeat
Who thought he was cuddly and real sweet
When along came the Bean
Who was vulgar and Mean
And beat poor old bruce into Mince Meat

After completely screwing up your attempt at limerick writing, you restate your belief that gays are more prone to child sexual abuse, again provide no evidence to support it, and pretend you have made a case against the evidence that HAS shown you are an imbecile. The only reality you engage is the one you invent in your head.

In the case of the poster named Bean
The truth can plainly be seen.
He protests too often,
It will say on his coffin
"Here lays a poor closeted queen."

 

[Vandalshandle]

I never understood the whole purpose of the Boys Scouts anyway. By the time they were trying to teach me how to tie 50 different knots in rope, I was trying to figure out how to unhook a bra with one hand.